Security loophole at Sydney Airport

[Speedbird61]

We flew back into Sydney Airport on Saturday, from Tokyo.
Me and my wife bought ourselves 4 bottles of Vodka from the duty free shop.
I asked that we will now go to Brisbane via Domestic Transfer, and asked if I need to place the bottles into checked luggage, as it is well know that liquids are not allowed through security checkpoints, anything over 100mls.
She said, no its ok, thats only for International.
So we went through customs, then made our way through the arrival hall, and onto the Qantas Domestic transfer checkin area.

We then went through security screening, and the bottles were just scanned along with our baggage, and we were given the all clear, and we now made our way to our domestic flight up to Brisbane.
Now I thought this was strange.
We walked through the arrivals hall at the international, through the public.
This in my oppinion is a serious security loophole.
A member of the public could have exchanged my vodka bottles with some dangerous explosive liquid, and I could have had carried that with me straight onto a qantas aircraft.

I thought I would raise this to see peoples thoughts.
At Brisbane, I had my toothpaste tube confiscated at the security screening, and I was led to beleive that no liquids over 100mls are allowed past security screening ???

Cheers,

[jimworcs]

There is a fundamental flaw in your thinking. You seem to think that the restrictions are there for security reasons and that this represents a "LOOPHOLE". In fact, the regulations that now exist are primarily there to sustain loads of numpties who would otherwise be unemployable, who generate huge income for the "security" companies that run them. Logic and security has very little to do with it.

Pilots are frequently stopped from taking a 70ml bottle of water, on "security" grounds, before taking charge of a fueled up 747... meanwhile, a fat, no hoper slob who works in WH Smith can carry through a crate full of liquids which are not subject to checks. Apparently, the fat slob at WH Smith is significantly more trustworthy than the pilot.

Equally, when the "security" staff have to pass through the screening portal, their shoes and belts are miraculously safe.. whereas my shoes and belt and those of the Captain of the 747 are highly risky and need to be removed.

Thank god they are there, keeping us safe and secure.

[Blogsey]

A member of the public could have exchanged my vodka bottles with some dangerous explosive liquid:eek: OMG! Or alternatively said member could just get on ANY domestic flight with said explosives!!!!
How is it that our domestic planes haven't exploded all over Australia yet?
In fact, how is that no planes have ever exploded in Australia due to someone detonating >100ml of explosive liquid on board in the 60 years when this ridiculous rule never existed???

I'm at a loss.....

:ugh:

[Worrals in the wilds]

Speedbird,
LAG restrictions (liquids, aerosols and gas) only apply to international flights in and out of Australia, not domestic flights.

You probably won't find much support on PpruNe for LAG screening of any description.

[SIUYA]

Worrals in the wilds.......

LAGs = Liquids, Aerosols and Gels :ok:

[Speedbird61]

So why is it that at Brisbane Domestic terminal, they take fluids off you, my toothpaste was taken off me, was told anything that is spread-able is also not allowed.
I thought the 100ml liquid applied to all flights, not just international.

This is scary, so our authorities beleive terrorists will only target International flights ???

I thought since the incident at Heathrow, where terrorists snuck on board liquids ready to make explosives, that all flights banned anything fluids over 100mls getting past security screening points.

[PAXboy]

Speedbird61I thought since the incident at Heathrow, where terrorists snuck on board liquids ready to make explosives, This is the fun part - I think you will find that nothing of the sort happened.

They found a PLOT to do this but it was not close to fruition. Subsequently, various military and explosives people said (words to the effect): The chances of amateurs being able to cook up a device, in the a/c toilet, whilst it is being jiggled around at the cruise, is effectively zero. The process takes several hours and is normally done in a lab. The CC would be more than suspicious of the activity and time being spent in the toilet.

So, no one has tried and few believe it can be done.
So the politicians immediately 'protected' us from this ghastly risk.

[frontcheck]

Nice attitude Jimworcs, typical attitude of some high and mighty flight deck, I have seen a lot of pilots who are fat slobs as well, just because you are flight deck why should you be reated any differently?

[Jofm5]

frontcheck:

just because you are flight deck why should you be Treated any differently?

The flight crew already has the plane as a weapon so why would they use a fluid to create a bomb ?

There is typically an axe in the cockpit for their use in emergencies - so its also pretty pointless to search the crew for sharp impliments.

And on some carriers the flight crew is armed for protection, and/or confiscates weapons from service personel travelling on the flight.

The topic of demeaning checks of flight crew in view of the passengers has been covered in great detail on the Rumours and News forum.

The whole point of why the flight crew should be exempt is that if you dont trust them with any of the above then you should not trust them to be in the cockpit in the first place.

[Worrals in the wilds]

SIUYA, you're right of course, I'm drowning in a sea of acronyms:ouch:.

Speedbird61, the Aviation Transport Security Regulations set out screening requirements for aviation areas and state that LAG screening is for international flights only, see section 4.22A-Q in the link below.
AVIATION TRANSPORT SECURITY REGULATIONS 2005 (http://austlii.law.uts.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_reg/atsr2005457/)

The Brisbane DTB screening points should not be removing LAG items. I routinely travel domestically with water etc and while some ports inspect aerosols I've never had LAGs removed from my baggage. If I recall correctly, the DOI chose to introduce LAG screening on international flights only as they were perceived to be a greater risk than domestic flights. If you are really concerned then I suggest you email them and ask.

www.infrastructure.gov.au (http://www.infrastructure.gov.au)

[frontcheck]

jofm5, why are the checks demeaning? they are the same for everyone holding an airside pass, it is part of the job.

[Jofm5]

jofm5, why are the checks demeaning? they are the same for everyone holding an airside pass, it is part of the job.


I am not an ATPL, the demeaning term I used was part of the thread title on R & N

[25F]

You might want to read this and revise your opinion:
Yes, there was a viable liquid bomb plot ? The Register (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/09/10/liquid_bomb_verdicts/)

[Di_Vosh]

I think a few of you have overlooked something:

Me and my wife bought ourselves 4 bottles of Vodka from the duty free shop.

A member of the public could have exchanged my vodka bottles with some dangerous explosive liquid,

4 bottles of Vodka are more than capable of bringing down an aircraft, IMHO.

Cheers.

[Pedalz]

jofm5, why are the checks demeaning? they are the same for everyone holding an airside pass, it is part of the job.

Well you'd think so wouldn't you, but at Brissy just a few months ago builders got contraband through and security where then dealt with. Catering is another issue where entire truckloads are not checked and people handling these materials then have access to the aircraft. Security and the government wonder why Tech and Cabin crew laugh when their nail clippers are taken from their nav bag and thrown in the bin?! :ugh:

[capt.cynical]

ArggHH ! Airport security,dictated by imbeciles,enforced by knuckle draggers. :rolleyes:

[LH2]

They found a PLOT to do this but it was not close to fruition

I think you will find that's not quite correct. As a matter of fact, in spite of all the media scare, government propaganda, etc., none of the defendants was found guilty of conspiracy to target aircraft.

As I remember it, they were though, found guilty of an unspecified "conspiracy to murder". Since they didn't have any tickets to board anything, one can only surmise that according to the jury they would have planned to blow something up in the terminal. Like, perhaps, a "security" (excuse the misnomer) queue? Now, can you see the irony here? :}

[custardpsc]

i did a job a couple of years ago that involved getting major amounts of exhibition equipment and tools airside in terminals. We went to the main airports of the world and spent a few months in detailled discussions and I went to every airside install. Without a doubt, Brisbane had the most professional attitude to security bar none. They counted every tool and item in and out, they accompanied us everywhere airside, they xrayed everything etc etc. Whatever the rights and wrongs of liquids on domestic flights you can be sure that the guys are working hard to apply the rules and do so diligently. They screen the liquids by the sound of it, and thats potentially as good as banning them, just expensive to apply.

Speaking as a chemist, here are easier ways than the methods prevented by banning liquids. Speaking as a technician, if i really wanted to get a few hundred ml of a liquid thropugh xray and on board, its possible. Speaking as a pilot, i find it hard to believe i can be in charge of an aircraft but not a bottle of water. However, the rules do exist to prevent people abusing or coercing the system to their own ends and actually speaking as a passenger ( 120 sectors/yr) I am glad the rules exist, however fatuous or badly applied they seem sometimes..

[PaperTiger]

I am glad the rules exist, however fatuous...
Speechless :confused: