5 ms·

The Airport Security Liquid Rules That Refuse to Go Away

38 points by lxm 2y ago

metadat 2y ago
https://archive.today/u8Jxp https://archive.today/u8Jxp
atonse 2y ago
I find some of the examples to be strange and self-inflicted problems. In one example of the couple who travels internationally a lot and complains in being limited in what they can bring, they mention that they only like to take hand baggage. Well, if you check your bags in, then you can take all these things. So it seems like some non-trivial subset of travelers want to insist on not checking bags AND complaining about the rules. This feels a but unreasonable to me. Frequent travelers would often have credit cards that reimburse you for baggage fees. So what’s the problem? You have a choice.
- Schiendelman 2y ago
  The problem is potentially adding an hour or more to travel, along with the risk of the airline losing your bag. It's extremely inconvenient and often unpredictable.
  - j_bum 2y ago
    Along with added cost. Not everyone has frequent flier credit cards.
    - atonse 2y ago
      No, I was explicitly saying that the most frequent travelers likely do (either that, or are likely business travelers where those costs are borne out by the employers). Would that not be true?
      - Schiendelman 2y ago
        I'm a very frequent traveler and have free checked bags. I rarely check, it's a huge hassle.
- bouncing 2y ago
  Pretty much every heavy traveler I know strives for carryon only. It isn’t always possible and sometimes you check a bag, but if you can do it, the benefits are real. It’s mostly just that you want to travel light. It gives you more freedom of movement and flexibility to have just one suitcase or backpack. But that means everything from your computer to your prescription drugs to your socks and underwear is in there, so checking it isn’t an option if you travel light.
- kelnos 2y ago
  > So it seems like some non-trivial subset of travelers want to insist on not checking bags AND complaining about the rules. This feels a but unreasonable to me. It's entirely reasonable to complain about rules you believe are unreasonable. > Frequent travelers would often have credit cards that reimburse you for baggage fees. So what’s the problem? You have a choice. The problem is I travel light, and my luggage fits easily in the overhead bin and/or under my seat. Why should I have to ensure I get to the airport early so I can make the baggage check cutoff? Why should I have to wait for an extra 20-30 minutes (or more, at the worst airports) after my flight to get that luggage? Why should I have to risk my luggage being damaged, delayed, or lost entirely? I just had to check some luggage on a recent trip back to the US from Europe, because I'd bought a couple bottles of wine. That was the first time I'd checked luggage since 2007 (yes, 17 years ago). It was annoying and a waste of my time. But it's not just the ban on liquids in carry-on luggage. It's that I have to finish or dump my water bottle before security, and hope there's a reasonable way to refill it airside with clean, not-foul-tasting water before I get on my flight. Some airports have dedicated bottle filling stations, but most do not. The water provided on the plane (without me constantly annoying the flight attendants for more, outside their beverage service times) is a small amount compared to what I'd drink at home in the same time period, and I drink more on planes since it's easier to get dehydrated in that environment. This is security theater. We should always push back. It's funny (sad funny, not ha-ha funny) that at this point it's mostly just accepted as the way things are done. After 9/11, everyone was so scared; we allowed the government to make travel (among other things in life) much worse for dubious (and often negative) benefit (and the US, being the US, infected everyone else with this nonsense). But now that we're 23 years out from it, many of the people who fly today don't remember -- or don't even know -- anything different. IMO by far the biggest gain in airplane security we got after 9/11 was armored, locked cockpit doors, with would-be hijackers learning that now they aren't going to get access to the cockpit or pilots. Only allowing ticketed passengers through security is another good one (buying a ticket in order to get through isn't hard or expensive, but leaves a paper trail that can only be defeated with much more effort and cost). Nearly everything else seems to have made little to no impact.
  - atonse 2y ago
    I do largely agree with you about some things being security theater. (And cockpit doors, etc as folks like Bruce Schneier have written about). My point was that in some examples in the article, the couple that is traveling for weeks, can easily check in their bag so they can have their souvenirs. That’s a choice available to them. Instead the scenario makes it feel like they have to not take those souvenirs home because of this evil policy. And they have addressed that the newer CT machines will take care of the fluids rule. So it’s not like airport security isn’t getting smarter (also with programs like pre check). They are trying to find pragmatic ways to scan for things without inconveniencing travelers. In your example, is it really that bad that you had to check in your bags ONCE in 17 years? This is exactly what I’m talking about. I’m totally with you about security theater. This is my first time in 20+ years in an internet thread defending a TSA policy as not that bad. But some of the examples seemed frivolous to me.
dangus 2y ago
This article is missing a ton of new information about this issue. https://www.cntraveler.com/story/new-tsa-approved-3-d-scanners-mean-you-can-keep-your-liquids-in-your-bag https://www.cntraveler.com/story/new-tsa-approved-3-d-scanne... The whole reason for the rule is that X-Ray machinery uses object density to help figure out what materials are inside your luggage. (This is a gross simplification of a different article I read on this subject, don't trust me to be 100% accurate in my terminology) Some airports have more advanced X-Ray machinery where it can be extremely accurate to the point where it can distinguish water and other liquids from explosives. But in many/most airports, they just have to ban liquids because the machinery can't tell the difference between water and explosives. It's a pretty simple and logical explanation, and I think the rules make some level of sense given the fact that there was an actual attempted security breach involved with making the rule in the first place.
- Dylan16807 2y ago
  This kind of scanning is a waste of time. It does an ineffective job of reducing a very small risk. If the machines can't tell the difference between water and explosives, and we're not willing to do fallback testing, then the solution is to not use the machines. Not to ban water.
  - hi-v-rocknroll 2y ago
    Octane 0.703 g/cm^2 Acetone 0.7845 Water 0.99834 Hydrogen peroxide 1.1 (30%) - 1.450 (pure) There is basically no way to synthesize PETN or TATP in-flight on a plane. It's only the cargo culting security theater of "liquids bad" because dumb, failed terrorists tried to use liquids in their explosives incorrectly in ways that don't make sense from a chemistry perspective. There are few liquids that would be a problem. I'd be worried most about mercury and aluminum alloy fuselages and binary explosives in improvised pressure vessels.
    - everforward 2y ago
      I’ve always been a little curious about how well the TSA detects tannerite (a binary explosive typically used for target shooting at ranges where you can’t see holes in paper). I don’t think it’s particularly potent, but a pound of it will blow a hole in the dirt and a bucket of it will demolish a car (thanks for that tidbit, Moonshiners and FPSRussia). No idea how much it takes to be problematic on a plane, and I don’t intend to Google it lol. I was curious because it’s pedestrian as far as explosives go. Bass Pro Shops and Cabellas both sell it, and are happy to sell it in fairly large quantities. I think I bought 10 pounds last time I was there (20 explosive targets iirc) and no one batted an eye.
dakial1 2y ago
Also a problem is that these rules have business profiting from them. TSA contractors, PreCheck, Clear, Global Entry... So you will have lobbies fighting against any ease in regulations as the more complicated is the check, the better for them.
- firesteelrain 2y ago
  I assumed PreCheck was more of reimbursement cost than profit center.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
firesteelrain 2y ago
Let’s put aside security theater for a moment One good thing these rules seem to have addressed is people should pack less things including liquids in their carryons. The side effect though is you get things like you can’t bring things like large liquids that maybe you got on a trip back.
- jzackpete 2y ago
  If that were a real concern and not a cope for having to submit to pointless security theater, airlines could just charge by weight. The weight of my contact lens solution is negligible
  - firesteelrain 2y ago
    A few non-US airlines did try just that !

38 points by lxm 2y ago

https://archive.today/u8Jxp https://archive.today/u8Jxp

I find some of the examples to be strange and self-inflicted problems. In one example of the couple who travels internationally a lot and complains in being limited in what they can bring, they mention that they only like to take hand baggage. Well, if you check your bags in, then you can take all these things. So it seems like some non-trivial subset of travelers want to insist on not checking bags AND complaining about the rules. This feels a but unreasonable to me. Frequent travelers would often have credit cards that reimburse you for baggage fees. So what’s the problem? You have a choice.

Schiendelman 2y ago
The problem is potentially adding an hour or more to travel, along with the risk of the airline losing your bag. It's extremely inconvenient and often unpredictable.
- j_bum 2y ago
  Along with added cost. Not everyone has frequent flier credit cards.
  - atonse 2y ago
    No, I was explicitly saying that the most frequent travelers likely do (either that, or are likely business travelers where those costs are borne out by the employers). Would that not be true?
    - Schiendelman 2y ago
      I'm a very frequent traveler and have free checked bags. I rarely check, it's a huge hassle.
bouncing 2y ago
Pretty much every heavy traveler I know strives for carryon only. It isn’t always possible and sometimes you check a bag, but if you can do it, the benefits are real. It’s mostly just that you want to travel light. It gives you more freedom of movement and flexibility to have just one suitcase or backpack. But that means everything from your computer to your prescription drugs to your socks and underwear is in there, so checking it isn’t an option if you travel light.
kelnos 2y ago
> So it seems like some non-trivial subset of travelers want to insist on not checking bags AND complaining about the rules. This feels a but unreasonable to me. It's entirely reasonable to complain about rules you believe are unreasonable. > Frequent travelers would often have credit cards that reimburse you for baggage fees. So what’s the problem? You have a choice. The problem is I travel light, and my luggage fits easily in the overhead bin and/or under my seat. Why should I have to ensure I get to the airport early so I can make the baggage check cutoff? Why should I have to wait for an extra 20-30 minutes (or more, at the worst airports) after my flight to get that luggage? Why should I have to risk my luggage being damaged, delayed, or lost entirely? I just had to check some luggage on a recent trip back to the US from Europe, because I'd bought a couple bottles of wine. That was the first time I'd checked luggage since 2007 (yes, 17 years ago). It was annoying and a waste of my time. But it's not just the ban on liquids in carry-on luggage. It's that I have to finish or dump my water bottle before security, and hope there's a reasonable way to refill it airside with clean, not-foul-tasting water before I get on my flight. Some airports have dedicated bottle filling stations, but most do not. The water provided on the plane (without me constantly annoying the flight attendants for more, outside their beverage service times) is a small amount compared to what I'd drink at home in the same time period, and I drink more on planes since it's easier to get dehydrated in that environment. This is security theater. We should always push back. It's funny (sad funny, not ha-ha funny) that at this point it's mostly just accepted as the way things are done. After 9/11, everyone was so scared; we allowed the government to make travel (among other things in life) much worse for dubious (and often negative) benefit (and the US, being the US, infected everyone else with this nonsense). But now that we're 23 years out from it, many of the people who fly today don't remember -- or don't even know -- anything different. IMO by far the biggest gain in airplane security we got after 9/11 was armored, locked cockpit doors, with would-be hijackers learning that now they aren't going to get access to the cockpit or pilots. Only allowing ticketed passengers through security is another good one (buying a ticket in order to get through isn't hard or expensive, but leaves a paper trail that can only be defeated with much more effort and cost). Nearly everything else seems to have made little to no impact.
- atonse 2y ago
  I do largely agree with you about some things being security theater. (And cockpit doors, etc as folks like Bruce Schneier have written about). My point was that in some examples in the article, the couple that is traveling for weeks, can easily check in their bag so they can have their souvenirs. That’s a choice available to them. Instead the scenario makes it feel like they have to not take those souvenirs home because of this evil policy. And they have addressed that the newer CT machines will take care of the fluids rule. So it’s not like airport security isn’t getting smarter (also with programs like pre check). They are trying to find pragmatic ways to scan for things without inconveniencing travelers. In your example, is it really that bad that you had to check in your bags ONCE in 17 years? This is exactly what I’m talking about. I’m totally with you about security theater. This is my first time in 20+ years in an internet thread defending a TSA policy as not that bad. But some of the examples seemed frivolous to me.

dangus 2y ago

This article is missing a ton of new information about this issue. https://www.cntraveler.com/story/new-tsa-approved-3-d-scanners-mean-you-can-keep-your-liquids-in-your-bag https://www.cntraveler.com/story/new-tsa-approved-3-d-scanne... The whole reason for the rule is that X-Ray machinery uses object density to help figure out what materials are inside your luggage. (This is a gross simplification of a different article I read on this subject, don't trust me to be 100% accurate in my terminology) Some airports have more advanced X-Ray machinery where it can be extremely accurate to the point where it can distinguish water and other liquids from explosives. But in many/most airports, they just have to ban liquids because the machinery can't tell the difference between water and explosives. It's a pretty simple and logical explanation, and I think the rules make some level of sense given the fact that there was an actual attempted security breach involved with making the rule in the first place.

Dylan16807 2y ago
This kind of scanning is a waste of time. It does an ineffective job of reducing a very small risk. If the machines can't tell the difference between water and explosives, and we're not willing to do fallback testing, then the solution is to not use the machines. Not to ban water.
- hi-v-rocknroll 2y ago
  Octane 0.703 g/cm^2 Acetone 0.7845 Water 0.99834 Hydrogen peroxide 1.1 (30%) - 1.450 (pure) There is basically no way to synthesize PETN or TATP in-flight on a plane. It's only the cargo culting security theater of "liquids bad" because dumb, failed terrorists tried to use liquids in their explosives incorrectly in ways that don't make sense from a chemistry perspective. There are few liquids that would be a problem. I'd be worried most about mercury and aluminum alloy fuselages and binary explosives in improvised pressure vessels.
  - everforward 2y ago
    I’ve always been a little curious about how well the TSA detects tannerite (a binary explosive typically used for target shooting at ranges where you can’t see holes in paper). I don’t think it’s particularly potent, but a pound of it will blow a hole in the dirt and a bucket of it will demolish a car (thanks for that tidbit, Moonshiners and FPSRussia). No idea how much it takes to be problematic on a plane, and I don’t intend to Google it lol. I was curious because it’s pedestrian as far as explosives go. Bass Pro Shops and Cabellas both sell it, and are happy to sell it in fairly large quantities. I think I bought 10 pounds last time I was there (20 explosive targets iirc) and no one batted an eye.

dakial1 2y ago

Also a problem is that these rules have business profiting from them. TSA contractors, PreCheck, Clear, Global Entry... So you will have lobbies fighting against any ease in regulations as the more complicated is the check, the better for them.

firesteelrain 2y ago
I assumed PreCheck was more of reimbursement cost than profit center.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]

firesteelrain 2y ago

Let’s put aside security theater for a moment One good thing these rules seem to have addressed is people should pack less things including liquids in their carryons. The side effect though is you get things like you can’t bring things like large liquids that maybe you got on a trip back.

jzackpete 2y ago
If that were a real concern and not a cope for having to submit to pointless security theater, airlines could just charge by weight. The weight of my contact lens solution is negligible
- firesteelrain 2y ago
  A few non-US airlines did try just that !