Ron, I didn't write the SOP you deal with on a daily basis. That SOP says that items pass through the checkpoint at the discretion of the TSO. That's pretty much black and white. It gives the TSO pretty much carte blache to demand a passenger surrender anything.

Except in those situations where the TSO doesn't know the rules as well as the passenger does, and forces the passenger to comply with non-existent, unpublished nonsense. (Shall we repeat the story of Mr. Gel-Pack again?)

Look, I understand the point you're trying to make, and I'm sympathetic. But the statement you made above is way too sweeping; it assumes that TSOs never make mistakes. Logically speaking, if a passenger is denied the opportunity to bring an item into the sterile area, either the passenger is at fault for not following the rules, or the TSO is at fault for not enforcing the rules properly. (Or both.)

And, yes, the rules for snow globes are well published. But your statement above is way too globally encompassing.

What is also frustrating, for both screeners and passengers, is when one airport allows a prohibited item and another airport does not.

Edit: Or a permitted item for that matter.

:confused: Well, then have one intelligent TSA HQ person solve for r in 3.4E-3 liters=4/3 x pi x r**3 and then transmit the result to the TSO's via SOP update, Op Directive, whatever. How could that possibly not work?

Like the Canadians already figured out; if the diameter (that would = 2 r) is not > than a tennis ball, the liquid must be below the allowable volume.

Of course, if Brittney or any other celebrity carries a basketball sized frozen snow globe through the check-point all TSO WROng's hallowed rules (that you people are too stupid to read) are out the window.

The issue is that the whole liquids *rules* aren't making us safer.

If I were ignorant of the capabilities of liquid explosives I would most likely agree with you. Fortunately the TSA and its BAO corps take a great deal of time and effort educating the TSO force on these things.:eek:

Perhaps if TSA took a modicum of effort to educate the public then a this discussion would end.

So far TSA has failed to convince the public.

AM, I cant argue against your point. Which of course in a small way reinforces my point that anything can be made into a weapon and remain covert. The degree of latitude you write about is needed to deal with that threat. Unfortunately there are those out there who abuse that latitude on occasion. There is no way that this small percentage of TSO’s can be prevented from entering the work force, the TSA does what it can within reason and the applicable laws, to not employ these types of folks.

Now, if we could just talk people into not building these covert weapons…

BD, I can see your point.

But try to see mine. Educating people about explosives has its inherent problems. Problems that the TSA was specifically constituted to screen against. In the case of some people, it would be like showing a kid a candy bar and then telling him he can’t have it. This would constitute an unacceptable threat. The internet has been a great boon to the planet in its ability of making information available to anyone with a computer and the will/curiosity to find it. Just about any information can be found on the internet, including information that in the wrong hands can be quite dangerous. I think I’d prefer that the TSA not add to that pool of potentially dangerous information. Wouldn’t you?

Its even more of a problem/frustration for us.

I am one of you, the Canadian version.

I was getting that feeling but was not sure where.

Then you can understand the issues we deal with on a daily basis. Few here can, and that also has its frustrations.

Items allowed / not allowed at various airports seems more the problem of consistent training throughout TSA. As a traveler, I would like to see my frustration level with the screening process reduced as well. At this point, compliance with what we know about the rules does not guarantee hassle free transit through a check point.

We do know that bottled pure H2O is not a threat to aviation.

I would like to see rules that make sense across the board.

Yes, pure H2O is no threat. The problem is proving that what is in the bottle is H2O rather than some other liquid. Many liquids have the look of H2O, but have significantly different properties and DO present a threat. A few have been mentioned here.

Having rules that make "sense" is a matter of perspective. What makes sense to me will not to you because we have different frames of reference and backgrounds. Many people just don’t have the education or training to understand what the threat is or what needs to be done to mitigate it. Which is one of the things I find frustrating here, people who “think” they know but obviously don’t. And I’m reasonably sure that it’s just as frustrating to them to have to deal with someone they do not know but who says that they are less than knowledgeable of the subject under discussion. I do try to see both sides, but my background makes it difficult as I usually am dealing with people who have a similar background to my own.

Sort of like 'knowing' TSA vs the clueless civilians?