Originally Posted by Ivan Grozny (Post 12167071)

Conclusions, and actions
Best course of action for FT'ers.
Write to your elected national representatives, and demand a resolution, and consistent training.

Originally Posted by Ivan Grozny (Post 12168321)

:D
(guess that's why I get paid more than them, I also have had the priviledge of a university education, and I suspect that quite a few TSOs haven't. :D)


That's what I thought too, but I was trying to think of a reason she might have been confused/misunderstood.


Reget to inform you, that is not a good example.;)
I have in my presence a "solid" deodorant. It is branded "Mitchum Smart Solid(TM)", it is made by Revlon, and is manufactured in the US (according to the info on the back). Its packaging is mostly green. The actual deodorant is a sort of ivory colour. pic: http://www.buzzillions.com/image.dox...799&wide=false
It has a consistency (at c. 68F/20C temperature) like stiff butter - perhaps like butter that has come out of a fridge at c. 40F/4C.
Seems a bit softer than butter from the freezer.

Anyway, as I'm sure you know, ingredients are almost always listed in order of size in the product.
And the first ingredient in my "solid" deodorant is .... wait for it...
Aqua (aka water).
The actual anti-perspirant, aluminium...etc.. is second, then a glycol (liquid), then a couple more I would have to look up, then glycerin (liquid), then a few more bits and bobs.
So the single largest ingredient in a "solid" deodorant is water!
As I have posted in a post above I believe it is a paste, and therefore falls within the Euro definition (which is, according to the TSA, supposed to be harmonised with them). It may, alternately, be a paste/emulsion amalgam, which also would appear to fall within the Euro definition.

Butter.
Butter.
Butter.
Butter isn't a solid either, it is an emulsion.
It is made up of two liquids, and a bit of dissolved solid.
Typically what we think of as butter is c. 80-82% milk fat (a viscous liquid), 14-16%water, and up to 4% salt. link: http://www.milkingredients.ca/dcp/ar...d=145&page=216
Indeed, to be an emulsion, butter is necessarily primarily derived from two (or more) immiscible liquids.

Moving to lipstick.
It seems to be a combination of viscous liquids.
The major components (such as wax and hydrogenated oils) are "malleable" at room temperature, which would appear to exclude them from being "solids".
According to wikipedia, lipstick to lip gloss is a spectrum, rather than a clearly defined difference. Thin lipgloss is by anyone's definition a liquid, and "solid" lipstick appears to just be made from very viscous versions of similar ingredients (hydrogenated oils - its all the boiling that makes them go stiff)

Anyway, how about this for a description of lipstick (highlights mine)

Now that sounds like "stiff" lipstick to me.
So there it is.
It is, apparently, a gel (organogels being one of several types of gels).
therefore can be part of the regs.

TSA 311 covers "Non-flammable liquid, gel, or aerosol paint".
That's how the CATSA can claim it was a legitimate "pull".

The Euro regs include the important line to give guidance:
Any other solutions and items of similar consistency, and as the rest of the Euro list is a lot "runnier" than lipstick, then that is supposed to give the appropriate guidance to PAX/security.

Technically in the UK, each airport can have its own restrictions (depending on risk assesment). But BAA owns most of the biggies (there is a proven "lack of competition" problem there, and they have recently been ordered to sell some!).
BAA have issued their own (no doubt in consultation with the appropriate UK bodies) guidance on the issue. This is here:
http://www.heathrowairport.com/asset...nes_sept07.pdf.
(the link is dated Sept 07, but the document itself is dated May 09!)

Technically it has no legal standing outside BAA airports, but it can perhaps be used (with appropriate caution) as guidance for travellers.
Lets hope it formally becomes the standard in most countries, because it contains lots of specific examples of what is OK, and what is not. Who knows, maybe the colonies will belatedly follow the example of the Motherland :D

On the BAA list, lipstick is OK, so why not come and live in the UK!
(it rains a lot, but at least we know what we can take on 'planes!):D

The problem with the TSA is there seems to be no publically available guidelines covering specifics.
The TSA seem to have failed to draw up guidelines/training for their staff as well.


+1

Originally Posted by EOS (Post 12170892)

IVAN-
Forward this to TSA or give them a copy on your way through security.

Originally Posted by EOS (Post 12170892)

The original 'idea' of forbidding 'liquids' was that they could be mixed on the plane to create some explosive, right?

Originally Posted by EOS (Post 12170892)

My point about solid lipstick, solid deodorants and solid powders and makeup is that they are not MIXABLE...in a plane with no oven or stove or bunsen burner. So in a day-to-day sense--and a 'you can't simply mix it with something else to create a bomb'' (hilarious that TSA could think that a lipstick could be used to make a bomb...tell that to Chanel).

Originally Posted by EOS (Post 12170892)

I am always respectful going through security, very calm and zen, and I do everything by the rules, totally.
I follow all rules of all countries and regions and economic groups.I generally am not stopped at all, and it's all smiles. This Calgary situation caused me puzzle and concern.
Thanks all for comments.

Originally Posted by EOS (Post 12170892)

The 'second ziploc' question remains unanswered in a sense--and perhaps that is the way TSA really likes things...a bit uncertain, fungible and unclear to keep us all a bit off balance--or at least that is how it looks.

Originally Posted by RadioGirl (Post 12169590)

You won't get a clear definition of "what is a liquid" from TSA, nor will you get harmonised US/EU standards, because it suits TSA to play their little "I've got a secret/we're smarter than you" game rather than properly training their staff.

Originally Posted by Ivan Grozny (Post 12172194)

http://www.tsa.gov/travelers/sop/index.shtm
Plenty to discuss there (my emphasis)

Also on harmonisation:
http://www.tsa.gov/approach/harmonization.shtm

Originally Posted by Daniel

every kind of creamy substance, even as thick as (and thicker than) peanut butter is prohibited

Originally Posted by Ivan Grozny (Post 12172194)

http://www.tsa.gov/travelers/sop/index.shtm


Plenty to discuss there (my emphasis)

Also on harmonisation:
http://www.tsa.gov/approach/harmonization.shtm

Originally Posted by RadioGirl (Post 12169590)

This is the key to the problem. When asked repeatedly for the "rules" on prohibited items and other rules that passengers are expected to follow, TSA refuses. Sometimes they say, "If we made all the rules public, it would let the Bad Guys know how to defeat the system." Sometimes they say "It would be too complicated to make a complete list." They go on about "intentional inconsistency" when in fact they're covering for the fact that much of their workforce is incapable of sticking to a consistent set of guidelines.

You were being kind earlier when you said that not all the screeners had had a science/technical background. Some of them struggle with the concept of decimal points. Most of them (and their HQ management) are confused by the idea that ounces (fluid) is not the same as ounces (weight). My favorite story is the guy who insisted that 3.0 was more than 3 because "it's got a point and an 0". :rolleyes:

Hence we have contradictory advice about "solid" deodorant and crystal deodorant. Hence the confiscation of 3.2 oz items because some screeners believe that 3.0 oz is the limit (see the other thread today.)

You won't get a clear definition of "what is a liquid" from TSA, nor will you get harmonised US/EU standards, because it suits TSA to play their little "I've got a secret/we're smarter than you" game rather than properly training their staff.

Originally Posted by SDF_Traveler (Post 12176838)

It disgusts me that the TSA can't publish rules as to what is allowed and what isn't allowed.

<other good points>

Instead of harmonizing policies between the US and EU, it's time we just scrap this security theater of the war on liquids.

Originally Posted by ND Sol (Post 12176259)

But yet as posed on their blog, the TSA has failed to answer the question of how many lighters can be taken on board. So how can that be harmony?

Originally Posted by RadioGirl (Post 12176078)

Umm, yeah. What TSA means by "harmonization" is that they make up rules, expect the rest of the world to follow them, and then lie about the extent of cooperation.

Originally Posted by RadioGirl (Post 12176078)

Of course, TSA doesn't have a monopoly on idiocy, as indicated by the UK screener who claimed dry pasta was a liquid because "you have to put it in water to cook it." :rolleyes:

Originally Posted by SDF_Traveler (Post 12176838)

It disgusts me that the TSA can't publish rules as to what is allowed and what isn't allowed. SSI - a bunch of hogwash. I'm sick of the "inconsistent inconsistency excuse" or the "we can't let you know because the bad guys will find out" - The TSA is ineffective and a waste of taxpayer money.

To complicate things, it seems the "rules" change on a regular basis. One day its all electronics out, regardless of size .. the next day it's something else.

Instead of being pro-active and focusing on risk management, they're re-active and focus on risk avoidance. The shoe and liquid policies being the most annoying - a useless attempt at being reactive to avoid risk.

Originally Posted by SDF_Traveler (Post 12176838)

In many other parts of the world liquids and shoes are not an issue.

Originally Posted by SDF_Traveler (Post 12176838)

As far as liquids, so many things can be a liquid - just depends on the temperature.

Originally Posted by SDF_Traveler (Post 12176838)

One other big problem you point out, there is fluid oz and net weight in oz. Many TSO's have no clue about the difference - toss in other measurements such as grams, or ml and they're lost.

Originally Posted by SDF_Traveler (Post 12176838)

As of late, the TSA hasn't even been looking at my baggie.

Originally Posted by SDF_Traveler (Post 12176838)

If anything, I get a bag check because I often have some powder in a container in my carry-on. The powder appears as a liquid on the x-ray and 60% of the time it results in a bag check.

Originally Posted by SDF_Traveler (Post 12176838)

Instead of harmonizing policies between the US and EU, it's time we just scrap this security theater of the war on liquids.