Seizing kid's toothpaste

Some of the new TSA people on here have earned quite good reps already.

It really depends on how much of the TSA Koolaid has been drunk.

The fact that all it take is sticking one of said gels/liquids in one's pocket to defeat the system speaks volumes to how effective the security is.

Add to the fact that while they catch all the shampoo and bottled water, they still have a high failure rate at detecting real bombs.

But We're Safer�. Right?

It's the key point of this thread as the topic is "Seizing kid's toothpaste"

All you have to say is, no, you have never allowed common sense to overrule protocol. It doesn't matter of the subject was a grandma, a kid, a pet or a businessman.

I, personally, had a non-compliant object explicitly allowed through by a screener with the injunction to not do it again. Any other examples of screeners using common sense? Any screeners want to admit to using common sense?

Sadly enough, it happens for both reasons. Some screeners will use their common sense to determine the size of the bottles left in the bag, and decide that they are regulation size, and the quantity is not above what is allowed, and not to bother with it. Some screeners will see what they "think" is a bottle in a bag, or one bottle of eye drops, and call a bag check on it.

Fortunately, I am allowed to use common sense in my position. And I will admit that I use it! The down side to allowing screeners to use common sense is the inconsistancy in how the rules are enforced. If the TSA took away the allowance for common sense, and told every screener, lead, supe and screening managers "no if's, and's, or but's about it.." the policies would be enforced more consistantly. I don't know which side wins.

Excellent. Thank you. That is all we ask. ^

Well, IF the point of the original question - which I took it to be - is that because some little kid had it in his bag, then it is somehow off limits... much like searching a Sikh's turban is off limits... then I would have to... ummm... wow... that is pretty... ummm... the words escape me...

If the OP somehow expects that since the parents of little Johnny or Janie are above the restrictions placed on others - get a grip. There are no extra allowances because you are a Mommy or Daddy... There is no moral equivalence between a (somewhat foolishly) protected religious group and being a parent... it just isn't so...

IF the question was intended to be... "As a TSO, have I ever let someone slip through with a prohibited item just because I didn't want to deal with it, or was trying to be a 'nice guy'".... then I would expect any TSO who answers in the affirmative to be looking for work.

While I am absolutely no fan of the TSA - that is an understatement - I am, however, a fan of consistently following rules... however inane. That is to say, if the TSA has a rule... then they should follow it - period. No exceptions allowed. It at least makes the idiocy easier to swallow.... which should resonate with Mommy and Daddy... since they have to deal with such things - and I shouldn't.

(As an aside, I was standing in line to check into a 5 star hotel in Canada on Sunday... little Johnny who was standing in line decided to puke on my laptop bag... nice... good stuff. I didn't think it was cute in any way, shape or form - no special allowances because the parents looked a little frantic... not my problem.)

Here is one for ya. Chelsy Clinton was allowed to keep all her liquids of different sizes when she came through our checkpoint a few weeks ago.
One thing that still gets me is that they say a liquid explosive could not be used. This method was used years ago. i can't remember the county, but a liquid explosive made using a contact lens solution bottle was detonated on an aircraft killing one person. it was placed under a seat. ill try to find the incident.

Don't put yourself out. We all know about it.

The liquid in question was nitroglycerin.

No one here denies that explosives, liquid or solid, exist.

The premise of the liquid ban is that two innocuous, undetectable by ETD, liquids can be brought aboard an aircraft and combined on-board to make a credible explosive. That threat does not exist except in the imagination of the TSA.

Welcome to FlyerTalk, Insane Screener!

That means we would have to actually use our ETD, something which is rare at our airport. The ease at which someone or a group of people could bring a a premixed explosive through a checkpoint is quite disturbing.

Well, we already know that solid explosives can be brought through the checkpoint at will. Strapped around the waist, or wherever. The liquid carnival is egregious because it ignores the larger threat for the theater of the lesser one.

The TSA does this to make a show of discovering liquids in bottles, all the while failing to deter actual threats.

I'm more concerned about the ease at which someone or a group of people could bring a solid explosive or gun through the checkpoint.

20% pass rate doesn't cut it.

Don't know how you could have possibly read that.

I believe cee and birdstrike got it, in regard to whether any common sense is sometimes (ever?) used at checkpoints.

It was a Phillipines flight, the Bojinka plot. Ramsey Yusef, I think. It is not a good argument because that incident happened in 1992(?). Killed one dude, blew a little hole in the plane, but it landed safely. Not saying that the death of one is not a big deal, but apparently not big enough to enforce a liquid policy 15 years ago.

Different mindset now. Even the threat of something like that would send DHS and TSA into a tizzie. Common sense was used then.

Besides, it wasn't really a "liquid" explosive as it was stabilized with cotton balls. Liquid nitro never would have made it to the airport. ETD would have picked it up too.