Bushwalking stoves on planes

[cjhfield]

A relative of mine had their gas stove refused passage on a flight Syd to Launceston by Jetstar. This was just the stove without gas canister. He was forced to throw it away and buy a new one on arrival. He was asked had it ever been used and as the answer was yes he could not carry it in checked baggage or in the cabin. I had never come across this - anyone else?

On reading their dangerous goods rules they refer to a Qantas page:

http://www.qantas.com.au/travel/airline ... n#moreinfo

"Camping stoves and fuel containers that have contained a flammable liquid fuel
Airline approval is required to carry camping stoves and empty fuel containers that have previously contained a flammable liquid fuel.
To obtain an approval you must:
print the Carriage of Camping Stoves and Fuel Containers in Checked Baggage forms and complete the procedure for Carriage of Camping Stoves and Fuel Containers in Checked Baggage;
sign the completed declaration and return to [email protected] to request an approval."

So you are supposed to complete this form and email it off for each flight. Not sure how that is going to work on the trip back. The whole thing sounds ludicrous. Makes me think I should book with the other mob. Or are they just as bad.

Chris

[Mark F]

The answer to the airline is that the stove (not the gas cartridge) has never contained liquid fuel (their words) only fuel in a gaseous state. So your friend must have come across a really officious *&%$#!! <edit> How wonderful - I typed b------d and got heiroglyphics!

It reminds me of being picked up on an Xray scanner carrying a gas canister on Spanish railways when changing trains at Madrid station. I offered it for disposal but they didn't want to know - they just didn't want it going onto a train. I asked a range of officials including security how I should dispose of the cylinder but nobody wanted to take any responsibility. I eventually left it on top of a garbage can in full view.

Before anybody gets a bit paranoid, this seems to be exclusively a Spanish thing after the Spanish train bombings. I have never passed through a scanner in any other European station (France, Germany, Benelux, Netherlands or UK) although I have been picked up at customs with a Victorinox lock blade knife in London when boarding the Eurostar to Paris, but never questioned carrying the same knife several times in the opposite direction through Xray apparatus. I got to keep the knife after being very meek (having white hair helped).

[nq111]

This is new - i flew about 6 months ago with a shelite stove and Qantas had the same rules as Virgin (below):

Camping Stoves and Fuel Containers that have contained a Flammable Liquid

Permitted in checked baggage only – stoves and containers must be completely drained of all liquid fuel and action has been taken to nullify the danger.

To nullify the danger, the empty fuel container must be allowed to drain for at least 1 hour and the container left uncapped for a minimum of 6 hours to allow any residual fuel to evaporate; or cooking oil can be added to the container to elevate the flash point and then empty the fuel tank. There must be no strong smell of fuel remaining on the container. The cap must then be securely fastened and be wrapped in an absorbent material such as paper towel and placed in a polyethylene or equivalent bag. The top of the bag must then be sealed or gathered and closed with an elastic band or twine.

Note: This exception is NOT applicable to items with internal combustion engines such as chain saws, brushcutters and/or lawnmowers. These items are not permitted for carriage either new or used.

I used to print their policies, follow the directions to the letter and if questioned provide the printout and point out this was their policy.

Not sure what to make of the new Qantas requirements - an administrative nightmare!

[Bluegum Mic]

I've had issues every time I've flown (with an unused gas burner, a used gas burner and a metho stove). Sydney is always the problem. Brisbane and hobart and launceston have never been an issue and they simply ask has it been cleaned properly/drained. I've had to argue every time but my last time flying through Sydney I had to argue for some time before the manager finally came to inspect I had in fact cleaned the stove as per rules. I then had to sign several documents, the stove had to be sealed off in a plastic bag and several forms signed. I was informed my bag would be searched later and the explosives manager would inspect the stove later in the baggage area. I didn't see any evidence of this though. Moral of the story is if you have cleaned and drained it, insist on seeing the floor manager and getting the forms. Sydney say their reasoning for being more strict is because they are a larger international airport and cannot have the security risk.

[Peaksnik]

I had a problem checking in with Jetstar Brisbane after volunteering that I had a gas burner in my rucksack ( I was asked specifically if I had a stove or cooker). I explained that there was no fuel cannister and that the burner could not retain gaseous fuel. Nevertheless I had to dig it out of the pack. The person was unnecessarily officious and unpleasant. They made a show of sniffing the burner and then took it away from the counter for further inspection. I could see this person in the distance slowly turning pages of a manual and casually chatting with someone. She returned with forms for me to sign and I was then permitted to repack it in my baggage. The whole thing took 20 minutes - a complete waste of time. The return from Launceston went without a hitch. Although I had the stove ready for checking, the person at the counter wasn't interested, she just wanted to know if I had a gas cannister or not. A pleasant and quick exchange of information and the pack was checked in.

So, why the difference? I suspect it's down to poor knowledge of rules mixed in with sheer bloody-mindedness. Ignorance often provokes a 'when in doubt, don't permit' response. For instance, I was once stopped at security for carrying a climbing rope in cabin baggage on an international flight. I think that it was an unusual thing to find on the scanner and so had to be stopped. Or did they suspect that I might attempt tie-up several rows of passengers and the crew?

[Rob A]

OP...Who are you pointing the finger at? Airline or airport staff? Theres a difference.
One up. What would you have expected them to do, taken your word for it? She'll be right?
Never had a problem myself.

[cjhfield]

I have never had a problem either but this approach from Jetstar/qantas seems new to me. I rinse out my fuel bottles with water and let them air dry so they have no smell at all. If they doubt my word they can smell them. It seems a reasonable approach to me. But to refuse to carry a gas stove that has no fuel is just silly. What I would have expected is a degree of common sense.

What worries me is the return trip. Say I end a walk on a Sat and aim to fly out Sunday following the Qantas page I have to do the cleaning proceedure then download complete sign and then scan their document then wait for a reply before my flight. That would be difficult.

If this is their policy then I would sooner fly with Virgin. If they have changed their policy they need to be clear about it. If they reserve the right to get you to throw away your stove then it needs to be widely known. The airline staff are only responding to the rules they are handed from on high. If one airline is less bushwalker friendly then people can vote with their feet. It would make a significant change to the bookings in and out of Tasmania.

Chris

[South_Aussie_Hiker]

A perspective from someone on the other side...

1. The baseline dangerous goods standards are set by IATA (a global governing body). The airlines can have their own standards in excess of the IATA regulations, but RARELY do this, particularly for passenger checked or carry-on baggage. The cut and paste requirements above are from IATA and apply to all airlines, not just Qantas or Jetstar. Don't blame the airline for the required standards.

2. Yes, there can be a lack of understanding by check-in staff, and the inconsistency can be terribly frustrating. The IATA DGR (Dangerous Goods Regulations) is many, many hundreds of pages (well it was last time I did my renewal) and changes all the time (54th edition has just been released). Check in staff can not be expected to know the entire document from memory, and may have to reference it (or a supervisor) when someone presents with something at check-in which is not particularly common, like a hiking stove.

3. You should do your research before you fly. Check each airline's website and you will find the information buried there.

4. In the above case, you should have simply told them that the stove has never contained liquid fuel. A check-in person wouldn't be able to look at a stove and tell if it is a liquid or gas stove (and most probably is not even aware different types exist).

5. If you have a liquid stove, you should print out the airline's procedure for cleaning from their website and present it when you check-in and say you've completed the procedure.

6. While I understand it might be frustrating flying with one airline one day, and then another the next and getting a different story, do the research before you go and arrive at the gate fully prepared. This will nearly always guarantee a fast, no fuss check-in. If you aren't organised or completely sure of that airline's rules, they have every right (and a responsibility to a few hundred other people) to make sure it is done right. If that takes 20 mins, it takes 20 mins.

Slap down a printed copy of their own procedure from their own website, with the steps ticked off one by one - you'll be sitting in the FF lounge sipping drinks before you know it

[nq111]

Thankyou South_Aussie_Hiker.

That is valuable information and perspective - much appreciate you contributing it.

[Moondog55]

All those rules and procedures go out the window for travel in the USA, even doing everything correctly is no guarantee that your stove will still be in your luggage when you get back to Australia.
It is the one idiot in a million who ignores the rules and tries to carry in their luggage a stove filled with volatile fuel that causes a lot of the trouble.
In the US the TSA want the fuel bottles uncapped

[Mark F]

Yesterday I sent the following email to dangerous goods at Qantas.

"Hello

There is considerable confusion among bushwalkers as to whether small gas stoves (those that use disposable gas cartridges) require approval for transport on Qantas flights. I am aware that the gas canisters are not allowed on flights but the stoves (several different makes and models) have never contained liquid fuel but only gases. The stoves have no ability to retain gas once removed from the canister.

For my part I intend to take such a stove to Europe in June flying Qantas to London/Toulouse and back via Frankfurt. Do I need to complete the Carriage of Camping Stoves in Checked Baggage form for these flights and will this approval be recognised by your partner airlines?"

I have just received the following reply.

"Thank you for your enquiry.

I can confirm that gas stoves that use disposable butane gas cartridges do no require operator approval or a completed flushing procedures declaration.

Stoves that are re-usable and contain cylinders that have contained a flammable gas or a flammable liquid do require a completed flushing procedures declaration and a letter of operator approval.

I have attached a .pdf used to assist with the differences between these two types of stoves. If you have any other concerns you are welcome to contact me. "

Safety manual for stoves

One can now see the airline employee's difficulty comparing these images with normal walking type gas stoves. I will follow up with Qantas to try and get a better recognition guide.

[Miyata610]

Ha ha. They show a picture of a shellite stove and describe it as using reusable butane cylinders. Duh. No wonder the system fails.

Edit:

Just travel on the spirit. It's pleasant enough, have a meal in the a la carte restaurant after a few drinks in the bar. That's what I do, every couple of weeks. Never a problem with all sorts of dangerous goods.

[Son of a Beach]

Should have seen the confused looks on the faces of security at Launceston airport when I emptied all the bullets out of my pocket and handed them in before walking through the metal detector.

They clearly had no idea what to do with that and watched me like a hawk for the rest of the time that I was in the airport.

(I had been hunting the night before and forgot to empty my pockets afterwards.)

[cjhfield]

Thanks for the very useful posts. The above and my net research lead me to the following conclusions:

- you may have problems taking any stove on any flight.
- new rules came into effect on 1st Jan this year so what worked last year may not work this year. The rules cost over $200 to buy and anyway each airline may interpret the rules in different ways so there is always some uncertainty. The rules are complex enough that ground staff may not know them.
- stoves and fuel bottles are classed as dangerous goods. They may be carried but IATA rules say they require the "approval of the operator". They have to be declared on check in. They must be in checked baggage. They must be cleaned by following a standard procedure of draining for an hour followed by at least 6 hours of air drying. Ultimately they must pass the smell test to be accepted - if they smell of fuel it is likely they will be refused regardless of what you have done. Some airlines require a signed statement that you have followed the correct procedure and pre-approval (Jetstar, Qantas), some just require you to have done it (Virgin) and some require that you bring a signed form that is sighted at check in when the stove will be inspected (Air NZ).
-Some airlines may decide these procedures are too onerous and refuse to carry any stove that has been used (some German airlines at least).
-some airlines distinguish between liquid fuel stoves and gas stoves but ground staff may not make the distinction. The IATA rules apply to stoves that "have contained a flammable liquid fuel". Gas canisters contain a liquified gas that may deliver a gas to the stove or a liquid depending which way up the canister is placed. I think the intent was not to include gas stoves in the restrictions but the individual airlines directives may just say "camping stoves" and this is what the ground staff will follow.
- it is wise to clean any stove until it has no odour, print out and sign a form to say it has been cleaned to the required standard, print out any reference to stoves from the airlines website so that ground staff can refer to it quickly and seek pre approval if possible.
- Australia Post has similar restrictions based on the IATA rules so posting a stove may also be problematic (though they may be more flexible in the real world).

Chris

[Peaksnik]

What would you have expected them to do, taken your word for it? She'll be right?
Never had a problem myself.

RobA, Lucky you. But you miss the point. I could have lied in the first place, and said that there was no stove. I was in a party of three but because I said I had a stove I was the one who had to unpack it. The word of the others was accepted. A disposable gas cannister burner has no container for holding fuel, as you know. She was able to make this observation too. However, she proceeded to waste more time. According to the rules, carriage is permitted and no documentation is required for disposable gas cannister burners sans cannister . The Qantas form, which Jetsatar refers to is for liquid fuel stoves.

The Launceston staff person understood the rules the the Brisbane one didn't.

Whenever I travel with the stove now I present it at check-in immediately and then pop into the top of the pack for baggage on acceptance. Ever since the Brisbane incident I have had no troubles (3 trips later).

[South_Aussie_Hiker]

Chris, what you should have got out of my posts and your research is that you arrive check in with all your ducks in a row, you are 99.9% of the time going to get your stove on without any hassle whatsoever. Every airline in the world has the information available on their website. You just have to do the research before you fly, not rely on "what happened last time" or what "airline xyz down the road said".

Son of a Beach... You may be surprised to know that the ammunition in your pockets could have been carried in your checked luggage if you realised before checking your bag and arriving at the screening point (well you would have needed a lockable ammunition box amongst other things) We quite often carry passengers and their personal firearms to Tasmania!

[cjhfield]

Well I have been flying to Tasmania for 35 years and the current rules are all news to me and to most others I reckon. It's a brave new world and I am trying to figure out which ducks need to be aligned. But yes if you are aware of the issues you can prevent problems. I wonder how many of the stoves that flew into Hobart today had the above paperwork completed.

Chris

[Onestepmore]

Interesting information, thanks for the tips about pre-prepardness and forms etc. We're plannng a walking trip to Chile bext year, and OT Tassie from Sydney.

I remember (violins) the good old days when you could sit on a plane and do your knitting, or needlework. I almost completed a whole cabbage patterned wool tapestry cushion on a year long overseas trip, just on planes and in airline waiting rooms. I find it odd you can't take a sewing needle, yet are allowed a brooch pinned on to your jacket or dress. You can't take a crocket hook, yet a steel ballpoint pen is acceptable.

[Lindsay]

........I find it odd you can't take a sewing needle, yet are allowed a brooch pinned on to your jacket or dress. You can't take a crocket hook, yet a steel ballpoint pen is acceptable.

Instead of focusing the security effort where it would be most useful, these pointless restrictions are merely for show so that the government can be seen to be doing something. Your knitting needles or nail file will be taken away, however you may still buy duty free booze beyond the security secreening point and take it on board the aircraft. Break the bottle and you have yourself a very nasty weapon indeed, but this seems to have escaped the notice of the idiots that came up with these regulations.

[Moondog55]

Heck ( Mentioned before BTW) when I flew to England way, way, way back my ice-axe was considered too dangerous to carry in the hold and I had to take it into the cabin with me on internal flights
I reckon a bottle of Polish Spirits ( 96 proof) could cause quite a nice little cabin fire, I could Garrotte someone with my shoe laces whilst stabbing another with my collapsible umbrella.
I do agree with most of the "safety in flight" rules and regulations but the people who make the rules rarely have to put up with the inconvenience the rules cause

[cjhfield]

I received a very prompt reply from Qantas dangerous goods section about carriage of stoves. You can get permission before you leave for your return flight so while the process is a bit tedious it is workable.

They said:

"I can confirm that gas stoves which do not have any sort of fuel/gas cylinders attached are allowed to be carried as checked baggage without a letter of operator approval. Precautions must be made when packing so there is not chance of ignition or spark.

Our department is aware of the ongoing confusion concerning the carriage of camping stoves. We are currently in the process of creating a notice which will be distributed to staff within the Qantas Group, including Jetstar. This information will be a reference for ground staff and shall include an explanation of the differences between the types of camping stoves and when operator approval is necessary.

Liquid fuelled stoves require a flushing procedures declaration to be completed and returned before the passenger is issued with the necessary documentation to travel. The response time for approval requests is generally quite prompt, however I would strongly suggest they are submitted at least two working days prior to travelling.

While operator approval is mandatory, it is understood that people are not always in a position to contact us before they fly. For this reason, letters issued for camping stoves are dated to cover all requested flight dates, though letter holders must ensure they perform the flushing procedures before every flight.

When checking in you will need to declare to the check-in agent that you are carrying a fully flushed camping stove and show them a copy of your approval letter and the completed flushing procedures declaration. Check-in staff are permitted to check for fuel smells and are authorised to deny carriage if required."

Chris

[Solohike74]

So with any airline, in order to save hassle, can one simply follow the rinsing and drying procedures, but 'omit to declare' the stove at all, even with choofers or trangias? This isn't harmful if no fuel is to be carried, and no gas canister whatsoever is packed. The trangia does not have a strong smell even when fuel is present. Noting that in some cities now there is "self-service bag drop" where an online checked passenger can have expedited bag drop without requiring direct interaction with airline employees until reaching the gate?

[Strider]

Noting that in some cities now there is "self-service bag drop" where an online checked passenger can have expedited bag drop without requiring direct interaction with airline employees until reaching the gate?

Just because you are not present does not mean it will not be confiscated!

[Moondog55]

OK May as well preplan and get all the permissions in place
What is the correct Qantas airline contact for this??
I just went to their website and couldn't find a link to the approval process

OK forget that request; I just found the link in the "Dangerous Goods" section, I do find it very interesting that the Airlines want you to seal the stove and/or fuel tank tightly but in the US the TSA want them open

[cjhfield]

The Qantas web page with general info on dangerous goods is:

http://www.qantas.com.au/travel/airline ... /global/en

The page that has more details about stoves is:

http://www.qantas.com.au/travel/airline ... n#moreinfo

There is a pdf you can download from that page. The direct link for the pdf is:

http://www.qantas.com.au/dangerousgoods ... b-2012.pdf

You complete the pdf and email it to [email protected] at least 2 business days before your flight.

Even after that if it smells of fuel it may still be refused carriage.

HTH

Chris

[Moondog55]

I contacted the relevant department asking for a detailed clarification and all I got was a "cut and paste" form the website.
I wasn't and am not happy with my response from QANTAS, especially as they did not address my specific inquiry about the differences between the IATA rules and the USAs TSA rules which differ in that the TSA want fuel bottles open and QANTAS want them tightly sealed and double bagged.
I also pointed out that there website pictures are wrong but I shouldn't have as the picture is to my advantage

[cjhfield]

The TSA is an American body and I dont think what they choose to do is relevant to Australian Airlines but all airlines work under the IATA rules though they may have different ways of implementing the regulations. So for example the IATA rules for stoves say that operator approval must be sought to carry fuel stoves. Qantas and Jetstar implement this by the completing of the declaration and prior approval in writing whereas Virgin effectively give approval at check-in.

But I agree there is not a lot of logic to their rules. Generally if they agree to carry something that could have a remote fire risk they prefer it in the cabin where it could be dealt with but if something could be classed as a weapon they require it in the hold. But stoves have to travel in the hold. Qantas require a signed document from you that you have completed the cleaning procedure approved by the dangerous goods section but waive this requirement for the return trip.

Airports still seem to have hangups about mobile phones being a risk to aviation fuel despite that issue being started by a hoax press release and disproved many times over at least a decade ago. Last year I was spoken to harshly for reading my ebook reader on the tarmac at Newcastle airport. The ground staff asked if I realised there were thousands of gallons of fuel beneath our feet - as if the puny battery of the ebook was going to morph into a huge thermic lance and cut through 2 metres of concrete. They announce that all electronic devices be turned off for take offs and landings because its in the rules but they must know that there are still dozens of devices still active due to passengers not knowing when off is off or just making an error. There were certainly a number of active devices on a recent trip to KL. If they were serious about it they would have to perform some sort of scan. Of course they know it is not an issue but it is in the rules and has to be implemented. Sadly rules get into the book a lot easier than they go out.

Chris

[Moondog55]

The difference is relevant if your are travelling to and using internal flights in the USA [using QANTAS to travel to LA ] tho, and that was my allusion. If you baggage is through ticketed you don't get a chance to repack. In the thread on the TSA there is a link to a pro-forma letter you can print off and sign and stash with the stove/fuel bottle and it makes sense to use both letter forms and leave these packed with the stove if travelling overseas.

[South_Aussie_Hiker]

Airports still seem to have hangups about mobile phones being a risk to aviation fuel despite that issue being started by a hoax press release and disproved many times over at least a decade ago. Last year I was spoken to harshly for reading my ebook reader on the tarmac at Newcastle airport. The ground staff asked if I realised there were thousands of gallons of fuel beneath our feet - as if the puny battery of the ebook was going to morph into a huge thermic lance and cut through 2 metres of concrete. They announce that all electronic devices be turned off for take offs and landings because its in the rules but they must know that there are still dozens of devices still active due to passengers not knowing when off is off or just making an error. There were certainly a number of active devices on a recent trip to KL. If they were serious about it they would have to perform some sort of scan. Of course they know it is not an issue but it is in the rules and has to be implemented. Sadly rules get into the book a lot easier than they go out.

Don't want you getting a complex that I'm picking on you Chris but once again I feel I have to correct some points here.

Firstly, underground fuel tanks.
The fuel tanks below you may be buried below 2m of reinforced concrete, but the vents for these tanks are not. This also goes for the aircraft tanks. As turbine aircraft tanks are filled at rates of up to 1000L per min, the empty space in the tanks (air with fuel vapours) pours out of the vents at the same rate. In our aircraft, that happens to be underneath the wing just where passengers are walking past to board. All electronic devices (whether or not they have a flight mode) are required to be completely switched off when tarmac boarding because 1000L of air with fuel vapours can be pouring out of the tank vents as people walk past. And while jet fuel has a particularly high flash point, it can quite easily be reached in certain circumstances. Other aviation fuels have flash points as low as -43 degrees.

Secondly, you may think your ebook battery might not pose a threat, but lithium batteries pack a MASSIVE punch for their size, and are also prone to thermal runaway in the event they've been damaged (by dropping) or overcharged. See here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j4DlUUZxFvs
Not only are lithium batteries required to be very carefully temperature controlled, their fires can also be very, very difficult to extinguish in the aviation environment. While lithium ion batteries have been a great revelation, their characteristics (thermal runaway and difficulty of extinguishing) combined with the aviation environment means they are less than ideal, and all crew (including flight crew and ground staff) are trained to be cautious of them.

Thirdly, electronic devices are required to be off for takeoff and landing because you can watch as much Mythbusters as you like, electronic devices create EMF which can affect aircraft systems. The VAST majority of aircraft wiring is UNSHIELDED. I will give you two examples of actual events which have occurred to me:
a) Ten years ago, on a night freight flight I was training a new pilot. As we passed over Broome in the pitch black, his phone (which he'd left on by accident) was heard to make the audible da-ding da-ding da-ding through our comms system as it came into coverage. The fairly old, semi-digital autopilot (which had worked for hours without fault) simultaneously and aggressively began an uncommanded roll to the left. As we rolled through 60 degrees of bank towards vertical, I disconnected the autopilot and levelled the aircraft. Once the phone was turned off, the autopilot worked again without fault for the remainder of the flight (and for many months afterwards).
b) Only just recently, on a scheduled passenger flight out of Adelaide, I attempted to engage the new generation, completely digital autopilot on the First Officer's request immediately after takeoff. It refused to engage time after time, and so he was forced to hand fly the aircraft to cruising altitudes through some very ordinary weather. We completed our checklists and troubleshooting to no avail. When completing the announcement to passengers, I requested that because of potential interference, I wanted all electronic devices switched off. Two mins later, the autopilot engaged immediately and continued working for the rest of the flight. It could not be faulted by engineering during post-flight inspection. There is absolutely NO doubt in my mind that an electronic device was interfering with the digital autopilot.

Lastly, I have also have no doubt that devices are sometimes left on either accidentally or intentionally during flight. It is simply false reasoning to suggest this means it is okay for everyone else to do. If you saw someone speeding down a road at twice the limit, would you do the same just because they didn't have a crash?
It is actually a legal requirement that you follow the directions of flight crew (ie the flight attendants who tell you to turn devices off). I know of at least a dozen cases where passengers have actually been charged with a criminal offence for failing to follow the directions of aircrew, and hundreds where passengers have been offloaded before departure and forfeited their fare.

Sorry this has been a big essay, but it really rubs me up the wrong way when people make generalisations in the public forum which could encourage others to do the wrong thing.

You might think the rules are ridiculous, or out-dated, or have been proven wrong by a woefully inadequate one-off test on Mythbusters. But as someone who works in the industry and whose life depends on it day in and day out, I just want to get home safely and see my kids every night... I don't need someone who thinks they know better starting a fire or interfering with my equipment.

[wildlight]

I once had an efficient little thing ask me about my msr fuel bottle and "don't you know it's an offence to carry fuel blah blah blah on an aircraft and you shouldn't be doing it blah blah..charges will be laid blah blah.." to which I replied: "Maybe you should call a witness and watch this" so she did call a supervisor. I undid the bottle, and took an almighty swig and asked if anyone had a light. They looked at me in horror, then I tipped a bit on my hand, and told them it was orange juice (it was).

I said to them "maybe you should ask first 'what is in this bottle' it would save a lot of fiddling around. When they ask me why use that bottle for OJ, I mentioned that my rationale was OJ- or water - or soft drink filling the bottle would be most likely to displace any trace of the original stove fuel, and I was very safety conscious because "remember- I'm on that flight too". They asked "why not water" and I said that I'd experimented with water, and found just a tinge of "fuel smell" left overnight. I was going to use coca cola, but was concerned for the inside of the bottle! OJ seemed a good idea, they were good with that. It was Virgin, at Melbourne. Every other time I get asked "nothing dangerous here?" and I reply "Nup", it gets put on the belt to the baggage handlers.

Safe Steps

WildLight