New liquids policy?
 

First, there is this quote from Pistole:

Clear as mud. But we have our local TSO reps:

A little clearer. And then this anecdote:

Is it possible that there is a new liquids policy that says, you can bring whatever liquids in any quantity you want, as long as you put them in the bin/bag separately? I.e. 8 oz of Coke is OK if you segregate it in the bin, but if you 'hide' it in your luggage, it's not OK?

Is this something in line with "You can fly with no ID, as long as it's clearly a mistake and you are cooperative with TSA?" You can fly with liquids, as long as you clearly segregate them in a bag?

SATTSO - Does the SOP say anything about the allowed volume of liquids (like individual liquids still need to be less than 100 mL) or is it just related to the baggie specs?

And finally, can I use this bag? :D

Pissy is just repeating much of what Kippie said. Kippie said we'd be able to have our shoes on an keep our liquids years ago. Now that ball has been kicked down the field, and Pissy is doing the exact same thing.

There's no new policy, and I doubt there will be. Just a carrot of "we're working on it" while we keep getting beat with the stick.

Also, if 3.4 fl oz is the magic number for making an explosive (no evidence of it, but let's assume it for the sake of the argument), then why are we allowed to bring multiple containers of it thru? And if so, what is to prevent someone from combining them airside into a bomb?

It's kind of hard to ignore logic that Saturday Night Live was able to point out :D

I've always assumed that a quart (or more precisely, a liter) of liquid was the realistic volume of liquid required for explosives, and that 3.4 oz (or more precisely, 100 mL) was simply theater.

Wikipedia says the original plot involved 500 mL soft drink bottles. Realistically, it is hard to get more than 500 mL of liquid into my quart bag if each bottle has to be less than 100 mL.

We all know terrorists never have friends who could also carry 500 mL past the checkpoint...:rolleyes:

As I've said before, the major purpose of the checkpoint is to make the operation require more people, in the hope that five people conspiring to do things will be more visible to intelligence and law enforcement than a lone person. So it does make some sense.

But to answer the OP: there has been no change in the amount of liquid that can be brought through the checkpoint, but anecdotal evidence suggests that fewer and fewer TSOs care about liquids.

I don't buy that. I'm sure there are at least 5 people in a row in line sending a baggie thru every hour at many airports. When everybody looks the same, how can you tell who's out of place?

I think he means pre-airport intelligence. If 5 people are conspiring, surely a wiretap or monitoring their e-mail will clue the FBI in before they get to the airport. Comforting thought, isn't it?

Yes, I very definitely mean pre-airport intelligence, but it's far more than wiretaps or email monitoring. The required operational security (opsec) or a mission that requires only one person is extremely low. Change that to five people and you now have not only the electronic communication between those five people, but physical contact, a much larger command-and-control structure, and ways to get funding. The opsec requirements for a five-person mission are far higher than for one person.

Terrorists aren't a special forces group. People who operate at that level of the organizations aren't usually even very bright. They don't tend to do opsec very well. That means there are far more opportunities for them to make a mistake that will lead to their being caught or for the group to be noticed.

I think most people here would agree that we can't have a situation where the checkpoints are the major barrier to a successful terrorist operation because the required level of security is impractical. Instead, the purpose of checkpoint security is to deter single-person missions (which is why we don't see anybody "caught") and make it require enough people that we have a reasonable chance of catching them in other ways.

Yes, that's not foolproof. But I think it's the best we can do as a nation if we want to retain civil liberties.

Oh, really? We've already surrendered enough of our civil liberties to render our nation unrecognizable not just to the founding fathers, but to our own grandfathers! At the airport, at least, we've given up so much of our human dignity that there's hardly anything left to retain -- short of our own underwear, maybe.

Or a couple of people going back and forth a few times.

I've gone outside security twice while trying to figure out what was going on in an irrops situation, I didn't draw any extra scrutiny.

Oh wow! Are you supposed to lifts liquid bans sometimes ended of 2010? I wasn't sure about TSA will ever keep the shoes on again? I am wondering about liquid will permitted to bring more than 100ml. Will able allowed to brings the bottled water go through at checkpoint again? I have a suggestions questions about TSA will eliminated the liquid 3-1-1 rules?

I can do that easily. You should see what I can fit in that quart bag.

That's what I mean: if we want to avoid the current checkpoint issues, we have to rely more on non-checkpoint methods.

Apologies for misinterpreting your point. I now understand and appreciate the context!

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/tr...rom-April.html

Carry-on liquid ban to be phased out in Britain.

"The ban on liquids in hand luggage will begin to be phased out from April, the Transport Secretary, Philip Hammond confirmed."

It's been at least six months since I pulled my various (small) bottles of toothpaste, lotion, mouthwash, etc out of my carry on.

No one's said a word.