Interesting point about the 3.4 oz rule

From commenter Coyote:

Back when this policy was new, I asked a screener, "volume or weight?" He said, "Huh?" I answered that "ounces" in English units were both a measure of volume and weight, and for most substances these two numbers would be different.

The screener looked more puzzled, but then eventually answered "volume." I believe this was the correct answer, because the rules talk of "3 oz containers" which only make sense in the context of volume.

So, having gotten the "volume" answer I expected (though with more puzzlement than I anticipated) I then pointed out that the toothpaste he was attempting to confiscate for the good of the Republic was actually measured in ounces of weight. The toothpaste was "net wt. 4 oz." So I Observed that the volume was much less than 4 ounces, so I should keep it.

After staring at me, and I think wondering if he could shoot me, the screener gave an answer right our of Spinal Tap: "But it says 4 ounces." (But it goes to 11!)

Anyway, I let him have my contraband toothpaste and moved on, not wishing to get detained or make the no-fly list. But it was absolutely clear that whoever crafted and disseminated the policy did not know the difference between weight and volume. I still to this day meet screeners who don't understand the difference. Though since then I have seen airlines amend their web sites to say "weight or volume" thought the department of Homeland security has never added any such clarification to their web site.

Comments

The last time I was traveling, the clowns actually confiscated a (half empty) 4 oz. tube of toothpaste.

Posted by Gordon Haff | April 18, 2008 11:41 AM

Very impressive. Does this person have any more tales about being an asshole to people trying to do their jobs?

Posted by Don | April 18, 2008 11:51 AM

LOL!! I don't know what's funnier, the story (particularly the Spinal Tap analogy) or Don's comment above. Very funny stuff.

Posted by Brooks | April 18, 2008 12:08 PM

As a very frequent flyer... may I say that anyone who tries to be a smart-ass to the TSA should get a bullet to the back of the head and the bill for the bullet should be sent to the family (a la China.)

If you have a problem with the TSA rules the proper person to bring that up with is your congressman - not some hapless TSA employee.

I was once on a plane sitting next to an electrical engineer who was trying to convince the flight attendant that he shouldnt' be required to turn off his cell phone. Shut the f**k up! If I was the flight attendant I would have handcuffed him to the seat and tasered his ass till we landed.

Posted by jmo | April 18, 2008 12:24 PM

As jmo is highlighting, we are once again running smack into the difference between "is" and "ought." And once again, some of us are attacking the people who correctly identify and enforce the "is" instead of conforming to our notions of "ought." Which is, of course, their job.

Still, I think the volume vs. weight distinction is a valid one, as it makes "is" ambiguous.

Posted by Rob Lyman | April 18, 2008 12:29 PM

Products are generally "sold by weight, not volume." I think that's stamped on cereal boxes and bags of potato chips, for example.

I was once on a plane sitting next to an electrical engineer who was trying to convince the flight attendant that he shouldnt' be required to turn off his cell phone...If I was the flight attendant I would have handcuffed him to the seat and tasered his ass till we landed.

I believe flight attendants are empowered to have uncooperative passengers arrested upon landing (or ejected before takeoff).

Posted by liberalrob | April 18, 2008 12:34 PM

Products are generally "sold by weight, not volume."

Yes, but liquids are generally sold by volume. Nobody ever asks you to go pick up a pound of milk.

Posted by Rob Lyman | April 18, 2008 12:40 PM

While I generally have some sympathy for people 'just doing their jobs', I really fail to see any kind of logic in confiscating a half-full / half-empty 4 oz. manufacturers tube of a medicinal product. If they made it any smaller, I would buy it smaller. But they don't, it's not cheap, I need it, and now - post confiscation - I have to risk checking it every flight. And, no, a wasabe-like paste does not readily transfer to a smaller container. I've tried that, too.

I do wonder how charitable Don / jmo / etc. are when the meter maid tickets them for being 10 minutes over the limit. I presume she'd also be a legitimate target for their bullet in the neck.

Cheers,

Posted by Rofe | April 18, 2008 12:44 PM

You can eliminate a lot of conflict in your life by realizing that there are basically two categories of people you'll run into - those who get paid to make decisions, and those who get punished for making decisions (yes, I understand that's an oversimplification), and that there's no point in reasoning with those who fall into the latter group (which includes TSA screeners). They may well agree with you - I've run into TSA employees whose criticisms of various TSA procedures make these remarks look like fawning praise - but when you ask them to deviate from their instructions, even in the name of common sense, you're basically asking a complete stranger to get themselves in trouble solely for the benefit of your personal convenience.

As jmo points out, your conflict is with congress, not the screener.

Posted by J | April 18, 2008 12:47 PM

I presume she'd also be a legitimate target for their bullet in the neck.

Why? She's just doing her job, too. The people jmo criticized were interfering with the performance of others' jobs.

Posted by Rob Lyman | April 18, 2008 12:57 PM

I wonder what our citizens would have done if the president came out on 9/11 and said "Don't worry, we're not going to change anything. Once the bodies and debris are removed, we'll rebuild the towers. Also, if someone tries to hijack the plane you're on, try and stop them. Have a great day and God bless America!"

Posted by Nelson | April 18, 2008 1:00 PM

Rofe:

I do wonder how charitable Don / jmo / etc. are when the meter maid tickets them for being 10 minutes over the limit. I presume she'd also be a legitimate target for their bullet in the neck.

Here in Boston they want to double parking fines - I've called and written to the mayor etc to object. I live in the city and park on the street, so this would be very bad for me if implemented. However, should I get a ticket from a meter maid who is just trying to make her quota - why should I vent my rage at her. I should call City Hall, find the person paid to listen to enraged voters, and vent my rage at them.

Posted by Jmo | April 18, 2008 1:03 PM

Call it a hunch, Rob, but I'm guessing that people who churn up colorful forms of punishment for acts that they disagree with here are less than diplomatic when it comes to real-life adventures that inconvenience them.

Of course they could be oh-so-conciliatory . . . nah.

Cheers,

Posted by Rofe | April 18, 2008 1:09 PM

Yep, Jmo, that's what you should do. Given your comment above, color me skeptical.

Cheers,

Posted by Rofe | April 18, 2008 1:11 PM

I'm guessing that people who churn up colorful forms of punishment for acts that they disagree with here are less than diplomatic

Maybe, but as your idea (shooting a government official doing her job) was directly the opposite of what Jmo said (shooting somebody interfering with a government official doing her job), it seemed odd to me.

Posted by Rob Lyman | April 18, 2008 1:13 PM

If you have a problem with the TSA rules the proper person to bring that up with is your congressman - not some hapless TSA employee.

On the other hand, if your problem is with the incorrect application of TSA rules, your conflict is indeed with the TSA employee standing in front of you. Congress isn't going to help you here, but there's just a chance that the employee or his supervisor might.

Posted by Sam | April 18, 2008 1:16 PM

3.4 Oz was chosen because it's 100ml.

This stuff may be insane but it's a European import.

-dk

Posted by Dick King | April 18, 2008 1:30 PM

jmo, Don...go straight to the top why dontcha! like they care. to them you're just another crazed angry citizen who needs to get some help. they have programs for you, no?

if we annoy the TSA folks enough then maybe they'll all quit and we won't have anyone to do their job and then we can fly without all this hoopla.

and Nelson - that would be a step in the right direction - towards maturity!

Posted by mr.fun | April 18, 2008 1:36 PM

The last time I flew, they confiscated my shaving cream. I was permitted to keep the razor. I mean, it's a safety razor, so I kind of understand, but shaving cream? Is it even a liquid?

Posted by Kyle | April 18, 2008 1:38 PM

This is yet another convincing argument for the USA to join the rest of the civilized world in adopting the metric system. Seriously, using the same word to refer to both volume, and *ahem*, mass, is guaranteed to cause confusion.

And, also, why would toothpaste be sold by mass? Presumably if they change the formulation slightly (add baking soda!), they would still want to fill the same sized container? My toothpaste comes in ml.

Posted by Ginna | April 18, 2008 1:54 PM

> but when you ask them to deviate from their
> instructions, even in the name of common sense,
> you're basically asking a complete stranger to
> get themselves in trouble solely for the benefit
> of your personal convenience.

I was guilty of this recently and felt bad afterward.

I yelled at the poor cashier at Murky Coffee on Capital Hill here in DC - they won't let you have espresso to go - it's store policy!

Posted by MarkT | April 18, 2008 2:02 PM

using the same word to refer to both volume, and *ahem*, mass

Ounces are a unit of force, aren't they? I was under the impression that the English unit of mass was the slug.

But it's not like this distinction is carefully observed, what with metric weights expressed in kg rather than newtons.

Posted by Rob Lyman | April 18, 2008 2:33 PM

I can't believe it took someone so long to bring this up - use the damn metric system for Pete's sake. Grams, millileters, cubic meters - a lot less confusing than just "ounces".

Posted by johnleemk | April 18, 2008 2:38 PM

It's obvious. Something must be done about security. This is something. Therefore, we must do this.

Duh.

Posted by Eric | April 18, 2008 2:48 PM

"Very impressive. Does this person have any more tales about being an asshole to people trying to do their jobs?"

They're libertarian bloggers complaining about the government. Give them a break. They're just doing their job.

Posted by FXLM | April 18, 2008 3:27 PM

As any human being should instinctively know, "just doing my job" is not a valid defense for immoral actions, even when it's an agent of the state.

Posted by mith | April 18, 2008 3:51 PM

As any human being should instinctively know, "just doing my job" is not a valid defense for immoral actions, even when it's an agent of the state.

So now there's something deeply immoral about taking oversize containers of liquids from people who either knew or should have known better than to try to sneak them on board?

We're not talking about beating passengers here, we're talking about making them use hotel shampoo. The beating policy got shot down during the public comment period.

Posted by Rob Lyman | April 18, 2008 4:03 PM

We leave discussions of mass to those metric folks... we measure our objects by weight/force. Pounds and ounces are both measures of force.

There's a fine line between being an asshole who makes everyone's life difficult and being a sheep who does whatever he is told no matter how idiotic.

I don't really want to live in a country where anyone who does anyhing other than the norm is punished for "making trouble."

Posted by Earnest Iconoclast | April 18, 2008 5:13 PM

I was once on a plane sitting next to an electrical engineer who was trying to convince the flight attendant that he shouldnt' be required to turn off his cell phone.

That electrical engineer was plainly an idiot who had never looked up the history of how the no-cellular policy came to be in the first place, nor had any background in communications and signal processing.

Posted by aMouseforallSeasons | April 18, 2008 5:21 PM

anomy-

you mean stuff like this(?):
http://www.cefilter.com/products/display_product.asp?ProdID=257&CatID=

Posted by MEH | April 18, 2008 6:16 PM

Mark -- no. The basis of the cellular ban while flying came from Crossair Flight 498 (January 2000), which crashed shortly after take-off. The proximate cause of that crash was human error, and the initial investigation attributed it to several factors involving procedural violations and/or inappropriate behavior by the flight crew. A later investigation, however, revealed that one passenger has received a call at the exact instant another passenger had sent an SMS text, and the coincident interference caused the autopilot to malfunction. The malfunction was ultimately determined to have intiated the human errors that caused the crash.

Hence, I always shake my head in disbelief at the idiots who snicker and tell stories of catching open WiFi APs or getting celluar reception while in the air. If the plane wasn't formally designed to safetly handle passenger wireless (as some now are), what makes these people think they're entitled to run an EMI/RFI monte carlo test against the airplane control systems while 250 lives are at stake?

The Mythbusters episode that tried to debunk the liklihood of electronics interfering with control systems was similarly irresponsible.

Posted by aMouseforallSeasons | April 18, 2008 6:55 PM

> we're talking about making them use hotel shampoo

An outrage! We should be allowed to use real poo! (As long as it's in the appropriately sized container)

Rob Lyman, are you the same guy who had a blogspot blog waaaaaay back before everyone jumped on the bandwagon?

Posted by jed | April 18, 2008 8:20 PM

jed, that would indeed be me. It's still up last time I checked.

Posted by Rob Lyman | April 18, 2008 8:26 PM

anony-

I hear you, don't disagree.

Was more referring to this: "...nor had any background in communications and signal processing.", with the link to the general gadgetry therelike..

Posted by MEH | April 18, 2008 8:29 PM

On the misunderstanding of weight and volume, last night at the gym I overheard three grown men arguing which is heavier:

(1) A five pound bucket of sand,
(2) A five pound bucket of water,
or
(3) A five pound bucket of steel.

Water won, because "It's the heaviest element there is."

I didn't think to ask if any worked for TSA....

Posted by Crimfan | April 19, 2008 11:02 AM

I don't expect much from a bunch of morons who would be stocking shelves at Wal Mart were it not for the GOP's big spending fear-o-rama. I haven't taken it, but I'm guessing there aren't a lot of questions about weight and volume on the GED.

So... I agree it's a complete waste of time to argue policy with these folks, unless, as another commenter mentioned as a possibility, they're applying their stupid rules incorrectly.

The rules are stupid, and they and their enforcers do not make me feel any safer.

In an effort to strike back at the people responsible for this nonsense, I now vote against the GOP every chance I get.

Posted by Graeme | April 19, 2008 12:30 PM

Is it even a liquid?

It is when it's still in the can.

Posted by chet | April 19, 2008 2:19 PM

I do wonder how charitable Don / jmo / etc. are when the meter maid tickets them for being 10 minutes over the limit. I presume she'd also be a legitimate target for their bullet in the neck.

Cheers,

Posted by Rofe | April 18, 2008 12:44 PM

Rofe,

I did not suggest any violence against anyone. That said, if a meter maid ticketed me because I was one second over the limit, I would not complain. I would try to sweet-talk her out of the ticket, but I wouldn't abuse her for doing her job. If she was trying to ticket me even though the time had not run, I would be very persistent in challenging her (and the ticket), but would not do it in a demeaning or hostile way.

It's only money. Or toothpaste, as the case may be. Life's too short to go around being a prick.

Posted by Don | April 19, 2008 2:53 PM

Graeme,

I think your ire might be misplaced on this subject. Republicans use fear to funnel money to defense contractors and the military, Democrats use fear (in this case) to funnel money to public sector unions.

When TSA was first created the Ds demanded that it be staffed with union employees and Bush initially objected; the Ds then framed the issue as "Bush is making flying unsafe by being ideologically anti-union". If the TSA employees weren't unionized, there might be some hope of getting rid of them when the country comes to its senses about the threat of terrorism however, since they are, we're stuck with this idiocy forever.

Posted by Steve Johnson | April 19, 2008 6:59 PM

Steve,

If you believe everything you read, you're, probably, living in America..

Blaming the TSA solely on Bush, when it passed a (R)-majority Congress, is a nice piece of PoliSci myopism..

You be better off trying to piece this:
http://youtube.com/results?search_query=BBC+WTC7&search_type=

together with:
http://clusty.com/search?input-form=clusty-simple&v%3Asources=webplus&query=operation+northwoods

Happy Patriots' Day

Posted by Happy Patriots' Day | April 19, 2008 8:38 PM

Don - what if the meter maid is a man? Do you entice him with a BJ?

Also, I think the Patriot's Day dude is more interested in conspiracy theories than I am, but... As I recall, there was a GOP majority when the TSA was created. I know a lot of folks on the right like to blame NCLB on Ted Kennedy, but who had power when it passed? Who was telling me, during the Clinton years about all the wonderful things they'd do if I'd only vote 'em into power?

Yeah... That GOP.

Posted by Graeme | April 19, 2008 11:41 PM

"On the misunderstanding of weight and volume, last night at the gym I overheard three grown men arguing which is heavier:

(1) A five pound bucket of sand,
(2) A five pound bucket of water,
or
(3) A five pound bucket of steel.

Water won, because "It's the heaviest element there is."

I didn't think to ask if any worked for TSA....

Posted by Crimfan | April 19, 2008 11:02 AM"

Methinks (hey, that's in Firefox's spellcheck!) they've probably spent too much time at the gym. If there were any old people standing around, one of them should have pretended to be one of their old science teachers and started fake crying. Even children know that this is a trick question.

Posted by Reality Man | April 20, 2008 8:49 AM

In the last post a commenter found the TSA blog where they explained 100ml was chosen because it is enough material to form the kind of bomb they are worrying about. Sounds reasonable to me.

TSA employees, even if they were exclusively comprised of college-educated hipsters living in NYC probably see too many different varieties of products to be able to have discretion. So half-empty tubes still have to go.

The manufacturers of personal care products should be changing their travel sizes to be under 100 ml to solve the problem.

TSA Unions....SFO is not unionized and is done by a private contractor as an experiment. They achieve better results when tested than the unionized TSA airports. Let me know when we trash the unions because it actually would be safer.

Posted by Aaron | April 20, 2008 11:43 AM

"Don't you know who I am?!" libertarianism isn't psychologically satisfying without the balancing yang of "Don't you know who you are?!" libertarianism.

Posted by Stay Classy | April 20, 2008 12:55 PM

It's politics; log-rolling happens so both sides get to funnel money and jobs to their supporters. Ds are still the party that has public sector unions as one of their clients. I'm sure they traded not blocking something that the Rs wanted for a program that they wanted.

As hard as it is to believe, elected Republicans and elected Democrats both would rather keep getting reelected than have partisan fights. The only elected officials that take on partisan fights are those in safe seats. Just because a particular piece of legislation passes when there is a Republican majority doesn't mean that it's Republican legislation.

I guess your original statement:

In an effort to strike back at the people responsible for this nonsense, I now vote against the GOP every chance I get.

was a pretty empty threat since it doesn't sound like you'd ever vote for a Republican under any circumstances.

Posted by Steve Johnson | April 20, 2008 1:17 PM

I'm not bothering to read all the posts to see if anyone else has pointed out the obvious:

For liquids, the volume and weight measurements are essentially identical. An ounce of water equals an ounce of water.

Next...

Posted by Steve Roth | April 20, 2008 2:33 PM

Steve - an ounce of water by volume weighs 1.04 ounces, and as various fluids differ in density, the weight in oz per fluid oz differs dramatically. It's difficult to understand from what basis you could conclude that ounces by weight and ounces by volume were "essentially identical" for all liquids. Weight and volume are two different things in every single case.

Posted by Chet | April 21, 2008 12:58 AM