The Airport Security Liquid Rules That Refuse to Go Away
wsj.com
wsj.com
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.
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.
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.
Alkanes like butane, propane, gasoline, and other naptha-like products would also be pretty bad on an airplane too because they could incapacitate people and create a catastrophic explosion if quickly dispersed at a high enough concentration and ignited. It would take probably a kilo or more and lots of energy to vaporize it bring down a plane from a vapor explosion.
The fact that someone tried (and yet failed!) to detonate a liquid explosive on a plane is not an excuse to ban water. Water! A basic requirement for life! It's absurd.
Psychology. A flight passenger's life is in the hands of others for a span of hours at a time. The victims of a hypothetical attack are hopelessly trapped, whereas one can at least imagine theoretically fleeing the scene in most other cases. These things make the threat seem far more salient.
Also, humans are generally bad at understanding small probabilities.
And in the decades before 9/11, hijackings were actually a somewhat regular occurrence and real threat.
Yes, there is security theater involved, but I think airplanes are very obviously a special case. When they used to get hijacked it was a difficult situation because authorities were trying to deal with a fast moving plane with civilian lives on it (so they can’t just shoot it down), and that person could cross borders and do all kinds of things that you can’t do any other way.
They can be flown anywhere quickly, they can’t be evacuated when they flying, and they can quickly cross borders and barriers.
Water isn’t banned, either. There’s plenty of free water past security. Bring an empty water bottle.
Or just bring ice: https://www.tsa.gov/travel/security-screening/whatcanibring/...
So you will have lobbies fighting against any ease in regulations as the more complicated is the check, the better for them.
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.
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.
Would that not be true?
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.
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.
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.