Over the weekend, an article ran stating that TSA Officers in Boston had stopped medical supplies from traveling in checked baggage to Cape Verde. The article states the items confiscated included Tylenol, vitamin C, mosquito repellents, hand sanitizers and rubbing alcohol.TSA did prevent most of the insect repellant, but everything else was permitted. Why the repellant? Well…
FAA regulations state that Personal Care Items containing hazardous materials (e.g., flammable perfume, aerosols) totaling no more than 70 ounces may be carried on board. Contents of each container may not exceed 16 fluid ounces.
The repellant was in 6.5oz containers (approx), and most bags contained more than the limit of 10 or 11 cans ranging from 2-128 cans over the limit. Most bags were large suitcase bags completely full of just bug spray.
In cases such as these, TSA is required to return the entire bag (s) to the airline so they can remove the hazmat. In this case, due to the high volume of items, TSA Boston worked with air TACV representatives in the baggage screening location to ensure the 70oz rule was followed for each bag.
Our officers followed the proper protocol spelled out by the FAA and included in our SOPs. If anybody else plans to take items such as insect repellent to Cape Verde to help with the Dengue fever, it is highly recommended an alternate shipping method is found so the items will be permitted. Our thoughts go out to the people of Cape Verde.
***Update 11/12/09***
FORCV updated their web page to correct inaccuracies.
Thanks,
Blogger Bob
TSA Blog Team
35 comments:
Our thoughts go out to the people of Cape Verde. - yeah, right. Not. If they did go out to them then a way would have been found to get these hugely important drugs to the people that need them.
I still beleive the TSA was set up for the right reasons but is now set up as job creation / protection scheme and crazy stories like this show just what a bunch of "jobsworths" many of the TSA staff really are. For Shame TSA.
TSA is more focused on ensuring that their rules are followed then encouraging an environment that allows for agents to use common sense.
So what you are telling us is that if 6 people check in 70 oz (420 oz total)of bug spray that can go on board, but if one person tries to bring 100 oz they are denied. Does any of this make sense.
It doesn't what TSA says or does. People will blame or accuse TSA regardless.
ECCO BHM
Funny how, in all of his recent pushbacks against criticisms of TSA, Bob hasn't addressed the GAO report that concludes that TSA has failed to follow an exceptional number of "best practice" guidelines regarding the implementation of new technology. The TSA has consistently failed to conduct risk assessments, cost-benefit analyses, and operational testing regarding multiple checkpoint technologies.
The GAO findings can be generalized to other TSA procedures. Many of the policies that make TSA the most hated part of the government, like the shoe carnival and liquids nonsense, have been implemented without testing or evaluation.
Read the whole thing here: http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d10128.pdf
@ Parkylondon, anonymous and all the other individuals who will (un)intentionally misread this story: The guidelines regarding dangerous items was/is created and maintained by the FAA. Not TSA. The TSA officers were following protocols established by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). If you disagree with the threat assessed to hazardous materials/flammable liquids over a specified limit being contained on a passenger aircraft, perhaps you should comment on the FAA blog (if there is one). TSA routinely assists doctors and organizations in transporting necessities; however, the regulations which applied in this case protect the passengers and crew onboard the aircraft. It is the responsibility of the organization involved to properly arrange safe passage for any supplies they need to transport.
Bob, why won't you approve comments about your refusal to post the video of Britney in LAX?
Next time, we'll have to send Britney Spears through with the insect repellent.
Mike
I think we should all be happy that TSA has shown they can in deed inspect checked luggage to keep citizens of Cape Verde safe from too much mosquito repellent.
Last night FORCV interviewed the General Manager of TACV, Cape Verde Airlines, in Boston about this incident and published an updated version of this story. Please, see it at www.forcv.com:
Correction: (Updated November 9, 2009):
UPDATED: TACV Passengers Not Allowed to Travel With Large Amount of Mosquito Repellents and Hand Sanitizers
"After a phone interview with Mr. Alexandre Furtado, TACV General Manager in the U.S., FORCV decided to re-edit the story about the incident with TACV passengers last Friday at the Boston Logan airport with a more accurate account. This update also includes clarifications about the guidelines to carry mosquito repellents, hand sanitizers, and medicines on plane..."
Read the entire updated article here: http://www.forcv.com/articles/post/2009/11/07/TSA-Officals-at-Logan-Airport-Stop-TACV-Passengers-From-Taking-Medical-Supplies-for-Dengue-to-CV.aspx
Fantastic. Another piece to try to bury the Big Gulp Fiasco.
You can tell that this rule is from the FAA and not TSA because it actually makes sense and is beneficial. Still, you seem to be gilding the lily to say that you actually sent it back to the airline, as they are the correct body to enforce the rule about flammable liquids.
It is interesting that Bob didn't use a link to the actual FAA rule, since they are actually published unlike TSA's made-up-after-the-fact lies.
This blog is nothing but a haven for people who have had bad experiences with TSA and are bitter about it trying to get revenge by bad mouthing the security. Grow up people and move on.
Dont people have better things to do then rag on TSA? lol
During my lifetime I've seen too many accidents created by well-meaning people reacting to a humanitarian disaster. Hazardous materials improperly stowed, weight/balance problems, human error can kill the rescuer, benefiting no one.
As much as one may dislike TSA, following hazmat rules is just common sense.
Bob's being kept busy responding to Flyertalk complaints and is unable to answer your questions.d
FAA has had similar rules for years but no method to enforce it. TSA just enforces the rule.
Whenever I need a daily dose of bass-ackwards "logical reasoning" and unintentionally (?) humorous "just following orders", I can be sure the TSA blog will deliver. Let's see, in the last few days we've had "ice is a solid but water is a liquid" and "bug spray is hazmat, denied".
Has anyone tried the frozen water or frozen toiletries trick yet? What about claiming "I have chronic dehydration, a medical condition for which the recommended treatment is water. My bottle of water is a medically necessary liquid."
"As much as one may dislike TSA, following hazmat rules is just common sense."
Then why doesn't TSA follow such rules when disposing of liquids confiscated at its checkpoints?
Quote from Anonymous: "As much as one may dislike TSA, following hazmat rules is just common sense."
Since explosives would be HAZMAT and TSA doesn't follow HAZMAT rules with regards to disposing of "hazardous" liquids at the checkpoint, can we assume that TSA thinks they're really nonthreatening? If so, why can't we take them on the plane?
Robert
Quoted:
"What about claiming "I have chronic dehydration, a medical condition for which the recommended treatment is water. My bottle of water is a medically necessary liquid."
Because you would simply be told, "You can purchase it after the Checkpoint - see ya."
See, it's people like you that insist on trying to get around rules instead of following them that cause problems for everyone else.
@Anonymous: "Because you would simply be told, "You can purchase it after the Checkpoint - see ya."
See, it's people like you that insist on trying to get around rules instead of following them that cause problems for everyone else."
No, it's idiots in TSA management that is causing problems for everyone else with no real evidence of a threat. After all, as Robert Johnson said, if the liquids are such a threat, why doesn't TSA treat them as hazmat? Seems to me that if the liquids are as dangerous as TSA makes them out to be, their casual treatment puts everyone in danger.
In the absence of a real threat, there's no reason that anyone should have to pay $3 for a bottle of water that can be brought from a grocery store for 25 cents. I'd rather use my money for something else rather than lining Hudson News's pockets.
Earl
For those that believe a bottle of soda can not be dangerous enjoy this slide show and video =D
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/8243799.stm
Just a side note to my video link above. I believe back then it was common for people to bring 6 packs of sports drinks just like that on planes and that damage was done with 1 bottle.
Now, now, TSO Reed. Is that video peer reviewed? Can't accept it if it isn't peer reviewed. Did the guy who made it do everything the way the terrorists, I mean, misunderstood, oppressed peoples, would? Otherwise it doesn't mean anything.
ECCO
I believe all that information is from the court case against those terrorists so wouldn't it have to be peer reviewed?
Where is your proof that the slideshow and video put together by the BBC is not accurate??? Where is your expert to disprove the evidence presented by the British government???
I think you don’t have any because it does not exist. I think the terrorist in the UK were convicted because their attorneys could not prove the plan was not a viable threat. PROVE ME WRONG!!!!
.....So your argument that this information isn't accurate is that some lawyers couldn't prove that it wasn't a viable threat? British lawyers and scientists in their courts aren't good enough or something? Your acting like they didn't do any research or something. I am not seeing the point to your argument at all.
Sorry Jannis and TSO Reed. I was being sarcastic. I don't personnally believe that things need to be peer reviewed to be true. I was referring to the multiple post by others that constantly demand peer review before they will accept a claim.
ECCO
"I was referring to the multiple post by others that constantly demand peer review before they will accept a claim."
What's wrong with wanting peer review of scientific claims? I would trust the dispassionate opinion of multiple experts in a field much more than I would the opinion of TSA and its apologists.
TSA's inability to cite a single piece of peer-reviewed evidence supporting its liquids policies speaks volumes about how pointless those policies are.
Who is still think this so ridiculous? The TSA folks did exactly what they should have done, and no one, from lifetime residents to visiting tourists, should have thought that carrying large quantities of such things would not have made the people responsible for security at least a little curious.
you seem to be gilding the lily to say that you actually sent it back to the airline
I think we should all be happy that TSA has shown they can in deed inspect checked luggage to keep citizens of Cape Verde safe from too much mosquito repellent.
Yes I think so.
Well it did look a bit suspicious with entire bags full of the cans :-/
It is to bad that medical supplies have to be sent in other ways to get them in the country. There are folks who really need them. Thankfully there are companies that can send them priority and avoid he search and seizure which has been the fate for many drugs.
Post a Comment