Breaking the silly new airplane travel rules
Steve Safran September 10th, 2006
Terry Heaton’s pot of Carmex got confiscated as he tried to bring it on a plane leaving WKRN’s bloggers conference we attended. Poor guy had to sit for hours in dry air with unmoistened lips. But if Terry had simply purchased Carmex (well-known for its addictive properties) in a tube and then put it in his pocket, there wouldn’t have been a problem. I was drinking iced tea as I tried to board my plane. I was told to finish it or pour it out (obviously, I finished it). If I had put it in my bag, I could have “sneaked” it on. And that’s the silliness of these new “no liquids and no gels” travel rules. You can defeat them so easily that they only penalize the people who cooperate. Want to bring liquid on a plane? No problem. Buy water once you pass through the gate and then put it in your carry-on. Ditto toothpaste. And those silly terrorists could easily sneak gels through, simply by bagging them and strapping them to their legs or putting them in their pockets. As far as I know, we don’t pass through gel detectors. Once again - it’s not the security, it’s the appearance of security.
22 Comments Add your own
1. Michael Rosenblum | September 10th, 2006 at 7:07 pm
The flight ’security’ rules are the dumbest. They take away nail clippers and on BA they serve dinner with sharp stainless steel steak knives. They remove toothpaste, but if I wanted to, I would beat someone senseless with my G4 laptop. They make you take off your shoes because Richard Reeve tried to put explosives in his shoes. What if he had shoved the explosives up his… well you get the idea.
2. Barry S. | September 10th, 2006 at 7:48 pm
Ummm, you don’t fly enough.. I’ve seen security inspect every bag at the boarding gate for “contraband” as you board.
3. Safran | September 10th, 2006 at 8:01 pm
Six flights in three days. Nobody looked.
And even still, I stand by my “hide it in your pockets” theory.
4. Maxx | September 10th, 2006 at 11:54 pm
Security is an illusion. I lock my house when I leave but have a huge glass sliding door that a child could break. Same with the car. I dont see anyone checking your things when you get onto a greyhound. Those things could do some damage.
5. Anonymous | September 11th, 2006 at 4:38 am
Totally irresponsible of you to even suggest ways to beat security at the airport. Are they silly rules? Sure. Can you beat them? Sure. But this doesn’t mean you should be putting in a public site ways to get around the rules. Whether we think they are silly or not the rules are there for a reason and most peole are following them.
6. mrming | September 11th, 2006 at 5:55 am
“Whether we think they are silly or not the rules are there for a reason and most peole are following them.”
The sort of people who are following the rules aren’t really the ones we should be worrying about though are they? If a bunch of easily circumventable rules are put in place for show who does that help?
7. theman | September 11th, 2006 at 5:59 am
things to do: add steve safran to watch list.
8. Steve Safran | September 11th, 2006 at 6:25 am
First: These may be the least clever ideas I’ve ever put forward. Surely if I thought of them, anyone who actually wants to kill us has, too. Beforehand.
Second: How many times have you seen exposes of lapses in airport security? This is no different. Don’t blame those who point out flaws in logic. Blame those with irrational logic.
Third: I am not the problem. The people who are making up absurd rules after the fact as they go along so that they can cover their asses are. They’re frisking granny, not me.
Fourth: I should absolutely be on the watch list. I am a male in my 30s, have dark hair, olive skin, and I get nervous on planes. Of course, since they don’t profile, it’s unlikely to happen.
9. W | September 11th, 2006 at 10:56 am
I heard that bin Laden gets most of his ideas from Lost Remote - is that true, Steve?
10. JB | September 11th, 2006 at 11:01 am
From Peter King’s voluminous MMQB column:
“Enjoyable/Aggravating Travel Note of the Week
I am all for rules, airline and otherwise, that protect our safety. But last Wednesday, after walking through a security line at LaGuardia, I saw the total fruitlessness of this you-can’t-take-gels-or-liquids-on-airplanes rule, designed to protect us from those who would take explosive liquids or gels on planes. A 40ish man, traveling in business togs, put his briefcase, laptop and shoes on the security belt and walked through the X-ray machine. No beep. He collected his stuff, walked a few steps down the line, and put his laptop back in his case, and then took a tube of toothpaste out of one pocket and a bottle of contact-lens solution out of another, then put both in his briefcase. That sort of defeats the purpose of the anti-liquid rule and pretty much makes a mockery of it all.”
Ohmigod, Safran and Peter King just told terrorists how to win! Run for the hills!
11. Chris Rooney | September 11th, 2006 at 11:24 am
Maybe I’ve watched “Nip/Tuck” too many times, but I’ve wondered how long it will take before someone suggests sneaking explosive gels on a plane in breast implants.
12. Barry S. | September 11th, 2006 at 2:19 pm
Steve,
I fly every single week, sometimes 4-5 flights a week all over the country. Not everywhere, but I have had security show up at the gate to inspect bags before boarding on a few occasions.
And it is stupid, the flight attendant made the guy sitting next to me give up his mostly finished Coke (That he bought after security and smuggled onto the plane in his bag.) Nobody checked bags at the gate that flight.
But I do wonder if my two laptops with Li-Ion batteries, one of which is a Dell, are more of a risk than the chance I might buy a coffee or bottle of water at the Airport and bring it on board. Most days - me without coffee should be a bigger concern to everyone..
13. Steve Safran | September 11th, 2006 at 2:49 pm
Barry: Oh, totally. And it’s especially silly that the drink you bought at the shop after passing through security should somehow pose a risk. You can almost (almost) see the logic in preventing outside liquids. But I don’t think Poland Springs is in on the conspiracy.
I’m sorry - but it’s stupid. We’re trying to convince ourselves we can make things 100% safe and we can’t. We don’t think rationally. Nobody wants to think statistically, we want to think hysterically.
You can imagine how much this makes the terrorists giggle. “OK, now we make them take off their shoes. Then - no more Gatorade. Next, we have someone try to smuggle something in their underpants!”
14. free filipina teens photo&hellip | January 27th, 2007 at 4:07 pm
unique hindu baby boy names starting with the letter n…
ambien sex…
15. mat | February 12th, 2007 at 9:49 am
hay
16. mat | February 12th, 2007 at 9:50 am
have you ever been on a plane [ no ] go on one there cool
17. Daisy | March 29th, 2007 at 5:23 am
I fly regularly about four times a year on a military flight. And as far as I’ve gathered, it’s not purely the fact you have liquids, its having large containers which could be added to and used to MIX the ingredients to some liquid explosive.
Still, you could bring 100ml of nitroglycerin on a plane. Could cause a bit of a bang.
18. pics de viagra&hellip | May 2nd, 2007 at 10:15 am
name brand viagra…
depression viagra…
19. gay and masculine&hellip | May 3rd, 2007 at 8:06 am
pics lacey mosley…
hispanic adult friend finder…
20. nurse grabbed my penis an&hellip | May 11th, 2007 at 12:14 pm
brandon routh’s big penis…
best price viagra in uk…
21. oylbhjozgq | July 7th, 2007 at 1:49 am
Hello! Good Site! Thanks you! dupfyqkuckpwt
22. Ratboy | January 19th, 2008 at 5:31 am
Wow, thanks for the excellent information!
Leave a Comment
(Please keep URLs out of the comment body or the spam filter will block you.)Trackback this post | Subscribe to the comments via RSS Feed