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

If I can bring 12 oz bottle of sanitizer through TSA, why not a bottle of Sprite?

If I can bring 12 oz bottle of sanitizer through TSA, why not a bottle of Sprite?

Old Jul 30, 20, 7:33 am
  #31  
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Greensboro
Programs: TSA
Posts: 2,319
Originally Posted by Boggie Dog View Post
I understand more liberal LGA policies for flight crews. I even understand more liberal policies for airport workers. What I don't understand is how these two groups gain access without proper screening. I also don't believe that TSA's LGA restrictions for passengers are necessary as currently implemented and evidence supporting my position is how TSA arbitrarily decided to permit larger quantities of a known flammable liquid. While there may a valid reason to allow this item it also proves that the concern for 100+ ml of LGA's is just a made up amount where danger might exist but most likely is of no concern. TSA dug its own grave by making this allowance and can no longer support reasoning for LGA restrictions excepting dangerous items like gasoline. Regardless, all of these things can be easily checked during passenger screening.
The most likely challenge they will site as a roadblock for large scale changes is the time factor required for LGA testing. If they retain the testing protocols, and add back in the ability to take LGA larger than 3.4oz, (heck, we can even go with just items 16.9oz or larger for testing) the average medium to large airport checkpoint would gridlock in a matter of minutes. Hand sanitizer is currently considered a medical necessity that can be brought in at the larger size (per publications, only temporarily). Those changes have *probably* increased the wait times a little bit - maybe, I have seen no noticeable increase in wait times. A large scale change to the program with no specific type of item allowed, would be a wholly different situation. It would go from one out of 5-6 passengers having 1 or 2 items to test, to almost everyone having one or more items to test. The time requirement would be exponential, again gridlocking checkpoints. Newer tech coming into the R and D scene indicate some newer machines having the ability to function the same way as many of our baggage machines using CT tech - https://www.tsa.gov/computed-tomography . They have published some info about rolling out this tech - https://www.tsa.gov/news/press/relea...-detection-inc, however, it will be quite some time before this tech is trained up on and learned as a workforce. It will also be quite some time before these filter down to the smaller airports. There is some chatter and info about it being able to allow us the capability to reassess the LGA ban, rendering it moot - but I have nothing in concrete saying that is coming for certain.

One thing is certain, the LGA rules for the average passenger is not going to change across the board allowing a return to the old days any time soon. I also do not see them changing the hand sanitizer rules (even though it is essentially a small container of napalm...) The rules for crew and employees are most likely going to remain the same.
gsoltso is offline  
Old Jul 30, 20, 7:56 am
  #32  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: DFW
Posts: 17,258
Originally Posted by gsoltso View Post
The most likely challenge they will site as a roadblock for large scale changes is the time factor required for LGA testing. If they retain the testing protocols, and add back in the ability to take LGA larger than 3.4oz, (heck, we can even go with just items 16.9oz or larger for testing) the average medium to large airport checkpoint would gridlock in a matter of minutes. Hand sanitizer is currently considered a medical necessity that can be brought in at the larger size (per publications, only temporarily). Those changes have *probably* increased the wait times a little bit - maybe, I have seen no noticeable increase in wait times. A large scale change to the program with no specific type of item allowed, would be a wholly different situation. It would go from one out of 5-6 passengers having 1 or 2 items to test, to almost everyone having one or more items to test. The time requirement would be exponential, again gridlocking checkpoints. Newer tech coming into the R and D scene indicate some newer machines having the ability to function the same way as many of our baggage machines using CT tech - https://www.tsa.gov/computed-tomography . They have published some info about rolling out this tech - https://www.tsa.gov/news/press/relea...-detection-inc, however, it will be quite some time before this tech is trained up on and learned as a workforce. It will also be quite some time before these filter down to the smaller airports. There is some chatter and info about it being able to allow us the capability to reassess the LGA ban, rendering it moot - but I have nothing in concrete saying that is coming for certain.

One thing is certain, the LGA rules for the average passenger is not going to change across the board allowing a return to the old days any time soon. I also do not see them changing the hand sanitizer rules (even though it is essentially a small container of napalm...) The rules for crew and employees are most likely going to remain the same.
Keeping in mind OP's question, "If I can bring 12 oz bottle of sanitizer through TSA, why not a bottle of Sprite?" still goes unanswered. I maintain that no logical reason exists to allow more than 100 ml of hand sanitizer while prohibiting other common LGA's. Just another arbitrary action by TSA with no basis in science to support their decision.
Spiff, chollie and petaluma1 like this.
Boggie Dog is offline  
Old Jul 30, 20, 8:24 am
  #33  
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: WAS
Programs: enjoyed being warm spit for a few years on CO/UA but now nothing :(
Posts: 1,772
Originally Posted by Boggie Dog View Post
Keeping in mind OP's question, "If I can bring 12 oz bottle of sanitizer through TSA, why not a bottle of Sprite?" still goes unanswered. I maintain that no logical reason exists to allow more than 100 ml of hand sanitizer while prohibiting other common LGA's. Just another arbitrary action by TSA with no basis in science to support their decision.
I think GSOLTSO did a good job of answering the question - the ban remains because of operational concerns. We might not like it, nor appreciate or agree with it, but that IS the answer.
gsoltso likes this.
Section 107 is offline  
Old Jul 30, 20, 9:23 am
  #34  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: DFW
Posts: 17,258
Originally Posted by Section 107 View Post
I think GSOLTSO did a good job of answering the question - the ban remains because of operational concerns. We might not like it, nor appreciate or agree with it, but that IS the answer.
He did a fine job of explaining his thoughts on the question but doesn't resolve what was an arbitrary decision on TSA's part. Permitting more than 100 ml of a known flammable while disallowing the same quantity of Sprite can have little basis in sound reasoning.
Spiff, chollie and petaluma1 like this.
Boggie Dog is offline  
Old Jul 30, 20, 3:38 pm
  #35  
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: SEA
Programs: Delta TDK(or care)WIA, Hilton Diamond
Posts: 1,840
Originally Posted by gsoltso View Post
One thing is certain, the LGA rules for the average passenger is not going to change across the board allowing a return to the old days any time soon. I also do not see them changing the hand sanitizer rules (even though it is essentially a small container of napalm...)
This tells us everything we need to know about the TSA's relevance to aviation security.
chollie and petaluma1 like this.
Carl Johnson is offline  
Old Jul 30, 20, 6:53 pm
  #36  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: DFW
Posts: 17,258
Originally Posted by Carl Johnson View Post
This tells us everything we need to know about the TSA's relevance to aviation security.
Just apply the opposite of logic to TSA policies and it's easier to understand.
petaluma1 likes this.
Boggie Dog is offline  
Old Aug 2, 20, 4:10 am
  #37  
Moderator: Manufactured Spending
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 6,063
Originally Posted by Boggie Dog View Post
Keeping in mind OP's question, "If I can bring 12 oz bottle of sanitizer through TSA, why not a bottle of Sprite?" still goes unanswered. I maintain that no logical reason exists to allow more than 100 ml of hand sanitizer while prohibiting other common LGA's. Just another arbitrary action by TSA with no basis in science to support their decision.
Hand sanitizer can help prevent the spread of COVID-19, which is a much larger threat than terrorism. If someone doesn't have hand sanitizer when they need it, this could result in them contracting COVID and potentially spreading it to others, which could cost more lives than a terrorist attack. Therefore it makes sense to allow hand sanitizer.

No similar rationale exists for Sprite. No one will get sick because they don't have access to Sprite upon landing.
gsoltso likes this.
cbn42 is offline  
Old Aug 2, 20, 11:00 am
  #38  
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: SEA
Programs: Delta TDK(or care)WIA, Hilton Diamond
Posts: 1,840
Originally Posted by cbn42 View Post
Hand sanitizer can help prevent the spread of COVID-19, which is a much larger threat than terrorism. If someone doesn't have hand sanitizer when they need it, this could result in them contracting COVID and potentially spreading it to others, which could cost more lives than a terrorist attack. Therefore it makes sense to allow hand sanitizer.

No similar rationale exists for Sprite. No one will get sick because they don't have access to Sprite upon landing.
If there were a real threat of terrorism, 3 or 4 terrorists could bring in their allocation of hand sanitizer and make quite a powerful incendiary device with it. There is no terrorist threat, which is why it's safe to load an airplane with passengers, half or more of whom will have hand sanitizer. Also, now that people can bring in alcohol, nobody is going to fool with peroxide-based or peanut butter-based or brownie-based or juice-based explosives, so the liquids rule becomes even more meaningless than it was in the first place.

Therefore the issue of whether or not there is a special need for Sprite is irrelevant. Plus, especially with in-cabin service being cut back so much, there's a significant value in being able to bring drinks on board. And THIS will help prevent the spread of the coronavirus due to reducing the need for contact between the FA and passengers. If a passenger needs to obey their thirst, they don't need to solicit Sprite from the FA, they can just open up their own can.
Spiff and chollie like this.
Carl Johnson is offline  
Old Aug 2, 20, 1:03 pm
  #39  
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Baltimore, MD USA
Programs: Southwest Rapid Rewards. Tha... that's about it.
Posts: 4,042
Originally Posted by Boggie Dog View Post
The liquid bomb plot was for the most part just a conceptual plan. As these people had been under surveillance for some time raises real questions of the viability of the plan. I think this was a classic case of the pendulum swinging from one side to the other and getting stuck hard over in the extreme over reaction direction.

Case 20: Bombing Transatlantic Airliners
The science behind the plot is also pretty complex and sensitive. Multi-part liquid explosives aren't something you can easily mix up in an aircraft lav like two-part epoxy mix. From what I've been told, the components of a liquid explosive tend to be either unstable, caustic, or both, and the mixing process is very demanding. But the general public has the impression that Die Hard With a Vengeance is real, and the fictional liquid explosive from that movie can be found at any corner hardware store next to the Krazy Glue.

I personally would be find with completely eliminating the liquids restrictions. I'd rather see improved ETD testing that can more accurately detect actual explosive compounds, as opposed to the crude explosive precursor tests that currently cause so many false positives.
Spiff, chollie and Boggie Dog like this.
WillCAD is offline  
Old Aug 4, 20, 7:01 am
  #40  
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Greensboro
Programs: TSA
Posts: 2,319
Originally Posted by cbn42 View Post
Hand sanitizer can help prevent the spread of COVID-19, which is a much larger threat than terrorism. If someone doesn't have hand sanitizer when they need it, this could result in them contracting COVID and potentially spreading it to others, which could cost more lives than a terrorist attack. Therefore it makes sense to allow hand sanitizer.

No similar rationale exists for Sprite. No one will get sick because they don't have access to Sprite upon landing.
This is a primary stated reasoning for this change. I would venture that their reasoning is sound that at the moment, Corona virus is a more immediate threat, they have relevant data showing it is an more imminent threat. The science shows that using hand sanitizer consistently can impact the spread, infection rates and by extension cases of illness and death. Sprite is not in that category. So it is reasonable to adjust the regulations (at least temporarily) for hand sanitizer. Based upon the forecasts from the folks that I trust the most, this change could be in place for months, if not possibly year(s). COVID is not going away any time soon, and even if a workable vaccine is developed and produced, it will take time to distribute and make a noticeable impact on the numbers.

The more perplexing question is, will the new CT xrays (rollout time frame not completely determined) be workable to change the LGA bans completely, or just a little? I personally would love to see the changes go broad spectrum, but there may be resistance to it, or a technical reasoning that would prevent it.
gsoltso is offline  
Old Aug 4, 20, 12:43 pm
  #41  
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Baltimore, MD USA
Programs: Southwest Rapid Rewards. Tha... that's about it.
Posts: 4,042
Originally Posted by gsoltso View Post
This is a primary stated reasoning for this change. I would venture that their reasoning is sound that at the moment, Corona virus is a more immediate threat, they have relevant data showing it is an more imminent threat. The science shows that using hand sanitizer consistently can impact the spread, infection rates and by extension cases of illness and death. Sprite is not in that category. So it is reasonable to adjust the regulations (at least temporarily) for hand sanitizer. Based upon the forecasts from the folks that I trust the most, this change could be in place for months, if not possibly year(s). COVID is not going away any time soon, and even if a workable vaccine is developed and produced, it will take time to distribute and make a noticeable impact on the numbers.

The more perplexing question is, will the new CT xrays (rollout time frame not completely determined) be workable to change the LGA bans completely, or just a little? I personally would love to see the changes go broad spectrum, but there may be resistance to it, or a technical reasoning that would prevent it.
As I said upthread, medically necessary LGAs have always been exempt from the 3-1-1 rule (though you can ask several FTers about their first-hand experience with trying to bring through a medically necessary liquid in quantities over 100ml). The current crisis has simply led TSA to show wisdom born of fear by reclassifying hand sanitizer as a medically necessary LGA. I suspect it was never expressed in those exact terms, but that's what has happened.
chollie and gsoltso like this.
WillCAD is offline  
Old Aug 4, 20, 1:44 pm
  #42  
 
Join Date: Jul 1999
Programs: QF WP, AA EXP
Posts: 3,098
Originally Posted by Boggie Dog View Post
I understand more liberal LGA policies for flight crews. I even understand more liberal policies for airport workers. What I don't understand is how these two groups gain access without proper screening.
Let's not forget all of the beverages destined for airside vendors. These liquids go through the same X-Ray machine that everything else goes through, yet somehow those liquids are "OK".

Originally Posted by gsoltso View Post
The more perplexing question is, will the new CT xrays (rollout time frame not completely determined) be workable to change the LGA bans completely, or just a little? I personally would love to see the changes go broad spectrum, but there may be resistance to it, or a technical reasoning that would prevent it.
This is what is already happening in Europe. Flew out of AMS in Feb, no LGA restrictions at all. Everything stayed in your bag. Automated CT in every lane. If they can do it we can too.
Spiff, chollie and gsoltso like this.
SNA_Flyer is offline  
Old Aug 4, 20, 2:09 pm
  #43  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: DFW
Posts: 17,258
Originally Posted by SNA_Flyer View Post
Let's not forget all of the beverages destined for airside vendors. These liquids go through the same X-Ray machine that everything else goes through, yet somehow those liquids are "OK".



This is what is already happening in Europe. Flew out of AMS in Feb, no LGA restrictions at all. Everything stayed in your bag. Automated CT in every lane. If they can do it we can too.
I observed a cart full of soda cases go through a DFW TSA checkpoint a few years back. They were not looked at by TSA.

Just my take, if the threat level is such that flammable hand sanitizer is being permitted then that same threat level would suggest other liquids pose little threat.
Spiff, chollie and petaluma1 like this.
Boggie Dog is offline  
Old Aug 4, 20, 4:28 pm
  #44  
 
Join Date: Jul 1999
Programs: QF WP, AA EXP
Posts: 3,098
Originally Posted by Boggie Dog View Post
Just my take, if the threat level is such that flammable hand sanitizer is being permitted then that same threat level would suggest other liquids pose little threat.
We all know that is correct, and part of the nonsensical security theater. This is bureaucracy in it's finest. Realizing that something they created policy for was wrong, but instead of admitting it and backing it out, they just double down on the stupidity.
Spiff, chollie, Boggie Dog and 1 others like this.
SNA_Flyer is offline  
Old Aug 6, 20, 12:47 pm
  #45  
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Baltimore, MD USA
Programs: Southwest Rapid Rewards. Tha... that's about it.
Posts: 4,042
Originally Posted by SNA_Flyer View Post
We all know that is correct, and part of the nonsensical security theater. This is bureaucracy in it's finest. Realizing that something they created policy for was wrong, but instead of admitting it and backing it out, they just double down on the stupidity.
I think there's more to it than that. They could simply spin it, as so many politicians and bureaucrats do, by saying that the threat has passed, and it's now safe to lift the LGA restrictions. But they haven't done so; they've kept the LGA restrictions pretty much the same for a decade and a half.

But the larger issue at play with LGAs is the same one that's at play with the agency in general - nothing can ever be allowed to get better, because if it does, then there is less need for the agency, and it will lose funding and be downsized. Threats must always escalate and increase, to justify increased the agency's size, influence, and funding levels from year to year.

This, ultimately, is why you can bring a 12oz bottle of flammable alcohol-based hand sanitizer through the c/p, but not a 12oz bottle of any other liquid.
Boggie Dog and petaluma1 like this.
WillCAD is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Search Engine: