Beware Of Taking Liquids In Hand Luggage!!!

andrewmoorcroft

moonrakerz wrote: »

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/

I think you have missed the plot. You are saying essentially the same as me. The main difference is that i am pointing out that the cabin is depressurized to the pressure seen at 8000ft (0.8bar or 11psi) and it remains at this pressure even when the plane reaches it cruising altitude (circa 0.3 bar or 4.5 psi). At altitude the pressure in the cabin is 0.5 bar above the outside pressure (0.8 - 0.3 = 0.5). If the cabin had not been depressurized it would be (1 - 0.3 = 0.7 differential).
To achieve the 0.5 bar differential they have never INCREASE the absolute pressure in the cabin, they have only ever reduced it. However because they do not reduce it as much as the external pressure, the cabin pressure remains higher than the external. Some people incorrectly say that the cabin has been 'pressurised' and think the pressure is higher than when they started the journey on the ground but infact it has been depressurised but kept above the external.
The absolute pressure in the cabin at altitude is NEVER above the pressure on the ground unless simulting the differential by testing on the ground.
The link that you have shown is a test at sea level where they HAVE increased the cabin pressure to above that seen at sea level. When testing the plane structure they are attempting to create the pressure differential seen at altitude. This can be done at sea level by pumping in air to 1.5 bar at a external pressure of only 1 bar. This creates the same pressure differential (0.5 bar) as seen at altitude when the lower the pressure in the cabin to 0.8 bar but the external pressure is 0.3 bar.
The only reason they pump in air at altitude is to replace the cabin air but the still maintain the depression of 0.2 bar below sea level (0.5 bar above altitude).
Peoples containers dont leak a plane because the cabin pressure increased. They leak because the pressure reduces and then goes back to that on the ground.
You are confusing absolute pressure (used in both our notes) with gauge pressure. At altitude the gauge pressure has increased because gauge preesure is relative to atmospheric and the altitude pressure lowers at altitude. Unfortunately humans like the absolute pressure to be in the range 0.7 to 1.1 bar and dont care what the gauge pressure is!

rubia1409_2

*srjp* wrote: »

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.
quote]


My point is that Spain is part of the EU and has signed up to exactly the same security measures we have here, regarding liquids. If security are not abiding by these rules then we need to let our MEP or the appropraite authority know, as it is not fair to any passenger who has ensured that they are following the correct rules.

If security is suspicious about a certain item, they are required to test it and only then do they have the right to remove it. They are also able to randomly test items. They do not have the right to throw everyone's liquids away when passengers are folowing security standards.

consultant31

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!

We just came back from Jersey and I had a half empty 1 litre bottle of water in my bag. The woman at the airport told me it would have to be thrown away but I could have a drink first if I wanted. I took a good swallow (thus proving it was not a toxic liquid surely) and then she took the bottle and threw it in the bin - it did seem a bit OTT but I'd rather be inconvenienced than be put at risk.

g_attrill

I agree - airport security is inconsistent and vague, the liquids rule is fairly consistent, although I had a 2g tube of cream and was told it wasn't worth putting in a bag, so I just put it on top of my laptop.

This is a great post from somebody who works at LHR:

http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=686190

The shoes rule is one that differs by airport - at Gatwick I didn't need to take them off, then there was a special shoe x-ray area after normal security (yes, really) but set back, I went to walk around the side (thinking it was for certain passengers only), then spotted a security guy at the side, so walked back, then he said "no, carry on [around]" in a condescending manner, so they weren't x-rayed after all.

hammy_the_hammer

BLUroma wrote: »

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;)

maybe security were aware (by your luggage receipt) that you had checked baggage ...they may in your case then have considered your behaviour suspicious

impy78

Vampgirl wrote: »

Interesting story, but I also don't understand why anyone would want to take shampoo/condition/etc...in their handluggage??? I always put these type of things into my suitcase - the only liquids I carry in handluggage are handcream, lipbalm and perhaps moisturiser if its a long-haul flight.

In case your case goes missing, which is becoming a more and more distinct possibility. I always put two pairs of pants and two t-shirts in, deodorant and wash things so I can be clean and fresh where ever I am.

hammy_the_hammer

surely if the unthinkable happens and your case goes missing you could purchase the items you needed

impy78

hammy_the_hammer wrote: »

surely if the unthinkable happens and your case goes missing you could purchase the items you needed

True, but I'd rather not spend all that money for items that I'm not going to be able to take back through customs anyway.

Like £3 for deodorant
£6 for shampoo and conditioner
£2 for the bodywash
£1 for a toothbrush £2 for toothpaste and then clothes too.

BLUroma

hammy_the_hammer wrote: »

maybe security were aware (by your luggage receipt) that you had checked baggage ...they may in your case then have considered your behaviour suspicious

People are sooooooooooo funny...hahaha!!! Actually, I didn't have my luggage receipts, my husband had them. I went through customs before him while he was finishing his coffee in the cafe. I still find it annoying that SOME PEOPLE somehow make this incident my fault...GUESS WHAT...IT WASN'T!!!:mad: I was just going through customs like I do 5-6 times a year. This was actually the VERY FIRST TIME I even took liquids in my hand luggage. I have already determined that it really isn't worth it. It would be fantastic if all the European countries handled this issue in the same manor...BUT THEY DON'T!!! That's why I put this thread on here in the first place, to advise people that it's not the same from country to country. EVERY COUNTRY DEALS WITH IT IN THEIR OWN WAY! I didn't mention it before, but because a lot of people have been bringing up the subject of 'drinking water' (bottles), on the same trip I also had my water bottle taken away too. The only difference between my bottle (it was unopened) & everyone else's was...the Italian's had their water bottles in a large ziploc plastic bad. I don't know where they got those ziploc bags from, but for some reason customs let them go through with their water, but didn't allow me to keep mine. Anyone could have had a ziploc bag & still be carrying something dodgie...know what I mean. I find it bizarre that this illusive 'ziploc plastic bag' makes people feel more secure going through airport security. ODD FOR SURE!!! IT'S TRULY A REAL SHAME HOW THE ACTIONS OF TERRORISTS HAVE ENDED UP RULING OUR WORLD & BEHAVOUR. GOD BLESS US ALL!!!:A

hammy_the_hammer

they would have to be very small water bottles to satisfy the regulations !!!
i suppose all i could advise people who don't want to have problems reference liquids is that if they are checking baggage in it would be advisable to put your liquids in the case.
you can have plenty of reasons why you still put liquids in your hand luggage but be aware they may be confiscated.