I received an e-mail from someone today asking about bear mace, and thought maybe I should write a blogpost for all of you summer campers, hunters and fishermen out there. (And in case you didn’t know, bear mace is more effective than a gun, as bullet wounds usually just make bears more aggressive)Summer is here and people are heading for the sticks. (Via a jetliner) You either like to rough it like me and pack nothing but a loincloth and flint & steel, or you go to your local sporting goods store and max out your card on all the latest camping gear.
So listed here are some popular camping items with a quick note as to whether or not you can take them on a plane:
Animal repellants can go in your checked luggage if the volume is less than 4 ounces and its active ingredient is less than 2%. Bear Mace usually exceeds these limits.
Camp Stoves can go in either your carry-on or checked bag. Oh yeah, you do have to empty the fuel first. (It has happened)
Insect repellents that are sprayed on the skin are considered a personal use item and are permitted in carry-on (3-1-1 applies) and checked baggage.
Insecticides that are used to kill little creepy crawlies (Ant killers, cockroach killers, spider killers etc) are prohibited altogether."
Empty Gas Cylinders are allowed in checked or carry-on bags as long as the regulator valve is removed and we can see inside.
Flare Guns are allowed in your checked baggage, but they have to be stored and declared just like a regular firearm. The flares are a no go and have to be purchased at your destination.
TSA allows fishing poles, but if you’re taking them as a carry-on, you might want to give your airline a ringy-dingy and see if the pole exceeds their carry-on limits. Tackle is OK as a carry-on, but just be sure that you don’t have any knives or large deep sea fishing hooks. Also, tools can’t be larger than 7 inches.
Spear Guns. Umm…yeah Captain Nemo, these can’t go in the cabin, but you can check them in the belly of the plane.
Bow & Arrows. See Spear guns…
Guns & Ammo are allowed to be checked in the belly of the plane as long as you follow the proper procedures.
Safety Matches are allowed in your carry-on luggage one pack per passenger per FAA safety regulations. Strike anywhere matches (I love to light those from my boot heel) are not allowed at all.
Lighters were once banned, but are now permitted in your carry-on as of August, 2007. Torch lighters are still prohibited.
Hatchets and Survival Knives are permitted in your checked baggage, but not permitted in your carry-on.
If you’re planning on participating and camping out at a renaissance festival this summer, we ask that you kindly not carry your broadsword through the checkpoint. Suits of armor are also frowned upon. Did they have jets in the renaissance period?
I hope you have a great time this summer and feel free to use this blog, check out our Web page, or use the Got Feedback? program if you have any additional questions as to what you can or can’t take on a plane.
Blogger Bob
TSA Blog Team
***Update 6/11 @ 3:20 PM***
The original line that read “Bug Spray along with insecticides are not allowed in your checked or carry-on bags” has been edited to:
Insect repellents that are sprayed on the skin are considered a personal use item and are permitted in carry-on (3-1-1 applies) and checked baggage.
Insecticides that are used to kill little creepy crawlies (Ant killers, cockroach killers, spider killers etc) are prohibited altogether.
Blogger Bob
TSA Blog Team
126 comments:
Hello -
Are water purification drops allowed in carryons or checked bags? Specifically, Aquamira drops? I don't believe them to be flammable or such, just strong enough to kill bacteria and viruses, etc.
Thanks for the help.
"Empty Gas Cylinders are allowed in checked or carry-on bags as long as the regulator valve is removed and we can see inside."
Wow! Limits to the carry-on paranoia!
See inside a gas bottle? Clear plastic water bottles are beyond your current suspect limit. Never mind baby food, cosmetics, wires, snacks and other suspect items; is some new training finally taking hold? Funding from the Energy lobby? Is somebody sending you some FDA approved sensibility medication?
Bob, you might want to mention that several of these rules are FAA safety regs, not TSA restrictions.
Suits of armor are also frowned upon.
Is "frowned upon" a legally binding term? Does "frowned upon" equate to "disallowed"?
Are gasoline stoves that have been used, but are empty, allowed?
a quick note on this, check out those small survival gear packs for when you are lost (usually a small pouch that can fit in your pocket with small stuff like a needle/thread, matches, TP and maybe small blades)
The blades can go checked, not in carryons
Is giving information "frowned upon", I hope not. Thanks to anonymous for pointing out that some of these are FAA Regulations. It is good to know that you do not walk around with your boots, lighting matches on a power trip.
Good morning. You must have missed the link in the article that says "per FAA safety regulations." Click on it and it takes you to an FAA PDF file.
Maybe I should have said I light the matches off of the heel of my wingtips? Power trip? Sheesh...
Gas stoves that have been used must be completely empty and not emitting any fumes.
Drops such as Aquamira are fine as long as they are in a 3.4 oz or less sized container. I think Aquamira makes 2 oz bottles. Or you could pack a larger bottle in your checked luggage.
Bob, is it ok for some airport/airline employee to take my handgun around security, returning it to me at the airplane?
Seems you don't want to talk about this failure of TSA to screen all who enter the secure areas of airports.
This post conforms to stated posting guidelines and is on topic for allowed hunting items.
Dunstan said...
"Empty Gas Cylinders are allowed in checked or carry-on bags as long as the regulator valve is removed and we can see inside."
Wow! Limits to the carry-on paranoia!
See inside a gas bottle? Clear plastic water bottles are beyond your current suspect limit. Never mind baby food, cosmetics, wires, snacks and other suspect items; is some new training finally taking hold? Funding from the Energy lobby? Is somebody sending you some FDA approved sensibility medication?"
-------------------------------
Yet there seems no limits to how rude some of the people on here can be.
But the amazing is people who post like this somehow self-justify this behavior (TSA made me act this way!).
Trollkiller said...
"Are gasoline stoves that have been used, but are empty, allowed?"
Yes they are.
But on another note, I did have to tell one man he couldn't bring his chainsaw as carry-on luggage; it was fine as check-in luggage. He argued there was no gas, so it didn't violate the liquid policy. It was battery powered. Offered to turn it on to show me.
RB said...
Bob, is it ok for some airport/airline employee to take my handgun around security, returning it to me at the airplane?
Seems you don't want to talk about this failure of TSA to screen all who enter the secure areas of airports.
No, RB, it is not okay. That is why the airline employee and his roommate are under FBI investigation. TSA did not fail here; know the facts before you spout off.
Hi Bob - Thanks for your informative blog. Could you address whether or not climbing gear is allowed, and whether it should go in carry on or checked bags? I once was asked to check a bag containing several carabiners - this occurred in another country and there was some communication difficulty, but the security person seemed to be worried that a carabiner could be used like brass knuckles. I've never had a similar problem traveling in the states, but have heard stories from others who have.
Thanks!
No, RB, it is not okay. That is why the airline employee and his roommate are under FBI investigation. TSA did not fail here; know the facts before you spout off.
June 11, 2009 11:35 AM
TSA is mandated by regulation to screen everyone who enters the secure area.
In this case if they screened the airport worker they missed they weapon and failed.
If they did not screen the airport worker then they failed for not screening all who enter the secure area.
Any way you slice it up this was a failure of airport security which is TSA's responsibility.
Now if I am missing some important point here perhpas you will enlighten all of us.
BEWARE BUG SPRAY! Are you kidding! Have you ever been to Florida in the Summer!? I can't bring my own bug spray! Come on TSA. Come to your senses.
Anonymous said...
BEWARE BUG SPRAY! Are you kidding! Have you ever been to Florida in the Summer!? I can't bring my own bug spray! Come on TSA. Come to your senses.
--
Because it's flammable. And that's an FAA safety requirement, not TSA. Think before you speak.
Actually, no, airport security is the airport's responsibility. Passenger security is TSA's responsibility. How many airport workers have YOU seen clearing security? They get whatever background check the airport deems appropriate and that's pretty much it. TSA deals with people getting on a plane...not the ones loading a plane, flying a plane or checking passengers in for a plane. You REALLY need to get your facts straight RB...and petition Congress to mandate that ALL airport workers get fully and completely screened each and every day, at any time that they come anywhere near a secure or sterile area. Or haven't you read all the articles that have been written about this huge, glaring hole in the airport security system? Seriously...everything is not TSA's fault.
BEWARE BUG SPRAY! Are you kidding! Have you ever been to Florida in the Summer!? I can't bring my own bug spray! Come on TSA. Come to your senses.
___________________________________
Did you know that down if Florida where they have all of these bugs, they sell bug spray. Thats right, you can just walk into a store, just like any other state in the US and buy bug spray when you get there. Come on passenger, come to your senses!
Bob,
Come and join us for a backcountry trip. We do carry more than a loincloth, flint and steel, but all that we need is carried on our backs.
I am confused about bug spray. I thought that if it was intended to be sprayed on one's skin, then it was permitted to the same extent as other liquids.
About the bug spray - I could be wrong, but perhaps what they're worried about being flammable is the kind in the aerosol can (i.e., flammable propellant)? I would guess that a pump spray would be better. Or even better, a lotion based repellent.
I just looked on my 1.1 oz. non-aerosol bottle of 100% DEET and there is no mention of flammability.
If this is prohibited, then it should be mentioned on the list of prohibited items on TSA.gov
Blog Team: If this is a duplicate please delete
.....................
Anonymous said...
Actually, no, airport security is the airport's responsibility. Passenger security is TSA's responsibility. How many airport workers have YOU seen clearing security? They get whatever background check the airport deems appropriate and that's pretty much it. TSA deals with people getting on a plane...not the ones loading a plane, flying a plane or checking passengers in for a plane. You REALLY need to get your facts straight RB...and petition Congress to mandate that ALL airport workers get fully and completely screened each and every day, at any time that they come anywhere near a secure or sterile area. Or haven't you read all the articles that have been written about this huge, glaring hole in the airport security system? Seriously...everything is not TSA's fault.
June 11, 2009 1:46 PM
..............................
Just a snippet from:
Title 49 §1540.107
Submission to screening and inspection.
(a) No individual may enter a sterile area or board an aircraft without submitting to the screening and inspection of his or her person and accessible property in accordance with the procedures being applied to control access to that area or aircraft under this subchapter.
I see nothing that seperates passengers and airport workers.
All must be screened equally.
If you have something that supports your conclusion that TSA is not responsible for the airport or the airport workers then post it.
Seems Congress should be the ones asking questions of DHS.
In reference to the bug spray, I just made the following update on the blog post. Thanks!
Insect repellents that are sprayed on the skin are considered a personal use item and are permitted in carry-on (3-1-1 applies) and checked baggage.
Insecticides that are used to kill little creepy crawlies (Ant killers, cockroach killers, spider killers etc) are prohibited altogether.
Bob
TSA Blog Team
Bob,
Thanks for the clarification on the bug spray.
Now another question. You state the limit as one pack for matches, but no mention is made for limitations on the number of lighters. However, the FAA document you link to states that only one lighter is permitted. I wasn't aware of this restriction.
If you are like me, I carry two Bic lighters for backpacking in case one fails. And I would think that smokers would also carry a back-up.
Didn't the FAA have a set of perfectly good rules and regulations detailing what was allowed on board the aircraft prior to 9/11? Most of what's been talked about clearly falls under the older FAA regulations.
Wow, this dance is so complicated. I can't think of anywhere I'd want to fly commercially that is worth the trouble. All the rules, regulation, personnel problems the airline traveler faces just to go somewhere to relax!
Posh! Alternatives look some much better. Good luck to all those that have to deal with the government people!
Ah, but we all have to remember that the FAA is not the TSA, so therefore any good solution or ruling created by the FAA will not be tolerated by the TSA.
Just another snippet from: § 1544.201 (b) EXCEPT AS PROVIDED IN ITS SECURITY PROGRAM, each aircraft operator must ensure that each individual entering a sterile area at each preboard screening checkpoint for which it is responsible (etc.)...... You may want to take a gander at all of 1542 where it discusses all the background checks airport personnel have to go through and all the biometric security that's provided to ensure that ONLY those with a background check who work at the airport are BY-PASSING SECURITY. Honestly...when was the last time you stood in the security line with the same Delta rep. who takes your ticket before you board a plane? Unless you were at an airport with no SIDA or AOA, the answer is never. Why? Because they don't get screened unless they fly! The airport they work for is responsible for ensuring the reliability of its employees (and yes, this includes cleaning crews, restaurant personnel and airline employees) through these background checks. Which is why, when they pay them barely more than minimum wage, you get people who are willing to risk their job for a buddy and take their firearm around security. It didn't get missed because they circumvented security or because TSA failed in something. The airport hired this person, told them the rules (which includes "don't bring ANY items around security for a passenger), and expected them to follow them. They didn't and they're fired and hopefully facing jail time. The end. There's nothing more to it. Sorry to disappoint you and all your dreams of TSA finger-pointing, but sometimes people are careless or dishonest, and should never be trusted. And yet, the airports are continuing to be allowed to grant unescorted access to unscreened people, pay them a pittance, and expect them to be moral and upstanding and follow all the rules out of a sense of duty...with virtually no safety net in place to ensure they do. I get the impression that there are a lot of people out there like you, RB, who truly think everyone is getting screened...do your homework and really study up on it. Look through the articles from the reputable papers and magazines. You'll be shocked to your toes at how MUCH freedom these airport workers have to do whatever they want....and how much of that they actually do (drug smuggling in a South Florida airport ring any bells?)
Anonymous said...
Ah, but we all have to remember that the FAA is not the TSA, so therefore any good solution or ruling created by the FAA will not be tolerated by the TSA.
You're assuming the FAA is doing the proper thing, because of course their oversight of regional airlines is top notch, right? No mistakes there, right?
Besides, they now focus on aviation safety vs TSA and security, which are two related things, but they're not the same.
In addition to the FAA, you need to chekc with your airline. They can choose to be more restrictive when carrying HAZMAT or items that held HAZMAT (fuel bottles / propane tanks).
They may choose not to carry them even if they are empty.
Anonymous said...
"Wow, this dance is so complicated. I can't think of anywhere I'd want to fly commercially that is worth the trouble. All the rules, regulation, personnel problems the airline traveler faces just to go somewhere to relax!
Posh! Alternatives look some much better. Good luck to all those that have to deal with the government people!"
________________________________
Thanks! This made me laugh.
I simply can not imagine the type/kind of person who finds airport travel difficult, except those who have a hard time opening a can of peanuts.
RB said...
"Blog Team: If this is a duplicate please delete
.....................
Anonymous said...
Actually, no, airport security is the airport's responsibility. Passenger security is TSA's responsibility. How many airport workers have YOU seen clearing security? They get whatever background check the airport deems appropriate and that's pretty much it. TSA deals with people getting on a plane...not the ones loading a plane, flying a plane or checking passengers in for a plane. You REALLY need to get your facts straight RB...and petition Congress to mandate that ALL airport workers get fully and completely screened each and every day, at any time that they come anywhere near a secure or sterile area. Or haven't you read all the articles that have been written about this huge, glaring hole in the airport security system? Seriously...everything is not TSA's fault.
June 11, 2009 1:46 PM
..............................
Just a snippet from:
Title 49 §1540.107
Submission to screening and inspection.
(a) No individual may enter a sterile area or board an aircraft without submitting to the screening and inspection of his or her person and accessible property in accordance with the procedures being applied to control access to that area or aircraft under this subchapter.
I see nothing that seperates passengers and airport workers.
All must be screened equally.
If you have something that supports your conclusion that TSA is not responsible for the airport or the airport workers then post it.
Seems Congress should be the ones asking questions of DHS."
********************************
Ok, RB, I think I see the problem here. You simply misunderstand what you post.
Specifically, you seem to have a problem with the passage that reads: "in accordance with the procedures being applied to control access to that area or aircraft". I have to ask, what procedure? There are actually several procedures. TSA SOP and AOP.
Most of you are more familiar with TSA SOP. However, AOP (Airport Operating Procedure) allows certain employees at the airport, not all, the freedom of movement between the non-sterile and sterile area through a “back door”. This was how the gun was handed off. All that is required for this access is to have the proper identification, which is NOT issued by TSA but by the airport police department, and the employee must currently be on their shift. They do not have this access on their time off.
Usually ticket counter employees of the various airlines have this access, but not all, and almost always the managers of the airlines have this access as well. The police department specifically limits how many of these types of badges they issue. Other airport employees who do not have these types of badges must go through the TSA checkpoint.
However, when one of these employees is flying they must submit to TSA screen, per both TSA SOP and AOP. Neither TSA SOP nor AOP allows employees with this kind of access to use their access to by-pass security for their friends or family, as happened in the case you submitted.
So to answer your question, PROCEDURE allows specific employees access to the sterile area without going through a TSA checkpoint. Remember, as you cited “in accordance with the procedures being applied to control access to that area or aircraft”, some people have access to the sterile area BY procedure. What you cited does not mean, as you claim, that everyone must be screened.
And as to your claim that "all must be screened equally", what if PROCEDURE states that all do NOT have to be screened equally? (Hint, this might be the case.) Not that you have to agree with it, or think its right.
The person you responded to is correct. If you don't like this, you should try to get it changed. And Congress is your best bet.
I tried to be very brief. If I need to explain further, please post so, and I will try.
I hope this helps.
Last week I submitted a comment for a separate blog on the incident in PHL, but my comment was never posted. If the report is accurate then the TSA failed to kept the sterile area secure from the introduction of a firearm. That subject alone is far more important than bringing strike anywhere matches on board.
Frank
BOS
The person you responded to is correct. If you don't like this, you should try to get it changed. And Congress is your best bet.
I tried to be very brief. If I need to explain further, please post so, and I will try.
I hope this helps.
June 12, 2009 2:24 PM
........................
I think the real question is who is tasked with Aviation Security at this nations airports.
Is the airport FSD responsible for who and how anyone accesses the secure area?
If it is TSA then they can delegate processes but not responsibility.
My readings tell me that Congress gave the TSA responsibility for the security actions at airports served by commercial passenger carrying aircraft.
So is TSA responsible for security or not?
If TSA is incapable of screening everyone which is what the regs say they are required to do then why is TSA being sent to places they do not belong like political conventions and other large gatherings?
It would be my opinion and that of most civilians that the PHL incident is a TSA failure.
I will send another message off to my congressmen. I'm sure they are eager for another question about TSA foul ups. I would like them to explain why I have to be "Strip Search" while airport workers can carry guns onto the ramp.
This is not a favorable happening for TSA regardless of who is doing what!
And the silence from TSA and the Blog Team supports my conclusion that TSA failed again, this time in a major way!
Bob, Can you add the info on inflatable life jackets to the post.... we don't want the fisherman to drown when they get to their destination. Thanks!
TSA’s responsibility is to ensure that security procedures are being followed; this does NOT include the physical screening of every airport/airline employee who enters a secured area. The regulations and procedures do NOT say that TSA must physically screen all personnel that enter the area; it only states that individuals must submit to screening in accordance with the procedures being applied.
In every airport I have worked at, the procedures being applied are background checks with random physical inspections. TSA expanded the random physical checks that are performed on airport/airline employees, however, all employees are not physically screened every time they enter.
The incident in which an airport employee violated the security procedures, was caught, will be fired, and will probably do jail time, demonstrates a hole in security. It does NOT demonstrate a failure by TSA. It does demonstrates the failure of Congress and the American people to demand that this loophole in security be closed regardless of the heartburn it will cause the dedicated and honest employees that will be effected.
Anon said:BEWARE BUG SPRAY! Are you kidding! Have you ever been to Florida in the Summer!? I can't bring my own bug spray! Come on TSA. Come to your senses.
I have seen this issue arise from so many people on here and I wonder why you haven't figured out that you can get things AT your destination too. You can get things from places other than where you are flying from. If Florida is so bad with the bugs in the summer, don't you think they would make a killing off "selling" bug spray right there in Florida?!!!!! Either you guys don't use your brain to figure stuff like this out -or- you just have nothing better to do than nit pick at the stupidest crap!!! I'm gonna go with option number 2. It kills me how much people just love to complain.
RB said...
I think the real question is who is tasked with Aviation Security at this nations airports.
Is the airport FSD responsible for who and how anyone accesses the secure area?
If it is TSA then they can delegate processes but not responsibility....
...So is TSA responsible for security or not?
...And the silence from TSA and the Blog Team supports my conclusion that TSA failed again, this time in a major way!"
As to your last claim that a supposed silence from TSA and the Blog Team supports your conclusions is simply foolish. There are many reason I can think of to ignore you, none of which fall into your "conclusion" category.
You asked who is responsible for airport security, is the FSD responsible for access to the secure area, and stated they can delegate "delegate processes but not responsibility.""
Somehow you are assuming that TSA is the sole entity for avaition security in this nation, and that TSA has delegated part of this duty. That assumption is incorrect, no matter what you think you have read.
The FSD is not the only one responsible for who has access to the secure area of an airport. By TSA SOP and AOP there is overlapping responsibility established the moment TSA was established.
Ok, to explain, cause this might cause confusion. As a TSA employee I have 2 badges I must wear. Ask to see them next time your traveling.
One badge is a blue Transportation Security Administration/DHS badge. It has my TSA identification number on it. This badge does specify the employees home airport, but is basically valid nation wide. This will get me into TSA checkpoints and in baggage areas, but it is a bit more complicated than that. What if the baggage area is inside the secure area and I don't have secure area access?
The other badge is the airport badge, usually issued by the airport police or issuing authority, and grants access to the secure side of the airport. The right to issue this badge was never, never the authroity of TSA. It was not delegated way. IT was never TSA's authority do do so. This falls under AOP.
This airport badge is generally referred to as a SIDA badge. TSA has no say in who these badges are issued to. The airport police issues these badges after conducting whatever background check they do. They are airport specific, and not valid at any other airport.
What TSA CAN do is randomly validate these badges on the secure side. We stop employees and check to see if their airport badge is current, that the employee displays the badge. That is it. And again, it was never never TSAs authority to issue these badges, ever.
To be clear, the airport badge is what grants access to the secure side of the airport. Some badges allow access only by going through the TSA checkpoint. Some by allowing an employee (airline usually) access through the "back door".
Ok, once more. The TSA/DHS badge that TSA issues - and the only one TSA issues - does NOT allow access to the secure area. The airport badge does allow access to the secure area. By the way, as a TSA employee, while I am in the secure area of the airport, I HAVE to display my airport badge or I am not allowed. My TSA/DHS badge will NOT allow me this access.
Obviously, TSA is responsible for what comes through the checkpoint and baggage areas.
But if a person has a badge that allows them access through a back door, that is because the police or issuing authority have given them access, in accordance with AOP. And I can not state it enough - TSA did not delegated this authority away. TSA never had that authority. And since TSA never had that authority, well, how do you give away what you dont have?
So as to your question regarding TSAs role in security, both TSA and the airport police are responsible. There is over-lapping responsibility.
RB said...
"If TSA is incapable of screening everyone which is what the regs say they are required to do then why is TSA being sent to places they do not belong like political conventions and other large gatherings?"
TSA is hired to so do.
I attended "large gathering" Obama was to speak at. The U.S. Secret Service hired TSA, and paid for TSA out of their budget. When the Captain of the uniformed division of the S.S. spoke to our group he said we were needed because the S.S. was short handed. He said political campaigns were becoming longer and longer, and they simply didn't have the manpower to do what they needed to do. At the time he said most of the people on his unit had been away from home for close to 18 months.
But nice of you to not only tell TSA what it should and shouldn't do, now your doing so to the Secret Service. Wow.
Anonymous said:
Posh! Alternatives look some much better. Good luck to all those that have to deal with the government people!
So basically what you're saying is that you don't like living in you're house, having the ability to feed yourself as well as you're children. Having the permission to live in this United States of America.
Doesn't matter if it's people or organizations you actually have to thank or atleast live with the fact that most of the things or permissions granted to you are based off the government.
You should clarify on Gov't people. TSA in general, DHS, DOJ, DOI, DOA, FBI, CIA, NSA?
If it wasn't for some of these agencies like the CIA or NSA we really wouldn't have notice of terror threats. So be happy.
According to FAA and our documentation, if the stoves have been used, they cannot go in the carry on or checked baggage. That is per the air carrier and FAA regs due to flammability of the FUMES left in the containers. Can you verify this? In the meantime, used lanterns and camp stoves are not permitted on board aircraft.
Doesn't matter if it's people or organizations you actually have to thank or at least live with the fact that most of the things or permissions granted to you are based off the government.
We should thank our leaders every day for the permissions granted us. "...Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed...", Aren't we glad that idea is passe?
If it wasn't for some of these agencies like the CIA or NSA we really wouldn't have notice of terror threats. So be happy. Yes, if it wasn't for their diligence, aircraft may have hit the WTC in New York killing thousands... Sure, be happy. ;o)
Some Anonymous Soul Responding to Some Other Anonymous Soul (geez, can't you guys give yourselves numbers or something?) said...
"So basically what you're saying is that you don't like living in you're house, having the ability to feed yourself as well as you're children. Having the permission to live in this United States of America."
Maybe I'm not getting what you're saying, but I don't need "permission" to live in this United States of America. I'm a natural born citizen of this United States of America. I'm entitled to live in this United States of America. Not only am I entitled to live here, "the government" cannot force me (absent a conviction for treason) to leave against my will.
This isn't the Soviet Union (yet). We don't exile our citizens.
Irish
Anonymous writes:
I wonder why you haven't figured out that you can get things AT your destination too. You can get things from places other than where you are flying from. If Florida is so bad with the bugs in the summer, don't you think they would make a killing off "selling" bug spray right there in Florida?!!!!!
Of course ... and that reason is exactly why people object. When I can buy a six-ounce bottle of bug spray for $5 at home, why should I have to pay $10 for a three-ounce bottle in Florida? Why should I have to pay $1 for a bottle of water inside an airport, when I can get the same bottle of water at my local store for $0.20?
Ok, in the grand scheme of things, this isn't the end of the world. But for people who travel all the time, this kind of expense can add up. Which is why airline employees are exempt from many of the LGA regulations, because "it wouldn't be fair" to them to make them buy all the overpriced stuff that the rest of us passengers have to buy.
Simply put, the LGA policy costs passengers money. Maybe that cost is justified because of the threat that LGAs present; maybe not. That's a matter for wiser heads than I to decide.
Bob, Can you add the info on inflatable life jackets to the post.... we don't want the fisherman to drown when they get to their destination. Thanks!
___________________________________
You people act like they only sell the things you need in your home town. Life jackets should be fine to carry if needed, but if not, who cares buy/rent them when you get there.
Another example, people complain about sunscreen and that they can't carry it because they are going to burn when they get in the hot hot sun. I bet if the weather is hot, they sell it where you are going.
In conclusion the sad stories about fisherman drowning and children burning because of TSA is stupid.
Jim Huggins said:Why should I have to pay $1 for a bottle of water inside an airport, when I can get the same bottle of water at my local store for $0.20?
I will have to say that I agree with you 100% that the way airports jack up the prices is outrageous. Unfortunately, if you want a bottle of water after security and before boarding the plane (where water is free I think, not sure) then you are going to pay the price. TSA has no control over what the airport stores choose to charge people, but I want to give you an alternate solution. You can bring an empty bottle thru security and then fill it up at the fountains -or- you can ask for cups at the restaurants and fill those up. You don't have to be victim to $2 bottled water charges.
To some of the other things, like the bug spray, you can't really do much there. I highly doubt that there is really a huge difference in the price between where you are and what they will charge you where you go, thats its worth taking the energy to get mad about it. Unfortunately, the policies in place are there and you just have to do what you can. The frontline of TSA is here to enforce these policies but we are also here to help. If you have questions while going thru security, most TSOs will gladly answer them for you and hopefully make your future trips thru security a little less stressful.
Kelly
TSA Blog Team
"Of course ... and that reason is exactly why people object. When I can buy a six-ounce bottle of bug spray for $5 at home, why should I have to pay $10 for a three-ounce bottle in Florida?"
Where is Forida are you going? You can't be that far away from a Wal-mart or K-mart...
"I'm a natural born citizen of this United States of America. I'm entitled to live in this United States of America."
I always wonder how Native Americans feel about the subject...
Back in May 2005 the T.S.A. caught me with a pair of scissors in my suitcase (i had forgotten they were their). They did confiscate them, but they didn't arrest me or accuse me of terrorism or anything.
If it were anything major, like a knife, firearm or explosive they would have probably arrested me. Also they are probably more strict about prohibited items with that liquid bombing incident in Britain last July. I have flown since last July but haven't been caught with any prohibited items.
Ah camping gear, good times. Being TSA in Alaska I see all this stuff come through all the time. But it really isn't that difficult to remember the rules. I have an easy way to remember for you all. First off the basic 3-1-1 rule applys for all liquids as always. If your gear is used for cutting stabbing or chopping it probably can't go in your carry-on. Anything Flammable that isn't "Cosmetic" can't go on the plane. However, basic Bic lighters can go as carry-on even zippos if packaged properly its just the butane torch lighters that aren't allowed anywhere on the plane. I have heard lots of complaints about bug spray but here is the thing. You can bring your 10 oz bottle of bug spray from home it just has to be in checked baggage, not a big deal. Bug spray is sometimes flammable but because it has practical use on your skin it is considered comsetic and can go. Scuba gear is fun mainly because we can't see through any of it and most of it looks really bad. But all we ask for with scuba gear is a lot of cooperation because we have to search it and we really do not want to mess up your gear.
Lighting matches off your boot, eh? Is this the same boot that stamps on a human face, forever?
I say just send along the "suspect" items with your buddies driving to your camp site. Who really brings all this gear on a plane? Not worth the hassle or thought to me.
"Anonymous said...
"I'm a natural born citizen of this United States of America. I'm entitled to live in this United States of America."
I always wonder how Native Americans feel about the subject..."
Look no further than tobacco for an answer.
Anonymous said...
"I'm a natural born citizen of this United States of America. I'm entitled to live in this United States of America."
I always wonder how Native Americans feel about the subject...
Indians are just fine with it.
kellymae81 said...
To some of the other things, like the bug spray, you can't really do much there. I highly doubt that there is really a huge difference in the price between where you are and what they will charge you where you go, thats its worth taking the energy to get mad about it.
Kelly
TSA Blog Team
That would all depend on how you leave the airport to get to your resort.
If you rent a car, you can stop off at Wal~Mart on the way, but if the resort picks you up at the airport and drops you off at the resort be prepared to pay out the wazoo for any item like sunscreen, insect repellant, first aid spray, etc.
Not to mention they may not carry your particular brand of whatever. That may not sound like a big deal unless you require a particular brand due to ingredient sensitivity.
Take first aid spray, my wife is allergic to nonoxynol 9, Bactine has it. If that is the only first aid spray the resort carries she is out of luck.
For most people picking up supplies when they arrive is not a big deal, for some it may not be practical or even advised.
Hey-
can you take wrapped presents in your checked baggage? or not? If not, can you take plates and cups and utensils in your carry-on?
kellymae81 said...
"... but I want to give you an alternate solution. You can bring an empty bottle thru security and then fill it up at the fountains -or- you can ask for cups at the restaurants and fill those up. You don't have to be victim to $2 bottled water charges."
So if this is so simple, why are TSO's and airline personnel except from the liquid restriction?
> Yet there seems no limits to how rude
> some of the people on here can be.
>
> But the amazing is people who post like
> this somehow self-justify this behavior
> (TSA made me act this way!).
I mean, are you new to the internet?
This has been the norm in online communication for quite a while. I mean at least they are being mean while having a point, in many forums you don't even get that.
Its the trade off. You want people to be free to speak their mind without fear of reprisal right? I mean, I can post on here with my name and trust it wont get me tossed on a no-fly-list out of spite...
but the only real assurance I have of that is some faceless claiming to be a TSA employee posting that you guys don't do that. Is it true? Maybe...probably even. However.... how do I KNOW?
Simply, I don't. Nobody does, so, if someone has real criticism, and isn't as trusting (and sorry, government agencies don't exactly have an unblemished track record... whose taxes paid for MKULTRA? Illegal Warrentless Wiretapping? The original wiretapping abuses that caused the creation of FISA courts? Torture programs....)
So all in all, you need anonymous posting or else people who feel they have real concerns will just be silenced.
The trade off is that anybody can be an ass if they want to, and some will choose to be.
Welcome to the interweb. You either grow a thick skin or you get eaten alive.
-Steve
>> "I'm a natural born citizen of this
>> United States of America. I'm entitled
>> to live in this United States of
>> America."
>
>I always wonder how Native Americans
> feel about the subject...
As if the entire history of the world up to and including much of the past century hasn't been people going around and pushing each other out of different lands, or outright killing each other.
I mean, my mother was born here, my father, their parents.... what ever happened to not visiting the sins of the father upon the son? My great grandfather may not have been native here, but, I would say most people of our generations are about as native as it gets.
Or perhaps we should just give up on the whole sins of the father thing. There is this really weird book named Genesis where this guy Noah makes his own grandson, and his progeny for several generations slaves... to punish the boys father. I guess we could go with that model of justice.
-Steve
Hey-
can you take wrapped presents in your checked baggage? or not? If not, can you take plates and cups and utensils in your carry-on?
June 17, 2009 9:30 AM
___________________________________
It is not recomended that anyone wrap a gift that they are carrying onto a plane. You can, but if the officer is not sure of what is in that package, they will open it. So it is just smarter to not wrap gifts. Yes you can carry cups, plates and utensils in your carry on. That is, leaving out the knifes from your utensils.
Trollkiller said...
"Anonymous said...
"I'm a natural born citizen of this United States of America. I'm entitled to live in this United States of America."
I always wonder how Native Americans feel about the subject...
Indians are just fine with it."
Trollkiller are you claiming you officially speak for various native american indians?
Why do I ask? You have said in a few of the thing you have written that you want official answers to what is asked of TSA. Does that standard apply to you when you chose to answer various questions?
> kellymae81 said...
>
> To some of the other things, like the
> bug spray, you can't really do much
> there. I highly doubt that there is
> really a huge difference in the price
> between where you are and what they
> will charge you where you go, thats
> its worth taking the energy to get
> mad about it.
>
> Kelly
> TSA Blog Team
I beg to differ on this point. I have a very different view. You (the TSA, not the Blog Team specifically) are the ones making the restriction, its on you to justify the restriction to people.
The hand waving "Oh we know because someone could do something bad according to our secret reports" is fine for many people, but not everyone buys it.
There is more to justification of policy than "someone could in theory"...because people can dream up limitless things. Whats to say this one imaginary attack vector is more deserving of a rule than some other imaginary attack vector.
If the standard is "someone dreamed it up and worked towards implementing it then, will there be a new rule every time someone dreams up some vector?
DO remember, n=1 does not a trend make. If anything the only trend in air travel is the same trend we have seen for 50 years... planes take off, and land safely. Thats the only trend I have seen.
Here is a comment posted on another blog about the liquid ban by Alan De Smet:
"The article notes, "You would need as few as five people...." Assuming the US limits (3 oz per bottle, all bottles in a 1 quart bag; not quite the European ones, but close), you can take less than 30 oz per person, in practice probably closer to 15. So they needed somewhere between 75 and 150 oz. I find that interesting.
Of course, it should be noted that you may need 5 people to get the liquid past security, but you only need 1 willing to die. The exact amount of liquid is irrelevant. Have the non-suicide bombers booked for other flights that leave near the time of the flight you're going to bomb. Discretely pass the components to the suicide bomber once you're past security. Under bathroom stalls would be the most obvious location. If you're worried about having too many people bumping into each other in this way, you can have people make lots of trips and do the transfers at layovers so the contact at any given airport is minimal, all within the secure area. With a bit of schedule juggling, some sort of collapsible container, and a lot of money for plane tickets, you should be able to get two or so gallons of liquid in a single container onto a plane with a single person."
(http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2008/02/liquid_bomb.html)
So what sort of rule do you want to try next? Think that one is gonna be "the one"?
-Steve
Some months ago Poster Paul said he was working on a list of rules that all people passing through a TSA checkpoint must adhere to.
Well it seems Poster Paul is no longer a member of the blog team and I would guess that the promise of a list of rules went with him.
Did someone take on the task of providing a list of rules that travelers must comply with as was promised by Paul or is this another example of TSA's thumbing its nose at the public.
Hey-
can you take wrapped presents in your checked baggage? or not? If not, can you take plates and cups and utensils in your carry-on?
June 17, 2009 9:30 AM
___________________________________
Sorry didn't read it correctly. The same pretty much goes for your checked luggage too. I wouldn't wrap anything, it could get opened.
Not sure what your plans are with the plates and cups, but if they are glass, I definately would not put them in my checked bag.
Wrapped presents can present a problem at times. But at least at our airport, we go through every effort we can to not open those gifts. However if we can't see through the item on the x-ray, we can't make out the internal make up of the item (incase of an electronic), or if the TSO can't identify the item inside the box as not being a threat then we have no choice but to unwrap and open the item for a physical inspection and ETD sampling. And like anon said above me pots pans forks and spoons are ok in carry on but knives and any other sharp objects won't be allowed. But here is a tip about those items from a TSO. When going through a checkpoint with those in your bag please take the extra time to remove them from your luggage and x-ray them seperatly. They aren't laptops but x-rays have problems seeing through real big hunks of metal. If you remove the pots pans forks and spoons from your bag before it goes through the x-ray you may get lucky and save yourself and the TSO's working there from having to search your bag. This tip goes with any large metalic objects or electrical devices.
"So if this is so simple, why are TSO's and airline personnel except from the liquid restriction?"
If you don't trust the crew, then I feel sorry for you (using 'you' generally speaking). Your pilot can have control of that plane to crash it...he/she doesn't need explosives. It makes perfect sense to allow them the exemption.
As for employees of TSA... they aren't boarding the aircraft.
As for employees of TSA... they aren't boarding the aircraft.
How do you know they aren't boarding the aircraft? Once they're inside, what prevents them from pulling a boarding pass out of their pocket and boarding an aircraft? More to the point, what prevents them from taking their exempt bottle of unscreened (and therefore dangerous) liquid and handing it off to someone else who might have ill intent?
Anonymous said...
Trollkiller are you claiming you officially speak for various native american indians?
Why do I ask? You have said in a few of the thing you have written that you want official answers to what is asked of TSA. Does that standard apply to you when you chose to answer various questions?
Yes I have the authority, I just can't show you because that information is SSIS (Super Secret Indian Stuff)
"Anonymous said...
"So if this is so simple, why are TSO's and airline personnel except from the liquid restriction?"
If you don't trust the crew, then I feel sorry for you (using 'you' generally speaking). Your pilot can have control of that plane to crash it...he/she doesn't need explosives. It makes perfect sense to allow them the exemption.
As for employees of TSA... they aren't boarding the aircraft"
Then why are pilots screened at all? Why not allow them around the metal detector?
Why are flight attendants allowed to bring liquids through?
And as for TSO's....Did it ever occur to you that they could be working WITH someone else? Did it ever occur to you that they could board an aircraft? I mean, if they intend to bring down a plane do you REALLY THINK they care about TSA rules about going through screening if they are flying?
BEWARE BUG SPRAY! Are you kidding! Have you ever been to Florida in the Summer!? I can't bring my own bug spray! Come on TSA. Come to your senses.
**********************************
Right, because they don't sell bug spray in Florida. Therfore, you HAVE to bring it on the plane. ???? Who needs to come to their senses here?
Trollkiller said...
"Anonymous said...
Trollkiller are you claiming you officially speak for various native american indians?
Why do I ask? You have said in a few of the thing you have written that you want official answers to what is asked of TSA. Does that standard apply to you when you chose to answer various questions?
Yes I have the authority, I just can't show you because that information is SSIS (Super Secret Indian Stuff)"
Believe it or not, you actually made me laugh. But not that that matters to you!
On a more serious note, since you really don't have the authority, can you please no longer post you want an "official" response from TSA only? Sure, it would be nice. I will admit that. But lets not have a double standard here.
If YOU are able to speak for another group unofficially, and have your answer be counted as valid, why should you (or anyone, eh, like RB) insist on having only an official answer from TSA to your questions?
Or am I wrong in this somehow? I'm sure you will tell me.
carp said...
" Yet there seems no limits to how rude
> some of the people on here can be.
>
> But the amazing is people who post like
> this somehow self-justify this behavior
> (TSA made me act this way!).
I mean, are you new to the internet?
This has been the norm in online communication for quite a while. I mean at least they are being mean while having a point, in many forums you don't even get that.
Its the trade off. You want people to be free to speak their mind without fear of reprisal right? I mean, I can post on here with my name and trust it wont get me tossed on a no-fly-list out of spite...
but the only real assurance I have of that is some faceless claiming to be a TSA employee posting that you guys don't do that. Is it true? Maybe...probably even. However.... how do I KNOW?
Simply, I don't. Nobody does, so, if someone has real criticism, and isn't as trusting (and sorry, government agencies don't exactly have an unblemished track record... whose taxes paid for MKULTRA? Illegal Warrentless Wiretapping? The original wiretapping abuses that caused the creation of FISA courts? Torture programs....)
So all in all, you need anonymous posting or else people who feel they have real concerns will just be silenced.
The trade off is that anybody can be an ass if they want to, and some will choose to be.
Welcome to the interweb. You either grow a thick skin or you get eaten alive."
------------------------
Well, carp, you seemed to miss my point. Could you really not tell I was being sarcastic?
People can act any way they wish, as far as I'm concerned. No skin off my back. If they want to be rude, mean, who really cares, right?
What is amazing is how malleable some people are, but don't blame TSA for your actions.
If you want to be rude, be rude. If you want to be mean, be mean. But don't turn around and say "TSA is making me act this way becuase they are not answering my questions, etc..." I haven't kept count, but through out these blogs many critics have blamed TSA for their nasty post.
Jean-Jacques Rousseau wrote is his short work, "The reveries of a solitary walker":
"I laugh at all their intrigues and enjoy myself in spite of them."
Its a lesson most should learn.
Oh, and I am familiar with the internet: I used it years ago to apply for my job with TSA! But thanks for the welcome! I now feel officially welcomed into this century.
carp said...
"So all in all, you need anonymous posting or else people who feel they have real concerns will just be silenced."
---------------------
Oh, and sorry, but you are not really anonymous. Your location can easily be tracked, if someone really wished.
But guess what? Not going to happen. As much as you might think your upsetting someone at TSA (besides Bob and the blog team who gets paid good money to deal with you and others - ok, they are not that upset at you) you really haven't ruffled anyone's feathers.
And, really!? Put your name on a watch list because of this blog? Ok, group, lets all say it together: "Paranoid!"
And, really!? Put your name on a watch list because of this blog? Ok, group, lets all say it together: "Paranoid!"
June 19, 2009 2:20 PM
........................
That would explain why a news reporters name suddenly turn up on the watch list after he had the nerve to pubish unfavorable articles about TSA.
Anonymous said...
And, really!? Put your name on a watch list because of this blog? Ok, group, lets all say it together: "Paranoid!"
Normally I would agree with you, but after reading stories of reporters being placed on the list in retaliation, the concerns are valid.
This is a response to both RB and Trollkiller:
RB said...
That would explain why a news reporters name suddenly turn up on the watch list after he had the nerve to pubish unfavorable articles about TSA.
Trollkiller said...
Normally I would agree with you, but after reading stories of reporters being placed on the list in retaliation, the concerns are valid."
---------------------------------
You both seem to miss the point, and seem to believe anything you read when it supports your biases.
This is the point: he is not really anonymous. His location can be tracked. It's simple.
If TSA wanted him on the "no fly" list for what he says here, he would already have been.
That was my only point.
Now, its wasn't carp's topic, but lets talk about the "selectee" and "no fly" list.
It has been reported by so-called reputable news agencies, such as CNN, the watch list is over 1 million people, and that this is the list used to keep suspected terrorist off planes. CNN reporter Drew Griffin has claimed that because of his negative reports of TSA, he was placed on this watch list and is now a selectee when he flies:
http://rawstory.com/news/2008/CNN_reporter_wants_off_terror_watch_0716.html
As stated in this article there are over 1 million people on this watch list, and this is the "watch list that is supposed to keep terrorists off of airplanes".
This this is not true. The watch list is not the selectee or no fly list. They are different.
http://www.tsa.gov/approach/mythbusters/tsa_watch_list.shtm
As of yet, CNN has not corrected this story, nor has any other news agency, and most of you believe what you read when it supports your beliefs.
Here is a link to an audit by the Office of the Inspector General of the U.S. Dept. of Justice regarding the watch list and how it is compiled:
http://www.usdoj.gov/oig/reports/plus/a0816/final.pdf
What does this all mean? If Drew Griffin became a selectee after he reported negatively about TSA, then that is what happened. But he incorrectly reports the TSA "selectee" list as the "watch" list. What other mistakes has he made? And if I can find out this information, and if you can, how serious should we take this CNN reporter, and how serious should we take any news agency that reports this without checking the facts? The answer is you shouldn't. But from your statements, you do. Most likely becuase it supports your negative biases of TSA.
Oddly enough, since TSA took over maintaining the selectee list effective Feb. 14, 2009, selectees have all but vanished.
At the airport I work, we would process maybe 200 to 400 selectees a day, but most were not on the list. Many were given selectee status because they had expired identification, or no identification, or changed their flight, etc. Maybe half or so were from the selectee list. Since Feb 14th, we can go days without encountering an actual person on the selectee list coming through.
This is true at all airports throughout the country.
Why is this important? If the selectee list was as large as 1 million people, this would NOT be the case. There would be many selectees every day. The fact that there are so few selectees suggest a much smaller watch list, as TSA claims, despite what is in the news.
On another note, this is why so many of you are ignored by TSA, in my opinion. You never give credit where credit is due. How many of you work with or know people that only complain, and never say anything positive? How long before you tire of hearing from them? I tend to ignore those people after a while.
How many of you have read news stories that now that TSA is maintaining the selectee list selectess are few and far between? I haven't, and if you haven't, how fair is that reporting? (Dont get me wrong, if you have no id, expired id, etc, you can be made a selectee, but you are not on the list).
Whew. Got way off point.
Again, carp, if they wanted to put you on the selectee or no fly list its already done. Your not posting anonymously, sorry.
For whomever was inquiring about life jackets, they are fine to come on board a plane, with a few exceptions. If they require a CO2 (or other compressed gas)cartridge to inflate, only two cartridges are allowed in the life vest and up to 2 spares amy accompany the life jacket. The spares must accompany the life vests and presented as one unit. Obviously the life jackets that require air to inflate are allowed (they are already on board) as well as life jackets with foam or other floating insulation.
Anonymous writes: "I wonder why you haven't figured out that you can get things AT your destination too. You can get things from places other than where you are flying from."
Evidently s/he is clueless that there are destinations within the USA that do not have wal-marts and giant megastores. When we travel to remote locations, it really can be a matter of life or death to have things like bear spray, lighters, and matches. They just cannot be purchased in some places. Besides that, bear spray costs about $60. To have to purchase it, then toss it before every flight gets expensive. This is why we now fly airlines that, although operating out of the same airports as bigger carriers, have planes just small enough to not have to comply with ludicrous and invasive TSA regulations. These air carriers have operated daily with people showing up and getting on the plane with ZERO security inspections, and, imagine this: NO TERRORIST INCIDENTS have occurred! I mean it just boggles the mind. How much good can TSA be doing if zero security has the same effects as TSA security?
RB Said...
"That would explain why a news reporters name suddenly turn up on the watch list after he had the nerve to pubish unfavorable articles about TSA."
More tin foil hat thing'ies, I need to get stock in Reynolds.
RB said:
RB Said...
That would explain why a news reporters name suddenly turn up on the watch list after he had the nerve to publish unfavorable articles about TSA.
TSORon responded:
More tin foil hat thing'ies, I need to get stock in Reynolds.
Really? Then why did a member of Congress call for an investigation into the incident?
I'll be perfectly willing to admit that it might be a coincidence, but the circumstances are awfully suspicious ...
TK said...
“Normally I would agree with you, but after reading stories of reporters being placed on the list in retaliation, the concerns are valid.”
I agree that concerns are valid. With very little information available, it is human nature to be scared of the unknown.
Here are some excerpts that I use and quote often when people ask about the no-fly and selectee list.
“First, TSA doesn't have a watch list. TSA is a customer of the Terrorist Screening Center, a component of the FBI that is responsible for maintaining the consolidated terrorist watch list. The center has said publicly that there are less than 400,000 individuals on the overall consolidated watch list, 95 percent of whom are not U.S. persons and the vast majority of whom are not even in the U.S.
TSA uses two subsets of this list, the no-fly and selectee lists. These small subsets of the overall list are reserved for known or suspected terrorists that reach a threshold where they should not be allowed to fly, or should get additional scrutiny.”
Why was the Terrorist Screening Database (TSDB) created?
“Prior to the creation of the TSDB, information about known or suspected terrorists was dispersed throughout the U.S. Government and no one agency was charged with consolidating it and making it available for use in terrorist screening. Under Homeland Security Presidential Directive (HSPD) 6, the Terrorist Screening Center (TSC) now provides “one-stop shopping” so that every government screener is using the same terrorist watchlist—whether it is an airport screener, an embassy official issuing visas overseas, or a state or local law enforcement officer on the street. The TSC allows government agencies to run name checks against the same comprehensive list with the most accurate, up-to-date information about known and suspected terrorists.”
Who gets included in the TSDB?
“Per HSPD-6, only individuals who are known or appropriately suspected to be or have been engaged in conduct constituting, in preparation for, in aid of, or related to terrorism are included in the TSDB.”
-Tim “H2H”
TSA Blog Team
sources: TSA blog and the Terrorist Screening Center's FAQ
Are P-38s and P-51s allowed?
Can I bring an empty water bottle on board? Absolutely nothing in it.
"Evidently s/he is clueless that there are destinations within the USA that do not have wal-marts and giant megastores. When we travel to remote locations, it really can be a matter of life or death to have things like bear spray, lighters, and matches. They just cannot be purchased in some places. Besides that, bear spray costs about $60. To have to purchase it, then toss it before every flight gets expensive. This is why we now fly airlines that, although operating out of the same airports as bigger carriers, have planes just small enough to not have to comply with ludicrous and invasive TSA regulations. These air carriers have operated daily with people showing up and getting on the plane with ZERO security inspections, and, imagine this: NO TERRORIST INCIDENTS have occurred! I mean it just boggles the mind. How much good can TSA be doing if zero security has the same effects as TSA security?"
I have to agree, General Aviation's program for small airport security, Airport Watch, is just as effective (in numbers of terrorist sightings) as TSA without the fear-mongering attitude and paw through your stuff (and relieve you of your water for safety's sake, of course) intrusiveness. It does make me wonder, as well, how effective TSA really is. If another major terrorist incident happens in the future, it is as likely to be outside the area of TSA activity as within. Maybe TSA can claim this deterrence as a hollow "victory."
TSORon said...
RB Said...
"That would explain why a news reporters name suddenly turn up on the watch list after he had the nerve to pubish unfavorable articles about TSA."
More tin foil hat thing'ies, I need to get stock in Reynolds.
June 22, 2009 3:52 PM
__________________________________
Gee, TSORon. Thanks for another condescending response on YOUR organization's site. This one took all of 6 seconds to pull up on Google.
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- A House representative said Thursday she is requesting an investigation after learning a CNN reporter was put on the federal no-fly list shortly after his investigation of the Transportation Security Administration.
Blogger Bob -- is this the type of representation and professionalism that is expected?
Quoted;
" Trollkiller said...
Are P-38s and P-51s allowed?
June 23, 2009 5:46 PM"
--------------------------
trollkiller,
1st, thanks for the link. Cool site.
2nd, why would you even ask that question?
The very site that you linked to states several times and in several stories that TSA takes these away at airports. Funny thing about that, the very diagram describing the use of these refers to the cutting part of the item as a "blade". As I am sure you of all people are very aware of, BLADES OF ANY SIZE ARE CONSIDERED PROHIBITED ITEMS!!!
Not only that but the site page even has a link to the TSA website and states that these items may be taken away at checkpoints! So why did you ask the question again?
Thankyou for posting this blog because I myself wondered whether some of the items would be permitted or prohibited. This is good info for me to know because I am going to be traveling with some camping equipment this friday. regards
Anonymous said...
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- A House representative said Thursday she is requesting an investigation after learning a CNN reporter was put on the federal no-fly list shortly after his investigation of the Transportation Security Administration.
Blogger Bob -- is this the type of representation and professionalism that is expected?
Blogger Bob -- is this the type of representation and professionalism that is expected?"
_________________________
People will believe anything they read, most especially if it supports their own personal biases.
This reporter found himself on the terror watch list, and incorrectly reported it as the selectee and no-fly list.
Don't you find it odd how somone one the no-fly list still manages to fly...
The terror watch list is generated by the F.B.I., and it is not the selectee list nor no-fly list. The terror watch list has maybe 400,000 people by last count (others say its over 1 million).
The selectee list is approximately 16,000 people, the no-fly list approximately 2,000 people.
Look at the source you cited. CNN and a member of congress. Well, when has the media every gotten anything wrong, and we all know congress is perfect, right?
Anonymous, maybe you should research a bit more before you believe everything you read on the web - including what I am saying. Do you own reasearch and make up you own mind.
What about carrying baked goods in a bakery box on board? It will have to go through the scanner, of course, but if it checks out ok is it allowed?
I am catching a flight tomorrow in D.C. for Detroit and want to take a pie along as a hostess gift. I don't want to arrive at the airport and have it taken away for some "security regulation" (read: the TSA guys at DCA are hungry)
Thanks!
Can I bring an empty water bottle on board? Absolutely nothing in it.
___________________________________
Does an empty water bottle have liquid in it?! Why would you not be allowed to carry an empty bottle. Think......Think......
Should all luggage be banned from Air Travel.?
The only thing allowed to be on board a plane should be humans and what they are wearing, their luggage, well they can mail it in advance to the place they are headed. Mindless sheep don't mind giving up ways of life that make America so great. Isn't that what the terrorist want, for our ways of life to disappear, and by giving them up for a false sense of security, then they are winning psychologically.
No offense to our TSA friend in AK, but if you have questions about what can be transported in checked and carry on baggage, you would be best served by checking with the air carrier you are traveling on. This information can be found on their websites or by talking to a reservations agent.
Items that contain compressed gas are likely to be considered hazmat by a carrier. There are certain exceptions dictated by 49 CFR 175.10 (you can google that).
Carriers fall into 2 catagories, hazmat or non-hazmat carriers. Even if classified as a hazmat carriers, different carriers may allow or not allow certain items based on their approved program.
While there was good intent in posting this topic, since we are well into camping season. This TSA blogger does not seem to be well versed in Hazmat regulations and probably shouldn't have be representing the information without a knowlegable back up. These, after all, are DOT regulations, not TSA (even though the TSA helps with enforcement).
TSM, Been.... said...
Quoted;
" Trollkiller said...
Are P-38s and P-51s allowed?
June 23, 2009 5:46 PM"
--------------------------
trollkiller,
1st, thanks for the link. Cool site.
2nd, why would you even ask that question?
The very site that you linked to states several times and in several stories that TSA takes these away at airports. Funny thing about that, the very diagram describing the use of these refers to the cutting part of the item as a "blade". As I am sure you of all people are very aware of, BLADES OF ANY SIZE ARE CONSIDERED PROHIBITED ITEMS!!!
Not only that but the site page even has a link to the TSA website and states that these items may be taken away at checkpoints! So why did you ask the question again?
You mean stories like this one? As a passenger screener, an older vet came thru my checkpoint, he set off the metal detector so off he went to secondary screening. I was the screener and told him to empty his pockets, of which was his P38 which set off the detector. I asked him where he got it, and the told me he was a WWII vet and had it for many years. I mentioned that I had one very similar when I served in Vietnam.
I saw no value in confiscating it and told him to put it back in his pocket and move along. Less then 3 inches i believe is acceptable for sharp objects by the way. This Memorial Day will be the largest gathering of WWII vets for the grand opening of the WWII Memorial in DC. I always keep an eye out for vets and actives alike, and go out of my way to assist them.
D, a TSA screener.
The link you refer to states "Scissors - metal with pointed tips and blades shorter than four inches" are allowed, so you screaming about BLADES is unwarranted.
Also that link says "Tools (seven inches or less in length)" are allowed. The P-38 is 1 1/2 inches long with a blade length of a mere 3/4 inch.
So I ask again, are P-38s allowed?
BTW no letter from HQ or TSOs yet.
Quoted:
"The link you refer to states "Scissors - metal with pointed tips and blades shorter than four inches" are allowed, so you screaming about BLADES is unwarranted.
Also that link says "Tools (seven inches or less in length)" are allowed. The P-38 is 1 1/2 inches long with a blade length of a mere 3/4 inch.
So I ask again, are P-38s allowed?
BTW no letter from HQ or TSOs yet.
July 2, 2009 12:26 AM"
---------------------
Boy Trollkiller, you are a master of taking things out of context. Sure you are not a politician?
The VERY QUOTE that you yourself quoted above says ""SCISSORS - metal with pointed tips and blades shorter than four inches" are allowed"
Do you see the word "scissors"? The definition YOU quoted refers to scissors with blades less than 4". NOT "all blades". Do you see the difference?
I actually (and so do many TSOs) think it is absurd that ANY scissors are allowed on a plane at all. You are correct, some of them have pretty nasty blades when they are taken apart. But this was done in an effort to placate passengers who absolutely must have their scissors on a plane.... For who knows what reason. HOWEVER, blades by themselves are prohibited as shown in the link I pointed you to.
Before you blame TSA for not allowing small blades, remeber, TSA tried to allow them but the Pilots and Flight Attendant's unions had a fit. So, please place your blame where it belongs.
I know how hard it is for many of the people who post here to see the difference between scissors and say a small Swiss Army knife, but the difference is there. One is prohibited, one is not. Your P-38, while an extreme case, unfortunately, (I have several myself) does count as a blade and is therefore prohibited.
Trollkiller said...
(edited for length)
"TSM, Been.... said...
Quoted;
" Trollkiller said...
Are P-38s and P-51s allowed?
June 23, 2009 5:46 PM"
--------------------------
trollkiller,
1st, thanks for the link. Cool site.
2nd, why would you even ask that question?
The very site that you linked to states several times and in several stories that TSA takes these away at airports. Funny thing about that, the very diagram describing the use of these refers to the cutting part of the item as a "blade". As I am sure you of all people are very aware of, BLADES OF ANY SIZE ARE CONSIDERED PROHIBITED ITEMS!!!
You mean stories like this one? As a passenger screener, an older vet came thru my checkpoint, he set off the metal detector so off he went to secondary screening. I was the screener and told him to empty his pockets, of which was his P38 which set off the detector..
...I saw no value in confiscating it and told him to put it back in his pocket and move along. Less then 3 inches i believe is acceptable for sharp objects by the way...
D, a TSA screener.
The link you refer to states "Scissors - metal with pointed tips and blades shorter than four inches" are allowed, so you screaming about BLADES is unwarranted.
Also that link says "Tools (seven inches or less in length)" are allowed. The P-38 is 1 1/2 inches long with a blade length of a mere 3/4 inch.
So I ask again, are P-38s allowed?
BTW no letter from HQ or TSOs yet."
-----------------------------
Now that it is clear Trollkiller did not understand what he was reading on the TSA-link regarding prohibited items, specifically SCISSORS and the lenght of their blade, does anyone think he will admit he was wrong? Personally, I doubt it.
But since you didn't seem to understand, I will try to make it clear enough so even you shouldn't have any problems understanding it.
Scissors are allowed if the length of THEIR blade is 4 inches or less, even if their tips are pointed.
A P-38 is obviously NOT a scissor, and I for one have a hard time understanding how you could have though it somehow was classified as a scissor.
Now to tools. Yes, you are allowed certain tools under 7 inches, not all tools. If the tool has a BLADE of ANY length it is NOT allowed in carry-on. It does not matter that a P-38 is under 7 inches; it is not allowed.
The TSO you quoted was wrong, and should not have allowed it. You or I may or may not agree that blades type items under a certain length should be allowed, but as of now they are not allowed. He should have not allowed it. Or think of it this way, for those of you who have your own business, or manage people where you work, if you give very specific instructions to your employees, and without asking you, one of your employees decides to do the exact opposite, how upset would you be at that employee? The TSO who allowed the P-38 to go through should be punished, and punished severely. TSO's have no authority to allow those kind of items through the check-point.
Finally, you said there was no need for TSM to "scream" about blades as it was "unwarranted", I guess because you felt the question regarding P-38s was not answered. I don't agree with you.
You seem to be purposefully difficult, trying to twist words, attempting to construct arguments in an attempt to somehow back TSA into a corner, and that is not honest. It is not the way to have a constructive conversation, which this blog, I would think, is about.
Try to be better. And if you don't, don't chide someone for "screaming" at you when they call you on your dishonesty.
Anonymous said...
Now that it is clear Trollkiller did not understand what he was reading on the TSA-link regarding prohibited items, specifically SCISSORS and the length of their blade, does anyone think he will admit he was wrong? Personally, I doubt it.
But since you didn't seem to understand, I will try to make it clear enough so even you shouldn't have any problems understanding it.
Scissors are allowed if the length of THEIR blade is 4 inches or less, even if their tips are pointed.
A P-38 is obviously NOT a scissor, and I for one have a hard time understanding how you could have though it somehow was classified as a scissor.
Now to tools. Yes, you are allowed certain tools under 7 inches, not all tools. If the tool has a BLADE of ANY length it is NOT allowed in carry-on. It does not matter that a P-38 is under 7 inches; it is not allowed.
The TSO you quoted was wrong, and should not have allowed it. You or I may or may not agree that blades type items under a certain length should be allowed, but as of now they are not allowed. He should have not allowed it. Or think of it this way, for those of you who have your own business, or manage people where you work, if you give very specific instructions to your employees, and without asking you, one of your employees decides to do the exact opposite, how upset would you be at that employee? The TSO who allowed the P-38 to go through should be punished, and punished severely. TSO's have no authority to allow those kind of items through the check-point.
Finally, you said there was no need for TSM to "scream" about blades as it was "unwarranted", I guess because you felt the question regarding P-38s was not answered. I don't agree with you.
You seem to be purposefully difficult, trying to twist words, attempting to construct arguments in an attempt to somehow back TSA into a corner, and that is not honest. It is not the way to have a constructive conversation, which this blog, I would think, is about.
Try to be better. And if you don't, don't chide someone for "screaming" at you when they call you on your dishonesty.
Now ask yourselves why people don't like you. (TSA)
I asked a very simple binary question. Are P-38s allowed. A simple yes or no was in order.
Instead I get a TSO wanting to put the Trollkiller in his place by using the Billy Mays key and shouting "BLADES OF ANY SIZE ARE CONSIDERED PROHIBITED ITEMS!!!". TSM, Been's statement was false.
Then I get you, another (or the same) TSO that wants to put the Trollkiller in his place. Again instead of a simple binary answer of yes or no you say any tool with blades are not allowed.
Almost every set of pliers has a blade on it, so your statement is false.
We have at least two exceptions, not counting butter knifes and safety razors as they both have BLADES, to the BLADE ban.
Instead of trying to put me in my place by making chiding sweeping statements that ultimately fail, simply answer the question.
I knew the P-38 might fall into that gray area as a small tool, so I asked. You two sterling examples of TSA sought a fight where there was none.
A piece of advice for you and the other wanna be tough guys, measure your words.
You have mentioned that bear mace is more effective than a gun..
I know its kinda off topic but I wanna know, is bear mace (pepper spray) more lethal to human's than regular pepper spray?
And which one would hurt more, and render the attack harmless more effectively.. thanks
Trollkiller said...
edited for length, though I tried to leave what Trollkiller might have found insulting.
"Anonymous said...
Now that it is clear Trollkiller did not understand what he was reading on the TSA-link regarding prohibited items, specifically SCISSORS and the length of their blade, does anyone think he will admit he was wrong? Personally, I doubt it.
But since you didn't seem to understand, I will try to make it clear enough so even you shouldn't have any problems understanding it...
...Finally, you said there was no need for TSM to "scream" about blades as it was "unwarranted", I guess because you felt the question regarding P-38s was not answered. I don't agree with you.
You seem to be purposefully difficult, trying to twist words, attempting to construct arguments in an attempt to somehow back TSA into a corner, and that is not honest. It is not the way to have a constructive conversation, which this blog, I would think, is about.
Try to be better. And if you don't, don't chide someone for "screaming" at you when they call you on your dishonesty.
Now ask yourselves why people don't like you. (TSA)
I asked a very simple binary question. Are P-38s allowed. A simple yes or no was in order.
Instead I get a TSO wanting to put the Trollkiller in his place by using the Billy Mays key and shouting "BLADES OF ANY SIZE ARE CONSIDERED PROHIBITED ITEMS!!!". TSM, Been's statement was false.
Then I get you, another (or the same) TSO that wants to put the Trollkiller in his place. Again instead of a simple binary answer of yes or no you say any tool with blades are not allowed.
Almost every set of pliers has a blade on it, so your statement is false.
We have at least two exceptions, not counting butter knifes and safety razors as they both have BLADES, to the BLADE ban.
Instead of trying to put me in my place by making chiding sweeping statements that ultimately fail, simply answer the question.
I knew the P-38 might fall into that gray area as a small tool, so I asked. You two sterling examples of TSA sought a fight where there was none.
A piece of advice for you and the other wanna be tough guys, measure your words."
-------------------------
No, Trollkiller, you got what you got because you are being deceitful.
You already knew the answer before you asked, you just wanted to stir up trouble. How do I know this, or to put differently, why do I believe this?
You seem to be the expert on everything. A casual cruise through your blog and anyone can read you dissecting legal code and commenting on it, and so on. And you REALLY expect ANYONE but the gullible to believe you couldn't figure out if a P-38 was allowed in carry-on from the link provided??? Please... I for one am not THAT stupid. Sure I have my moments.
No, what you wanted was to stir up stuff, to start an argument. I post it before (I was the anon who post the other comment you refer to), and I'll post it again. You wanted to try to start something.
You are not stupid. You knew before you asked it was not allowed. And then you say how terrible on us for calling you on it. Well, its terrible of you to do what you did.
You seem to be a master of comphrehension when it comes to legal matters (taken from you own blog), on TSA SOP, on everything, yet you want us to belive you couldn't figure out from the link provided that P-38's wern't allowed.
Like I said, I am not that stupid... but maybe I am. I wonder now if the 2 responses you got from us wern't exactly what you wanted? Which would actually prove my point.
Your question about P-38's wasn't honest, and your not behing honest now. Just admit it.
And your statment about pliers is wrong too. Don't tell me you of all people cant figure it out from the link provided to you.
Croatian said...
You have mentioned that bear mace is more effective than a gun..
I know its kinda off topic but I wanna know, is bear mace (pepper spray) more lethal to human's than regular pepper spray?
And which one would hurt more, and render the attack harmless more effectively.. thanks
A quick Google search turned up this. The top answer looks to be correct, basically it says the bear spray will cause a lot more damage and open you up to more liability if the force is unjustified.
Note it may be illegal for you to carry bear mace in you area, check with local laws.
Good Grief. Seems most of the questions and comments don't have much to do with camping stuff. It makes it a bit hard to see if this has been covered, sorry if this is a duplication. Just want to doube check that I understand.
In checked baggage bear spray is out but disclosed firearms are OK? Is this correct?
For an upcoming AK float trip, bear mace is important and expensive (about $50 per can) to buy and leave the (hopefully) unused can at the hotel on returning home. It's a lot more than the can of insect spray in Florida everyone is talking about.
Anonytard said...
No, Trollkiller, you got what you got because you are being deceitful.
You already knew the answer before you asked, you just wanted to stir up trouble. How do I know this, or to put differently, why do I believe this?
You seem to be the expert on everything. A casual cruise through your blog and anyone can read you dissecting legal code and commenting on it, and so on. And you REALLY expect ANYONE but the gullible to believe you couldn't figure out if a P-38 was allowed in carry-on from the link provided??? Please... I for one am not THAT stupid. Sure I have my moments.
Of course you are that stupid, every time you post you prove that. BTW if it happens dawn to dusk you can no longer claim it as a moment.
No, what you wanted was to stir up stuff, to start an argument. I post it before (I was the anon who post the other comment you refer to), and I'll post it again. You wanted to try to start something.
Wow talk about paranoid, do you get freaked out when someone asks you "how are you today?"
Do us all a favor and put a signature on your posts or use the name/url option to put a name on your posts, so we can separate your stupidity from the others.
Don't worry, using the name/url option does not expose your true identity.
You are not stupid. You knew before you asked it was not allowed. And then you say how terrible on us for calling you on it. Well, its terrible of you to do what you did.
Oh the horrors, a mere civilian asked a simple question. How dare I. Geeze dude it sounds like your lithium dose needs an increase. (check with your doctor first)
You seem to be a master of comphrehension when it comes to legal matters (taken from you own blog), on TSA SOP, on everything, yet you want us to belive you couldn't figure out from the link provided that P-38's wern't allowed.
Honestly I did not read that far into the site, I was more interested in the clear photo for illustrative purposes.
After reading the site, due to your hysterical post, I noticed conflicting stories on the whether the P-38s are allowed or not, so the original question remained valid.
Like I said, I am not that stupid... but maybe I am. I wonder now if the 2 responses you got from us wern't exactly what you wanted? Which would actually prove my point.
Yep, you are that stupid. I posted the question because I have carried one on my key chain for years, I have been allowed in court houses, sterile areas, secure areas of the local jail, secure areas of NASA, and secure areas of the Federal Reserve, not once has it been questioned.
As we all know the TSA operates in their own little world, so what may be deemed as no threat in the real world, like snow globes, may be considered weapons of mass destruction at a TSA checkpoint. Hence the question.
Your question about P-38's wasn't honest, and your not behing honest now. Just admit it.
And your statment about pliers is wrong too. Don't tell me you of all people cant figure it out from the link provided to you.
Really, pliers do not have a blade? How do you strip wires with them?
Take a look at this picture notice the circle area near the fulcrum? In that area are two blades, one on each arm. Maybe the pliers you are allowed to play with do not have blades, but the ones grown ups use, do.
Four weeks have gone by and I still don't know the limitation on the number of lighters I can bring in my carry-on.
Trollikiler,
Here is your binary answer to wether P-38s are allowed - NO.
Do some TSOs allow them? - Yes.
Should they? - NO.
In order to prevent you from melting down, Trollkiller, from now on I will answer all questions you post in simple "Binary" terms. From your own posts, it seems this is all you understand.
Are all tools allowed? NO.
Are tools under 7" allowed? - Yes.
Do some tools have blades and therefore make them "not allowed"? - Yes.
Do thos pliers you pictured have blades? - Yes
Is that pr of pliers allowed? - Yes.
See, now we can't be binary - while that pair of pliers has what is technically reffered to as a "blade" it is not really a "cutting blade' the way a knife blade is. It's use as a "knife type" cutting blade is near impossible. The blade on a scissor or swiss army knife or your precious P38 is much more effective as a "cutting blade" and therefore would not be allowed. Most intelligient people would realize that this is the key to whether a "blade" is allowed or not.
Is this simple enough for you or do I need to go back to binary?
Oh and by the way - true binary is on/off or 0/1 not yes/no. What you refer to is an "absolute". Unfortunately, in life, there are rarely absolutes.
Trollkiller said...
(greatly edited,)
"'And your statment about pliers is wrong too. Don't tell me you of all people cant figure it out from the link provided to you.'
Really, pliers do not have a blade? How do you strip wires with them?"
---------------------
First, when did I say pliers don't have a blade? Are you making things up again? I know you love to do that.
Hmmmm... my pliers have a blade. But my pliers are only 6 inches in length, which is allowed. So are my pliers allowed through the checkpoint? Blades are not allowed through a TSA checkpoint. I REFUSE to believe that you couldn't figure that out. You knew what the answer was, which brings me to why I think your deceitful and really just want to stir things up (and I find it VERY telling that you know which blades are exempt, like butter knives - you seem to already know which blades are allowed or not).
However, lets recap parts of our post to see how we got here:
First, you asked if P-38's were allowed.
TSM answered you first....
"The very site that you linked to states several times and in several stories that TSA takes these away at airports. Funny thing about that, the very diagram describing the use of these refers to the cutting part of the item as a "blade". As I am sure you of all people are very aware of, BLADES OF ANY SIZE ARE CONSIDERED PROHIBITED ITEMS!!!"
I can clearly read that TSM says any blade is a prohibited item. And I KNOW you can read it too. But for some reason, you chose not to read what he said about blades.... actually you did, but only to complain that he was yelling. Go figure.
Then you claim you haven't been answered and ask:
"So I ask again, are P-38s allowed?"
This is why I am calling you deceitful, and claim you are not being honest. From TSM's first answer, even though you seemed to take offense at being yelled at, it should be clear that blade can not go through the checkpoint.
Yet you act as if he never answered, and proceeded to aks your question again. That is when I answer you, and call you out on your dishonesty, for which you said:
"Now ask yourselves why people don't like you", and "instead of trying to put me in my place by making chiding sweeping statements that ultimately fail, simply answer the question"
Your question has been answered. I think answered pretty clearly. Do you not like the answer, or do you want to set the terms how someone can answer you? Please don't yell at me, I can't take it!!!
As carp said eariler in this blog:
"Welcome to the interweb. You either grow a thick skin or you get eaten alive."
As to the rest of what you said, I will have to get back to you. As of right now, I simply do not have time for your stupidity, sorry.
By the way, I will still post anonymously. :)
TSM, been.... said...
Trollikiler,
Here is your binary answer to wether P-38s are allowed - NO.
Do some TSOs allow them? - Yes.
Should they? - NO.
Funny you should say that, and if you would have said that to begin with there would not be a need for you to puff your feathers and show your backside.
On Flyer Talk, a well known forum for frequent flyers, there is a poster that goes by the name of Bart. His job at the TSA is a TSO trainer.
In a thread that was started after this one, a poster asked the same question I did. This was Bart's response, now remember as you read this he is a trainer at the TSA.
"It's a can opener. It shouldn't be an issue. However, the prudent thing to do is either pack it in your checked luggage or leave it at home.
(I know it's a wishy-washy answer, but there's always at least one TSO who may consider it the same as a blade. Shouldn't happen, but never say never; there's always someone who will beat the odds! )"
It looks like you are beating the odds.
In order to prevent you from melting down, Trollkiller, from now on I will answer all questions you post in simple "Binary" terms. From your own posts, it seems this is all you understand.
Are all tools allowed? NO.
Are tools under 7" allowed? - Yes.
Do some tools have blades and therefore make them "not allowed"? - Yes.
Do thos pliers you pictured have blades? - Yes
Is that pr of pliers allowed? - Yes.
See, now we can't be binary - while that pair of pliers has what is technically reffered to as a "blade" it is not really a "cutting blade' the way a knife blade is. It's use as a "knife type" cutting blade is near impossible. The blade on a scissor or swiss army knife or your precious P38 is much more effective as a "cutting blade" and therefore would not be allowed. Most intelligient people would realize that this is the key to whether a "blade" is allowed or not.
I take it you have never used a P-38, the blade is rather dull and does not make a good cutting tool. In fact the mechanics behind the P-38 blade makes it more akin to a pair of pliers than a knife.
Is this simple enough for you or do I need to go back to binary?
Oh and by the way - true binary is on/off or 0/1 not yes/no. What you refer to is an "absolute". Unfortunately, in life, there are rarely absolutes.
When it comes to permitted or prohibited items there should be absolutes. Is this allowed? Yes/No. There should never be a maybe when asked about a specific item, and yet there is.
Trollkiller said....
"When it comes to permitted or prohibited items there should be absolutes. Is this allowed? Yes/No. There should never be a maybe when asked about a specific item, and yet there is."
This is not, nor should it be, exactly true.
As example, some people are allowed to bring tools over 7 inches in their carry-on bags. These people may include those who need such items for immediate use on their medical devices, such as specialized wheel chairs.
This means what may be prohibited for you may not be prohibited for someone else.
But I think what you were specifically talking about are items that the average person may carry on them, such as a can opener, like a P-38.
I have seen people on this blog ask for a complete list of prohibited items. To let you in on a little secret, no such list exist. Shhhhhhh! Keep it secret!
But why does no such list exist? There are simply too many things in the world to list. There could never be an all inclusive list. There is a reason I am telling you this.
TSA SOP instructs TSOs that items with blades can not go through the check point, and the same SOP cites exceptions to this rule. For example, scissors are allow through if they meet certain specifications. However, it is simply not possible to list all the things that exist in the world that are prohibited or allowed per SOP.
Because of this, you may have TSOs making different decisions.
To you a P-38 may be a common, normal item. Many people at TSA are former military, and they know what a P-38 is. However, I do not know anyone who would let it through a checkpoint if they saw it. I would not.
But there are many people at TSA who do not know what a P-38 is. Untill they worked at TSA they had never seen one, and many have not seen one yet.
So when they find it, SOP tells them items with blades, even if dull, should not go through. And, mistakenly, some TSOs let it go.
This is an honest answer to why you might get one answer from one TSO, and a different answer from another.
If you can think of a better way to list all the possible prohibited or allowed items, please state so.
By the way, like the Bart from TSA that you mention, I too am a trainer and a mentor for TSA. And
Bart is wrong to say a P-38 should be allowed. Just to let you know.
Bottom line is, and I think that we are all waiting with bated breath for this answer, Are P-38 can openers allowed through the checkpoint? As a TSO who has carried one on my key-chain for over ten years now, I think I need to know this information from the top and not the opinion of those at my own airport who's opinions can vary from shift to shift and RDO to RDO. I certainly hope that the answer is "Yes" because I could do far mare damage with the keys on my key-chain (not to mention a 4" pair of scissors) than that itty-bitty tool that I on occasion use to access my lunch! Come on Bob, now's the time to show the world that TSA can think with their brain and not with their SOP!
"Blade" indeed....!
Hello,
I was looking at the firearms and ammunition restrictions page, and it says that firearms must be in a hard-sided locked case. My question is, does this apply if the firearm is in a soft case, but concealed within a larger bag, one that contains personal items. The firearms would not be noticeable, unless said bag was opened.
Thanks for your help.
To the Anonymous Trainer and Mentor. If any of this sounds snarky it is because I am tired, please over look it.
Most of the people that visit this blog understand that you can not realistically make a complete prohibited list.
Thankfully most prohibited items fall in the WEI category. Is the object designed to go boom, is it designed to burn or is it designed or can realistically be used to injure, incapacitate or kill someone?
A P-38 fits none of the criteria for a weapon, unless you make the criteria so broad a ball point pen falls in that category. In fact more people are trained to kill with a ball point pen than with a P-38 can opener.
But I really don't wish to argue the tortured logic of the TSA when it comes to the P-38 as there is the larger issue of inconsistencies.
We have two trainers ruling differently on the same common item. You do see the problem with that, don't you?
I think the thing that most people have a problem with, at least on this blog, is the fact that a TSO has complete discretion to allow prohibited items but to also disallow PERMITTED items.
On prohibited items, as long as they fit the WEI criteria, I can give a lot of leeway.
But when a TSO decides that an object is prohibited when it is on the permitted list or unusual but not dangerous is beyond comprehension.
You asked if I knew a better way to list prohibited or allowed items, well you are in luck, I do.
A computer should be at every checkpoint and that computer should contain a database of prohibited and permitted items. (along with acceptable IDs, complaint forms, and other needed info)
When any question arises to the permitability of an item, consult the database. When something unusual comes up that is not in the system like a hockey mask, bathroom scale, blender, 13 oz. boomerang, or P-38 you (STSO) make the decision on the spot and then enter the item with a description and photo into the system to be reviewed by a "judge". That "judge" says permitted or prohibited and enters it into the system.
Now anytime in the future that item comes up you have a definitive answer.
That database needs to be accessible via the web to the public. People would rather check beforehand to make sure something is allowed, then have it confiscated at the airport.
Let me clear your first objection, the system would only be used when a dispute arises. You and I both know most people are sheep and will not dispute a TSO if they say something is not allowed, so the extra time taken for the few is negligible and it shows a fairness on the part of the TSA.
People are very forgiving when they see someone trying. If a PAX thinks something is allowed but the computer shows it is not, the TSO in front of them is no longer the bad guy. The bad guy is now some faceless "idiot" at HQ.
If the item is allowed the TSO apologizes for the "mix up", thanks the PAX for teaching them something new and sends them away happy.
Thoughts?
Anonymous said...
Trollkiller said....
"When it comes to permitted or prohibited items there should be absolutes. Is this allowed? Yes/No. There should never be a maybe when asked about a specific item, and yet there is."
This is not, nor should it be, exactly true.
As example, some people are allowed to bring tools over 7 inches in their carry-on bags. These people may include those who need such items for immediate use on their medical devices, such as specialized wheel chairs.
This means what may be prohibited for you may not be prohibited for someone else.
But I think what you were specifically talking about are items that the average person may carry on them, such as a can opener, like a P-38.
I have seen people on this blog ask for a complete list of prohibited items. To let you in on a little secret, no such list exist. Shhhhhhh! Keep it secret!
But why does no such list exist? There are simply too many things in the world to list. There could never be an all inclusive list. There is a reason I am telling you this.
TSA SOP instructs TSOs that items with blades can not go through the check point, and the same SOP cites exceptions to this rule. For example, scissors are allow through if they meet certain specifications. However, it is simply not possible to list all the things that exist in the world that are prohibited or allowed per SOP.
Because of this, you may have TSOs making different decisions.
To you a P-38 may be a common, normal item. Many people at TSA are former military, and they know what a P-38 is. However, I do not know anyone who would let it through a checkpoint if they saw it. I would not.
But there are many people at TSA who do not know what a P-38 is. Untill they worked at TSA they had never seen one, and many have not seen one yet.
So when they find it, SOP tells them items with blades, even if dull, should not go through. And, mistakenly, some TSOs let it go.
This is an honest answer to why you might get one answer from one TSO, and a different answer from another.
If you can think of a better way to list all the possible prohibited or allowed items, please state so.
By the way, like the Bart from TSA that you mention, I too am a trainer and a mentor for TSA. And
Bart is wrong to say a P-38 should be allowed. Just to let you know.
July 11, 2009 10:59 PM
.....................
The post above illustrates what is so wrong with TSA.
Even the trainers disagree on permitted items. How is a traveler expected to comply with these kind of rules?
So the end result is that TSA confiscates items and people traveling get upset.
Until TSA corrects its procedures and treat everyone equally in regards to permitted items then the problems will continue.
But go on TSA, keep looking for the big catch of $4,700 or some college kids fake ID, you know all of those things that make us not one bit safer.
Nutha' Anon said,
"However, I do not know anyone who would let it through a checkpoint if they saw it. I would not."
Pray tell, how in your wildest paranoid imaginings could this be considered a "weapon"? If I were to unfold mine and place it, "blade" up in between my fingers, it would not protrude past the top of my fingers.
But then again, I must admit, if someone were to come at me on the plane waving their P-38, grasped firmly between their thumb and forefinger, and if I were able to focus my eyes on that tiny object at a distance of four feet, it may well kill me. For I would double over in paroxysms of laughter so severe that I just may go into vapor-lock and expire. If I didn't, then Granny, sitting in the next row still stewing about the loss of her hand-lotion, would probably get up and beat me to the kill, venting her anger by skewering would-be terrorist with her 16 inch long sharpened metal spike, also known as a knitting needle, that was permitted on board per "SOP"! :)
Can you not see how ludicrous the lack of applying common sense is in this particular situation?
Can we have an official verdict please?
Hiking poles are banned as far as I can find out, collapsible or not, but canes which are very similar are allowed. Go figure?
rTrollkiller said...
"We have two trainers ruling differently on the same common item...
I think the thing that most people have a problem with ... is the fact that a TSO has complete discretion to allow prohibited items but to also disallow PERMITTED items.
You asked if I knew a better way to list prohibited or allowed items...
A computer should be at every checkpoint and that computer should contain a database of prohibited and permitted items.
When any question arises to the permitability of an item, consult the database. When something unusual comes up ... make the decision on the spot and then enter the item with a description and photo into the system to be reviewed by a "judge". That "judge" says permitted or prohibited and enters it into the system."
I do appreciate your idea for a prohibited/allowed item list, but the one you detail would not work.
It would be too unmanageable and inconsistent. Sounds good on paper, maybe, but it would fail to be a speedy or reliable source for the determination of allowed or prohibited items.
Too many items to enter. What if people in different airports enter the items differently? It would be entirely possible to have the same item ruled at different times by either the same or different judge as both allowed an prohibited at the same time.
But what if the computer system went down? What if different judges over time who ruled that similar items should not be allowed? What if the person entering the item describes it differently than is listed in the database?
How would it work if a TSO searched the database and found a “yes” and “no” answer at the same time?
Next, I do understand why you might be upset that 2 different trainers disagree about whether an item may be allowed or not. I would suggest no one is perfect. No one knows SOP perfectly. No one in the world does their job perfectly. I make mistakes, the other trainer you refer to makes mistakes, and even you make mistakes in your job.
But consider this. SOP is not black and white. There are grey areas. This is natural. SOP is government regulation, it is not law. But just like law, you have experts (lawyers, professors, etc.) who disagree what the law says and means. Why should any government SOP be different? In fact, it shouldn’t. I do think the majority of TSA SOP is clear, but there is considerable grey area, and this is where different people, such as trainers, might disagree.
As example, SOP says a person who wears bulky clothing must be patted down after going through the walk-through metal detector even if there is no alarm. What does bulky mean? How does the clothing have to hang from the body? I know for a fact that if you ask different people you will get different answers, especially if you point to someone wearing clothing that does not hug the shape of a person’s body.
As far as a TSO not allowing something that is specifically allowed on a permitted list, that should not happen, but I know it does, you know it does. Your best bet in that case is to ask – nicely – for a STSO. And believe me, you do get more flies with sugar than vinegar. However, in this case, a P-38 is not mentioned on the permitted list. Items that cut ARE list on the prohibited list, and currently this list has only a few exceptions. With only that to go on, it would be reasonable to say a P-38 should not be allowed, if that is all the information a TSO has before them.
But there is another problem, and that is when a TSO allows a prohibited item through. That does cause confusion. I know throughout my life police have seen me speed, and I have not gotten a speeding ticket. Does this mean speeding is allowed? No, it means the police officer let it slide, even though that officer had every right to give me a ticket (I am NOT making the claim TSA is law enforcement, just trying to illustrate a point).
I can't find any information on tents and tent stakes. My husband and I never check baggage. Recently the outbound flight screener let our tent stakes thru, but we were forced to check our bag when we were screened for our return flight.
The tips are not "sharp" but they are not quite blunt either.
I tried to take some trout bait on a short flight to use when I got there, but had to throw it out.
Yes, like Hanna said, is climbing gear allowed?
I'd like to bring some trad (two cams, a set of nuts and a set of hexes) with me on a short, domestic flight but I don't want to pay to check a bag. Can these be carried on?
Is it allowed to take fishing plugs and lures on a plane? I'm concerned about carrying on small hooks and not getting them confiscated.
Question on whether I can pack the ISI Whipped Cream replacement cartriges in my luggage. They are prepacked in a 10 pack but I cannot find any reference to these anywhere as ok or not.
Thanks for the great information. Sometimes it is just common sense, but always good to know. I find many of my camper readers on my site are confused, I will let them know they can always ask on this site.
Are you allowed to bring a firestarters like one of those REI Magnesium and Flint starters? If so, checked or carryon?
This is a very interesting post - here in Canada, a recent experience where some fly anglers were heading to a fly fishing competition, they were not allowed to carry on their gear. They were told that fly lines and leader material were choking hazards. As well, there was an issue with flies - even small ones, as the hooks were considered a sharp pointy object.
Hi Bob, can you take tinned food (beans for example) in carry-on luggage? I'm wondering if it's a problem because of the air pressure and/or food regs
Any non flammable liquid that isn't specifically prohibited is allowed in carry on following the 311 rule, or in checked baggage.
I pack the powder/tablets myself :)
Post a Comment