Friday, May 14, 2010

E-Cigarettes – Go, or No-Go?

E-cigarette
E-Cigarettes are becoming more and more popular and I’m happy to report that TSA has no problem with e-cigs being packed in your carry-on or checked bags. Now as far as using them on a flight, I would suggest you contact your airline and see what they have to say. And, while not recommended by 9 out of 10 dentists, candy cigarettes are permissible as well.

Since I’m on the topic, I’d like to touch on a couple of things. Once upon a time, cigar cutters were prohibited, but these are permissible to pack in your carry-on luggage.

LightersLighters were also once prohibited as a result of a congressional mandate, but the ban was lifted in 2007 to allow our officers to spend more time looking for threats. (Over 11 million lighters were surrendered in 2006) Keep in mind that torch lighters are not allowed. For more information on traveling with lighters and matches, click here.




Blogger Bob
TSA Blog Team

65 comments:

RB said...

"Lighters were also once prohibited as a result of a congressional mandate, but the ban was lifted in 2007 to allow our officers to spend more time looking for threats. "
..............
Like partially melted ice, soda pop, toothpaste and other really dangerous items.

Anonymous said...

"Lighters were also once prohibited as a result of a congressional mandate, but the ban was lifted in 2007 to allow our officers to spend more time looking for threats."

So why do you keep wasting your time on sneakers, shampoo, and children's genitals?

avxo said...

http://www.bostonherald.com/news/regional/view/20100417no_fly_foul_as_girl_6_put_on_list_bay_state_dad_fights_tsa_ban_on_1st-grader/srvc=home&position=0

avxo said...

I thought no children are supposed to be on the list Bob. So what's up with Allison Mosher?

I'm looking forward to seeing how this one is spun...

The original article is in The Boston Herald. I'll post the link the next post, but if it doesn't make it through, you can Google the name to find the article.

Anonymous said...

Arf Arf Arf.

'Nuther puppy post Bob?

Sandra said...

I guess it must be Friday, huh?

Anonymous said...

How about lifting the toothpaste, water and shoe policies so your officers can spend more time looking for stuff that actually is dangerous?

Anonymous said...

Comment posted today on FT:

I just went through security at IAH and they refused to allow me to carry my simple cigar cutter (not the long handle scissor kind, the two finger guillotine kind) onboard. I have travelled with multiple cigar cutters for years without issue. I insisted on a supervisor and he said in the last few weeks these are now banned.

Any comment Bob?

Anonymous said...

Translation: we have no problem with you bringing a small tube filled with circuitry on the airplane. But we will have to see you naked to make sure you don't have some circuitry taped to your tummy.

AKA said...

I can't believe someone's job is to write blog posts about what might and might not be allowed on airplanes this week.
This security theater is ridiculous, and an offensively expensive waste of time. There is no difference between lighters. Both start fires. There is no problem with e-cigarettes. Other more nefarious contraptions looks the same but will be let through by the simple virtue of them *not* being e-cigarettes.
Honestly, the TSA should focus on the fact that since its inception, its air marshals have made fewer arrests than any other law enforcement agency in the country.

Anonymous said...

From the TSA page on lighters: "First and foremost, lighters no longer pose a significant threat."

But 4 ounce shampoo bottles are still a significant threat, I guess. (But not so much they need to be disposed of properly- they still just toss them into a common trash can.)

"TSA will no longer ban common lighters in carry-on luggage"

Yeah, because you can't just tape one of those to a window and use another to melt through the plastic and explode the gas inside.

"Q. Does your lighter need to be in a baggie since it contains liquid?
A. No. TSA's common-sense approach harmonizes with worldwide standards for lighters."

TSA Common Sense. That's an oxymoron like Military Intelligence or Jumbo Shrimp.

TSOWilliamReed said...

avxo said...
http://www.bostonherald.com/news/regional/view/20100417no_fly_foul_as_girl_6_put_on_list_bay_state_dad_fights_tsa_ban_on_1st-grader/srvc=home&position=0

May 14, 2010 4:07 PM
----------------

Secure flight isn't up and running yet or else this wouldn't happen. Also when they arrive at the airport and the agent sees that the girl is 6 they can take the no fly status off just like it says in the article. The only reason something like this would happen is becuase there is an allison mosher on the no fly list, not that allison mosher though. But because secure flight is not up and running yet the only thing they match are the names not age and gender and stuff. When secure flight gets enabled stuff like this shouldn't happen anymore.

Anonymous said...

Bob,
Why don't you actually moderate?
If a post is not germane to the subject topic, either don't post it at all or send it to a "miscellaneous" topic.
Like all those repeted questions that the same posters clog up every new topic with.

Anonymous said...

What about if someone uses a lighter on board? I am just off a Lufthansa flight from Washington DC to Frankfurt in which a passenger used his lighter to search for something he'd lost on his seat. He was an elderly man, but that is neither here nor there. Anyway, the stewards did not take the lighter off the man. They just told him to use the light provided instead of his lighter.

So, if someone lights their lighter on board, what is the correct procedure for flight staff to follow?

I feel that the stewards made a judgment that this elderly man was not a threat and so let him keep it, they didn't tell other stewards and they didn't keep an eye on him. If he looked different, I'm sure the response would have been different. But are they skilled enough to be making that judgment about who is a threat and who isn't? As you can tell, I didn't feel comfortable with the situation at all.

Anonymous said...

One could easily build a bomb that looks exactly like that picture.

Anonymous said...

I thought no children are supposed to be on the list Bob. So what's up with Allison Mosher?



Change the kid's name. Problem solved.

Ayn R. Key said...

avxo wrote:
I thought no children are supposed to be on the list Bob. So what's up with Allison Mosher?

Oh, that one was solved a long time ago. There are only names on the list, no people. Since children are people there are no children on the list. Somewhere in TSA headquarters they have a printout of the list, and they can guarantee you that absolutely nobody at all is standing or sitting or laying on that list.

Anonymous said...

Oh my Lord! So many of you are asking the most absurd questions about lighters and toothpaste! Really? You truly don't think they pose a threat? Get on youtube and look up liquid explosives and how much heat you have to have to light det. cord. You people are clueless....and yet you're still protected. Gotta love the good ol' US of A!

Gunner said...

Wry observation:

In anonymous comments, if the writer refers to "you people" then there is an extremely high probability that it is a TSA employee doing the writing.

RB said...

Bob, do E-Cigarettes cause cancer like the TSA Backscatter Whole Body Imagers reportedly do?

Anonymous said...

When can we expect a puppy post on this?

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=126833083

HappyToHelp said...

avxo said…
“I thought no children are supposed to be on the list Bob. So what's up with Allison Mosher?

I'm looking forward to seeing how this one is spun...

The original article is in The Boston Herald. I'll post the link the next post, but if it doesn't make it through, you can Google the name to find the article.”

No spin needed. Catch Bob’s blog post about children being on the no fly list.

Want a solution? TSA is on it. Secure Flight is currently being phased in.

Need help with posting HTML links here on the blog?
Check this page out.

Tim
TSA Blog Team

HappyToHelp said...

Anonymous said...
“Arf Arf Arf.”

Bad dog! No biting! (Tim roles up newspaper) :)

Tim
TSA Blog Team

P.S. Please don’t hit your dogs

HappyToHelp said...

Anonymous said...
“But 4 ounce shampoo bottles are still a significant threat, I guess. (But not so much they need to be disposed of properly- they still just toss them into a common trash can.)”


Why can't I bring certain liquids through the checkpoint? Why must they be in a bag?
(WMV alert)

A question raised many times on this blog is how can we justify throwing all of these liquids away in a trash can near the checkpoint if they are such a danger. While a fair question, the answer has been available in many different threads though not directly answered, so here it goes.

We have said since the institution of the liquid ban that the fear or threat is the combination of items, including liquid explosives while in flight to create an improvised explosive device. That combination means explosives, detonator and other components to have a fully assembled bomb. Take one component away and you have a collection of harmless items. Of course we don't want liquid explosives anywhere near us but without the other components, they're not causing catastrophic damage.

That’s why it is safe for us to store the items together in a trash can near the checkpoint and that's what we do with prohibited items. ~ Nico


Anonymous said...
“Yeah, because you can't just tape one of those to a window and use another to melt through the plastic and explode the gas inside.”

That is not a significant risk to aviation.

Anonymous said...
“TSA Common Sense. That's an oxymoron like Military Intelligence or Jumbo Shrimp.”

Heeeeeeeeeeeyyyyyyy… hold on a sec. Leave Military Intelligence out of this.

Tim
TSA Blog Team

HappyToHelp said...

Ayn R. Key said...
“Oh, that one was solved a long time ago. There are only names on the list, no people. Since children are people there are no children on the list. Somewhere in TSA headquarters they have a printout of the list, and they can guarantee you that absolutely nobody at all is standing or sitting or laying on that list.”

The list is not just names. Your logic is flawed and you know it.

I’m glad you visited headquarters. They need to stop printing things and sitting on them. :) zingggg

Tim
TSA Blog Team

Anonymous said...

TSOWilliamReed said...
... when they arrive at the airport and the agent sees that the girl is 6 they can take the no fly status off just like it says in the article.


it also says " United Airlines said it didn’t know Allison was just 6. “The TSA manages the list,” explained spokeswoman Robin Urbanski, who said Allison likely will have to submit to extra screening."

Why should she (the 6-year old) have to go through extra screening??

It also says "The agent looked into it further and said, “She’s still flagged. She’s on a No Fly List.”"

and "But the agent told the frustrated father there was “nothing (he) can do,” Mosher said."

The only reason something like this would happen is becuase there is an allison mosher on the no fly list, not that allison mosher though. But because secure flight is not up and running yet the only thing they match are the names not age and gender and stuff. When secure flight gets enabled stuff like this shouldn't happen anymore.

There's a list. It contains names. Simply add sex and (approx) age to it. No need for 'secure flight'. Just add sex and age to the current list! How hard is that?

Evidently, for the TSA, vary hard. Vary hard indeed.

HappyToHelp said...

Gunner said...
“In anonymous comments, if the writer refers to "you people" then there is an extremely high probability that it is a TSA employee doing the writing.”

Good observation. When I first read the comment, I just naturally assumed it was a comment from a TSO. After reading your post, I think that was why I assumed such. I could still be wrong.

It can be frustrating being a passenger or a TSO. It shows in the majority of the comments. Don’t take it personally.

Tim
TSA Blog Team

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...
Bob,
Why don't you actually moderate?
If a post is not germane to the subject topic, either don't post it at all or send it to a "miscellaneous" topic.
Like all those repeted questions that the same posters clog up every new topic with.


Or, he could, you know, answer the questions. Then people would stop asking them.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...
Oh my Lord! So many of you are asking the most absurd questions about lighters and toothpaste! Really? You truly don't think they pose a threat? Get on youtube and look up liquid explosives and how much heat you have to have to light det. cord. You people are clueless....and yet you're still protected. Gotta love the good ol' US of A!


God, you are so ...wrong, I don't know where to begin.

Firstly, making people use 3.4 ounce bottle of liquids (and yes, toothpaste is considered a liquid) is absolutely useless. Why? because I can bring as many 3.4 ounce bottle thru as I want (and can jam into a baggie). Then I can open those bottles, and pour their contents into one big bottle! If I need even more, I can have multiple people go thru security, each carrying a bunch of little bottles.

Second, liquid explosives are not like you see on TV. They require cold temps, and slow stirring to mix the chemicals. Look for instance here: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/200608/msg00087.html
"On an airplane? On an
airplane, the whole thing is ridiculous. You have nothing to cool the
mixture with. You have nothing to control your mixing with. You can't
take a day doing the work, either. You are probably locked in the
tiny, shaking bathroom with very limited ventilation, and that isn't
going to bode well for you living long enough to get your explosives
manufactured. In short, it sounds, well, not like a very good idea."


Thirdly, you make it sound like a ban on lighters is a good thing. I mean, hey, no one can light that 'det cord', Right? Well, you'd be right, if it weren't for the fact that lighters AND matches are allowed on board. I believe they have been the whole time, except for a few months right after 9/11. Oh, and the fact that with a power source (laptop battery?) and a thin wire (resistor), it's trivial to get high temperatures. How do you think light bulbs work?

Lastly, you say "You people are clueless....and yet you're still protected". No, I'm not protected. Well, I guess I'm protected against someone having a 4-ounce bottle of shampoo on a plane, but that doesn't really mean much.

marthin said...

FAA or the TSA do not prohibit e-cigs or electronic cigarettes while traveling by plane. Each and every airlines has its own code of conduct which determines the usage of electronic cigarettes onboard of their carriers. Since electronic cigarettes do not contain tobacco or other harmful ingredients (don’t have to be lit and do not emit smoke), it is said that they are safe for use even on board. One of the more interesting facts is that they do not emit any odor, unlike the traditional tobacco products.

Anonymous said...

And lets not even get into the issue that you cannot "light" det-cord with a simple lighter. All that does is make a lot of smoke and pretty hallucinogenic colors as your brain reacts to the nice chemicals it gives of as it candle-wicks.

You cannot, will not, and will never, initiate a high-explosive (PETN, C-4, RDX, etc, etc) with a simple butane based flame unless you are using a multi-stage low to medium explosive powder-train. Just won't happen, Mr. Magoo.

I am sure some ivory-tower academic will come up with a refutation of this statement using a mechanical initiation sequence. This sequence will probably consist of using a lighter, high pressure mechanical confinement, compressive shock, and high temperatures. Unfortunately, there is no way you can get a Henderson, NV type event to fit through a carry-on scanner.

Det-, Prima-, and other (tm)-Cords 'detonate' at a linear rate of around 2k feet/second when they are properly initiated. But to do that usualy requires the use of a fuse, a primer, or a detonator.

You can use a cigarette lighter to "light" a fuse-train, which can then "trigger" a detonator, which will then "initiate" the det-cord, but it just ain't gonna work with only a lighter.

I am sure that even a TSO that slept through their training classes will notice the great big flashing red alerts on the screen when the carry-on baggage scanner detects the x-ray signature of any of the explosive compounds mentioned.

Ayn R. Key said...

Ayn R. Key wrote:
Oh, that one was solved a long time ago. There are only names on the list, no people. Since children are people there are no children on the list. Somewhere in TSA headquarters they have a printout of the list, and they can guarantee you that absolutely nobody at all is standing or sitting or laying on that list.

HappyToHinder wrote:
The list is not just names. Your logic is flawed and you know it.

The list is nothing more than a list of names, even excluding gender and age. Including just those two details would ensure children aren't flagged by the list.

Since it is just names, and children have names, sometimes the names on the list are the same as the names of children.

My logic isn't flawed, TSA policy is flawed. You can be an apologist for incompetence and fascism, or you can admit I'm right.

Pissed_off_Tax_Payer said...

http://www.northjersey.com/news/crime_courts/051810_airport.html

Seems like theres "another isolated incident" AGAIN that "Does not reflect the honest and hard working people of TSA. uhhh huh this is the 5th incident in a very short period or is TSA "moving to swiftly".

Then what is the Name and contact information for the FSD, at DFW and MIA. I have issues that need to be addressed about rules being made up on the fly, and unprofessional attitudes and conduct.

Not to mention TSA employees damaged my bag and property in it when they inspected it and then just stuffed things randomly back in ( I have seen 2 year olds repack items better then this. Then not to mention they didnt reseal the bag despite zip ties being taped to the inside with a request to reseal it. That and they decided to STEAL the zip ties taped inside as well. Dont even attempt to say baggage handlers as thats a lie as the object i know they saw would only be visible to x-ray or CT.

HappyToHelp said...

Ayn R. Key said...
“The list is nothing more than a list of names, even excluding gender and age. Including just those two details would ensure children aren't flagged by the list.

Since it is just names, and children have names, sometimes the names on the list are the same as the names of children.

My logic isn't flawed, TSA policy is flawed. You can be an apologist for incompetence and fascism, or you can admit I'm right.”

The no-fly list and selectee list are not just names. How do we know this to be true? Well through observation. If the list was only names, then everyone who shares a name with someone on the no-fly list would not be able to fly. In previous stories about people on the no-fly list, they all ended up flying. How did local authorities determine that they did not have the person of interest in front of them? Simple logic dictates that the list is not just names. These facts cannot be denied.

So how does one get mismatched in the first place if the list has more than just names? Simple, the old system had the airlines only transmit names and redress numbers (if available and if the airline system was capable). How does secure flight fix this problem? Airlines now are required to transmit Name as it appears on government-issued I.D. when traveling, Date of Birth, Gender, and Redress Number (if available).

Using simple logic, is it possible the list has names, date of birth, and genders? Another insight into the list is the redress form. What data points does the government need in order to determine if you are on the no-fly list? By using simple data collection techniques, one can get a glimpse into that list without ever needing a security clearance and a need to know.

You have worked for the government Ayn. The government is very linear and simple. Point A to point B.

Does it suck that it took 8 years for TSA to solve such a foul pre-TSA problem? A big resounding yes.
Have mismatched passenger’s barred a big price?
You bet yeah.

I have no problems about any complaints about the old system or the current half breed system we have until Secure Flight is fully online. I just disagree with your conclusion that the no-fly list only has names on it.

-Tim
TSA Blog Team

Anonymous said...

Hey Bob:

Any comment on this TSA hero?

http://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/local-beat/tsa-agents-accused-of-stealing-cash-from-elderly-woman-in-wheelchair-94179834.html

Anonymous said...

HappyToHelp said..., well, quoted... "We have said since the institution of the liquid ban that the fear or threat is the combination of items, including liquid explosives while in flight to create an improvised explosive device. That combination means explosives, detonator and other components to have a fully assembled bomb."

First, it doesn't take "a fully assembled bomb" to disrupt things. Person 'A' tries to take a two liter soda bottle through security. The TSA takes it and throws it in the trash, where, unknown to them, it starts leaking. In fact, it was designed to leak. Person 'B' takes a similar bottle through an hour later, and it too gets taken and thrown in the same trash. It too starts to leak. Chemical 'A' meets chemical 'B', and voila! Poison gas, smoke, bad smells, whatever.
Airport is evacuated, people's lives are disrupted. People are more afraid.

Second, the active components of a bomb can be made quite small. I'm willing to bet that someone could take a 2-liter bottle, and make a miniaturized timer circuit that fits in the bottle cap. Use some epoxy to 'waterproof' it, fill bottle with gasoline, and try to take it on a plane. The TSA takes it, dumps it casually in the trash, and a short time later, BOOM.

And THAT'S why, if the TSA insists we can't take liquids on board, then they need to treat them as potential explosives, and not just dump them in the trash can next to a crowd of people.

That is not a significant risk to aviation.

An explosion on a plane, window blown out, explosive decompression, plane diverted. And that's not a risk to aviation?

HappyToHelp said...

Anonymous said...
"An explosion on a plane, window blown out, explosive decompression, plane diverted. And that's not a risk to aviation?”

Are you claiming you can blow out a window in a commercial aircraft with two bic lighters?

Well despite your answer, I can’t and wouldn’t post on how to defeat current or past security protocols. If you believe you have found a security exploit, you can send it in here.

Tim
TSA Blog Team

Eric McMillan said...

Lighther. what better way to do it?

Anonymous said...

Gotta wonder when the TSA will outlaw powdered cosmetics in a females purse. God knows what would happen if someone uses that as the foundation of a dust explosion.

Anonymous said...

HappyToHelp said...
Are you claiming you can blow out a window in a commercial aircraft with two bic lighters?


I'm not "claiming" anything. I'm offering an example of what could happen. And what the TSA states is "not a risk to aviation".

I can’t and wouldn’t post on how to defeat current or past security protocols.

Of course you wouldn't. You work for the TSA, why would you post something that proves them incompetent?
Software companies don't like it when hackers post exploits for their software, either. But it has been shown time and time again that without the 'push' of having the security holes made public, there is no reason for the software companies to fix the holes. It's only once the exploits are released that the holes get fixed.

Same for the TSA. If no one points out the flaws in security, they'll never be fixed.

Anonymous said...

Secure flight isn't up and running yet or else this wouldn't happen. Also when they arrive at the airport and the agent sees that the girl is 6 they can take the no fly status off just like it says in the article. The only reason something like this would happen is becuase there is an allison mosher on the no fly list, not that allison mosher though. But because secure flight is not up and running yet the only thing they match are the names not age and gender and stuff. When secure flight gets enabled stuff like this shouldn't happen anymore.
---------------------

Oh well, that clears that one up. Nothing to be concerned about here: a program that doesn't yet exist should (probably) have cleared up this problem. When it exists, this problem won't have happened.

I mean, seriously, folks... I could just as easily say "When world peace comes there won't be any more terrorist attacks. When we have world peace this kind of thing shouldn't happen."

Why is it so difficult for you people to just send out a memo pointing out that no 8 year olds are on the no-fly list and therefore no 8 year old should be subjected to any additional security measures based on a coincidental match? You can keep on squawking about how this is the airline's job, but I would really like to know why no one can take two minutes and write a memo.

Julie said...

When ever I see anything regarding the E-cigs and the government it angers me. I have yet to figure out why our government feels it's okay to sell something that they know are killing Americans, but are trying to restrict the first positive move towards giving smokers a real option!

Jason said...

11 million lighters? Wow! that's a lot of people that are going to be asking to borrow a lighter when they get off the plane.

WoodstockCandy said...

One of our customers had their box of candy cigarettes opened because the agent thought the box looked suspicious.

Anonymous said...

Search my children all you want..if it prevents me from using them as mules to harm other people. So be it!
My uncles best friend was killed by a 7 yr old kid in Vietnam who asked him for chocolate.
Stop whining about all this stuff, there are people in other countries who still have to wait hours in line just to get FOOD..and you all are complaining about boarding a plane to go on vacation!
Do you really need a lighter? You cant just buy a $1 one, once you get where you are going?
What hotels do not have free shampoo? Do you really need to make a big deal out of a $2 bottle of hair care product..(that can easily be used to store harmful liquids).
Did you REALLY have to carry on your cigar cutter? Do you need an emergency cigar immediately upon de-boarding the plane? My grandpop used to bite his ends off *shrug
This is basically a No shoes, No Shirt, No service policy...you don't like it? Take greyhound and leave the air to people who don't mind being kept safe.
You boarding a plane with anything that can be used to harm me or my family is not within your Rights.
My boarding a plane and not having to worry about it IS.

Luis Quiroz Ravines said...

"Cigarette smoking is the major single cause of cancer mortality in the United States," confirmed by a report of United States Surgeon General. Tobacco use is responsible for nearly 1 in 5 deaths in the United States. Smoking is the most preventable cause of death in our society. I quit smoking 20 years ago

Anonymous said...

Electronic cigarettes use no flame, FOX News just threw their biased spin on this issue pretty dang hard. Explosions? wth. I've seen these little devices, they have no odor, and deliver nicotine to the used. electronic devices turned off on flight? this thing uses a common watch battery. *shaking my head at fox news again

Anonymous said...

No cigarettes of any kind. The gesture itself makes me sick. No such electronics cigarettes either. Imagine the effort to double check if that's an electronic cigarette or a real one and the numerous complaints, some valid, some simply apparently valid...

Why would TSA give up on such things that might become the next Trojan Horse to carry illegal or dangerous substances in the airport? TSA should not give up on this. We have better things to worry about, such inspecting people and their belongings for explosive components. When it comes to safety, let's just don't waste their time with idiotic ideas.

Anonymous said...

How about publishing a list of incidents thwarted as a result of super heavy (1984esq) screenings?

How many lives have you saved by frisking an old lady?

How many plots have you uncovered by throwing away someones persone hygine products?

Pathetic.

Anonymous said...

Does TSA allow the small bottles (probably less than an ounce) of liquid used in refillable e-cigs? Mine are Mega-Egos and are almost small cigar size. I'd like to take three bottles, different flavors, a charger, and a couple of batteries, tips, charger, etc. Thanks all.

jeanne wood said...

Are you allowed to take the small bottles of liquid to refill your electronic cigarettes in a carry on? Need to know as soon as possible. Thank you.

jeanne wood said...

Please advise if the liquid used to fill electronic cigarettes is allowed in the small bottles. Thank you

Bob Burns (TSA Blog Team) said...

Hi. The liquid is fine as long as it is in a baggy per our 3-1-1 policy. Thanks.

Anonymous said...

The electronic cigarette ( sigaretta elettronica ) is essential for all those smokers who want to quit smoking. I know many people who are fine with electronic cigarettes.

Anonymous said...

Well, I would not agree that electronic cigarettes are the essential for all those who are thinking about to quit smoking. Ecigarettes are providing their consumers nicotine which is the main reason why smokers are addicted to cigarettes. However, there are four thousand reasons (toxins, poisons, carcinogens... which are held in traditional cigarettes), to quit smoking, or at least try with electronic cigarettes which are only providing nicotine to their users, and by that 4000 times healthier than traditional ones.

Don said...

Bob, do you allow to bring the liquid used to fill this electronic cig.?

Kim Riddle said...

Hey Bob! I'm flying in a couple of months and since I can't find any very-recent info I was hoping you could offer an update on whether e-cigarettes and refill cartridges are still permitted in carry on bags. Thank you!

Anonymous said...

I too am planning a trip August 1st and am wondering about the do's and dont's of the e-cigs and liquid. I would like to carry the e-cig on the flight but pack the liquids in my suit case that will NOT be carry on. Am I going to get the e-cig confiscated if I have it in my carry on? Hate to have it taken and be out the bucks I invested.

Anonymous said...

Any updates on these relevant questions? E-cigs (tank type) with chargers, extra batteries, allowed on carry-on. I see where Bob answered about the refill liquid being in the 3-1-1 bag, so good on that. I am flying internationally and was curious if other countries are up on the e-cigs as well.

Anonymous said...

How does that look in relation to the stats from pre-TSA days?

RFG said...

As a law enforcement official for more than 25 years and a flyer who has flown all over the world TSA is a joke when it comes to security as to what is and is not allowed. People wear shoes with laces on them,and bring ink pens on planes, both can be used as deadly weapons. On iternational flights you are given a knife and fork. Now you have lifted the ban on lighters, have you ever seen 4oz of a flamable liquid on a plane.

Anonymous said...

What about the small bottle of liquid nicotine to refill your e cig?

Anonymous said...

Jeez, some people can be real dicks. Thanks for the letting us know, Bob, and thanks for doing your job and keeping us safe!

Anonymous said...

Ok so i leave seatac today.

So i desperately need an answer fast if you can. 3.75 hours from now

Going with family. I vape. They know i vape. But it's an unspoken rule that my mother can't physically see me using or holding my ecig. (I'm 21)

Were traveling with cary on only

Is there a way i can bring it and display it with full disclosure to security personnel while keeping it hidden from my mother AND not have security draw extra attention to me/it?
She can't even know I'm bringing on vacation.

It comes apart into
3 metal tubes .75" dia x 2.5"long
2 round ends 1" dia 0.4" long
3 individual dc18650 batteries
And a rebuildable atomizer that I'll have in plastic.


I thank you in advance. :)

Chris Johnson said...

I personally think that if a product does not pose a risk to others then it should be allowed on a plane. The only problem is that the second hand effects of electronic cigarettes are not entirely know yet. I would prefer someone be next to me using chewing tobacco, well as long as they had a spittoon for example to spit in versus someone smoking a cigarette.