Cirrus SR22
14th Sep 2007, 11:57
By Jason White
www.reporter.co.za
Reporter contributor surveys liquid rule at nine airports
An international airport survey shows that the “100 ml” security rule is so badly and incorrectly applied, that it is a joke. And the joke is on the passengers.
International airports have vigorously applied a 100 ml rule in a response to various real threats. It is not a joking matter, for either passengers or airlines, and they expect the rule to be applied properly for safety.
The 100 ml rule essentially says that liquids may only be carried on aircraft in the hand luggage, if they are in 100 ml containers, in a clear, 1 litre plastic bag.
Every day, all over the world, tons of ‘contraband’ are confiscated and destroyed under this rule. Passengers who argue with the security officials are left in no doubt about the consequences: at best, they will miss their flights, at worst, they could face criminal charges.
The rule, however, has serious flaws: it doesn’t apply to goods bought in the duty-free section (as if duty-free is 100% secure) and many medications (including, sometimes, lense cleaner) are not subject to this, so the possibility of disguise is wide open. Also, a connecting flight may block you from taking stuff that you took through on the previous flight. Aah, they didn’t tell you that one, did they?
Worse, and the subject of this article, is that the rule is inconsistently and arbitrarily applied by airport security.
I noticed this on a recent trip: one airport stopped me from taking a 750 ml bottle of alcohol through, but allowed me decant the bottle into small 100 ml containers, take them through, then refill the bottle on the other side. Hello? Just how secure is that? Other airports, however, seemed to have a different.
So, because I travel a lot, and consider myself a law-abiding citizen (and have no wish to spend time in a police cell), I surveyed international airports. These included OR Tambo (via ACSA), Dulles (Washington, DC), Heathrow, De Gaulle, Madrid, Frankfurt, Rome, Helsinki, and Sydney, and asked them 4 questions concerning the process. I also checked the Australian Government FAQ, and mailed them for more clarification.
Below are the questions, and the responses I received.
1. If I wish to bring a 750 ml bottle of spirits (not purchased in the duty-free shop) through security, may I decant that bottle into 8 x 100 ml containers, and bring those containers through? )Assuming they fit into the 1 litre bag).
Australian Govt , Frankfurt, Madrid, and Sydney: Yes. Helsinki: No
Dulles was uncertain, with responsibility on the security officer, but it is certainly unlikely that you’d be allowed to decant your bottle, take it all through, and then refill on the other side. Heathrow doubted whether 8 bottles would fit into the bag, but didn’t answer yes or no. (But could these 8 bottles be split between two passengers?)
So, some agreement, but don’t try this in the US or Finland.
2. May I then also bring the empty 750 ml bottle through security?
Australia Govt, Frankfurt, Heathrow and Helsinki: Yes Madrid and Sydney: No. Also unlikely at Dulles.
So, again, differences between airports, and it seems that Sydney and their government need to talk.
3. It is known that almost all containers marked “100 ml” can actually hold more than 100 ml of liquid. This is done for several reasons, such as there being space for the expansion of the liquid. Does this mean that the containers should actually be marked “90 ml”, or will containers marked “100 ml” be taken as “100 ml containers?
Frankfurt, Heathrow, Helsinki, Madrid, and Sydney said the containers marked as 100 ml are taken as 100 ml. Dulles did not address this.
Strange that they agree on this, given that all containers marked 100 ml hold more than 100 ml, and some can hold twice that amount. 4. If a liquid container is not marked in ml, but is marked in grams, what is the maximum number of grams permissible? This was interesting. While Dulles, Frankfurt and Heathrow noted that there was no relationship between grams and ml, the Australian Govt, Helsinki, Madrid, and Sydney all said that 100g was permissible. (Sydney uses its discretion if the liquid is not in the original container; Madrid notes that there might be nearly imperceptible variations).
So Australia, Finland and Spain make the assumption (or convenience) that 100 ml is equivalent to 100g. On what planet? On planet Earth, there is no absolute relationship between the two measurements. In fact, it only possibly holds true for pure water, so, unless the aim is to stop passengers from bringing water onboard, this is rubbish. (An item I have is marked 95g and 150 ml. So is this item permissible?)
At least these respondents attempted answers. Paris declined to answer any questions, saying that I needed to contact the airlines. Hello? Just who implements the security at De Gaul? The airlines?
Rome and ACSA, not known for their swiftness in dealing with passengers’ queries (or perhaps they didn’t like the questions), haven’t replied after 2 ½ weeks, in spite of a follow-up request. Nevertheless, no matter what their practice is, it runs counter to at least one other airport.
So, I thought my survey was simple. But it raised more questions than answers. In the light of the vigorous but inconsistent way in which this rule is enforced, passengers are left wondering, and are more likely to break the law than adhere to it.
My recommendations:
- Before introducing a rule, the international airports should at least agree on what they are enforcing.
- Perhaps a science teacher could explain to the security that rarely is 100 ml equivalent to 100g.
- Passengers: look for containers marked 100 ml that have lots of airspace, and fill them with your hooch. - Travel Agents: when asked the questions by customers, throw up your hands in horror.
But, given the arbitrary way in which this rule is applied, who knows what will happen when you go through airport security? You won’t laugh at the joke. The security staff certainly don’t.
www.reporter.co.za
Reporter contributor surveys liquid rule at nine airports
An international airport survey shows that the “100 ml” security rule is so badly and incorrectly applied, that it is a joke. And the joke is on the passengers.
International airports have vigorously applied a 100 ml rule in a response to various real threats. It is not a joking matter, for either passengers or airlines, and they expect the rule to be applied properly for safety.
The 100 ml rule essentially says that liquids may only be carried on aircraft in the hand luggage, if they are in 100 ml containers, in a clear, 1 litre plastic bag.
Every day, all over the world, tons of ‘contraband’ are confiscated and destroyed under this rule. Passengers who argue with the security officials are left in no doubt about the consequences: at best, they will miss their flights, at worst, they could face criminal charges.
The rule, however, has serious flaws: it doesn’t apply to goods bought in the duty-free section (as if duty-free is 100% secure) and many medications (including, sometimes, lense cleaner) are not subject to this, so the possibility of disguise is wide open. Also, a connecting flight may block you from taking stuff that you took through on the previous flight. Aah, they didn’t tell you that one, did they?
Worse, and the subject of this article, is that the rule is inconsistently and arbitrarily applied by airport security.
I noticed this on a recent trip: one airport stopped me from taking a 750 ml bottle of alcohol through, but allowed me decant the bottle into small 100 ml containers, take them through, then refill the bottle on the other side. Hello? Just how secure is that? Other airports, however, seemed to have a different.
So, because I travel a lot, and consider myself a law-abiding citizen (and have no wish to spend time in a police cell), I surveyed international airports. These included OR Tambo (via ACSA), Dulles (Washington, DC), Heathrow, De Gaulle, Madrid, Frankfurt, Rome, Helsinki, and Sydney, and asked them 4 questions concerning the process. I also checked the Australian Government FAQ, and mailed them for more clarification.
Below are the questions, and the responses I received.
1. If I wish to bring a 750 ml bottle of spirits (not purchased in the duty-free shop) through security, may I decant that bottle into 8 x 100 ml containers, and bring those containers through? )Assuming they fit into the 1 litre bag).
Australian Govt , Frankfurt, Madrid, and Sydney: Yes. Helsinki: No
Dulles was uncertain, with responsibility on the security officer, but it is certainly unlikely that you’d be allowed to decant your bottle, take it all through, and then refill on the other side. Heathrow doubted whether 8 bottles would fit into the bag, but didn’t answer yes or no. (But could these 8 bottles be split between two passengers?)
So, some agreement, but don’t try this in the US or Finland.
2. May I then also bring the empty 750 ml bottle through security?
Australia Govt, Frankfurt, Heathrow and Helsinki: Yes Madrid and Sydney: No. Also unlikely at Dulles.
So, again, differences between airports, and it seems that Sydney and their government need to talk.
3. It is known that almost all containers marked “100 ml” can actually hold more than 100 ml of liquid. This is done for several reasons, such as there being space for the expansion of the liquid. Does this mean that the containers should actually be marked “90 ml”, or will containers marked “100 ml” be taken as “100 ml containers?
Frankfurt, Heathrow, Helsinki, Madrid, and Sydney said the containers marked as 100 ml are taken as 100 ml. Dulles did not address this.
Strange that they agree on this, given that all containers marked 100 ml hold more than 100 ml, and some can hold twice that amount. 4. If a liquid container is not marked in ml, but is marked in grams, what is the maximum number of grams permissible? This was interesting. While Dulles, Frankfurt and Heathrow noted that there was no relationship between grams and ml, the Australian Govt, Helsinki, Madrid, and Sydney all said that 100g was permissible. (Sydney uses its discretion if the liquid is not in the original container; Madrid notes that there might be nearly imperceptible variations).
So Australia, Finland and Spain make the assumption (or convenience) that 100 ml is equivalent to 100g. On what planet? On planet Earth, there is no absolute relationship between the two measurements. In fact, it only possibly holds true for pure water, so, unless the aim is to stop passengers from bringing water onboard, this is rubbish. (An item I have is marked 95g and 150 ml. So is this item permissible?)
At least these respondents attempted answers. Paris declined to answer any questions, saying that I needed to contact the airlines. Hello? Just who implements the security at De Gaul? The airlines?
Rome and ACSA, not known for their swiftness in dealing with passengers’ queries (or perhaps they didn’t like the questions), haven’t replied after 2 ½ weeks, in spite of a follow-up request. Nevertheless, no matter what their practice is, it runs counter to at least one other airport.
So, I thought my survey was simple. But it raised more questions than answers. In the light of the vigorous but inconsistent way in which this rule is enforced, passengers are left wondering, and are more likely to break the law than adhere to it.
My recommendations:
- Before introducing a rule, the international airports should at least agree on what they are enforcing.
- Perhaps a science teacher could explain to the security that rarely is 100 ml equivalent to 100g.
- Passengers: look for containers marked 100 ml that have lots of airspace, and fill them with your hooch. - Travel Agents: when asked the questions by customers, throw up your hands in horror.
But, given the arbitrary way in which this rule is applied, who knows what will happen when you go through airport security? You won’t laugh at the joke. The security staff certainly don’t.