Beware Of Taking Liquids In Hand Luggage!!!

moonrakerz

peterbaker wrote: »

How sure are you about that? Does it apply to your average Ryanair or Easyjet?

Aircraft fuselages are round in cross section because a circular shape is easier to pressurise than a square or triangular one. The passengers sit in the top half, and the bags go in the bottom half - all at the same pressure. In some aircraft the baggage holds are not all heated to the same extent as the passenger cabin, so if you are travelling with your moggie or pooch they will be put into a heated hold. Even the non-fully heated ones are not at outside air temp, if it was minus 50 in there, your holiday would be half over before your toothpaste thawed out !

Ryanair and EasyJet actually have fleets of aircraft that are more modern that most of the 'flag carriers. Mainly Boeing 737 and the A320 family of Airbuses.

ruthiejane

Even if travelling with a largish suitcase I have basically an "overnight" bag in my handluggage so that should my case go missing I've got the basics. Therefore I'll have some liquid in my handlugagge (lush solid shampoo & conditioner is a bonus though!)

BLUroma

peterbaker wrote: »

I sympathise with the OP, but with hindsight of course, the first mistake was debranding the liquids. I appreciate that MoneySavers might buy their Chanel No 5 in bulk containers, but if you were in security, and had got as far as asking "What are these?", how on earth are you going to be reasonably certain that the Chanel No 5 isn't fake (I don't think I could tell!) or that the nail polish remover is what the passenger says it is unless you can pretty much match its smell and appearance for example to what you expect from its original branded container? Sadly for the OP, putting everything in unbranded containers is unusual. One or two, maybe. But all of it? By doing that, the passenger is already entering into potential mindgames with security.

I guess this all goes to show that the time-honoured KISS principle works best - don't try to be clever, Keep It Simple ...

It's actually NOT unusual to put ALL liquids in unbranded containers. It is a lot easier to have ALL my containers the same size & shape to fit into my toiletry bag. If these types of bottles weren't supposed to be used for this type of use, why would places like Boots sell this kind of container then? Also, why would I buy a bunch of manufacturer labelled containers that are basically filled with products I DON'T USE, just to travel with them??? I would have to empty the stuff that's inside just to use the container...I wouldn't, that's NOT SIMPLE & IS A COMPLETE WASTE!!! I like a certain shampoo, face cream & shower gel. The products I use don't come in travel-size bottles, if they did I would buy them to satisfy the security issues when I travel. So I don't think it's odd at all to buy larger containers & decant the product into smaller ones for a 2-3+ day holiday to keep my luggage weight down. No one I know travels with large bottles of shampoo, etc. The luggage weight restrictions force us to make the best of the situation. There is NO mention whatsoever on any of the airline websites that YOU CAN'T PUT THE LIQUIDS IN UNMARKED/UNLABELLED CONTAINERS. ALL THEY MENTION IS THE SIZE OF CONTAINERS THE LIQUIDS SHOULD BE PUT IN. I did check the airline's website before we went on our trip, so actually I WAS KEEPING IT SIMPLE!!! Furthermore, this system has nothing to do with me or the way I chose to handle it. The reason I put this message on here in the first place was to make other travellers aware of the problem I had WITH SECURITY ABROAD, so they wouldn't be as shocked as I was if it happens to them. I AM JUST FOREWARNING PEOPLE THAT IT ISN'T REALLY SIMPLE AT ALL! I really think the airlines should be more proactive & tell us what is allowed, & what isn't. The main thing with this issue is - every country interprets the rules in their own way...SO TRAVELLERS BEWARE!!! BE - AWARE!!! THANX FOR ALL YOUR COMMENTS ON THIS ISSUE...I HOPE WE'VE ALL LEARNT SOMETHING! CHEERS ~ BLUroma;)

rubia1409_2

stacey21 wrote: »

When I was travelling back from Ibiza they would not let any liquids at all, manufacturers bottle or not.

As long as it was in a clear plastic bag and no container was over 100ml they should have done. Ibiza is part of Spain, which has the same rules as the UK, as does the whole of the EU. Write to your MEP and let him know! He earns enough money to be obliged to deal with things like this!

stacey21_2

It was a clear perfume bottle which was exactly 100ml. They did not have plastic bags to give to anyone and even people who did (like me) they were not letting them take them through..! The tour rep warned us on the bus so we all had to get our suitcases out and put in our liquids!

*srjp*

You can make as much of a fuss as you like to your MEP and about your rights, but security are within their rights to just say 'you're not flying today' and that would be the end of it.

BLUroma wrote: »

There is NO mention whatsoever on any of the airline websites that YOU CAN'T PUT THE LIQUIDS IN UNMARKED/UNLABELLED CONTAINERS. ALL THEY MENTION IS THE SIZE OF CONTAINERS THE LIQUIDS SHOULD BE PUT IN. I did check the airline's website before we went on our trip, so actually I WAS KEEPING IT SIMPLE!!!

They probably don't say this as they expect you to exercise some common sense. I don't mean to be insulting, but if you pause to ask yourself "why do we have restrictions on liquids?" the answer will make it patently obvious why security like to have some hint of what might be in those bottles. The volume of liquid is indeed an issue because of the measurements required to make explosives, but on a plane even the smallest explosion is potentially deadly and it could be that you had just enough liquid to be a concern initially, and the fact that not one of them was identifiable probably just tipped the scales.

It's a difficult line to draw between common sense and profiling, but I'm sure you and most passengers do not 'look' like terrorists and that's probably why the UK guards let you through without incident, but to be honest if I was on a plane sat next to someone with a mixture of precisely measured, clear, plastic vials full of funny coloured liquids I would be slightly apprehensive.

Quackers

hbk2006 wrote: »

I find that really funny because coming back from Salou, I accidently left a bottle of water in my bag belonging to my son (500ml already opened) and it was never even mentioned never mind examined!

Coming home from Zante just over a week ago we took 3 large bottles of water through security and they were not mentioned.

When we asked a rep whether we would be able to take our water through she said 'it depends whether they're in a good mood or not' :rolleyes:

Leaving from the Uk was a bit of a nightmare. My husband has daily injections which need to be kept cool & he got thoroughly questioned at security about the amount of ice packs that were surrounding his injections. He has a letter which he carries but unfortunately we hadn't given the ice pack situation any thought and there was no mention of them needing to be kept cool.

My youngest daughter had a nail varnish at the bottom of her bag which she'd forgotten about and her bag was searched as a result.

It was good to see UK security was so thorough

andrewmoorcroft

There are a few misunderstandings on this thread on what happens to the cabin pressure.
First of all the cabin or hold is never 'pressurized' above the pressure at ground level. Most airports in the UK are close to sea level where the atmoshpheric pressure is around 1 bar (absolute).
Before the plane takes off the cabin pressure is reduced below atmospheric (partial vacuum) by pumping air out. As the plane ascends in altitude more air is pumped out to lower the pressure further to circa 0.8 bar (20% vacuum).
There are a number of reasons for doing this but the main reason is to reduce the pressure differential between the very low pressure at altitude and the cabin pressure thus reducing the stresses on the plane structure but increasing the stress on your bottle! It also reduces the mass of the plane because it contains 20% less air than it did a sea level.
They start the depressurizing on the ground so it is more gradual and comfortable. The effect can be seen by sealed crisp packets increasing in volume at altitude because the pressure in the bag is 1 bar but the cabin is only 0.8 bar. The reverse can be seen on landing when a half drunk bottle that was openned at altitude and resealed appears crushed at landing. This is because the cabin pressure was lower (only 0.8 bar) at altitude but the cabin is increased back towards ground pressure during landing and to 1 bar before the doors are openned!

Ideally the plane would reduce its in-cabin pressure to the pressure seen at altitude to reduce the pressure differential to nothing but the air would be too thin to live! Some fighter jets lower the pressure further but oxygen is supplied.

So next time you are sat on a plane before and during take off, your ears go funny and someone says "its because they are 'pressurizing' the plane" - you now know better!

BLUroma

*srjp* wrote: »

They probably don't say this as they expect you to exercise some common sense. I don't mean to be insulting, but if you pause to ask yourself "why do we have restrictions on liquids?" the answer will make it patently obvious why security like to have some hint of what might be in those bottles. The volume of liquid is indeed an issue because of the measurements required to make explosives, but on a plane even the smallest explosion is potentially deadly and it could be that you had just enough liquid to be a concern initially, and the fact that not one of them was identifiable probably just tipped the scales.

It's a difficult line to draw between common sense and profiling, but I'm sure you and most passengers do not 'look' like terrorists and that's probably why the UK guards let you through without incident, but to be honest if I was on a plane sat next to someone with a mixture of precisely measured, clear, plastic vials full of funny coloured liquids I would be slightly apprehensive.

WELL...OH MY GOSH!!! I KNOW EXACTLY WHY WE HAVE THOSE RESTRICTIONS, THAT'S WHY BEFORE WE TRAVELLED I LOOKED ON THE AIRLINE'S WEBSITE TO CHECK THEIR RULES ON THE LIQUIDS ISSUE IN THE FIRST PLACE, TO MAKE SURE I WAS FOLLOWING THE RULES. And actually they were in my hand luggage, not even visible to anyone, so there would be no reason for anyone to be apprehensive over my blue body gel or white shampoo. Like I said in my very first thread message, 'if I was really a terrorist do you honestly think I would have put the explosive (if I was carrying one) in a clear non-labelled bottle???' OF COURSE NOT! Any terrorist would have definitely disguised it as not to draw ANY attention to themselves. Now wouldn't they have?! NOW THAT'S COMMON SENSE...NO AFFENSE!!! I also mentioned that this just didn't happen to me with my clear bottles, it also happened to a colleague of mine with regular manufacturer labelled bottles too. My response to this whole thing is...I'M LEAVING MY LIQUIDS IN MY MAIN LUGGAGE, SO I DON'T HAVE TO WORRY ABOUT IT AGAIN. I'm glad I put this thread on and got a lot of discussion going on the matter. THANX FOR EVERYONE'S PARTICIPATION ~ BLUroma;)

moonrakerz

andrewmoorcroft wrote: »

There are a few misunderstandings on this thread on what happens to the cabin pressure.
First of all the cabin or hold is never 'pressurized'.

Sorry, but this is completely wrong !

Cabin air pressure may fall slightly when the doors are shut and the aircraft's systems take over, but this is irrelevant. When the aircraft is on the ground (assuming near sea level), air pressure is about 15 psi (pounds per square inch), as the aircraft climbs, the air pressure outside the aircraft falls, as does the pressure inside the aircraft.
Most airliners operate with a cabin 'altitude' of around 8,000ft, once the aircraft climbs through this level the air pressure outside of the aircraft continues to fall, but the aircraft maintains 8,000ft in the cabin by pumping more air into the cabin and pressurising it.
At 30,000 ft (an average cruising altitude) the outside air pressure is about 4.5 psi, the cabin is still at 8,000 ft, which equates to about 11 psi, therefore the cabin is pressurised to about 6.5 psi above the outside air pressure.

To say that there is a 20% vacuum in the aircraft is complete rubbish ! The air pressure in the cabin might be 20% percent lower than it was at ground level, but the aircraft is now at 30,000ft ! The pressure in the cabin is over twice the pressure outside.

Concorde had a pressure differential of 10.7 psi to cope with the huge pressure differential at its cruising altitude, that is why the fuselage was so relatively small, so that it could withstand the pressure.

Could I suggest that some reading of various aircraft accident reports might enlighten andrewmoorcroft, particularly the Comet disasters of the early 1950s and the incident involving a BAC1-11 of BA over Didcot in 1990, where the captain of the aircraft was sucked out of the cockpit window when the increasing pressure in the aircraft blew out the (incorrectly fitted) cockpit window.

Finally, if "the cabin or hold is never pressurised", could someone please explain these spectacular photographs of what can go wrong when conducting a pressure test on an aircraft ?

http://discity.com/kc135/