Definition of "zip-top" bag??
Nov 9, 2006, 10:44 pm
#31
Join Date: Dec 2004
Programs: AA, WN RR
Posts: 3,122
Originally Posted by Bart
The whole idea is that you can carry liquids, pastes, gels, lotions, creams and aerosols in containers with volumes not exceeding 3 oz. The total number of containers are limited to what can fit inside a quart sized resealable plastic bag. The dimensions of the bag don't matter; it's the volume that matters. Not all plastic baggie manufacturers use the same physical dimensions.
After a few weeks, I've gotten pretty good at determining how many items will fill a quart-sized bag. I use the concept of "tie goes to the runner" when it comes to allowing the one or two items that don't quite fit inside an already filled bag with an admonishment to the passenger that other airports may not exercise the degree of discretion I've shown.
This is a pretty contentious issue at my airport. Some screening managers are strictly enforcing the TSA guidelines without any wiggle room for discretion and latitude. I had a discussion with my screening manager last night over this very topic. I told him that if I ever allowed a passenger to keep a gun, bomb, grenade, knife or other dangerous item, I expect to be drawn, quartered, hung and shot at dawn. But if I let a mom keep an 8 oz bottle of juice for her child, I don't expect anyone to quibble over that or give me any grief. While putting him on the spot with this remark, he just smiled at me, nodded and then walked away. It was enough to acknowledge an understanding.
After a few weeks, I've gotten pretty good at determining how many items will fill a quart-sized bag. I use the concept of "tie goes to the runner" when it comes to allowing the one or two items that don't quite fit inside an already filled bag with an admonishment to the passenger that other airports may not exercise the degree of discretion I've shown.
This is a pretty contentious issue at my airport. Some screening managers are strictly enforcing the TSA guidelines without any wiggle room for discretion and latitude. I had a discussion with my screening manager last night over this very topic. I told him that if I ever allowed a passenger to keep a gun, bomb, grenade, knife or other dangerous item, I expect to be drawn, quartered, hung and shot at dawn. But if I let a mom keep an 8 oz bottle of juice for her child, I don't expect anyone to quibble over that or give me any grief. While putting him on the spot with this remark, he just smiled at me, nodded and then walked away. It was enough to acknowledge an understanding.
The concept of a quart bag limiting the number of containers, and thus ensuring safety of airliners, is laughable. Nothing in this scheme prevents multiple terrorists from complying with the rules, and each having only 3 or 4 3 oz. containers in each quart bag. Once terrorists are on the plane, they could combine the contents of the quart bags to theoretically cause problems.
Nov 10, 2006, 2:55 am
#32
Suspended
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 8,389
Originally Posted by PatrickHenry1775
The concept of a quart bag limiting the number of containers, and thus ensuring safety of airliners, is laughable. Nothing in this scheme prevents multiple terrorists from complying with the rules, and each having only 3 or 4 3 oz. containers in each quart bag. Once terrorists are on the plane, they could combine the contents of the quart bags to theoretically cause problems.
Nov 10, 2006, 3:14 am
#33
Suspended
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Watchlisted by the prejudiced, en route to purgatory
Programs: Just Say No to Fleecing and Blacklisting
Posts: 102,095
Originally Posted by Bart
I have very serious doubts that mixing explosives is as simple as that.
Apparently even the plotters in the UK matter weren't clear what they were doing in this regard.
Regardless, the danger posed by any such alleged plot is less about the mixing airside -- setting aside the mix in the bathroom hysteria -- than the volume pre-mixed and assembled airside. And what that means is that these rules are really stupid and do nothing more than to require an assembly, much the same as even without these rules.
Nov 10, 2006, 9:02 am
#35
Join Date: Sep 2006
Programs: CO Plat, Priority Club Plat, HH Diamond, Avis First, Hertz #1Gold
Posts: 720
Originally Posted by GUWonder
Is he necessarily talking about mixing two distinct chemicals, or just mixing (as in pouring) together two like chemicals to get the volume "needed"?
Apparently even the plotters in the UK matter weren't clear what they were doing in this regard.
Regardless, the danger posed by any such alleged plot is less about the mixing airside -- setting aside the mix in the bathroom hysteria -- than the volume pre-mixed and assembled airside. And what that means is that these rules are really stupid and do nothing more than to require an assembly, much the same as even without these rules.
Apparently even the plotters in the UK matter weren't clear what they were doing in this regard.
Regardless, the danger posed by any such alleged plot is less about the mixing airside -- setting aside the mix in the bathroom hysteria -- than the volume pre-mixed and assembled airside. And what that means is that these rules are really stupid and do nothing more than to require an assembly, much the same as even without these rules.
Nov 10, 2006, 9:07 am
#36
Suspended
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Watchlisted by the prejudiced, en route to purgatory
Programs: Just Say No to Fleecing and Blacklisting
Posts: 102,095
Originally Posted by vassilipan
Commercially produced Kinepaks are as simple as mixing two components. As a binary explosive, each comes in a separate pouch, to be mixed prior to detonation. Larger than 3oz each, but nothing prevents multiple persons from bringing aboard enough to bring down an airliner.
Originally Posted by GUWonder
these rules are really stupid and do nothing more than to require an assembly, much the same as even without these rules.
Nov 10, 2006, 9:10 am
#38
Join Date: Sep 2006
Programs: CO Plat, Priority Club Plat, HH Diamond, Avis First, Hertz #1Gold
Posts: 720
Originally Posted by GUWonder
So we still have it that:Originally Posted by GUWonder
these rules are really stupid and do nothing more than to require an assembly, much the same as even without these rules.
these rules are really stupid and do nothing more than to require an assembly, much the same as even without these rules.
Nov 10, 2006, 9:30 am
#39
Suspended
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Watchlisted by the prejudiced, en route to purgatory
Programs: Just Say No to Fleecing and Blacklisting
Posts: 102,095
Originally Posted by vassilipan
Absolutely. At the risk of triggering FBI sniffer computers, you can check out: http://www.slurryexplosive.com/product/page8.html
Nov 10, 2006, 9:43 am
#40
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Central Texas
Programs: Many, slipping beneath the horizon
Posts: 9,859
Just go to the grocery/supermarket and buy a carton. They come in yellow, green and generic-colored boxes of 10 to a 100 or so, with brand names like Glad and Hefty. F*rting around with bureaucracies is neither productive nor noble, at best stupid, and the "baggie" is simply one of those modest sacrifices we all make to get through the evolutions which fill our lives. I was far more inconvenienced decades ago when I routinely had to go to the Italian post office to place a long distance call.
After seeing several folks miss a flight, connections and undergo much inconvenience because a silly lady was making a "moral objection" to zip-lock baggies. I'm convinced that her level of selfishness (along with those of many who complain so loudly here) exceeds societal norms and the level acceptable by the angry b*stards in line behind the "protesters". If words could kill, the remarks of several of those angry folk directed at her were deadly.
After seeing several folks miss a flight, connections and undergo much inconvenience because a silly lady was making a "moral objection" to zip-lock baggies. I'm convinced that her level of selfishness (along with those of many who complain so loudly here) exceeds societal norms and the level acceptable by the angry b*stards in line behind the "protesters". If words could kill, the remarks of several of those angry folk directed at her were deadly.
Nov 10, 2006, 9:57 am
#41
Suspended
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Watchlisted by the prejudiced, en route to purgatory
Programs: Just Say No to Fleecing and Blacklisting
Posts: 102,095
Originally Posted by TMOliver
Just go to the grocery/supermarket and buy a carton. They come in yellow, green and generic-colored boxes of 10 to a 100 or so, with brand names like Glad and Hefty. F*rting around with bureaucracies is neither productive nor noble, at best stupid, and the "baggie" is simply one of those modest sacrifices we all make to get through the evolutions which fill our lives. I was far more inconvenienced decades ago when I routinely had to go to the Italian post office to place a long distance call.
After seeing several folks miss a flight, connections and undergo much inconvenience because a silly lady was making a "moral objection" to zip-lock baggies. I'm convinced that her level of selfishness (along with those of many who complain so loudly here) exceeds societal norms and the level acceptable by the angry b*stards in line behind the "protesters". If words could kill, the remarks of several of those angry folk directed at her were deadly.
After seeing several folks miss a flight, connections and undergo much inconvenience because a silly lady was making a "moral objection" to zip-lock baggies. I'm convinced that her level of selfishness (along with those of many who complain so loudly here) exceeds societal norms and the level acceptable by the angry b*stards in line behind the "protesters". If words could kill, the remarks of several of those angry folk directed at her were deadly.
Nov 10, 2006, 10:09 am
#42
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: 99654
Programs: Many
Posts: 6,450
Originally Posted by TMOliver
F*rting around with bureaucracies is neither productive nor noble, at best stupid, and the "baggie" is simply one of those modest sacrifices we all make to get through the evolutions which fill our lives.
Accepting the whats thrown at you without questioning is not productive
either. Billions of tax dollars are being wasted behind things that do not serve
the purpose of security.. instead inconvenience innocent people. I'd rather
have those tax $$ spent on something useful.
I would be the last person to hold up the line, but I would not go silent
when I see my time and money is being wasted.
Nov 10, 2006, 10:14 am
#43
Suspended
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 8,389
Originally Posted by GUWonder
Is he necessarily talking about mixing two distinct chemicals, or just mixing (as in pouring) together two like chemicals to get the volume "needed"?
Apparently even the plotters in the UK matter weren't clear what they were doing in this regard.
Regardless, the danger posed by any such alleged plot is less about the mixing airside -- setting aside the mix in the bathroom hysteria -- than the volume pre-mixed and assembled airside. And what that means is that these rules are really stupid and do nothing more than to require an assembly, much the same as even without these rules.
Apparently even the plotters in the UK matter weren't clear what they were doing in this regard.
Regardless, the danger posed by any such alleged plot is less about the mixing airside -- setting aside the mix in the bathroom hysteria -- than the volume pre-mixed and assembled airside. And what that means is that these rules are really stupid and do nothing more than to require an assembly, much the same as even without these rules.
I was joking with my supervisors the other night when they were talking about making IED test bags more challenging. My remark: "Who cares about detonators and explosives...it's all about spotting that 3.5 ounce bottle."
Nov 10, 2006, 11:06 am
#44
Suspended
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Watchlisted by the prejudiced, en route to purgatory
Programs: Just Say No to Fleecing and Blacklisting
Posts: 102,095
Originally Posted by Bart
I think the missing link between a reasonable procedure and stage act is the ETD. If we are supposedly mitigating the threat, then it stands to reason that we should take more ETD samples of the items we allow through.
I was joking with my supervisors the other night when they were talking about making IED test bags more challenging. My remark: "Who cares about detonators and explosives...it's all about spotting that 3.5 ounce bottle."
I was joking with my supervisors the other night when they were talking about making IED test bags more challenging. My remark: "Who cares about detonators and explosives...it's all about spotting that 3.5 ounce bottle."
Nov 10, 2006, 11:13 am
#45
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Finally back in Boston after escaping from New York
Posts: 13,644
Originally Posted by Bart
I think the missing link between a reasonable procedure and stage act is the ETD. If we are supposedly mitigating the threat, then it stands to reason that we should take more ETD samples of the items we allow through.
I was joking with my supervisors the other night when they were talking about making IED test bags more challenging. My remark: "Who cares about detonators and explosives...it's all about spotting that 3.5 ounce bottle."
I was joking with my supervisors the other night when they were talking about making IED test bags more challenging. My remark: "Who cares about detonators and explosives...it's all about spotting that 3.5 ounce bottle."
Mike