Tuesday, August 20, 2013

TSA Travel Tips Tuesday - Aerosols


These are samples of several aerosol items that did not make it past the checkpoint in carry-on baggage and were surrendered to TSA at the checkpoint.
These are aerosol items that were surrendered to TSA at the checkpoint.

Tuesday’s TSA Travel Tip has to do with toiletries in aerosol containers.

Traveling to weddings, birthdays, job interviews, vacations and other special occasions often necessitates that travelers bring along an assortment of aerosol toiletry products that they use on a regular basis in their homes. Typically those products include salon-quality hairsprays, anti-perspirents, shaving cream and body mists – typically in large aerosol containers.

TSA has determined that liquids, aerosols and gels, in limited quantities, are safe to bring aboard aircraft. So it is important to remember that all liquid, aerosol and gel items must be stored in containers 3.4 ounce or smaller. All of the 3.4 ounce containers must fit in a sealed 1-quart, clear plastic, zip-top bag, and only one plastic zip-top bag is permitted per passenger inside carry-on baggage.

If you want to travel with your full-size aerosol containers of anti-perspirant, hairspray, suntan lotion, shaving cream, and hair mousse, you can do so by packing them in your checked baggage. That way, you’ll be sure to have your favorite toiletries with you when you arrive at your destination.

To ensure that you’ll make it to your destination with your large aerosol can, today’s tip is to pack them in your checked baggage. You can read more about our liquid policies here: http://www.tsa.gov/traveler-information/3-1-1-carry-ons

See you next Tuesday with more travel tips!

Lisa Farbstein
Guest Blogger & TSA Spokesperson
 
If you have a travel related issue or question that needs an immediate answer, you can contact us by clicking here.

32 comments:

RB said...

How about some answers.

Why are 5 100ml bottles safe but 1 500 ml bottle is not?

Why does TSA toss these potential explosives in common trash right at the checpoint?

TSA LGA rules make no sense and add nothing to airport screening except waste of good products.

Anonymous said...

The airlines charge too much to check a bag, so people carry everything but the kitchen sink in their carry-on bags. People have forgotten about the liquid scare in England and don't remember or don't know about 3-1-1. TSA needs to put out more advertising or better signs for all the people that haven't flown in 20 yrs. Either that or let the liquids go. It's been too long.

Anonymous said...

I would double-zip-lock bag them in your checked luggage to avoid any leakage.

Melissa Newman said...

I have the same question as RB, somethings don't add up, and the risk isn't removed at all by throwing a potentially dangerous liquid in the trash right next to where everybody walks by the checkpoint.

Anonymous said...

I have asked this before but got no answer. The argument for limiting liquids is "we don´t know if it isn´t an explosive". So I´m not allowed to take more than 100 mL deodorant spray.

However, I am allowed to take any size of stick deodorant I want. How do you know that isn´t explosive?

Why limit one whole state of matter, being that explosives happen to exist in all states of matter?

Anonymous said...

If you don't like the rules don't fly.

Anonymous said...

" TSA needs to put out more advertising or better signs for all the people that haven't flown in 20 yrs. " There are signs all over the airport. People need to read.
" Why does TSA toss these potential explosives in common trash right at the checpoint?" Bottle "A" has one part of the explosive chemistry. Bottle "B" has another. It's not an explosive until "A" and "B" are combined to make "C." (Chemical reaction.)


RB said...

Melissa Newman said...
I have the same question as RB, somethings don't add up, and the risk isn't removed at all by throwing a potentially dangerous liquid in the trash right next to where everybody walks by the checkpoint.

August 21, 2013 at 5:39 AM
......................

Lots of things at TSA don't add up.

ID checking, is not a Limited Administrative Search for WEI making it an illegal search.

Playing 20 questions or having to state your name is not a Limited Administrative Search for WEI making it an illegal search.

Gate Gropes prove that TSA Searches are ineffective, or that the Sterile Area is not really secure, yet TSA abuses passengers instead of taking steps to secure the area.

TSA's use of Enhanced Pat Downs is clearly an illegal search since it violates a persons privacy when TSA screeners feel in the crotch and buttocks area of the person being assaulted.

TSA's war on liquids doesn't add up when TSA confiscates items and then tosses them into common trash bins at the checkpoint proving those items are not dangerous in any manner.

TSA has pushed so far over the boundary of the Limited Administrative Search TSA is allowed to conduct that it should make people take a stand against the growing police state that TSA is a part of.

TSA is not a friend of citizens who believe in freedom and our Constitution.

Anonymous said...

Security Theater

Anonymous said...

The reason that 1 500 ml bottle is not okay is the way the explosives work. Small containers - even if you have a dozen - will not work the same way as one large container. It's like firecrackers. you can do a hell of a lot of damage with an M80 - but not much with a string of much smaller ones.
They are going for one large concussion, not a string of tiny ones.

RB said...

Anonymous said...
If you don't like the rules don't fly.

August 21, 2013 at 7:56 AM
...............

This is still America where people have a right to travel by any means they desire including commercial aviation.

It is TSA that is violating the rights of all Americans.

Either you are on the side of TSA and their violations of citizens rights and total disregard of the Constitution or you stand up for your rights as a Citizen of the United States.

TSA is not a friend of citizens who believe in freedom and the United States Constitution.

RB said...

What happened to the comment that was posted suggesting that it is perfectly safe to dispose of two part explosives, part a and part b, in the same common trash bin?

Is it TSA's belief that doing so is safe?

Anonymous said...

If the liquid ban was removed or at least relaxed, the TSA would actually get good PR for a change. There is no reason why it can't be relaxed. The TSA has the ability to test liquids. Every item does not have to be tested. If there is suspicion that a liquid is dangerous, then it can be tested and random testing can also be performed.

I don't feel any safer when I see liquids thrown into the trash can next to the checkpoint. I've even seen a TSA screener dump a gray bin full of partially filled bottles into a trash can right next to me as I waited to go through the checkpoint. If these liquids are potentially dangerous, why are they disposed of in such a careless way?

RB said...

Anonymous said...
If the liquid ban was removed or at least relaxed, the TSA would actually get good PR for a change. There is no reason why it can't be relaxed. The TSA has the ability to test liquids. Every item does not have to be tested. If there is suspicion that a liquid is dangerous, then it can be tested and random testing can also be performed.

I don't feel any safer when I see liquids thrown into the trash can next to the checkpoint. I've even seen a TSA screener dump a gray bin full of partially filled bottles into a trash can right next to me as I waited to go through the checkpoint. If these liquids are potentially dangerous, why are they disposed of in such a careless way?

August 21, 2013 at 12:23 PM
..................

Pretty simple.

TSA knows the LGA's they confiscate are not dangerous

or

TSA cares nothing about your safety.

Which is it TSA?

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...
The reason that 1 500 ml bottle is not okay is the way the explosives work. Small containers - even if you have a dozen - will not work the same way as one large container. It's like firecrackers. you can do a hell of a lot of damage with an M80 - but not much with a string of much smaller ones.
They are going for one large concussion, not a string of tiny ones.

August 21, 2013 at 10:50 AM
-------------------------------

What is stopping them from combining smaller quantities of liquids into a larger container after being screened?

Of course this doesn't address the fascination with liquids. Explosives also come in solid form too.

Anonymous said...

"People have forgotten about the liquid scare in England"

No, I remember. I remember that the plot was purely aspirational, that it was foiled by police and intelligence work, that the plotters did not even have airplane tickets, let alone "liquid explosives."

Anonymous said...

If you don't like people asking logical questions, don't read the blog.

Anonymous said...

What everybody seems to be missing here is that this is a government policy, so it doesn't have to make sense, be consistent or be justifiable! As "Anonymous" said, if you don't like the rules, don't fly. I no longer fly. However, when the airlines start going broke again, flying may become mandatory as part of still another government bail-out.

Wintermute said...

Anonymous said...
"The reason that 1 500 ml bottle is not okay is the way the explosives work. Small containers - even if you have a dozen - will not work the same way as one large container. It's like firecrackers. you can do a hell of a lot of damage with an M80 - but not much with a string of much smaller ones.
They are going for one large concussion, not a string of tiny ones."

Except, as liquids, these can easily be recombined into a larger container, as empty container sizes are not limited. Either the liquids are a threat, or they are not. Even the TSA admits its best scientists took several tries before they could create a viable liquid explosive. Doesn't sound like a viable threat to me, if even their chemists are having a hard time doing it.

RB said...

RB said...
What happened to the comment that was posted suggesting that it is perfectly safe to dispose of two part explosives, part a and part b, in the same common trash bin?

Is it TSA's belief that doing so is safe?

August 21, 2013 at 11:30 AM
..................

Anonymous said...
" TSA needs to put out more advertising or better signs for all the people that haven't flown in 20 yrs. " There are signs all over the airport. People need to read.
" Why does TSA toss these potential explosives in common trash right at the checpoint?" Bottle "A" has one part of the explosive chemistry. Bottle "B" has another. It's not an explosive until "A" and "B" are combined to make "C." (Chemical reaction.)




August 21, 2013 at 9:29 AM
...............

In my quick reading of the blog I read over the thread I was questioning. It's there and that is my mistake.

What is not my mistake is how anyone can accept that putting both Part A and Part B of a potential or real explosive in the same container makes sense or is the act of anyone concerned abut safety.

I own up to my mistake but am still waiting for TSA to explain how tossing LGA's in common trash bins has any basis in safety.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...

The reason that 1 500 ml bottle is not okay is the way the explosives work. Small containers - even if you have a dozen - will not work the same way as one large container. It's like firecrackers. you can do a hell of a lot of damage with an M80 - but not much with a string of much smaller ones.
They are going for one large concussion, not a string of tiny ones.

I say:

Yeah, but you still can take an empty bottle to put all the content of your tiny liquid bottles into. Therefore, even your (questionable) argument does not hold water (pun intended)....

Anonymous said...

The reason that 1 500 ml bottle is not okay is the way the explosives work. Small containers - even if you have a dozen - will not work the same way as one large container. It's like firecrackers. you can do a hell of a lot of damage with an M80 - but not much with a string of much smaller ones.
They are going for one large concussion, not a string of tiny ones.

------

pssst. Maybe you don't know this, but small containers can be combined into a large container. It's by this secret process called "pouring it all into a larger container".

Anonymous said...

The TSA treats potential explosives (LAGs in bottles) the same methodology as the flying public: careless and unthinking.

Susan Richart said...

Why did you post my comment, Bob, on this subject? You think I'm giving aid to the enemy? Does the TSA believe that a terrorist or anyone else wanting to create havoc at a checkpoint wouldn't think of what I wrote?

A copy of said post will be sent to the OIG today.

screen shot/DHS OIG

Fred Klein said...

Anonymous said...
The reason that 1 500 ml bottle is not okay is the way the explosives work. Small containers - even if you have a dozen - will not work the same way as one large container. It's like firecrackers. you can do a hell of a lot of damage with an M80 - but not much with a string of much smaller ones.
They are going for one large concussion, not a string of tiny ones.


And exactly what stops them from pouring all the little bottles into a big one after they get through the checkpoint? The TSA specifically allows large empty bottle to go through, and you could probably just buy a large one after the checkpoint and empty it.

Susan Richart said...

Errata: I should have written:

Why did you not post my comment......

RB said...

pssst. Maybe you don't know this, but small containers can be combined into a large container. It's by this secret process called "pouring it all into a larger container".

August 23, 2013 at 9:43 AM

,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
Obviously a TSA employee.

Judy said...

Thanks - I wondered about this exact question recently.

CliffOnTheRoad said...

Lisa wrote the blog posting about spray cans and IMO does not deserve continued employment. Follow this; some yahoo (dumb person) writes a newspaper filler stating you should pour hot water into your kitchen sink to removed grease in the pipes. But talk to a plumber and U learn that the water cools and the fat redeposits further down the line, especially on cast iron. Hence, BAD ADVICE.

The FAA does not permit transportation of what Lisa says is OK.

Loved the comments of Security Threater and ... government policy, so it doesn't have to make sense

GSOLTSO said...

CliffOnTheRoad sez - "The FAA does not permit transportation of what Lisa says is OK."

Lisa covered the acceptable toiletry aerosols and indicated the sizes allowed in carry on baggage, as well as the ones not allowed in carry on baggage. The link included in the thread will give you a more complete break down of the carry on LAG regulations. To clarify, toiletry aerosols 3.4 oz or less are acceptable in carry on baggage (to include but not limited to - hair sprays, perfumes/body sprays/colognes, and suntan lotions).

West
TSA Blog Team

RB said...

So 3.4 ounces of LGA's are safe. What makes 3.5 ozs dangerous and what scientific evidence does TSA have to support this restriction?

Anonymous said...

may a passenger take in carry-on baggage, two 750 ml hair spray aerosol ?