Today, I realized just how ridiculous the baggie is..
 

We all know it's ridiculous.. but something just occurred to me about it.

Why do we have the baggy at all??

Why isn't the rule just something like have no more than 3 bottles of fluids of less than 3 ounces apiece?

There's only one reason I can think of. They must not be able to see the bottles well enough on the scanners. If that's the case, then putting things in a baggie is really a voluntary compliance move that would have no impact on a terrorist.

Does that make sense?

Maybe it's just because someone in the TSA figured that people like to keep all their toiletries together in a bag.

And maybe they thought that the baggie rule would be easier for arithmetically challenged TSA staff and passengers. (Imagine some of the people you meet in airports trying to work out if six 1.5oz bottles is equivalent to three 3oz bottles).

BTW - More than three 3oz bottles fit into the standard sized baggie.

Yup. I just mentioned a limit of three because I thought that would be a good alternate rule if screeners could discern bottles on the scanner and count that high quickly.

I wouldn't mind keeping my liquids down to three bottles of three ounces. The thing I hate is having one more thing to pack and unpack at a checkpoint.

I'm sure if I looked I would find some discussions on this but what makes me laugh is the 3oz versus 100ml between the US and Europe. Only a small difference, but my deodorant is below the 100ml limit but over the 3oz limit.

TSA website:
The rule limits the volume of liquids, gels and aerosols to bottles 3 ounces or smaller (or 100 ml), in 1 quart-sized zip top bag

Problem is:
3oz=89ml and 100ml=3.38oz
1qt=.94l and 1l=1.05qt

I think most of us worked that out some time ago. Only one thing since 9/11 has made a significant improvement to flight security - locking the cockpit door. Everything else is pure theatre for the sheeple.

I suspect the limits are intended to keep the total amount of liquid anyone can bring on board well below the threshold at which they believe someone would be able to brew an explosive. The choice of 3 oz versus 100 ml is likely down to commercial availability on either continent, plus not allowing anyone a container large enough to make something nasty.

As for not being able to identify a container in luggage, wouldn't they just open the bag to see what it is? That seems to happen to me.

The TSA is obviously concerned about its image. But, if they wanted to do something solely to make the "sheeple" feel safer, I think they'd avoid something this annoying.

Actually there is a second. Flight 93 Rules. I hope I am not the only one who recognizes that if you see a group(be it men, women or children) trying to break into the cockpit, if they get in there you are dead. Since you can only die once per day, trying to keep them out of the cockpit is a shared responsibility of everyone else on the plane.

I guess I must have got lost somewhere because I thought the limits were now 3.4 oz., to more closely approximate 100 ml.

If they are 3.4 oz, why does the TSA website still say 3 oz. - or should I not go there? :D

AFAIK the TSA allow containers - large thermos mugs etc.. - provided they are empty of liquids.

I suppose some containers might attract more attention than others. But AFAIK, there's no rule against any empty container.

I believe the DHS, DoD and the TSA ran extensive tests at Aberdeen Proving Grounds on what type of shielding would dampen and contain detonating three 3 oz bottles of common liquid explosives in flight. I believe the one (1) qt baggies was the clear winner. Apparently the explosives in Europe are about 10% less dangerous thus the three 100 ml rule applies over the pond.

MisterNice

ps: this post makes as much sense as most of the other "for your security" fairy tales

This is so stupid. If the rules actually made some sense I probably wouldn't have a problem with it but.....1 baggie each x ? number of baggie carrying terrorists= BANG! If 6 3 oz bottles would do it - or 9, or 12.... it would be very easy for a few people traveling together to make this happen.

OR... 1 person who goes through security... goes to the AC (or other such lounge), leaves baggie #1 concealed in a carryon left in the baggage area. Goes back out - comes back through security with another baggie... repeat. repeat. repeat. There are so many ways around this if you just think about it.
So the bottom line is you are NO safer you just have the illusion of being safer... and isn't it better to know you are at risk and be watchful than to think you are safe and let down your guard?

That should be true, but there's been plenty of reports of empty water bottles being confiscated because we might fill them up at air-side water coolers. And we all know that water cooler and washbasin water hasn't been screened in the pipes on its way into the airport. Dangerous stuff.

Yep. It was a major paradigm shift. On 9/10/01, the thinking was if you do what the terrorists want you have a greater chance of survival. That thinking is gone.

Vigilant fliers and a locked cockpit door.............think of all the money and time that could be saved if someone would just recognize that is all thats needed? (In addition to a modest level of bomb detection security).

Unless a screener says there is.

That's part of the problem right there. Even if you have done your homework before the flight and know what the rules are you are still at the mercy of the screener. If he's ignorant or just a jerk, you really don't have much recourse.