100ml limit for liquids, aerosols and gels in hand luggage

[Naim 6]

Adoi, adoi!

 

+++

 

The Star

Friday March 30, 2007

 

100ml limit for liquids, aerosols and gels in hand luggage

By NG CHENG YEE

 

SEPANG: Liquids, aerosols and gels (LAGs) in airline passengers’ hand luggage will soon be limited to 100ml per item for all international flights departing from Malaysia.

 

“LAGs carried in containers larger than 100ml will also not be acceptable, even if the container is only partially filled,” Department of Civil Aviation director-general Datuk Kok Soo Chon told a press conference yesterday.

 

He said these containers must be placed in a transparent resealable plastic bag of a maximum one-litre capacity and that the containers must fit comfortably within the transparent plastic bag, which should be completely sealed.

 

Kok said the transparent plastic bag must be taken along by the passenger and presented to security personnel at the security checkpoint for separate X-ray screening.

 

 

The restrictions came about after the International Civil Aviation Organisation recommended them to all its 190 member countries, including Malaysia, following a foiled plot which involved liquid explosives concealed in hand luggage on flights from London to the United States on Aug 9 last year.

 

Kok said the announcement was to create awareness among passengers travelling on international flights so they would not find themselves in an awkward situation when reaching countries that had started to impose such restrictions.

 

The Government would announce the implementation date later.

 

“In the meantime, we are coordinating with the relevant agencies such as Malaysia Airports Holdings Bhd, airlines and retail shops to get them prepared,” he said.

 

Kok said countries which had implemented such security restrictions include the United States, Britain, European Union nations, Japan, South Korea, Hong Kong and the Philippines.

 

Exemptions, however, would be given to those who were carrying infants with them. They would be able to bring baby formulae onboard.

 

“However, the parents should only bring what is required throughout the journey and not anything more than that,” Kok said.

 

Passengers on medication would also be allowed to bring a reasonable dosage with them onboard but they must prove that the drugs belonged to them by carrying the relevant documents, he said.

 

He said passengers could still purchase LAGs from duty-free shops, located after security screening points in Malaysian airports, and bring them onboard but these items must be packed in a transparent and sealed plastic bag with receipts attached.

 

“The date on the receipts must be the day of departure or transit and if the seal is broken, the purchased items will be confiscated,” he said.

 

http://www.thestar.com.my/news/story.asp?f...ion&focus=1

Edited March 30, 2007 by Naim

[Andrew Ong 1]

News release from Bernama:

 

Restriction On Liquids In Flights Soon

 

SEPANG, March 29 (Bernama) -- Soon, Malaysians transitting at popular international destinations such as the European countries or Hong Kong will have to measure how much toothpaste or milk there is in the baby bottle they are carrying in their hand luggage.

 

This is because an increasing number of tourists and business destinations worldwide has imposed a restriction on the amount of liquid, gel or aerosol (LGA) that can be carried by passengers as carry-ons when going through security checkpoints.

 

Countries such as the United States, Hong Kong, Japan, South Korea, the Philippines as well as those in the European Union do not allow transitting passengers to carry more than a total of one litre of LGA packed in separate 100ml containers in their hand luggage.

 

By March 31, Australia and New Zealand would also be jumping on the bandwagon by implementing the restrictions on LGAs.

 

Department of Civil Aviation director-general Datuk Kok Soo Chon said today failure to comply with the restrictions may result in confiscation of the items.

 

-- BERNAMA

Andrew , there is already a news report above , what you're doing is just copying and pasting something basically IDENTICAL !!!

Edited March 31, 2007 by Gavin Andrew David
Riddiculous posting

[Seng Lim 0]

Again another inconveniences indirectly caused by all those crazy terrorists.

[LeeCH 0]

I case anyone is wondering, these restrictions also apply to pilots and cabin crew. My poor SQ kebaya girls suffer most. No hair gel and spray or perfume. How to stay presentable on a 20 hour flight and also after getting up from rest. I dun have much hair anymore, doesn't bother me that much.

[Edwin Yii 0]

I dun have much hair anymore, doesn't bother me that much.

 

hahaha :_)

 

[Tony 1]

Anyone saw that coming (not) ??

 

Same reg applies to all international flights ex SYD.

Edited March 30, 2007 by Tony

[Radzi 2]

I case anyone is wondering, these restrictions also apply to pilots and cabin crew.

 

Tech crew are very dangerous, they might use liquid explosive to hijack / bring down an aircraft. Just like tech crew might use a knive to hijack the aircraft, by holding a knife to their own neck and say "I'm hijacking myself". Yea right, as if we ned all those things.

 

I read somewhere, on a low-cost airline where drinks are not provided to the tech crew, and they were prevented from bringing their own drinks, the crew become dehydrated and almost caused an incident. When you think too much, you tend to forget the obvious.

 

[LeeCH 0]

Likewise the biggest weapon in the whole of aircraft is in the cockpit itself. We have an axe and also a huge fire extinguisher.

[Radzi 2]

The security people keep on forgetting that the tech crew has no need to hijack the aircraft. We already have control.

[Guest Levent]

The article says the rule wiil be implemented soon, but how soon is that? When I travelled to the USA in January, I had prepared everything according to the 'one litre sealed ziplock bag rule', and both at Taipei (for the flight to LAX) and LAX (for the flight back to TPE) nobody checked this... At TPE they did take a bottle of water off me though which I had just purchased for the ridiculous price of 3 USD!

[dsim 0]

with this craze... one day all passengers may need to board the flight naked.... including crews... heh heh.. sorry, cant resist to post this as it hover across my brain....

[Tony 1]

with this craze... one day all passengers may need to board the flight naked.... including crews... heh heh.. sorry, cant resist to post this as it hover across my brain....

How about Naked and Unconscious? Then airlines can save on new seats and IFE - can cram more pax per flight too! <_>

[BC Tam 2]

How about Naked and Unconscious? Then airlines can save on new seats and IFE - can cram more pax per flight too! <_>

Excellent idea, perhaps the next quantum leap in LCC travel !! Could just be the competitive edge that will drive Datuk TF against the wall, that is if he hasn't stolen a march on us already !

Edited April 8, 2007 by BC Tam

[Radzi 2]

How about Naked and Unconscious? Then airlines can save on new seats and IFE - can cram more pax per flight too! <_>

Sounds familiar. Have I heard about this somewhere before?

[Tony 1]

Sounds familiar. Have I heard about this somewhere before?

Somewhere definitely if not from MW members.

[KK Lee 5]

 

There is always a trade off between security and convenience. To paranoid, security can never be enough. Even if you ship a man in a ‘naked and unconscious’ state (SLF become proper freight) may not prevent him to swallow a time bomb in his stomach.

 

It is expected to have tighter security for flights to Britain and USA. But to impose excessive security on low risk sector (like domestic) is an excuse for MAB to rise ‘security surcharge’.

 

 

[Jessnor Arif 1]

Given the chance....Why would anyone want to bomb Malaysia Airlines flight?

 

And again.... What purpose does it serves to bomb any commercial airliners?

 

 

[Seth K 3]

Given the chance....Why would anyone want to bomb Malaysia Airlines flight?

That goes back to December 14th tragedy........

And it applies to all flights/airlines departing from Malaysia

 

And again.... What purpose does it serves to bomb any commercial airliners?

Somebody need to keep up with the world news

 

 

Edited April 9, 2007 by Seth K

[Guest Levent]

And again.... What purpose does it serves to bomb any commercial airliners?

 

To get attention, like always. More to get attention than to actually kill innocent people.

 

[Guest Fendy]

these restrictions are a conspiracy of the airlines to save weight onboard, thus saving money

[Jessnor Arif 1]

That goes back to December 14th tragedy........

 

I wont even call it a tragedy since no one die.

 

Yes, 9/11 a tragedy... but some technical question like how did burning airlines fuel pulverised a building of concrete still remain unanswered. Even by thousands of physics professors in hundreds US "great" universities.

 

 

And it applies to all flights/airlines departing from Malaysia

Somebody need to keep up with the world news

 

Maybe I am not clearly expresses myself...

 

Regardless what the media says... I dont see any logics in bombing any commercial airliners. except for the airports operators to justify tightening the security thus increasing the airport taxes/surcharges. Like KK Lee said.

 

is an excuse for MAB to rise ‘security surcharge’.

 

Cause the logic is why go all the troubles to check in your bag with bombs on bring in on the cabin to bomb a 777 in mid air? when you can always bomb the airport itself. Crippling Aviation industries, Cargo Industries, incurring losses in economics thus really hurt the government. Just what US did to Afghanistan and Iraq crippling the economy and controlled their government.

 

Bombing 1 or 2 commercials airliners wont even scratch any government let alone the US Government. The bombed plane will always be replaced by insurance. Airlines suffer from decrease in goodwill. but may saves money due to reduction of weight. But the losses really occur only to all air travellers with lot of hassle to travel.

 

Even with this situation some "security" company trying to make profit by introducing biometric check-in systems where passengers can become a member for a hefty fees to fast forward their check-in processes.

Edited April 9, 2007 by JessnorArif

[Seth K 3]

I tend to believe that the x-tra security check is mainly for safety pre-caution, thou this "x-tra" does bring other benefits to airlines, airport operators and passengers such as the examples that mention above, higer taxes, less weight, safer etc.)

Edited April 9, 2007 by Seth K

[Tony 1]

To get attention, like always. More to get attention than to actually kill innocent people.

Some thought killing would get them MORE attention.

[KK Lee 5]

Yes, 9/11 a tragedy... but some technical question like how did burning airlines fuel pulverised a building of concrete still remain unanswered. Even by thousands of physics professors in hundreds US "great" universities.

Maybe I am not clearly expresses myself...

 

The World Trade Center towers used neither a steel skeleton nor reinforced concrete. They were designed as square tubes made of heavy, hollow welded sections, braced against buckling by the building floors. Massive foundations descended to bedrock, since the towers had to be safe against winds and other lateral forces tending to overturn them. All this was taken into consideration in the design and construction, which seems to have been first-rate. An attempt to damage the buildings by a bomb at the base had negligible effect. The strong base and foundation would repel any such assault with ease, as it indeed did. The impact of aircraft on the upper stories had only a local effect, and did not impair the integrity of the buildings, which remained solid. The fires caused weakening of the steel, and some of the floors suddenly received a load for which they were not designed.

 

What happened next was unexpected and catastrophic. The slumped floors pushed the steel modules outwards, separating them from the floor beams. The next floor then collapsed on the one below, pushing out the steel walls, and this continued, in the same way that a house of cards collapses. The debris of concrete facing and steel modules fell in shower while the main structure collapsed at almost the same rate. In 15 seconds or so, 110 stories were reduced to a pile 9 stories high, mainly of steel wall modules and whatever was around them. The south tower collapsed 47 minutes after impact, the north tower 1 hour 44 minutes after impact. The elapsed times show that the impacts were not the proximate cause of collapse; the strong building easily withstood them. When even one corner of a floor was weakened and fell, the collapse would soon propagate around the circumference, and the building would be lost.

 

http://www.du.edu/~jcalvert/tech/failure.htm

 

 

 

 

[Seng Lim 0]

Effective 21 May 2007, KLIA will kick start the liquid security measures, full details available at:

 

http://www.klia.com.my/?tpl_id=310/