more TSA absurdity

EMTDAD

NES Member
Rating - 100%
3   0   0
Joined
Mar 29, 2013
Messages
2,163
Likes
1,237
Location
North Attleboro, MA

ok.. so the point of the 3.5oz rule was to limit the amt of flammable liquids you can bring on a carryon on board an airplane...

so lets now allow you to bring 12 oz of 70% or higher flammable alcohol onto an aircraft..

am I missing something here?
 

cams

NES Member
Rating - 100%
16   0   0
Joined
Sep 7, 2013
Messages
4,468
Likes
12,850
Location
Boston

ok.. so the point of the 3.5oz rule was to limit the amt of flammable liquids you can bring on a carryon on board an airplane...

so lets now allow you to bring 12 oz of 70% or higher flammable alcohol onto an aircraft..

am I missing something here?
Freedom
 

cams

NES Member
Rating - 100%
16   0   0
Joined
Sep 7, 2013
Messages
4,468
Likes
12,850
Location
Boston
but no matches or lighters
Out of, I’d say...8 different AP’s and a dozen trips between them in the last couple years, only one has ever asked if I had a lighter in my bag and confiscated it. Think it was Charlotte heading after heading outside to smoke during a layover. They got me coming back in.
 

LuvDog

NES Member
Rating - 100%
39   0   0
Joined
Jan 24, 2012
Messages
5,397
Likes
3,066
Location
Metrowest
You can fly with a lighter... I always have one in my carry on... just can’t be a zippo/ liquid gas. A cheap butane is fine.
 

Spanz

NES Member
Rating - 100%
1   0   0
Joined
Feb 25, 2009
Messages
33,664
Likes
20,480
Clown world. 3.6 oz. of water no es bueno but 12 oz. of flammable liquid, good to go, amigo.
let me just take a guess on this one....
while 70% alcohol can indeed burn, and cause a big problem....some sort of liquid explosive which can knock the tail off of the plane in-flight--is more what they are most concerned with.

without allowing sanitizer onto the plane, you would have guaranteed coronavirus spikes, so plane travel would not be advised. but we NEED plane travel to open the economy again. Hence the trade off

if i were in charge of TSA, i would have pallets of 2 oz sanitizer bottles to hand out for free for every traveler....enough to last that one plane flight. And not allow the big bottles. that would make the most sense
 

42!

NES Life Member
NES Member
Rating - 100%
7   0   0
Joined
Apr 9, 2010
Messages
6,892
Likes
4,282
let me just take a guess on this one....
while 70% alcohol can indeed burn, and cause a big problem....some sort of liquid explosive which can knock the tail off of the plane in-flight--is more what they are most concerned with.

without allowing sanitizer onto the plane, you would have guaranteed coronavirus spikes, so plane travel would not be advised. but we NEED plane travel to open the economy again. Hence the trade off

if i were in charge of TSA, i would have pallets of 2 oz sanitizer bottles to hand out for free for every traveler....enough to last that one plane flight. And not allow the big bottles. that would make the most sense
There you go, making sense. You keep doing that and some TSA agent is going to have you in a small room naked.
 

milktree

NES Member
Rating - 100%
27   0   0
Joined
Aug 31, 2008
Messages
4,746
Likes
2,247
let me just take a guess on this one....
while 70% alcohol can indeed burn, and cause a big problem....some sort of liquid explosive which can knock the tail off of the plane in-flight--is more what they are most concerned with.
Except that such things don’t exist. The whole “blow up a plane with liquid” thing is only in the movies, not in real life.

And if they were legitimately concerned, (and not just being security theater bullies) they’d let you take anything you would drink in front of them. ( instead of stealing your water bottle).
 
Rating - 100%
1   0   0
Joined
Mar 29, 2014
Messages
3,090
Likes
1,808
some FEMALE TSA agent?
I gottsta know first!
I travel a bit (well..used to), and I think I’ve only ever seen one TSA agent that can legitimately call herself a female...these people are the low of the low...I think they take everyone who was fired from McDonalds and give them TSA sashes and tell them to report to Logan the following morning.
 
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Mar 1, 2005
Messages
3,574
Likes
739
Location
Northern Connecticut
Forget "Blowing up a plane"! That's not the issue. The issue is some wackjob deciding that someone has to be set on fire.

Recently there was a case where a young woman set her friend on fire with her had sanitizer here in CT. Imagine that stuff is a prepared molotov cocktail just needing a match. 3.2oz would be one thing. A 12 oz splash, would be something entirely different.

Connecticut woman accused of starting deadly fire by throwing flaming hand sanitizer at girlfriend

What numbnuts ok'd that change? Where........JHC........where is the common sense here?
 

ReluctantDecoy

NES Member
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Oct 17, 2017
Messages
2,195
Likes
1,900
Location
Cambridge, MA
Except that such things don’t exist. The whole “blow up a plane with liquid” thing is only in the movies, not in real life.

And if they were legitimately concerned, (and not just being security theater bullies) they’d let you take anything you would drink in front of them. ( instead of stealing your water bottle).
The legend goes that there was a plot in 2006 to blow up a plane using a liquid fuel bomb. It was supposedly thwarted. In later testing, someone, somewhere, determined that even the combined contents of 3 ounces bottles filled with this mystery fuel that fit into a 1 quart bag would not have the effective blast radius or power to bring down a plane. Thus here we are with the 3:1:1 rule, where they don't even validate the contents of the bottles because it's more about the simplistic math of the equation even if it is fuel. And that's extremely dumb logic, as what if multiple people were working together? Or any number of "what if" scenarios that would lead to this being a stupid measure of security theater.

The truth is, TSA, or really any agency, does not have the capacity to thoroughly vet passengers on any meaningful level while maintaining flight throughput. So what we have is a very basic security measure to at least attempt to reduce probability. And while these measures are all completely full of holes, the alternative would be like a 3-4 hour security check point where everyone gets bomb swabbed, bags chemical scanned, and stripped searched.

For now, I'll take this probability based risk mitigation, as there is no other feasible alternative while maintaining flight schedules. It's important to note though that this is on top of ID checks and facial scanning (definitely happening, whether they say it or not), so the layers of security theater may actually provide some semblance of actual security when compounded.
 

EMTDAD

NES Member
Rating - 100%
3   0   0
Joined
Mar 29, 2013
Messages
2,163
Likes
1,237
Location
North Attleboro, MA
without allowing sanitizer onto the plane, you would have guaranteed coronavirus spikes, so plane travel would not be advised. but we NEED plane travel to open the economy again. Hence the trade off
This is why I do not fly anymore. Just don't do it - starve them out.
It'll be interesting to see how bad of a hit the airlines take now that all these companies are realizing how much money they can save with a simple Zoom/Skype meeting than by flying people around the world for an in-person meeting.
 

Len-2A Training

Instructor
Instructor
NES Life Member
NES Member
Rating - 98.4%
60   1   0
Joined
Feb 26, 2005
Messages
52,086
Likes
10,103
Location
Escaping to NH
It'll be interesting to see how bad of a hit the airlines take now that all these companies are realizing how much money they can save with a simple Zoom/Skype meeting than by flying people around the world for an in-person meeting.
~2000 companies like Microsoft and others realized that online seminars/meetings were a helluva lot cheaper to run than flying people across the country and paying hotel/food/entertainment bills. A few years later most computer trade shows/training events started to dry up as well. I ran a Microsoft user group and we would get speakers who were attending these various shows/events, "and then there were none" so that I eventually closed down the user group ~2006.
 

Racenet

NES Member
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Aug 3, 2009
Messages
3,176
Likes
1,901
Location
New Hampshire
The legend goes that there was a plot in 2006 to blow up a plane using a liquid fuel bomb. It was supposedly thwarted. In later testing, someone, somewhere, determined that even the combined contents of 3 ounces bottles filled with this mystery fuel that fit into a 1 quart bag would not have the effective blast radius or power to bring down a plane. Thus here we are with the 3:1:1 rule, where they don't even validate the contents of the bottles because it's more about the simplistic math of the equation even if it is fuel. And that's extremely dumb logic, as what if multiple people were working together? Or any number of "what if" scenarios that would lead to this being a stupid measure of security theater.

The truth is, TSA, or really any agency, does not have the capacity to thoroughly vet passengers on any meaningful level while maintaining flight throughput. So what we have is a very basic security measure to at least attempt to reduce probability. And while these measures are all completely full of holes, the alternative would be like a 3-4 hour security check point where everyone gets bomb swabbed, bags chemical scanned, and stripped searched.

For now, I'll take this probability based risk mitigation, as there is no other feasible alternative while maintaining flight schedules. It's important to note though that this is on top of ID checks and facial scanning (definitely happening, whether they say it or not), so the layers of security theater may actually provide some semblance of actual security when compounded.
It's all bullshit.

Wasn't there a time when you couldn't bring your own magazines onto a plane, because they thought there was a way to make a bomb or something with special chemical treated pages? How dumb is that shit!
 
  • Like
Reactions: AHM

Dennis in MA

NES Member
Rating - 100%
25   0   0
Joined
Feb 12, 2007
Messages
19,764
Likes
10,978
let me just take a guess on this one....
while 70% alcohol can indeed burn, and cause a big problem....some sort of liquid explosive which can knock the tail off of the plane in-flight--is more what they are most concerned with.

without allowing sanitizer onto the plane, you would have guaranteed coronavirus spikes, so plane travel would not be advised. but we NEED plane travel to open the economy again. Hence the trade off

if i were in charge of TSA, i would have pallets of 2 oz sanitizer bottles to hand out for free for every traveler....enough to last that one plane flight. And not allow the big bottles. that would make the most sense
As Mike Rowe says, "Safety third." Because if safety really WAS first, there would be no flights. None at all. And cars would be governed at 20mph. And everything would be covered in foam freaking rubber. No buildings taller than 50'. All that sort of stuff.
 

LuvDog

NES Member
Rating - 100%
39   0   0
Joined
Jan 24, 2012
Messages
5,397
Likes
3,066
Location
Metrowest
It'll be interesting to see how bad of a hit the airlines take now that all these companies are realizing how much money they can save with a simple Zoom/Skype meeting than by flying people around the world for an in-person meeting.
Yea, but many of the people who take advantage of the company credit card are Exec/Sr Management, and they like to travel. So that will still happen and they'll make up reasons for in person meetings.
 

AFVet

NES Member
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Dec 11, 2019
Messages
170
Likes
196
Location
Northeast Mass
I have to fly to Shreveport La. at the end of this month and not looking forward to it. Do you have to wear a mask the entire flight ? I'm almost glad i'm driving back (moving my son and ex back up here. ) but will probably get blockaded and attacked by blm and antifags on the road..... Damed if you fly or damed if you drive...Paul
 

Spanz

NES Member
Rating - 100%
1   0   0
Joined
Feb 25, 2009
Messages
33,664
Likes
20,480
I have to fly to Shreveport La. at the end of this month and not looking forward to it. Do you have to wear a mask the entire flight ? I'm almost glad i'm driving back (moving my son and ex back up here. ) but will probably get blockaded and attacked by blm and antifags on the road..... Damed if you fly or damed if you drive...Paul
I would, personally, not get within a hundred yards of a passenger jet without an N95 or KN95 mask on. Why roll those dice?
 

LuvDog

NES Member
Rating - 100%
39   0   0
Joined
Jan 24, 2012
Messages
5,397
Likes
3,066
Location
Metrowest
The last I heard was yes, you need to wear a mask the entire flight... and airlines are starting to book planes to capacity again.

If I were flying right now, it'd be N95/KN95 and alcohol wipes for armrests, seatbelt, tray, etc.
 
Top Bottom