Toothpaste Terrorism?
 

Departing YMML for points overseas recently was asked to show my little plastic ziplock bag with any fluids or pastes. Mine contained only a nearly empty tube of Colgate (just enough to clean teeth a couple of times on flight).

The knuckledragger inspected the bag and told me "Mate, it's not what's left in it, it's how much it has stamped on the container that's what matters". He was alluding to the fact my 110g tube of toothpaste which contained maybe 5g of contents was outside the prescribed limit of 100ml per item. Or it would have been if full.

I invited him to keep the toothpaste and he then started implying that I had some plot to bring down the aircraft using the empty space in my toothpaste tube. I started thinking I must have caught this guy on a day he had sent his brain back for repair under warranty. I persuaded him to confiscate the toothpaste and let me continue my journey to Malaysia, which after consultation with a second guard, he eventually condescended to do.

What's with this? Where does it say in the regs that it's all about the size of the tube, not how much toothpaste it contains? When it's patently obvious that there's bugger all substance left in the tube, why would they even bother?

Is there any history of toothpaste being used to bring down an aircraft?

This all seems like bureaucracy gone mad.

yeah mate its driving the ***** **** outta me, its so annoying when you carry contact liquid for contacts in your eyes and the bottles are

LOL


The "knuckledragger". :}:}:}:}

So true.

"I was an unemployable, brain dead low life. Now thanks to paranoia, I'm a very important security person with a very smart uniform"

I shudder to think how much these twits get paid....

You are joking surely...:ugh::ugh:

Just for the point of it, if the regs say 100ml, thats volume. 105g is mass. Water SG=1.0 toothpaste is quite likely 1.5 (I am not that bored that I have weighed a known volume of it), so in reality you probably have every right to take a full tube of 105g toothpaste.

As for contact lenses, when I fly Long Haul I take the lens case in my laptop case prefilled, they can be put in and taken out once with out needing a refill from the bottle in my luggage. Otherwise glasses it is. Just to avoid the moronic rules and security folk.

When will this garbage end?:{

SQ

Easy and simple:

Take your ID out of your back pocket.

"Okay thats great NEXT!!!!"

It won't. They'll keep making more security changes until we are all safely locked up at home and able to go nowhere.

I remember a book called 1984, and I thought it was a ludicrous scenario. But now it's all coming true.

As for the specific gravity comparison issue, I thought of bringing that up, but I took one look at those sunken, dead eyes, and the barely healed scabs on the guy's knuckles, and thought,:"Nah, what's the point. Keep the feckin' toothpaste."

We have nothing to fear, but fear itself.

My ID? You think that would have made any difference?

I have to wonder whether there is a deep-seated culture of resentment and jealousy with these guys. Day after day they get to inspect little placcy bags, while the persons carrying them are going off to work they love which takes them overseas, or else on glamorous holidays. It's only natural they'd get a bit bored and ticked off, I guess.

Your ID in meaning to what you are:

I.e.

If you look at the DOTARS website, it actually says containers must be less than "100mls/grams".

Nice try though. Bet a lot of security people have nice clean white teeth now.

The regs say 100ml/100g. They do say container size not contents. Why they don't take into account the amount of content is beyond me but I would guess it's to make things easier and consistent.

I seem to remember that they originally said 100ml only. Elsewhere it was stated that 100ml is approx 100g. Now 100g has been stated more prominently.

The bulk density of toothpaste is about 1.3, I Googled it, so yes your 110g container is in fact about 85ml. However you can't expect the screening officer to know this or expect them to get their calculators out for each of your containers. I assume that for this reason the regulations make the assumption that 1g=1ml.

What about the fact that you can fit much more than 100ml in the clear plastic bag? :}

Love their responses
 

:mad::mad::mad:

I have one of those F/J packs we get onboard with all the goodies inside, I have converted one into my Long Haul ammeneties kit. After losing my big toothpaste, aftershave and listerine a while back, i figured this would be a better solution. That said.

Recently I was stopped at security and told to empty the contents of my little pack, which i did. All was under or @ 100ml. This halfwit then said you must have this in a plastic bag, to which I said "What's the difference?"

So he put in all in a small plastic bag and handed back to me, and I proceeded to put the plastic bag inside my little pack again, which to my amazement he replied "That's how you should carry it".

Then i said to him, you know if i wanted to bring this plane down all I need to do is point the nose down after T/O. So all this is pointless on the crew, i understand doing it to the Pax but the crew, it's just ridiculous. Again for the record book, he said "Well mate if it wasnt for me you would not have a job". This was the final straw, to which i replied "Mate i was in a job before your job was even created, so if it wasnt for me you wouldnt have a job and if you were'nt here the plane would still take off".

Finally he said, "you know we must look like we are doing something in the eye of the public", in my frustration I said "The public are just as annoyed and dont really give a sh*t about this whole secuity thing, they know its all a big joke"........:ugh:

As a member of the flying public, I don't need to see the airport security officers shaking down my OPERATING flight crew, while at the same time the teenage girl that's been working at Burger King for one month get's to go through a staff entrance. :ugh:

You Just Gotta Luv 'Em
 

Recently flew to Cebu to do an inspection on an aircraft. Away for a few days only, travel light, backpack and that's it!!! Went and stole one of the kids pencil cases, which is clear, not as big as 1 ltr, and has a zip. Thinks me, can get all I need in here and it won't fall out. Gets to the security, and met with the cousin of your security dude VH-Cheer Up, and bugger me if he says, "Nope, won't do, you'll need to put it in one of these" and hands me a 1 ltr zip lock bag. He continues with "Shouldn't give you one of these, but seeing as how you went to all the effort, I'll give you a break". Just shook my head and walked off in amazement.
Leaving Cebu, NO fluids whatsoever allowed in your carry on. Told him to get fvck@d and left him standing at the x-ray with his mouth open. His offsider comes after me and chases me down and starts with the "No no no no" BS. " You must put it in you checked baggage". "I aint got no checked baggage dipsh!t says I, and walked off. Nothing more said or done.
Stupidity has taken over............When my kids get together with all their mates and start carrying on like idiots, I refer to them as the Idi, plural for a collection of idiots. Methinks maybe the world wide security should carry a badge with Idi written on it...........

Skystar, regarding your contact solution, it's classed in the "medication" category and therefore you can carry a separate bottle that is larger than 100ml. Carry the pamphlet with you (from the airport) and show it to the knuckledraggers when they start to argue!!

The DOTARS website says that for the purposes of the excerise 110g of anything shall equal 110mL.

The website also states that any container that can hold more than 100mL can only pass throught security checkpoints when empty.


It's all cr@p if you ask me.

So does that mean if VH-Cheer up had brushed his teeth at the security point, finished off the tube he could have taken it through empty instead of the 5g or so left? :confused: :ugh: :{

Go Right Ahead,

:ok::ok::ok:

But, isn't this something the union should be taking up with DOTARS? Just like it's not worth your jobs to kick up too much of a stink at the individual level, surely it's not worth theirs to give an individual the benefit of the doubt. As has been concluded on these threads, it cannot be relied upon that these people will have the wherewithall to pass crew comments back up the line (if they are ever given the opportunity to do so). No, what it takes is either a concerted action, or some crew member recognising the appropriate minister in the terminal one day and giving him a well-thought-out, measured earful.

I, too, have been bowled over by the toothpaste police. I had a 110g pack and as reported above had it confiscated. I argued the toss with the supervisor and the supervisor's supervisor - we had a 1 hour delay posted before sign on so I had the time for a bit of fun - but try as I might, nobody was prepared to pick up the phone and ask Colgate for the specs of their tube. I had, it's 85ml.

An amazing thing when I arrived in LA after this flight, in the local supermarket is Colgate toothpaste in a package labeled (on the actual tube) "100ml/148g". Imagine, metric in the U S of A!! :}

About the limits, I know not what DOTARS has on the web site this week, but their pamphlet "your guide" effective 31 March 2007 makes no mention of mass anywhere, only volume.

Say it through humour, or is it?
 

I'm not sure about the rules for posting links,but enjoy anyway!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ykzqFz_nHZE

Colgate do make tubes <100ml.

I wonder what size the tube is in the photo on this DOTARS web page...

Might also be worthwhile contacting the manufacturers or retailers (eg. Woolies or Soul Pattinson) to see where such sizes are available; seems silly that they make '110g' rather than just a nice, round 100g which would then be useful. Boots chemists in the UK have recently started labeling one of their shelves as 'Travel/trial size products', where you can get <100ml tubes of toothpaste, sun cream, etc.

Recently went through a large European airport, k'dragger wanted to see in, he pulled out my washbag (all containers well <100ml), but no big clear zip-lock bag. He insisted I put everything in a zip-lock bag (which he gave me), so I did as asked. Through the x-rayer, then all items straight back out of the zip-lock, into my purple washbag and off I went, leaving the empty zip-lock.

The only people benefitting from this are the makers ofthe plastic zip-lock bags. :ugh:

Naturally I would never suggest getting the tube out and maintaining eye contact as th eremaining 5g gets squeezed over the knuckledragger's shoes... :}

Is it just me or does anyone else think it's stupid that this only applies to international flights?

Kind of defeats the purpose.

So there's how many other aircraft flying around Australia that can be blown up with a 110g tube of toothpaste or a 150ml bottle of moisturiser?

Kind of defeats the purpose. :confused:

If the flight is to the USA its even worse than say NZ.

Love the YOUTUBE....that is classic:ok: Love the girl and the 2 people with three ounces get together......:D

We should all start a "common sense party" and oust these buggers at the polls:}

SQ

Raver,

Indeed. But that's logic you're using there.

So... we have an A320 with only enough gas to get it to Auckland and we need to have every orifice examined to get on it.

Meanwhile, on the other side, we might have a 747 juiced up to get to Perth - but we can take pretty much any liquid we want on.

Which would make the 'juicier' target? :ugh:

While we're at it, with respect to buying things airside after the 'security' point - as this has effectively created a monopoly (eg. I can only buy my water at the outlets there, which don't face competition) has anyone heard of any measures to prevent price gouging? No? Thought not. Why? Well one uncharitable idea might be that that would dent a certain financial institution's profits and so they've told their payees in Canberra (sorry, the Government officials) not to allow anything which cuts their flow of lucre. :hmm: But I would never suggest such a thing.

The simple answer is: freeze your tuna, toothpaste, eye-drops, gatorade, baby-food, maouthwash, bottled jiz, whatever.

When it's frozen solid, it then ceases to be a liquid...

Simple and the knuckle draggers will not know what to do and will run off in a tizz.

I have looked around to build up my travel kit due to these new regs. Toothpaste of most brands at supermarkets is 110g, the only place I have seen it less is at the airport stores.

I bought my aftershave duty free in the 75ml and have just found the deodourant I like has changed it's packaging to 100ml. I don't think the reason for this is the regulations though, as the price has not changed.

The kiwi shoe polish as a dangerous good, I'd like to know why it is classed as that. Is it a flammable liquid? If it is then no one with polished shoes should be allowed on board.

While I understand the reasoning for these rules, what is going to stop 3 or 4 people all taking the ingredients for what they want to do on the same flight. Nothing. So because of this that is why I think it is a crock.

To quote "Direct Anywhere"

IT IS NOT THEIR FAULT!!!!!

I would suggest you watch the video footage of the 911 terrorists passing throught the security screening prior to the hijacked flights, then tell me again it is not their fault.

The aviation security industry was charged with ensuring our passengers were not a security risk then, just as they are now.

We are now required to suffer for their shortcomings.

Not their fault.... Please!

Toothpaste - in even small quantities - is very dangerous!

I knew a pilot who, after a heavy night, mixed up his toothpaste and hemorrhoid ointment.

He ended up with retracted gums and a ring of confidence!

How can one take the new security arrangements seriously, when thousands of dollars have been spent on new two meter high fences etc at the passenger terminal of one regional airport, serviced by eleven DHC8 aircraft per week, when three hundred meters away this is the airport "security fence":

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v315/Woomera/Roma.jpg

Has anyone else been subject to the "random" explosives testing that has cropped up recently?

I get pinged by these tests about twice a month, and fail the test about 50% of the time - ie the test shows that I have traces of explosives on my person.

I just tell the operator that I fail these tests all the time then they just shrug their shoulders and wave me through anyway...

Unfortunately and as already said, these knuckle draggers are unable to make judgement calls based on common sense. They have to follow DOTARS and their rules religiously. Too bad most of them don't know what those rules are.:rolleyes:
I just love the ETD test at the screening point. I let the young goon ask me to undergo the test, then when he offers me the information card, I read it - v e r y s l o w l y. I can usually take up the time he would otherwise 3 or 4 other poor sods :E
The government is feeding off this security hysteria. The latest being CBS for regional airports. If the risk is there now - why the hell aren't we doing it now? Not ETD by Dec 07 and x-ray by Dec 08.
Screening of Aircrews is a pointless waste of everyones time. Especially when we are talking about smaller GA aircraft. I have had this out directly with DOTARS but they just shrug and say, "well it's in the regs". That outfit is full of ex cops and defence personnel who reached "use by date" in their previous careers.

Clive,
1. Can you post a link to the footage you are referring to?
2. The only footage released so far has originated from Associated Press and is said to show the five Dulles originating hijackers. It can not be viewed in its raw form and the news footage seems to have cut out the time stamps.
3. There has been no video footage released showing Satam Suqami, Waleed Alshehri, Wail Alshehri, Mohamed Atta, Abdulaziz Alomari, Marwan Al-Shehhi, Fayez Rashid, Ahmed Alghamdi, Hamza Alghamdi, Mohand Alshehri, Saeed Alghamdi, Ahmad Haznawi, Ahmed Alnami or Ziad Samir Jarrah going through security at Boston and Newark Airports.
4. The release of all of the security video would be useful as a training aid for security screeners.

It is a bit stupid. Initially there was mention that Domestic would also be subject to LAGs restrictions but this seems to have been put in the too hard basket at the moment.

Actually it's still classed as a liquid. There's a sort what would it be like at room temperature test.

Yep. Alternatively he could have pulled out the scissors from his flightbag that the screener had missed and cut the tube in half. He then would have had 2 55g containers that he could have taken through.

Guys,
Just to make it more complicated , here in the USA it is a max 3oz bottle/tube which is 90 ml.........AAAARRRRGGGGHHHHHHHH!!!!!

Here it is on ALL flights, domestic and Intl.

Just a tip, buy a "solid" stick deodarant, then that doesn't have to go in your 1Quart/1L bag.

Yes I agree the whole idea/concept is ridiculous to say the least. :ugh:
All because 4-5 idiots in England hatched a scheme with the liquid explosives.

Just wait, if somebody works out a scheme to put explosive thread or lining or whatever in their clothes then we will all have to travel naked or wearing plastic bags!!! :sad:

Aussie, do you have any links to evidenciary proof of that claim? I understood that when investigated, there was absolutely no proof whatsoever of the claims. No substances. No air tickets. No reservations on flights. No group of would be terrorists.

joke
 

As flight crew, I find it an insult and a mockery to our professionlism. I've lost several items, but have found there is no point arguing, despite the stupidity of it all. The last time I went thru London, shoes, jacket had to be removed, laptop out of bag, rubbed down by a goon who was more interested in my watch, and wanded down by a women in a burhka! It was all I could do not to pop!:mad::ugh: Can anyone tell me if there has been a case of airline crew hijacking, or using explosives to bring down an airliner? I know of the odd screaming death dive, but explosives?
On a lighter note, naked travel??? Hmm, I can see the positives in that!:ok: And of course the negatives:{:p
Nosey

Capt. Claret:
From the Beeb: - Looks like a bunch of people were actually charged, although I have no idea where the prosecution matters are at the moment.

Perhaps one of our friendly pommie mates could enlighten us as to the latest details?

If they're not still upset about the cricket, that is.

VHCU

Liquid explosives bomb plot (Aug 2006)
 

Looks like a total of 17 people charged up to the point this article was written.

If they've all been let off, it makes a bit of a mockery of the whole 'no gels or liquids' rule, doesn't it?

VHCH

So, has anyone got the figures on how much is being confiscated here in Aus? A quick google!

Frankfurt - 20 tonnes of liquids each week. 2,500 litres per day.
Schipol - 1,600 litres per day.
Zurich - 22,000 euros worth of alcohol and perfume per day.

Man, there must be some really drunk, nice smelling, white teethed security guards around the globe!

Is it perth that displays the nice collection of hundreds of pairs of nail clippers as you pass security?

Just went through Philadelphia yesterday and the kind folks there relieved me of my deodorant, toothpaste and shaving cream, two of which were less than 100mls. When I ever-so-politely inquired "Why", the nice lady said that they weren't in a zip-lock bag. That cleared that up completely:hmm:

Come on, why does a zip-lock make all the difference?

An agreement by pilots worldwide to withdraw services would solve this in days or hours But in 6 years there's been no serious attempt to "get together" on it