Visiting+loving U.S.A.

[temporal1]

I take no issue with the “small” inconvenience at the airports since 9/11 after all, it was planes that the terrorist used- commercial aircraft.

What other countries besides Israel do terrorists chant to wipe off the face of the earth - besides America?

The terrorists did not hijack airplanes by using 4 oz bottles of shampoo.

4 oz?! wild man
https://www.tsa.gov/travel/security-scr ... -gels-rule

[Valerie]

I take no issue with the “small” inconvenience at the airports since 9/11 after all, it was planes that the terrorist used- commercial aircraft.

What other countries besides Israel do terrorists chant to wipe off the face of the earth - besides America?

The terrorists did not hijack airplanes by using 4 oz bottles of shampoo.

4 oz?! wild man
https://www.tsa.gov/travel/security-scr ... -gels-rule

From google:

Airlines and aviation authorities restrict liquids to prevent terrorists from smuggling liquid or gel-based explosives. This rule was implemented worldwide after the thwarted 2006 transatlantic plot, where operatives planned to disguise liquid explosives as everyday beverages to detonate them on board flights.The restriction mandates the 3-1-1 rule, which requires passengers to carry liquids in containers of 3.4 ounces (100 ml) or less, all fitting into a single quart-sized bag. This limit was established because 3.4 ounces is generally considered under the critical mass required to create an explosion large enough to compromise the aircraft's structural integrity.

[JohnH]

From google:

Airlines and aviation authorities restrict liquids to prevent terrorists from smuggling liquid or gel-based explosives. This rule was implemented worldwide after the thwarted 2006 transatlantic plot, where operatives planned to disguise liquid explosives as everyday beverages to detonate them on board flights.The restriction mandates the 3-1-1 rule, which requires passengers to carry liquids in containers of 3.4 ounces (100 ml) or less, all fitting into a single quart-sized bag. This limit was established because 3.4 ounces is generally considered under the critical mass required to create an explosion large enough to compromise the aircraft's structural integrity.

Despite this, there is no restriction at all on liquids in Australia, and yet they are not plagued with terrorist attacks.

The liquid rule is ridiculous and doesn't do anything to improve safety.

[Judas Maccabeus]

In Europe (and Australia and other places) you can bring as much of a liquid on a plane as you want. In Australia you can also go thru security without a plane ticket so you can meet your relatives right at the gate when they arrive or wish them farewell.

That was the case in America as well until 9/11 happened.
Everything in airports changed here after that, and I’m glad.

I'm not. Considering the other countries don't have any trouble with some nefarious terrorist plot to sneak water bottles on planes, what the U.S. does is pointless theatre (perhaps best exemplified by literal theatre of Kristi Noem spending $200 million to plaster videos of herself all over every airport).

i am not happy about the post 9-11 changes, and think much of it is theatre. HOWEVER, our "rules" have become the norm worldwide.

I went from Norway to Amsterdam. Never asked for a passport by a government official from the time I entered to the time I entered the airport at Amsterdam. The ferry company asked for it, sometimes at hotel check-in, sometimes not. I remember going into Canada with just a driver's license, and frequently wasn't even asked for that. I wish we had opened the border to Canada rather than tightening it. To go between places in Europe, you are not bothered.

[barnhart]

... I remember going into Canada with just a driver's license, and frequently wasn't even asked for that. I wish we had opened the border to Canada rather than tightening it. To go between places in Europe, you are not bothered.

I remember that as well, it was a mental adjustment for me get a passport and verbally say "I am an American citizen". Sometimes I try to squeak by with "I was born here" but it seems birthright citizenship is not as clear now as it once was.

[Judas Maccabeus]

The 100-ml liquid limit (sounds a lot less arbitrary that way than 3.4 oz) was pretty much global, especially for international flights. Within the last year or so that has been relaxed at some airports such as LHR and FRA with new scanning equipment.

I never had to deal with it on domestic Israeli or domestic Australian flights.

I don't recall if it was enforced on the domestic NZ flight, but I was connecting from an international flight (the domestic terminal at AKL is separate with no airside connection, so I did have to go through security) and didn't have large amounts of liquids anyway. Intra-Schengen it has certainly been enforced. The limits don't really bother me since I pack light.

It's the shoe rule that the rest of the world has thankfully not copied us on.

Just had to take my shoes of on an inner-shlingren flight from Tromso to Helsinki. Apparently, all they have is magnetometers. They gave up on my wife and let her through; she has metal everywhere, knees, neck, and foot. Wand Gal looked perplexed.

We are on an AMS-IAD as we type.

[temporal1]

The terrorists did not hijack airplanes by using 4 oz bottles of shampoo.

4 oz?! wild man
https://www.tsa.gov/travel/security-scr ... -gels-rule

From google:

Airlines and aviation authorities restrict liquids to prevent terrorists from smuggling liquid or gel-based explosives. This rule was implemented worldwide after the thwarted 2006 transatlantic plot, where operatives planned to disguise liquid explosives as everyday beverages to detonate them on board flights.The restriction mandates the 3-1-1 rule, which requires passengers to carry liquids in containers of 3.4 ounces (100 ml) or less, all fitting into a single quart-sized bag.

This limit was established because 3.4 ounces is generally considered under the critical mass required to create an explosion large enough to compromise the aircraft's structural integrity.

i knew the restriction had to do with possible explosives, i guessed the odd 3.4 oz limit was because it equals the even 100 ml.

[R7ehr]

I never had to deal with it on domestic Israeli or domestic Australian flights.

I don't recall if it was enforced on the domestic NZ flight, but I was connecting from an international flight (the domestic terminal at AKL is separate with no airside connection, so I did have to go through security) and didn't have large amounts of liquids anyway. Intra-Schengen it has certainly been enforced. The limits don't really bother me since I pack light.

It's the shoe rule that the rest of the world has thankfully not copied us on.

Just had to take my shoes of on an inner-shlingren flight from Tromso to Helsinki. Apparently, all they have is magnetometers. They gave up on my wife and let her through; she has metal everywhere, knees, neck, and foot. Wand Gal looked perplexed.

We are on an AMS-IAD as we type.

Whatever were you doing in Tromso?

[ohio jones]

It's the shoe rule that the rest of the world has thankfully not copied us on.

Just had to take my shoes of on an inner-shlingren flight from Tromso to Helsinki. Apparently, all they have is magnetometers. They gave up on my wife and let her through; she has metal everywhere, knees, neck, and foot. Wand Gal looked perplexed.

We are on an AMS-IAD as we type.

Missed you at IAD by a day. Those ancient PlaneMates that deliver incoming passengers to CBP are quite the contraptions.

BCN had signs about shoes but nobody was removing theirs.

[Judas Maccabeus]

It's the shoe rule that the rest of the world has thankfully not copied us on.

Just had to take my shoes of on an inner-shlingren flight from Tromso to Helsinki. Apparently, all they have is magnetometers. They gave up on my wife and let her through; she has metal everywhere, knees, neck, and foot. Wand Gal looked perplexed.

We are on an AMS-IAD as we type.

Missed you at IAD by a day. Those ancient PlaneMates that deliver incoming passengers to CBP are quite the contraptions.

BCN had signs about shoes but nobody was removing theirs.

Back in the day, there were no midfield terminals at Dulles, and you went out to your plane in one of those plane mates, which docked directly against your plane. Since you went to the federal clearance building on a plane mate, that meant your final destination had to be Washington DC. If you ever get in the area again, please drop me a p.m. I might be able to arrange a tour of our new building.