Ban Of Liquids On Flights

[Beardog]

Just because others feel they can't use them and I am flaunting it?

First of all, when I am on a flight, none of the passengers know who I am anyway. Second, I carry a very small MP3 player with tiny ear phones and I keep the MP3 down on my side under my lap so no one can see it. I don't flaunt it out in the open [see above quote] and I never get told about it.

But your answer does imply the crew do know you are an employee, so my point stands. By the by if you worked for me, and people do, your attitude would not be acceptable, but you don't so it's moot.

Regards

Isn't it odd the only countries that snag the toothepaste razors colonge or perfume water & whatever else they can justify are usually poor. When I went to Costa Rica they even stole my toilet paper. I can just imagine the horrible things a passenger can do to indanger other passengers with a roll of TP.

I haven't gotten my toothpaste snagged in the U.S. yet but if they would rather have a bunch of Quai Mai Dee men breath heathens on board I guess its their call.

DOES ANYONE KNOW IF YOU CAN TRANSPORT 500 CC'S OF MEDICAL WATER(USED FOR LIVER HEALTH)

IN CHECKED IN BAGGAGE? I GO TO THE U.S. NEXT MONTH & DON'T WANT ANY PROBLEMS.

THANKS

Beardog

All this fuss about nothing! Israel has been doing this kind of thing since, well forever. I remember in the 70's how they would squeeze out the toothpaste in front of you and cut your bar of soap in two. They even ripped the heels off shoes sometimes.

I guess you are right on that Israel is from what I hear the toughest of the toughest, but they have a good track record. Better off safe then sorry!

[swindonabroad]

I have a slightly different point to make about the liquids ban.

I understand the sentiments behind it and agree that making it harder for these people to destroy planes is obviously a good thing.

The point at the moment is that these procedures are useless and ineffective as not all countries implement them

For example, I flew BKK to London via Kuwait. Not one item removed from my hand luggage following checks.

Flying out of Heathrow I lost my shaving foam, toothpaste and mouth wash.

Now if someone, for example, wanted to destroy a plane or use some item in their hand luggage as a weapon all they have to do is get on the plane in a country where these restrictions are not in place.

Another thing, in Heathrow I would have been allowed to take these items on the plane if they had fitted in the small plastic bag provided. So there is some criteria regarding the size of items that I am not too sure of.

Regarding mobiles on a plane. Please NO! Not in regards to safety but just love the fact that I cant hear those endless and usually pointless conversations we all hear on buses, trains, coaches and well everywhere.

[Shrubbery]

TRIPxCORE,

A few of your quotes:

Post No 8 “I work for a major U.S. airline at a major U.S. international airport”.

“I had a very small bottle of hairspray, half a bottle of lotion and a new tube of toothpaste that they took and threw away right in front of me”

As an airline employee, you should know about the restrictions.

Post No 13 “They would know that there is a liquid ban going on and would never try to smuggle liquids onto an airplane”

So obviously the restrictions are effective.

Post No 38 “If an announcement was made to evacuate the aircraft, I would clearly see everyone get up and start to scatter. I don't need to hear anything”

As an airline employee, you would know that even a couple of seconds is vital in an evacuation. You could quite easily miss an important instruction from the crew.

Post No 38 “I work for the airline. I am not getting blacklisted for anything”

Staff travel is a privilege not a right, and can be withdrawn at any time. As an airline employee you would know this.

Post 52 “it's that I know electronics do nothing to modern aircraft during take-off. Remember, I work there, it's my job to know this”

So please explain why airlines impose the restrictions on the use of electronic items on take off and landing.

Post No 35 “I cannot comment on the use of cell phones but as for all other electronic items such as MP3 players, CD's or laptops, which they dont let you use until 10 minutes after take-off that is also a sham. These electronic items do not affect the plane in any way”

If you know that electronic items do not affect modern aircraft, surely you would know whether a mobile phone may affect an aircraft. After all, as you say in post no 52. “It’s your job to know this”.

I have just spoken to a qualified aircraft avionics engineer who works for Lufthansa and he told me that the frequency’s that some electronic items use MAY interfere with aircraft wiring/avionics. Especially “fly by wire” aircraft such as Airbus.

Post No 56 “I am not discussing any details about my job in here”

You have already stated in post no: 8 that you work for a major US airline at a major US International Airport and in post 52 that it is your job to know that electronics do not affect aircraft. What harm will it do to you by saying what you do.

Post No 49 “I won't follow the useless rule about electronics during take-off? That hardly qualifies as irresponsible”

Well it certainly isn’t responsible to disobey a rule.

Post No 56 “I carry a very small MP3 player with tiny ear phones and I keep the MP3 down on my side under my lap so no one can see it.”

Whether you have a “small” one or a “big” one has no bearing on the fact that you are breaking a regulation. And if a crew member saw you using your MP3 player they would almost certainly ask you to stop. Would you refuse and say that electronic items do not affect the aircraft.

[TRIPxCORE]

Post No 13 “They would know that there is a liquid ban going on and would never try to smuggle liquids onto an airplane”

So obviously the restrictions are effective.

I fully support the restrictions as long as they implement racial profiling along with it. I clearly stated this before.

Post No 38 “If an announcement was made to evacuate the aircraft, I would clearly see everyone get up and start to scatter. I don't need to hear anything”

As an airline employee, you would know that even a couple of seconds is vital in an evacuation. You could quite easily miss an important instruction from the crew.

I think I would be fine but thanks for your concern.

Post No 38 “I work for the airline. I am not getting blacklisted for anything”

Staff travel is a privilege not a right, and can be withdrawn at any time. As an airline employee you would know this.

I do know this but I am not getting blacklisted for quietly listening to music that is hiding under my lap. I haven't had one problem yet.

Post 52 “it's that I know electronics do nothing to modern aircraft during take-off. Remember, I work there, it's my job to know this”

So please explain why airlines impose the restrictions on the use of electronic items on take off and landing.

They impose it because they think it MAY have something to do with the airplanes instruments but they aren't sure. There is no evidence to support this and there has never been one incident involving electronic items onboard an aircraft.

Post No 35 “I cannot comment on the use of cell phones but as for all other electronic items such as MP3 players, CD's or laptops, which they dont let you use until 10 minutes after take-off that is also a sham. These electronic items do not affect the plane in any way”

If you know that electronic items do not affect modern aircraft, surely you would know whether a mobile phone may affect an aircraft. After all, as you say in post no 52. “It’s your job to know this”.

I have just spoken to a qualified aircraft avionics engineer who works for Lufthansa and he told me that the frequency’s that some electronic items use MAY interfere with aircraft wiring/avionics. Especially “fly by wire” aircraft such as Airbus.

Mobile phones emit a much stronger signal than normal electronic items do. They avionics guy said exactly what I just said to you above. Electronics MAY interfere but there is not evidence to support this.

Post No 56 “I am not discussing any details about my job in here”

You have already stated in post no: 8 that you work for a major US airline at a major US International Airport and in post 52 that it is your job to know that electronics do not affect aircraft. What harm will it do to you by saying what you do.

Why do you need to know? What does it matter?

Post No 49 “I won't follow the useless rule about electronics during take-off? That hardly qualifies as irresponsible”

Well it certainly isn’t responsible to disobey a rule.

A rule that hasn't been proved to prevent anything.

Post No 56 “I carry a very small MP3 player with tiny ear phones and I keep the MP3 down on my side under my lap so no one can see it.”

Whether you have a “small” one or a “big” one has no bearing on the fact that you are breaking a regulation. And if a crew member saw you using your MP3 player they would almost certainly ask you to stop. Would you refuse and say that electronic items do not affect the aircraft.

No, if they asked me I would stop even though I disagree with it.

[Shrubbery]

You have already stated that CD Players, Laptops etc do not affect modern aircraft in any way, and that it's your job to know this.

Yet in your last post you now say that they may, though there is no evidence.

Which is it. They don't, or they may.

You stated that you are not getting blacklisted for anything. You did not specify using an MP3 player. A person can get blacklisted by an airline for a number of reasons. You are not an exception to that rule.

The reason I would like to know what your job is, because you have stated that it is your job to know about electronics. If this is the case, one would have to assume that you work in engineering and more specifically, avionics.

Personally, I have my doubts about you working in aviation engineering, let alone an airline.

[TRIPxCORE]

You have already stated that CD Players, Laptops etc do not affect modern aircraft in any way, and that it's your job to know this.

Yet in your last post you now say that they may, though there is no evidence.

Which is it. They don't, or they may.

You stated that you are not getting blacklisted for anything. You did not specify using an MP3 player. A person can get blacklisted by an airline for a number of reasons. You are not an exception to that rule.

The reason I would like to know what your job is, because you have stated that it is your job to know about electronics. If this is the case, one would have to assume that you work in engineering and more specifically, avionics.

Personally, I have my doubts about you working in aviation engineering, let alone an airline.

This issue seems to really get under your skin.

Let me rephrase one of my statements for clarification purposes. I know there is no evidence to demonstrate electronics affect planes. That is what I know.

Yes, I am not an exception to any rule. But I use my MP3 player on airplanes during takeoff and no one ever sees me because I do not flaunt it out in the open. Therefore, I don't ever think I will get caught and even if I do, they will only tell me to turn it off. I will not get blacklisted.

I am not an engineer but I do work for an airline, ok? You don't think I work for an airline? Well, you can think whatever you like. That doesn't bother me any. I am not here to prove to you where I work.

Edited May 29, 2007 by TRIPxCORE

[onzestan]

I am not an engineer but I do work for an airline, ok? You don't think I work for an airline? Well, you can think whatever you like. That doesn't bother me any. I am not here to prove to you where I work.

I hope for your sake that your boss is not a member of this forum, because he would sack you immediatly.

Whatever you say, rules are there for a reason even if your not clever enough to understand why you should follow them

My opinion.

cheers

onzestan

[TRIPxCORE]

I hope for your sake that your boss is not a member of this forum, because he would sack you immediatly.

Whatever you say, rules are there for a reason even if your not clever enough to understand why you should follow them

My opinion.

cheers

onzestan

Even if one of my bosses were here and read what I said, I wouldn't get sacked at all. They would simply tell me to not use my MP3 player during takeoff and that's it. You guys are making this issue seem a lot more serious than it really is.

Most rules are there for a reason but many rules are silly and unnecessary including the one we are discussing.

I am a firm believer in self-preservation. So if I saw any solid proof or thought that my using an MP3 player during takeoff might cause harm to myself or others, I wouldn't use it. I have yet to see any proof.

[Shrubbery]

I hope for your sake that your boss is not a member of this forum, because he would sack you immediatly.

Whatever you say, rules are there for a reason even if your not clever enough to understand why you should follow them

My opinion.

cheers

onzestan

Even if one of my bosses were here and read what I said, I wouldn't get sacked at all. They would simply tell me to not use my MP3 player during takeoff and that's it. You guys are making this issue seem a lot more serious than it really is.

Most rules are there for a reason but many rules are silly and unnecessary including the one we are discussing.

I am a firm believer in self-preservation. So if I saw any solid proof or thought that my using an MP3 player during takeoff might cause harm to myself or others, I wouldn't use it. I have yet to see any proof.

For the love of god, will you make up your mind.

1 post you say that electronics DONT affect aircraft, then in another post you say the MAY.

[TRIPxCORE]

I hope for your sake that your boss is not a member of this forum, because he would sack you immediatly.

Whatever you say, rules are there for a reason even if your not clever enough to understand why you should follow them

My opinion.

cheers

onzestan

Even if one of my bosses were here and read what I said, I wouldn't get sacked at all. They would simply tell me to not use my MP3 player during takeoff and that's it. You guys are making this issue seem a lot more serious than it really is.

Most rules are there for a reason but many rules are silly and unnecessary including the one we are discussing.

I am a firm believer in self-preservation. So if I saw any solid proof or thought that my using an MP3 player during takeoff might cause harm to myself or others, I wouldn't use it. I have yet to see any proof.

For the love of god, will you make up your mind.

1 post you say that electronics DONT affect aircraft, then in another post you say the MAY.

In my mind I truly believe that they do not harm aircraft in any way. According to the powers that be, they MAY but they aren't sure and there is no proof.

[Shrubbery]

I hope for your sake that your boss is not a member of this forum, because he would sack you immediatly.

Whatever you say, rules are there for a reason even if your not clever enough to understand why you should follow them

My opinion.

cheers

onzestan

Even if one of my bosses were here and read what I said, I wouldn't get sacked at all. They would simply tell me to not use my MP3 player during takeoff and that's it. You guys are making this issue seem a lot more serious than it really is.

Most rules are there for a reason but many rules are silly and unnecessary including the one we are discussing.

I am a firm believer in self-preservation. So if I saw any solid proof or thought that my using an MP3 player during takeoff might cause harm to myself or others, I wouldn't use it. I have yet to see any proof.

For the love of god, will you make up your mind.

1 post you say that electronics DONT affect aircraft, then in another post you say the MAY.

In my mind I truly believe that they do not harm aircraft in any way. According to the powers that be, they MAY but they aren't sure and there is no proof.

You stated clearly in 1 of your earlier posts that they do not affect aircraft in any way. It was your job to know that.

Are you now withdrawing that statement.

[TRIPxCORE]

I hope for your sake that your boss is not a member of this forum, because he would sack you immediatly.

Whatever you say, rules are there for a reason even if your not clever enough to understand why you should follow them

My opinion.

cheers

onzestan

Even if one of my bosses were here and read what I said, I wouldn't get sacked at all. They would simply tell me to not use my MP3 player during takeoff and that's it. You guys are making this issue seem a lot more serious than it really is.

Most rules are there for a reason but many rules are silly and unnecessary including the one we are discussing.

I am a firm believer in self-preservation. So if I saw any solid proof or thought that my using an MP3 player during takeoff might cause harm to myself or others, I wouldn't use it. I have yet to see any proof.

For the love of god, will you make up your mind.

1 post you say that electronics DONT affect aircraft, then in another post you say the MAY.

In my mind I truly believe that they do not harm aircraft in any way. According to the powers that be, they MAY but they aren't sure and there is no proof.

You stated clearly in 1 of your earlier posts that they do not affect aircraft in any way. It was your job to know that.

Are you now withdrawing that statement.

I believe that electronics cannot affect aircraft due to there being no proof.

Edited May 29, 2007 by TRIPxCORE

[Shrubbery]

Obviously, getting a straight answer to a question is not going to happen.

So I think I will go and bang my head against a brick wall.

[rychrde]

For those of you who hate the idea of mobiles working on airplanes, there's bad news ahead.

http://www.usatoday.com/money/biztravel/20...-aircells_x.htm

[rychrde]

oh and here's a link about mobiles and aircraft electronics, with various other links.

http://kwc.org/mythbusters/2006/04/episode...s_on_plane.html

haven't read it all

[TRIPxCORE]

Obviously, getting a straight answer to a question is not going to happen.

So I think I will go and bang my head against a brick wall.

Which part of my answer didn't you understand sir?

[A_Traveller]

Obviously, getting a straight answer to a question is not going to happen.

So I think I will go and bang my head against a brick wall.

Which part of my answer didn't you understand sir?

To be fair, I don't see a disconnect here, though I disagree with TxC's position, on electronic devices. The view that TxC is expressing {as I understand it} is that there is no evidence to show that a consumer electrical device could affect the electronics within an airplane, however, the corporate view is that such a device may cause a disruption and therefore the airline errs on the side of caution {and legal challenges} and bans their use at critical times.

An aside here, from a security perspective there might be an issue where a device appearing to be a standard consumer piece of kit could contain something less palatable {Yes I know it's a bit 24}.

From a more realistic perspective, my own view is that placing oneself in a level of isolation using a MP3 runs the risk that you, the passenger, might be slow to respond to an instruction from the crew during this time, with concomitant issues for your fellow passengers. We, irrespective of our professions are all aware that take off and landing are critical times, and it is, again, in my view, not unreasonable that the crew be assured of your undivided attention sans MP3 at these junctures.

Personally, during the rest of the flight, for example, I always leave my seat belt on loosely in case of turbulence, that's a judgement call I make based on experience.

Returning to the liquids point I've always wondered about the logic of potentially several hundred liters of highly flammable liquid in the cabin, anyway, but this drive to remove gells, toothpastes et al, does strike me as bizarre, given the technical difficulties in constructing a binary device capable of avoiding detection.

Regards

[A_Traveller]

Electronics can act unpredictably. Several years ago, an Apple notebook product caused an airliner to take evasive action (read as "nose dive"). The offending product was tested by the FCC, FAA, Apple, and a 3rd-party laboratory...and nothing was found. As the previous poster noted, it's best to obey the rules for everyone's benefit.

Hi,

Still awaiting a citation for this. I really would be interested in seeing this.

Regards

[Shrubbery]

Obviously, getting a straight answer to a question is not going to happen.

So I think I will go and bang my head against a brick wall.

Which part of my answer didn't you understand sir?

Not a case of not understanding.

Just a case of waiting for a simple "yes" you are withdrawing your statement or "no" you are not.

[backflip]

"Still awaiting a citation for this"

Here's the citation: "one of us was employed by the vendor in question for 16 years, as an engineering in R+D, and I bet it wasn't you".

[TRIPxCORE]

Obviously, getting a straight answer to a question is not going to happen.

So I think I will go and bang my head against a brick wall.

Which part of my answer didn't you understand sir?

Not a case of not understanding.

Just a case of waiting for a simple "yes" you are withdrawing your statement or "no" you are not.

I clarified my answer for you several times already. There is no need to withdraw anything. I stated CLEARLY that electronics cannot do anything to harm an aircraft in flight. I base my conclusion on the fact that there is no evidence to support the theory that they do cause harm. Which part are you unable to grasp here?

[A_Traveller]

"Still awaiting a citation for this"

Here's the citation: "one of us was employed by the vendor in question for 16 years, as an engineering in R+D, and I bet it wasn't you".

Don't understand the tone of the reply, either this was formally reported or not. If not then it is an anecdotal incident, if reported please provide more information. If you prefer PM me.

Thanks & regards

[Crossy]

Not categoric proof by any means (and a fairly old article), but worth a look:- http://www.rvs.uni-bielefeld.de/publicatio...rticle/EMI.html

Personally when I'm travelling, if the crew want it off, then it goes off. I can survive without my electronics (except my pacemaker, but they don't ask me to turn that off) for a few minutes

Edited May 30, 2007 by Crossy

[A_Traveller]

Not categoric proof by any means (and a fairly old article), but worth a look:- http://www.rvs.uni-bielefeld.de/publicatio...rticle/EMI.html

Personally when I'm travelling, if the crew want it off, then it goes off. I can survive without my electronics (except my pacemaker, but they don't ask me to turn that off) for a few minutes

Thanks for the link. If one goes back to the root url AG RVS you can access more up to date reports as well. The university department is looking at computer {or system} contributed events in the widest sense, i.e. a failure within a system not just external causation. However, an interesting site.

By the by who says Germans do not have a sense of humour?

The text on the screen says :-

New Device Found

Device: Airbus A310

Start Auto-Configuration?

Regards

[richmax]

I recently did a round trip on Thai Airways International, Bangkok-Denpasar-Bangkok. In both directions I carried in my hand baggage liquid medications in small quantity, together with cans of hairspray and shaving foam. At Suvarnaphumi, I was waved through with a smile - not even subjected to a hand search of my luggage. At Denpasar, both the hairspray and shaving foam were confiscated. What annoys me is the inconsistency from country to country and airport to airport. Not to mention the inconsistency by means of which the Thai authorities can ban these life threatening substances on international flights, but do absolutely nothing about them on domestic flights.

[bacwy1]

Having worked for the TSA in America and having done my own research I do have to say that those who complain about the liquid bans need to do some research on their own. I was working when the liquid ban came into place and I was not happy about having to do it. I then read a report out of Europe about how the terrorist can make a liquid bomb and color it and corbonate it to look like any kind of drink, or other product and have seen the test results of what the explosive would do. If you dont like to have them take your liquids than all you have to do is go online to the airlines website for 20 minutes to see what is allowed and not allowed before you fly, take some self responibility before you fly and it will be much easier. Most of the people I dealt with knew they could not bring the products but felt that the rules and laws did not apply to them. Just think of it this way, you may complain about the security but how much more are you gonna complain when you are in a plane at 30,000 feet with a big hole in it because of a lack of security. The problem that the average person does not realize is that the terrorists rely on your complaining and whinning to make there actions easier to perform.

[Lucifer]

Having worked for the TSA in America and having done my own research I do have to say that those who complain about the liquid bans need to do some research on their own. I was working when the liquid ban came into place and I was not happy about having to do it. I then read a report out of Europe about how the terrorist can make a liquid bomb and color it and corbonate it to look like any kind of drink, or other product and have seen the test results of what the explosive would do. If you dont like to have them take your liquids than all you have to do is go online to the airlines website for 20 minutes to see what is allowed and not allowed before you fly, take some self responibility before you fly and it will be much easier. Most of the people I dealt with knew they could not bring the products but felt that the rules and laws did not apply to them. Just think of it this way, you may complain about the security but how much more are you gonna complain when you are in a plane at 30,000 feet with a big hole in it because of a lack of security. The problem that the average person does not realize is that the terrorists rely on your complaining and whinning to make there actions easier to perform.

And there my friends is the result of the great American properganda at work.

[TRIPxCORE]

Having worked for the TSA in America and having done my own research I do have to say that those who complain about the liquid bans need to do some research on their own. I was working when the liquid ban came into place and I was not happy about having to do it. I then read a report out of Europe about how the terrorist can make a liquid bomb and color it and corbonate it to look like any kind of drink, or other product and have seen the test results of what the explosive would do. If you dont like to have them take your liquids than all you have to do is go online to the airlines website for 20 minutes to see what is allowed and not allowed before you fly, take some self responibility before you fly and it will be much easier. Most of the people I dealt with knew they could not bring the products but felt that the rules and laws did not apply to them. Just think of it this way, you may complain about the security but how much more are you gonna complain when you are in a plane at 30,000 feet with a big hole in it because of a lack of security. The problem that the average person does not realize is that the terrorists rely on your complaining and whinning to make there actions easier to perform.

If you did work at the TSA then you know that there are so many easy ways to do harm in an airport or on an airplane that have nothing at all to do with people going through security. Security at airports needs to mandate racial-profiling and leave the little old ladies alone.

[mcbride]

Guess the next step will be banning all marker pens and the like {see recent episode of 24}.

The duty free at source has been in place for some while, with different interpretations leading to confusion. If, for example, you are boarding a flight in BKK going Europe and then to the US, it is entirely possible your 'sealed and documentated' duty free may be confiscated at the way point.

Duty free should now be bought at the last airport before destination.

Regards

PS Re 24 point, isn't this where most governments get their ideas from about security Oh for The Man from UNCLE

[mcbride]

This is from today's Bangkok Post:

Liquid ban on flights from June 1

"From June 1, air passengers flying out of Thailand will be prohibited from carrying liquids, with the exception of baby milk and medications, exceeding 100 millilitres on board their planes. According to Thai Airways International president Apinan Sumanaseni, the Aviation Department is imposing the ban in line with the directive of the International Civil Aviation Organisation.

The ban covers all kinds of containers, including water, beverage, cream, lotion, oil, perfume, hair gel, spray, bath gel, foam, toothpaste and deodorant.

Containers of lesser capacities are allowed but must be placed in transparent and re-sealable plastic bags.

Exempted from the ban are milk and liquid foods for infants and liquid medicines with proper prescriptions.

Airports of Thailand board member Chirmsak Pinthong said passengers who buy liquid products from airport duty-free shops would be issued special seals and certificates to be introduced soon".