Many passengers are now bringing empty water bottles through TSA security, to be filled later with tap water at the airport.
That’s because of new charges being assessed by the airlines for in-flight beverages, including bottled water. Our own Chris Elliott has discussed this strategy.
Seeing passengers bringing empty containers through airport security has renewed my questions about the utility and effectiveness of TSA’s liquids’ restrictions in preventing in-flight terrorism.
I remember 9/11 as if it was yesterday. I remember its horror, and my fear of friends crushed in the burning wreckage of the Twin Towers. I remember the emotional phone calls, and the anxiety of waiting to hear who had lived, and who had died.
Homeland Security, and Transportation Security Administration, were born of that horror. While every American wants DHS and TSA to be successful protecting our country from terrorists, that doesn’t stop many of us from wondering whether their regulations and practices make sense.
In the months and years since 9/11, we’ve learned the terrorists who carried out the attacks had a detailed plan, which took a great deal of collaboration among many individuals world-wide, communication, training, cash, and commitment.
In August, 2006, United Kingdom police discovered and foiled an alleged transatlantic airplane terrorist plot to detonate liquid explosives carried onboard several airplanes traveling from the UK to the US and Canada. Almost immediately thereafter, all liquids and gels were banned from carry-on luggage.
On September 25, 2006, TSA Administrator Kip Hawley told us, “Since the initial total (liquid and gel) ban, experts from around the government, including the FBI and our national labs have analyzed the information we now know, and have conducted extensive explosives testing to get a better understanding of the threat.”
He added:
While this novel type of liquid explosives is now an ongoing part of the terrorist playbook and must be dealt with, we now know enough to say that a total (liquid and gel) ban is no longer needed from a security point of view.
Deputy Secretary Of Homeland Security Michael Jackson said, “What you see here today is a prudent balancing of the work that we need to do to protect security, and common sense here being in balance. I would say that we should underscore this point. It is safe to fly. These measures make it safe to fly.”
Jackson was speaking about TSA’s then new 3-1-1 requirements. But do these measures make it safe to fly, as Deputy Secretary Jackson says?
The point of 3-1-1 is to prevent a terrorist from carrying enough liquid explosive on a plane which could either destroy it in the air, or cause it to crash. I think it would be irresponsible to plan security measures which assume that terrorists will act alone, and not in groups with a coordinated plan. I submit TSA’s 3-1-1 regulations do just that.
In Tripso’s Talking Travelers forums, we have discussed that TSA rules and regulations have so many exceptions to the 3-1-1 rules, that the exceptions to the rules have rendered them worthless. I determined that in using the baggie and the exceptions, I can bring at least 51 ounces of liquids and gels in my carry-on.
I submit, as a graduate chemical engineer, that with 51 ounces of the right liquids, a terrorist, even working alone, could blow one big hole in the side of a plane which might bring it down.
Anyone can fit as much as 15 ounces of liquids and gels in their baggie. Eight terrorists working together could therefore bring almost a gallon of liquid explosives aboard a plane. If just four of them bring an empty quart bottle of water through security, the eight terrorists could assemble four quart sized bombs. Once on board, that’s enough to blow a very large hole in any plane.
In my opinion, these examples clearly show the great inconvenience that TSA’s liquid rules impose on us do little, if anything, to make flying safe.
Air travel today is tough enough without having to obey useless regulations.
{ 5 comments… read them below or add one }
Interesting timing, I was just going to write about this from a different angle.
I used to travel with the nearly finished bottles I had of shampoo, moisturizer, etc, that way, I could finish them on the trip and toss the empty bottles. Can’t do that under the new policy. In fact, I had a client almost arrested over trying to bring 2 ounces of shampoo in a ten ounce bottle. (His desire to point out the illogical aspects of the policy got in the way of his sense.) In that vein, I am not sure about how this empty bottle thing will fly.
But, TSA’s logic is supposedly clear, they don’t want terrorists to have the bigger bottles so they can’t combine liquids as Ned wrote about above. So what happens when you go through security? All these places selling drinks in 20 ounce bottle!
While we’re at the large-plastic-container side of things… what about inflatable objects (like travel pillows)? Couldn’t you conceivably put a lot of liquid/gel in one of those after going through security?
There’s a reason I strongly dislike the TSA… not only does it make me grumpy, but it just doesn’t make sense or give me confidence in the safety of flying..
I recommend repeating this column after next January. Nothing about the TSA is going to change until the next administration replaces its current incompetent politicized leadership and (one can only hope) re-evaluates its ineffective, unduly intrusive, and often stupid approach to “security.”
Like the rest of the Bush Administration, the TSA’s leadership is convinced of their own infallibility; they thus regard any questioning or criticism as tantamount to terrorism. Reasoned argument of the sort you present is pointless, since they’ll invariably dismiss it by insisting that rules and procedures that look arbitrary and stupid are sound and appropriate based on “robust classified intelligence.” Since disclosing the actual reason why it’s so sound and sensible would harm national security, we’re obligated to accept everything they say and do on faith. End of discussion (if you want to fly today).
As for the anger and inconvenience, I suspect that the TSA leadership merely considers it proof of their agency’s effectiveness. They seem to equate effective security with intrusiveness and inconvenience, so the angrier it makes passengers the more effective it clearly must be. I sometimes suspect that the real intent of the TSA checkpoints has more to do with acclimating Americans to accepting arbitrary intrusions from government “security” officials than with providing effective protection against terrorist threats to aviation.
We can only hope that the next administration will appoint competent Homeland Security leaders who will re-focus the TSA on effective and sensible security measures that promote cooperation rather stupid rules that promote resentment. But I wouldn’t count on it. I’m waiting for someone to ask the presidential candidates about the TSA’s very obvious problems.
TSA and the other security agencies are always chasing past threats like shoes and liquids, while the bad guys are most likely working on the next way to attack us. The measures taken are more of a nuisance than an effective way to prevent a future attack. Multiple past efforts have shown that it was quite easy to penetrate supposedly secure zones within airports like maintenance, catering etc. where security seems to be lacking.
I definitely don’t think that taking off belts and all the bottle baloney makes us one iota safer.
Any terrorist who couldn’t bring explosives in a bottle would simply shove it into a body cavity. A pound of C4 carried in that way would clearly be undetectable and obviously enough to obliterate a plane. I’m amazed that no one is complaining about this obvious stupidity on mainstream news.