FlyerTalk Forums

FlyerTalk Forums (https://www.flyertalk.com/forum/index.php)
-   Checkpoints and Borders Policy Debate (https://www.flyertalk.com/forum/checkpoints-borders-policy-debate-687/)
-   -   TSA Adjusting Prohibitions/Designated "Ask Bart" Thread (https://www.flyertalk.com/forum/checkpoints-borders-policy-debate/589864-tsa-adjusting-prohibitions-designated-ask-bart-thread.html)

Bart Sep 27, 2006 6:45 am

Deleted

GeoGirl Sep 27, 2006 8:46 am

Augh, wish I'd had that info before I left or I wouldn't have given up my little bottles quite so fast!

I still just can't believe it happened- can't believe she confiscated everything and wouldn't even let me check my stuff in a bag! Bart, can I still write a letter with date, time, flight info and as much detail as I can provide? Who would I send it to?

This supervisor said travelers have never (I'm assuming she meant since 9/11) been allowed to carry bottles that weren't labeled by the manufacturer.

What is so dumb is that I could have had a manufacturer-labeled shampoo bottle with
God-knows-what inside. It doesn't matter if you've refilled it, just that it has a label? How does that make sense?

Argh! Argh!

GG

Teacher49 Sep 27, 2006 8:52 am


Originally Posted by Bart
Key is to be non-confrontational. And this is something that can be done with a smile. Don't make any smart remarks ...

Hope this helps.

Bart, I appreciate the information that you provide here. I respect that you are one of the people who are trying to bring a bit more reason and dignity to this system.

Still I am chilled by this particular part of your advice. While this is a good strategy in any social interaction, the implication of their being negative consequences for someone staying within the law and yet doesn't smile and allows themselves a "smart remark" is troublesome. It bespeaks of advice to be subservient to authority even when it is abused.

I may choose to smile, but why should be a necessary strategy to avoid trouble?

I may not make a "smart remark," but why should exercising my right to free speech be something to something to avoid in order to avoid retaliation. We all have a right to express indignation in a not threatening way even if it is confrontative. We all have a right to confront authority when it errs without bowing, smiling and scraping.

Again thanks for the practical advice and for your good work. I simply lament the implications of the kind of role the citizenry is expected to adopt with any public servant - screener, LEO, who ever.

I have grave concerns over the direction in which our country is drifting in this regard.

goalie Sep 27, 2006 9:01 am


Originally Posted by kaukau
Was that there yesterday? Thanks for showing me where it is!

it has been there since the "fly naked nonsense" ;) started and as i mention in my earlier post (http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/showp...postcount=671), i carry the printout with me.

cpx Sep 27, 2006 9:03 am

ID Question
 
Bart,

Would you consider an ID issued by a State University a "Government issued ID" ??

thanks!

Superguy Sep 27, 2006 9:11 am


Originally Posted by cpx
Bart,

Would you consider an ID issued by a State University a "Government issued ID" ??

thanks!

I don't see why it wouldn't. I used university ID's before with no problem. Might run into trouble with a private school.

I remember even using my work ID tag once to try it when I worked for the public school system. Worked too. :)

cpx Sep 27, 2006 9:15 am


Originally Posted by Superguy
I don't see why it wouldn't. I used university ID's before with no problem. Might run into trouble with a private school.

I remember even using my work ID tag once to try it when I worked for the public school system. Worked too. :)


I've used my library card and work ID before... with 50/50 chances...
but never tried the university ID before.. Just wanted to know the
"official" policy.

GoingAway Sep 27, 2006 9:17 am


Originally Posted by Teacher49
Still I am chilled by this particular part of your advice. While this is a good strategy in any social interaction, the implication of their being negative consequences for someone staying within the law and yet doesn't smile and allows themselves a "smart remark" is troublesome. It bespeaks of advice to be subservient to authority even when it is abused.

I may choose to smile, but why should be a necessary strategy to avoid trouble?

I may not make a "smart remark," but why should exercising my right to free speech be something to something to avoid in order to avoid retaliation. We all have a right to express indignation in a not threatening way even if it is confrontative. We all have a right to confront authority when it errs without bowing, smiling and scraping.

Again thanks for the practical advice and for your good work. I simply lament the implications of the kind of role the citizenry is expected to adopt with any public servant - screener, LEO, who ever.

Very well said. These were my thoughts, as well, when I read Bart's response. :td:

Flaflyer Sep 27, 2006 9:36 am

I'm Thinking, not Over Thinking
 

Originally Posted by GeoGirl
What is so dumb is that I could have had a manufacturer-labeled shampoo bottle with God-knows-what inside. It doesn't matter if you've refilled it, just that it has a label? How does that make sense?

If the Factory Container is not clear, such as most shampoo bottles, the contents are not visible and could be replaced. Under 3 oz of mouthwash is allowed. "Do not overthink these guidelines". If I carry 2 oz of allowable mouthwash in a 2 oz Head and Shoulders shampoo bottle, is that OK?

Nowhere on http://www.tsa.gov/travelers/airtrav...ted-items.shtm can I find any reference to Original Factory labelled Containers ONLY. Like GG, many things that you only need a small amout of for a few day trip are easier to put a dab in a 2 x 2 inch ziploc, much lighter than carrying even a 2.99 oz tube.

The Official Approved "My Ziploc"™ picture at http://www.tsa.gov/press/happenings/..._guidance.shtm shows seven 2.99 ounce (under 3) continers Resting Comfortably™ in their quart baggie. My math says if I dumped the original contents and filled them all with water I would have 20.93 ounces of water. Yet I cannot bring a 16 ounce bottle of water.

To really show the lack of uniformity of the Partial Water Ban Rules v. 9/26 per v. 8/10:
At http://www.tsa.gov/travelers/airtrav...rial_1059.shtm it says
Travelers with Disabilities and Medical Conditions
Medications
Additonal items you may bring include:
Liquids including water, juice, or liquid nutrition or gels for passengers with a disability or medical condition;
Life-support and life-sustaining liquids

Has TSA declared Dehydration to be "Not A Medical Condition"?
Has TSA declared Water to be "Not A Life-Sustaining Liquid"?
Can TSA get the Surgeon General to put this New Think Not Overthink redefinition of life in a letter?

"It is unlikely that additional changes in the liquid, aerosol and gel policy will be made in the near future." Sigh.

Bart Sep 27, 2006 10:09 am

Deleted

ND Sol Sep 27, 2006 10:28 am


Originally Posted by GeoGirl
Augh, wish I'd had that info before I left or I wouldn't have given up my little bottles quite so fast!

I still just can't believe it happened- can't believe she confiscated everything and wouldn't even let me check my stuff in a bag! Bart, can I still write a letter with date, time, flight info and as much detail as I can provide? Who would I send it to?

This supervisor said travelers have never (I'm assuming she meant since 9/11) been allowed to carry bottles that weren't labeled by the manufacturer.

What is so dumb is that I could have had a manufacturer-labeled shampoo bottle with
God-knows-what inside. It doesn't matter if you've refilled it, just that it has a label? How does that make sense?

This article says why the quart bag is acceptable:

"After testing a variety of explosives, the FBI and other laboratories found that tiny amounts of substances — so small they fit into a quart-size plastic bag — can't blow up an airliner."

So it should not matter what the containers say or don't say.

LLM Sep 27, 2006 10:44 am


Originally Posted by Bart
That supervisor needs to learn the SOP. There is nothing that says a container needs to have the manufacturer's label. The only situation I can see prohibiting an unlabelled container is when it alarms the ETD with a "strong hit" for explosives. It that case, it only makes sense to prohibit it. In all other cases, it does not.

Bart, is that an issue at all? Virtually none of my liquid stuff has ever been in manufacturer's bottles. I purchased unlabelled 1 ounce ones, with spray tops, from a container company to save packing space. I couldn't find these even at the Container Store and I would hate to lose the bottles themselves, let alone be without the contents. I know what's in them by the color. Do I need to apply photoshopped labels?

Bart Sep 27, 2006 11:16 am

Deleted

FWAAA Sep 27, 2006 11:28 am


Originally Posted by Bart
Not at all, and that's my point. The supervisor who decided to prohibit these containers because they had no labels made an erroneous decision.

In your likely new position of trainer - will you be training all over the country or just at SAT? If the former - then that's great news. If the latter, then that's talent wasted.

GUWonder Sep 27, 2006 11:32 am


Originally Posted by ND Sol
This article says why the quart bag is acceptable:

"After testing a variety of explosives, the FBI and other laboratories found that tiny amounts of substances — so small they fit into a quart-size plastic bag — can't blow up an airliner."

So it should not matter what the containers say or don't say.

I'd like to see info -- all of it -- about the "testing" enter the public domain.


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 11:07 pm.


This site is owned, operated, and maintained by MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Designated trademarks are the property of their respective owners.