Go Back  FlyerTalk Forums > Travel&Dining > Travel Safety/Security > Checkpoints and Borders Policy Debate
Reload this Page >

TSO protects passengers from water, risks the life of a trash can

TSO protects passengers from water, risks the life of a trash can

Old Dec 22, 14, 2:40 pm
  #1  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Original Poster
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Finally back in Boston after escaping from New York
Posts: 13,513
TSO protects passengers from water, risks the life of a trash can

Was making my way through DCA and forgot to take a half-full (half-empty? whatever) bottle of water out of my bag. The TSO confiscated the water. I asked if I could just dump the water in the trash can next to us and keep the bottle. He said, no, I'd have to go back out through security and reclear after dumping the water land-side.

He then proceeded to toss the bottle in the same trash can in which I had offered to dump the water. How this makes sense to somebody, somewhere is beyond me.

Mike
mikeef is offline  
Old Dec 22, 14, 3:19 pm
  #2  
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: on the path to perdition
Programs: Delta, United
Posts: 4,136
Come on everyone knows that it was in an explosive proof container thus safe.
FlyingUnderTheRadar is offline  
Old Dec 22, 14, 3:51 pm
  #3  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: An NPR mind living in a Fox News world
Posts: 13,376
TSO protects passengers from water, risks the life of a trash can

You were safe from the effects of dihydrogen monoxide while it was in the container. It's amazing what they are doing with plastics these days.
FliesWay2Much is offline  
Old Dec 23, 14, 11:17 am
  #4  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Original Poster
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Finally back in Boston after escaping from New York
Posts: 13,513
Originally Posted by FliesWay2Much View Post
You were safe from the effects of dihydrogen monoxide while it was in the container. It's amazing what they are doing with plastics these days.
Hey, don't laugh. That stuff's a global killer.

I've gotten used to the dim-witted rules. What I can't stand are the dim-witted explanations.

Mike
mikeef is offline  
Old Dec 23, 14, 6:03 pm
  #5  
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Atlanta, GA
Programs: DL Gold Medallion, AA
Posts: 1,510
It's the TSA. They've never made sense.
Georgia Peach is offline  
Old Dec 23, 14, 7:19 pm
  #6  
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Colorado
Programs: TSA
Posts: 2,745
What we CANNOT tell by looking at the bottle is if the liquid is something noxious or toxic and if TSA dumps it out in the trash and it makes people sick, then TSA is liable. That is why TSA is not supposed to dump liquid in the trash and give the container back. That is the reasoning.
eyecue is offline  
Old Dec 23, 14, 7:49 pm
  #7  
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 3,426
Originally Posted by eyecue View Post
What we CANNOT tell by looking at the bottle is if the liquid is something noxious or toxic and if TSA dumps it out in the trash and it makes people sick, then TSA is liable. That is why TSA is not supposed to dump liquid in the trash and give the container back. That is the reasoning.
????? What you just wrote makes absolutely no sense, not in the "sense" that the TSA makes no sense, but what you wrote is nonsense.
petaluma1 is offline  
Old Dec 23, 14, 7:49 pm
  #8  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: where the chile is hot
Programs: AA,RR,NW,Delta ,UA,CO
Posts: 32,719
Originally Posted by eyecue View Post
What we CANNOT tell by looking at the bottle is if the liquid is something noxious or toxic and if TSA dumps it out in the trash and it makes people sick, then TSA is liable. That is why TSA is not supposed to dump liquid in the trash and give the container back. That is the reasoning.
??

How are you (TSA) and I (pax) safer if the suspicious liquid is left in the bottle instead of being poured out?

That's like saying my two-ounce hand-cleaner is 'safe' if it's in a resealable one-quart bag but risky all by itself (or in a non-resealable baggie, for example, or a baggie with a little hole in it).
chollie is offline  
Old Dec 24, 14, 9:14 am
  #9  
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: The Sunshine State
Programs: Deltaworst Peon Level, TSA "Layer 21 Club", NW WP RIP
Posts: 8,895
Originally Posted by mikeef View Post
a half-full (half-empty? whatever) bottle of water
This question was resolved long ago. After careful study, a team of engineers determined the bottle is neither half full or half empty. The container is twice as big as it needs to be.
Flaflyer is offline  
Old Dec 24, 14, 11:26 am
  #10  
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Nashville, TN
Programs: WN Nothing and spending the half million points from too many flights, Hilton Diamond
Posts: 8,015
Originally Posted by Flaflyer View Post
This question was resolved long ago. After careful study, a team of engineers determined the bottle is neither half full or half empty. The container is twice as big as it needs to be.
InkUnderNails is offline  
Old Dec 24, 14, 7:55 pm
  #11  
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Colorado
Programs: TSA
Posts: 2,745
Originally Posted by chollie View Post
??

How are you (TSA) and I (pax) safer if the suspicious liquid is left in the bottle instead of being poured out?

That's like saying my two-ounce hand-cleaner is 'safe' if it's in a resealable one-quart bag but risky all by itself (or in a non-resealable baggie, for example, or a baggie with a little hole in it).
As an example, if the bottle contained ethyl mercaptan, and TSA opened it to give the container back to the passenger, the odor would make everyone sick. TSA opened the container, TSA is liable.
eyecue is offline  
Old Dec 25, 14, 10:49 am
  #12  
Suspended
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Programs: A3, AA. Plasticy things! That give me, y'know, Stuff!
Posts: 6,294
Originally Posted by eyecue View Post
As an example, if the bottle contained ethyl mercaptan, and TSA opened it to give the container back to the passenger, the odor would make everyone sick. TSA opened the container, TSA is liable.
Utter nonsense. The fact of pouring it out does not decrease or increase risk. Just as the fact of having it remain in the container does not increase or decrease risk. History shows the risk is equivalent to zero and lower than the random accident rate. TSA really should stop making things up and then believing their own paranoid fantasies.
SeriouslyLost is offline  
Old Dec 25, 14, 11:26 am
  #13  
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: The Sunshine State
Programs: Deltaworst Peon Level, TSA "Layer 21 Club", NW WP RIP
Posts: 8,895
Originally Posted by FlyingUnderTheRadar View Post
Come on everyone knows that it was in an explosive proof container thus safe.
Your tax dollars at work: TSA buys these “Rubbermaid Checkpoint Duty Hazmat and Bombproof Gray Containers” under a DHS Federal Stock Number for $379.50 each.

It is the same gray Rubbermaid trashcan you can buy at Home Depot for $29.95.
Flaflyer is offline  
Old Dec 25, 14, 12:26 pm
  #14  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Somewhere between here and there...
Programs: WWF, Appalachian Mountain Club
Posts: 11,529
Originally Posted by eyecue View Post
What we CANNOT tell by looking at the bottle is if the liquid is something noxious or toxic and if TSA dumps it out in the trash and it makes people sick, then TSA is liable. That is why TSA is not supposed to dump liquid in the trash and give the container back. That is the reasoning.
Wait - so then why is that poured out liquid okay if he pours it out but then re-clears security? Isn't the damage already done?

Or am I crazy for trying to make sense of this?
tkey75 is offline  
Old Dec 25, 14, 12:36 pm
  #15  
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Nashville, TN
Programs: WN Nothing and spending the half million points from too many flights, Hilton Diamond
Posts: 8,015
Originally Posted by Flaflyer View Post
Your tax dollars at work: TSA buys these “Rubbermaid Checkpoint Duty Hazmat and Bombproof Gray Containers” under a DHS Federal Stock Number for $379.50 each.

It is the same gray Rubbermaid trashcan you can buy at Home Depot for $29.95.
Furthermore, when they change the specification, they are run through the GSO surplus sale system and maybe I can buy them for about $3 each, and since they are security related I have to sign a form that says that I will not export them without an authorized export certificate and some countries are prohibited for me me to ship to for any reason. It includes N. Korea, Cuba(?), Iran and others. Also, this sort of item may sell in pallet lots of 100 or more direct from the warehouse where they were stored.

I once bought 70+ brand new toilet seats when the specs were changed. The government paid over $50 each for them. I could not sell them for any amount as they fit nothing except an out of date government toilet. I donated them to Goodwill and they put $1 each on them. The local Amish bought them all the next day for use in their outhouses. I wish I had thought of the Amish.
InkUnderNails is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread