UKC

Maybe an odd question, but does anyone know if you can take something like fully set honey in your hand luggage?

Or preserves - are they classed as a liquid...?

In reply to James Malloch:

Pastes. Forget it, you'll have to check it in. No jobsworth security person is going to deviate from the rules.

In reply to Rigid Raider:

Makes sense and as I thought it would be - I'd forgotten pastes were included. Cheers!

In reply to James Malloch:

I thought this might be same as the plane on a conveyor belt thread!

In reply to James Malloch:

It doesn't really matter what the rules say, if you have something that the a jobsworth doesn't like, you will be told to bin it or miss your flight. A jobsworth will insist that there is no definitive list of what is allowed and if they don't like it, that is that. The jobsworths supervisor will always back them up, no matter how ludicrous the jobsworths position.

Your best bet is to consult jobsworths before checking in so you know what you need to put in hold luggage and what you can put in hand luggage, my experiences on separate occasions include:
- A chain of carabiners long enough to use as nunchucks was considered ok but a 30cm dyneema sling was not ok.
- A lump of cheese is not ok but when it is sliced and put on a roll, it becomes ok.
- Empty metal bottle is not ok but empty plastic bottle is ok.
What is and isn't allowed varies from country and country, airport to airport and individual security guard to individual security guard so asking is always the best policy, also make sure that the person you ask will still be on duty for a while so you will not get someone else with their own set of rules when you have spent a while checking in and everything.

In reply to henwardian:

That is the most comprehensive and brilliant reply to all these threads of "can I take X on a plane as hand luggage" and pretty much sums up all our experiences of random security.

Love the cheese one.

My weirdest was when they took a set of Dr Who Top Trumps off my 7-year old, hidden in the cargo pockets of his shorts.

In reply to James Malloch:

You might want to check the customs/import rules at your destination?

In reply to James Malloch:

Depends where you are going to as well. No way will you get honey into NZ (or at least if you try it will cost you about $500 in fines) in any of your luggage.

I can see the empty metal vs empty plastic bottle issue is straightforward - you can see what's in one and not the other, both visually and on X ray...

b

In reply to henwardian:

amazes me the negativity and around airport security. I'm not talking how the US can be f***ing hideous the enter. I'm talking the multitude of "is this allowed on a plane?", usually with ridiculously obvious answers.

Everything can be a weapon. Including your bare hands. A well trained person could cause mayhem on a plane without taking anything on (it'd be a bit Steven Seagul to really cause a disaster, but it's possible) but they're not going to make you get on in shackles. There's a line that has to be drawn to find the balance of freedom, efficiency, safety and security, and common sense. It's not an easy line to draw, so go ahead what's your bright idea? (not personally directed there, I'm talking general).

Honey is actually a good question, but I'd suggest calling the airline which will give you definite answer. If you've booked through an agent then they SHOULD Be able to answer but having worked in the industry I can say there's good and bad. If in doubt note the time and date and name of the person you speak to, and potentially call twice to ask two different people if you want to be paranoid (or it's ryanair....defo call twice if it's ryanair and kick off if you get different answers - the voice of experience here!!!!).

In reply to Scarab9:

There is no point in calling in advance what the person on the phone thinks may not be what the jobsworth at the airport thinks. The jobsworth checking you on the day will ignore protestations about you being told whatever on the phone, whoever it was that told you. Once they have made up their mind, they will never change it and, as said before, there is no "definitive answer" for most of these questions, there are only a variety of arbitrary answers.

Also, good luck getting the names of any jobsworth that confiscate your stuff (and ofc threaten to have you arrested as a terrorist if you start asking awkward questions), in my experience they will refuse to give a name or even an employee number, citing... actually, I forget, but it was some mumbo jumbo about security and (again) terrorism.

As you asked, to my mind, the solution is pretty simple: All planes are retrofitted with explosion proof holds and all luggage goes in the hold. People board the plane in their socks with a maximum of two layers of clothing and absolutely nothing else. The aeroplane companies are obliged to provide blankets and sufficient water and food for all passengers.
Of course everyone will hate it but there isn't another option for longer distances so they just have to lump it. The rules are extremely simple, impossible interpret in any other way and applied in a completely uniform way. And it just might have the bonus of persuading people to use a more carbon efficient way to make shorter journeys (train or bus).
[infact, boarding the plane completely naked would be ideal but obviously everyone's social hangups about this would prevent it being implemented.]

There are lots of small ways you could improve the current system but they would all be half-measures.

I have to say that my current thinking (or perhaps my pet conspiracy theory) on the subject is that it actually isn't at all to do with preventing terrorist attacks and it's actually a testing ground for conformity - an experiment to determine just how much crap people will put up with before they throw the toys out of the pram. The results of which might one day be used to determine methods of clamping down on personal freedoms without inciting riots.

In reply to Scarab9:

Hewardian already answered this (in that it's irrelevant what jobsworth A told you on the phone when you encounter jobsworth B at the airport - jobsworth B will make an entirely arbitrary decision which will be final regardless). But let me just add that the airline have no responsibility for, or direct involvement in, airport security.

In reply to henwardian:

Stanley Milgram already covered that half a century ago.

In reply to deepsoup:

Firstly, no the mentalist just spouted bollocks followed by an absurd idea.

In reply to James Malloch:

Why not save yourself the trouble and anguish the honey being rejected may cause and just buy your bee poo of choice when you get there?

In reply to Babika:

My favourite 'not allowed through here' are the armed policeman at Gatwick who was allowed to take a sub-machine gun, a pistol and ammunition through, but the yoghourt for his lunch. He was grumbling to my brother in law about it at the time, as my BIL was being deprived of something trivial on his way to take control of his aircraft - he was the pilot.

There is also the American security guard who removed an M16 from the hands of an Action Man on the grounds that imitation firearms were not permitted. If ever there was proof that security is wide open that, surely, is it.

However, in their defence, calling them jobsworths is harsh. They have a steady stream of people who cannot follow simple rules, each one of whom thinks that they are a special case. And out of those they have to spot both those with ill-intent and those who are so stupid that they are a danger to everyone else.

If you (not you, personally) kick off about your 'special case' you instantly fail the profile test. So don't. Be nice. Ask openly before you go through the security screen about your unusual item and go with what you're told. Maybe ask to see a supervisor if the answer is not absolute. And by the time you've checked in your hold baggage and got to the queue, they'll have processed a thousand or so more people from all over the world: a few members of the Darth Vader fan club with nothing more that a pair of eyes to see; a moody family; someone who is either unwell or off their face; and many people who are late, impatient, bored, angry, upset, nervous and co-operative. Then you turn up, with your sense of entitlement about your special case - it's not going to go well.

In reply to Scarab9:


Too true.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/pungent-smell-from-toilet-causes-ba-pl...

In reply to James Malloch:

Is this the sequel to 'Snakes on a Plane'....?

In reply to deepsoup:


True. But societies do change with time. I watched this a while ago: youtube.com/watch?v=6MYHBrJIIFU&
Though it is markedly different from Milgrams experiment, it is notable for the lack of compliance from a number of the subjects. I honestly think that if Milgrams experiments were repeated in 2016 and in the UK, they would be considerably less successful at demonstrating compliance.
Also, crucially, Milgram isolated his subjects from their peers, that isn't feasible on a country-wide basis. The approach has to be one that works on large groups of people simultaneously.

In reply to henwardian:

You may be right. Heartening, if so.


Milgram was supposedly inspired by the trial of Adolf Eichmann, and therefore by a rather large example of large groups of people behaving evilly. Besides Milgram's experiment, I was also thinking of the Stanford Prison experiment (in which the influence of one's peers very much helps to override one's 'normal' sense of decent behaviour)- that one *certainly* still works, there is no shortage of current examples unfortunately.

Sorry. More serious than I intended to be.
[Insert jokey comment here]
:O)

In reply to Scarab9:

This *is* UKC you know. ;O)

In reply to James Malloch:
My brother in Michigan once had an almost-empty tube of toothpaste taken off him. "But it's almost empty!" "Sir, it says 125 ml on the tube so it's not allowed!"

Over the years Society has learned that giving individuals freedom to interpret the rules is a recipe for disaster because sooner or later somebody will make the wrong decision. I'm trying to think of recent examples but they will mostly be in healthcare, education, social services, aircraft maintenance and so on where a bad decision costs lives. So we have collectively winced and said: "It must never happen again", issued guidelines and gradually individuals' freedom to make decisions is eroded. Rightly so in most cases.

Edit: and if I was going to blow up or hijack an aircraft I certainly wouldn't bother trying to smuggle in the equipment in my hand-luggage. I would find a sympathiser who worked airside, smuggle the stuff in as supplies for their newsagent or sweet shop or whatever then pick it up once I was through. Or I would simply bribe someone who worked in Maintenence or another job on the apron to smuggle it onto the plane, which I'm amazed hasn't happened more often at dodgy airports.

In reply to Rigid Raider:

I'm a big fan of intelligence-led policing but sadly intelligence-led security has yet to make it to an airport near you.

Society won't bear the risks on planes. I often wonder how long before we're scanned before boarding a train. In Istanbul I had to put my bags through a scanner before going into a shopping mall.

Personally I would rather bear an element of risk in return for a society that doesn't feel as if the terrorists have won. But I think I'm in a tiny minority.

In reply to Oceanrower:


More like bee puke, really.

In reply to James Malloch:

Changed days. I can't take toothpaste on a plane but I can carry a little bag of white powder instead.

In reply to nniff:


NOT presumably?


How times have changed. I remember passing through Islamabad airport of all places, with an ice-axe in my hand luggage (as one does). The very smartly dressed Pakistani security officer must have had one of the first X ray scanners, because this strange shape looking like an axe came up in it. Could I please open my luggage I was asked in a grave voice, as it looked as though it had an axe in it. I did as asked.

"Ah sir, that is why it looks like an axe. It is one. Thank you, now please pack it up again"

Again I complied and carried it into the departure lounge.

On the way out, we had tried to get all sorts of things such as empty gas canisters, bits of gear, ice screws and even a stove. The security staff (who, coincidentally, at the time of IRA bombings, all seemed to be Irish), were laughing by the time the last of us came through (deafening the rest of the passengers with the thump of our high altitude boots on the floor), more or less playing a game to see what ELSE we might be carrying. But they let it all through apart from a gas canister or 2.

Happy days, I wouldn't try that now. Though I did relatively recently go through Lyon airport with a (forgotten), ice-screw in my bag. We had been climbing roadside ice that morning, I was wearing the same sack and had put a screw in one of the waist pockets. On this being discovered, I was rather flustered and announced to the security guard that it was a "brioche" (a sort of French pastry, rather sickly), rather than a broche, the French word for an ice screw. I claimed, with actions, that one inserted it into ice.

He appeared firmly convinced that I was mad, but harmless eccentric Englishman mad rather than kill-everyone Jihadi mad, told me not to do it again and went off to give a body-search to an 18 year old, rather lightly clad, French girl.

Not sure I would try it again intentionally though.

In reply to James Malloch:

Maaany years ago I was airside at Kigali having passed through immigration and presumably security when I was surprised to see my Rwandan customer approaching with a big brown-paper parcel. It turned out to be a set of lethally sharp fighting spears with nasty barbs and a plywood rack for mounting it all as a wall display. I duly stowed it in the overhead compartment and off we went.

When I reached Brussells airport the security people were a bit shocked, asking how had got it on the plane and making me go back landside and check it in as hold baggage, which is another story as I was tired and stressed and ended up losing my temper with the check-in agent who faffed around not knowing how to check the thing in. In my best French I lost my rag, ranted, shouting "keep the damned thing!" and walked away, at which he vaulted over the balance and pulled me back to collect my receipt, much to the amusement of a nearby line of watching passegers.

In reply to James Malloch:

I was told that any stuff measured in mililitres was classed as liquid. If the jar gives the contents in grams, then you may be OK.

In reply to Simon4:

I flew back from a central European country a while ago with an axe (as in chopping wood type of tool) in my luggage. I got the usual <<If you have any of the following items blah blah blah.>>

"There's an axe in there."
<<Here is you passport sir. Gate blah blah, boarding shortly.>>
"There's an axe in there." (Not to mention the various unbranded electronic gizmos and other suspicious engineering bits and bobs!)
Total lack of interest.