Not the entire article...

Enjoyable/Aggravating Travel Note of the Week
I've just about had enough with these TSA screeners. First, they tell us to put our toiletries into the Ziploc-type plastic bags, with only liquids or gels of 3.4 ounces or less to be included. So I do that. It worked well enough for a couple of months. Though my contact-lens liquid was 4 ounces, every screener let it go because they knew contact-lens solution doesn't come in a smaller container. So last Thursday, as I was returning from Florida (and by the way, the west coast of Florida is the new New Jersey; the 54 miles from Sarasota to the Tampa airport turned into a 135-minutes stop-and-go odyssey in mid-afternoon), the TSA man took my zipped bag, examined it, and said to me: "It's too big. Slightly, but too big.'' He took the contact-lens solution out and asked me if I wanted to go back to the terminal and put it in checked baggage.

Of course, I want to add 45 minutes to my day! Give me the teensy $3, half-used bottle of solution and I'll go back on the train to the terminal, stand in line, check a four-ounce bottle of this dangerous liquid, then I'll get back in all these lines and come back to see you.

"No thank you,'' I said.

He put everything except the toothbrush and deodorant back in a smaller bag, handed it to me, and told me to have a nice day.

I'll give you a nice day.

But my moment of triumph was pulling the six-ounce bottle of Bullfrog sunscreen out of my back pocket -- I was not checking a bag just to save this sunscreen -- and putting into my carry-on. Small, illegal victories over this anal system of "safety'' at the airports are the best victories.

Ahhhh...the old misdirection play.

Don't worry, Pete. Black helicopters will be hovering over SI headquarters soon.

It's articles like this that probably carry more anti-liquid lunacy weight.

Articles by folks like Joe Sharkey are good, but comments from people you don't expect it from, like Peter King, is more beneficial. When you see write-ups from unlikely sources, IMHO, that drives the point home in an even better way.

The sad part about this is that contact lens solution is for a medical condition and, as such, is not subject to the size restrictions. It just needs to be declared.

Has the TSA gotten any better about realizing this? IME, there are still plenty of TSOs who try to claim it's not "medically necessary" or not a medication.

From what I have heard, I am not sure if the word is out or not. When I have traveled with my 4 oz. bottle, I leave it out and nothing has ever been said. In fact, one time it went in the x-ray by itself and came out in my quart Freedom Baggie. I assume the TSO running the x-ray was trying to help me out.

This is one of those things where you are at the mercy of the particular screener, their interpretation of the rules, and whether they're having a bad day, etc.

You can get contact lens solution in smaller sizes at Wal-Mart. But you might not find your brand.

Note to self: Since SC Johnson is a private company, invest in companies that make pants with big pockets.

Mike

The times I traveled with a 4 oz bottle (prior to the ziplock carnival but post 8/10), the screeners usually just ignored it. Now that it has to be "declared," I've been hassled several times and given the, "Well, THIS time, we'll let it pass," speech. So I've gone to a different brand in a sample pack in a 2.75 oz size, and dump it in the Freedom Baggie.

Wonder if the flight crew is given a list of all passengers with "declared" liquids over 4oz in their possession so they can watch them during the flight,or do they simply insist that 2 or more passengers with "declared" liquids over 4 oz not be allowed in the same row?

Not required as the TSA ETD's all liquids over 3.4oz to ensure our safety.

I almost forgot, the ETD can't alarm on the liquid binary components, which is why we have the ban on liquids - not that there has been a credible showing that these binary components could ever be made into a credible explosive under the conditions that exist in an airport or on an airplane.

Actually, almost all even remotely-credible binary explosive components should alarm the ETD, as they involve heavily-nitrated compounds which should be part of the explosives detection profile. Many commercial and military binary liquid explosives utilize nitromethane, for example, as one component (which is poisonous and flammable without the other component, but not explosive); I'd wager the ETD would catch that in the same way it alarms on heavily-nitrated fertilizers on people's shoes from time to time, etc. Likewise, nitroglycerine (which isn't credible, but is still bandied about by media pundits as a candidate explosive) will alarm on glycerine and on the nitric acid, I believe.

You're probably thinking of TATP, which indeed doesn't alarm on either component, but as you said, is completely non-credible as an explosive formulated onboard a plane.

Obviously not Congressman Peter King who as then chairman of a relevant committee did almost nothing to hold the government in check and was more often than not a DHS/TSA apologist.

And, like nitroglycerine, is highly unstable and liable to detonate while being carried airside.