what are our rights when passing through security???

[eternity]

Hello all,


I had my bag checked at Bne Dom today (when in full uniform) for a battery.
I had a bit of a standoff with the security guard as he insisted that he must open my bag, and not me.
He claimed that there was a recent change in legislation which meant he had to physically open my bag, and I wasnt allowed to.

The thought then occurred to me that I really dont know what rights I have, and what rights they have.

Before giving the afap a call in the next day or two to get some info, I thought Id put it out to my fellow aviators of there is any readily available info about it, like a list maybe of rights etc.???

Any help would be great!!!!
Thanks.


Eternity.

[Trent 972]

"You have the right to an attorney. If you cannot afford one ( ie. J*, Tiger or Vara crew), one will be appointed....." :E

[Mstr Caution]

I think the website is light on information.

You have to provide personal consent for a frisk.

You can withdraw your consent to be screened. In which case you will be denied entry to the sterile area.

Passenger Screening (http://travelsecure.infrastructure.gov.au/domestic/screening/passenger_screening.aspx)

[YPJT]

when in full uniform. Rightly or wrongly it doesn't matter.
The screener is correct in saying that he must open the bag although you can refuse and not be allowed through the screening point. The procedures for this are not contained within the act or regs but in the Aviation Screening Notice which is not made publicly available.

As for your rights, you are entitled to be treated with courtesy and respect but under the current regs, not differently to everyone else entering the sterile area.

This sign introduced a few years back covers it quite succinctly

"A person at this screening point is taken, by law, to have consented to undergo a screening procedure (except a frisk search), unless the person refuses to undergo the screening procedure. A person who refuses to undergo a screening procedure will not be allowed through the screening point."

[Lookleft]

Tell them you want this procedure to take place in a private screening room. They then have to leave their station and also have someone else come with you. It annoys them no end and allows them to conduct their checks. Also if you ask to read the laminated card they can't refuse you. I all of a sudden become dyslexic and it takes a loong time to read.

[piston broke again]

Had this happen at BNE too. Annoyed the **** out of me someone rummaging through my skid marked underwear. Surely I could say no, take it back through the screening point, take said item out for individual x-raying and problem solved.

[YPJT]

Actually lookleft they probably enjoy it. Breaks the monotony of the 99.9% of those who don't question the procedure. I think you will find it is only a frisk search you can request in a private room. One reason for bag searches is due to the clutter of leads, cables and portable electronic items that the operator cannot clear on the first run.

The reason they also pay attention to batteries, aerosols etc is that as employees of an airline or airport operator they have an obligation under the CASA regs for dangerous goods.

[RatsoreA]

Option 1. Throw it over the fence, go through screening, use ASIC that you can hold with criminal history of drug importation to go airside, pick up item, carry on.
Option 2. Go to alternate security checkpoint. Don't get screened. Carry on
Option 3. Fly in from regional airport. Carry on
Option 4. $10 bolt cutters and a high vis vest for when you are airside. Carry on.

Option 5. Pick fight with imported security officer whose full background could not be verified due to limitations on his country of origins police service (or just simple corruption). Loose fight as Police are called and you are carted away.



Brilliant post, and every single one of them spot on.

[Check_Thrust]

A few months back I asked a similar question about this here:
http://www.pprune.org/pacific-general-aviation-questions/526457-screening-officer-powers-authorisations.html

When I was looking into the regs that were available on this topic I found that not much is publicly available, as YPJT has mentioned, however what I did read basically gave the impression that the "screener" can request you to do anything he or she deemed necessary for him or her to be satisfied that you are safe to pass the checkpoint. It seemed so loose worded that they could request that you lie down on the x-ray machine conveyor belt and scan you that way if they wished (I know that is a ridiculous interpretation of the rules but that is how it seems to read).

I spoke to a security person one day about various checking requirements and he mentioned to me that he worked the area that checks people accessing the tarmac for things such as baggage handling, maintenance, etc and he stated that in that area if he wished to look in someone's toolbox or similar that they had to ask the person in question to open up the bag and remove items as appropriate for the purpose of their screening and that they were not actually permitted to do this themselves. I did not think to ask at the time whether or not this also applied to passenger screening as we were discussing checked baggage and he just happen to mention that as well.

I do think that 95% of the time we do get a bit of leeway from the security screeners but we probably get our noses out of joint fairly easy over our being "screened" when something like the above mentioned situation happens, I know I didn't like it when one of them helped themselves to opening my bag, but I think I pass through security easier when I am in uniform than when I am paxing in normal clothes.

[Capt Fathom]

You have the right to refuse.... If you do, you will be banned from entry to a secure area for 24 hours.

You can grin and bare it, and be on your way!

Your choice! They don't care one way or the other!

[Ixixly]

Ok, I'm going to play Devils Advocate here folks. Sure we all get a bit annoyed at security being a bit uptight but remember they feel they have obligations to keep us all safe no matter what and they have obligations from their employers that probably don't even really make sense to them, you might think "I'm Aircrew, I go through all the time and have a myriad of ways to sneak stuff through, why even bother with me?", next time they're on your flight they might be thinking "I'm a paying passenger, why can't I just take a measly extra kilo onboard?" and the answer to both of those questions? Because they have a job to do set down to them by their bosses and at the end of the day they want to keep their job, get their pay and pay off their mortgage etc...

On the specific situation, I can fully understand the whole idea of them having to open the bag instead of you, makes sense if you think about it. If there is a dangerous object inside that bag such as a bomb you could easily open the bag and detonate it or if it was a projectile weapon you could open the bag, pull it out and fire it at one of them.

Of course we all know that as operating crew we could very easily just push the stick forward if we wanted to crash the plane, grab the crash axe if we wanted to hijack it or if you're really lucky pull out the gun and just go a little bananas, but that isn't THEIR concern, their concern is to make sure that:
A. Weapons don't make it onboard
B. Contraband doesn't make it onboard
If they are being pricks about it then surely there must be some way to report them, perhaps someone can shed some light on that process instead?
If the laws are retarded (Yes they are!) Then all we could possibly do is mount a campaign to change them but lets be honest it probably won't do jack anyway.

[Wally Mk2]

We all now that in any security system it's only as strong as it's weakest link.
Those 'links' exist everywhere & for the most part the std security crap we have to endure is purely to make the boffins feel good. There's so many holes in the system that it leaks daily I'd say!
I've had a few run ins with the goons over the years so now just shake my head!
Fortunately I kinda know most of the security folk at Tulla & it's more a formality these days as far as I am concerned. The guys there tell me that DOTARS can & do pass thru disguised as a bogun pax meaning they are under constant screening themselves.
I often hear pax coming in behind me say how come pilots have to get checked to? I feel like saying we pilots are the biggest threat:)
Common sense & legislation just don't seem to share the same page!


Wmk2

[Burnie5204]

Don't forget that the Security Operative is just doing their job. They don't make the rules and they don't even interpret them themselves, they are told how to do it.


For example, as part of my job I have a tools pass that allows me to bring shotguns, firearms and hundreds of rounds of ammunition (including explosive projectiles) into the secure area. But I cant bring my yoghurt through. Why? Because the Liquids Regs prevent me from doing so.

The security staff think its as stupid as I do but they have to do it or risk either losing their jobs or potentially (in absolute extreme cases) face criminal charges of endangering aviation safety. They aren't allowed the discretion to say that other equipment I carry is infinitely more dangerous as they have to comply with and enforce the regs rigidly or they will lose their jobs.

[Sunfish]

I wonder if a few people carrying a jack-in-the-box in their bag might cause a change in this procedure?

[Howard Hughes]

You can grin and bare it, and be on your way!
Fairly sure baring anything will see you detained further! ;)

[The Nemesis]

Unfortunately all of these procedures are just to give the naive that warm wet feeling of security, or more accurately, illusion of security.

[Monopole]

Yeah it's there job and blah blah blah. Still doesn't excuse the rudness of the majority of them.


They may have the right to go through your bag without asking, but make it feel like a choice. Be courtious and polite like we are expected to be.


"Is this your bag sir? Do you mind if I open it? It looks like you may have 'x' that needs to be screened serperatly."


You catch more bees with honey............

[Oktas8]

Flies. It's flies with honey.

Even so...

http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/flies.png

(XKCD #357)

[GNR]

BNE security seem to be over to the top, i had 11mm spanner with me, NZ security let it through, they just wanted to 'sight it' back through BNE, no you can't carry this, put up a small arguement and left with out, I looked at the rules and you can't carry sharp objects/tools or 'tools/objects large enough to cause bodily harm'. I will dispute it next time.

like a lot of guys have said, they have thier job to do...

[Monopole]

Yes Oktas8 you are right. It wasn't sitting well with me either. Now I know

[YPJT]

Monopole,
"Is this your bag sir? Do you mind if I open it? It looks like you may have 'x' that needs to be screened serperatly."

That is pretty well how it should be handled. But you can't tell me for a minute there hasn't been a snooty tech or cabin crew member, bag chucker, refueller, check in /customer service staff etc that at some time spoke to you in what you considered an inappropriate manner.

[Aussie Bob]

Because they have a job to do set down to them by their bosses and at the end of the day they want to keep their job, get their pay and pay off their mortgage etc...Don't forget that the Security Operative is just doing their job. They don't make the rules and they don't even interpret them themselves, they are told how to do it.like a lot of guys have said, they have thier job to do... You mob that espouse the opinions above are a bit sad. Clearly you think bad behavior and a lack of common sense are part of the job description and therefor excused.

While I am sure the security screeners occasionally see the worst of the traveling public, a bit of courtesy and some manners should be part of the training. An excuse for the lack thereof is NOT "this is my job".

[YPJT]

Aussie Bob, fair call mate but personally I do sympathise with them when a know it all who in fact knows f**k all about the regs or procedures tries to debate the matter. Its not the screeners job to give a detailed lesson on specific provisions of the legislation.

I've personally seen the most appalling behaviour by all classes of people going through the screening point. Suits, bogans, fluro clad knuckle dragging miners, families and more. It has got to be one of the most thankless jobs going and usually for bugger all pay.

[Aussie Bob]

Its not the screeners job to give a detailed lesson on specific provisions of the legislation.


:ok: Too true, not the tarmac terriers either.

[Burnie5204]

Yes, as the posters above all say 'the regs' are no excuse for rudeness but then this thread wasn't about rude security staff - it was about the regs and personal rights.


But then as someone earlier also said it's all just 'Security Theatre' which can/will only catch the unwitting, unknowing, accidental breach like a passenger with their 150ml suntan lotion or deodorant can (though I accept the deodorant IS a safety issue) or stupid and not the determined, organised criminals. Just look at the UPS packages a few years ago where they managed to get 2 bombs past security screening and eventually onto aircraft by disguising them as printer cartridges.

[Ixixly]

Aussie Bob, please don't go cherry picking my posts to make it seem like I'm saying something I'm not. If you're going to do that use the whole post some people don't miss parts like this:
"If they are being pricks about it then surely there must be some way to report them, perhaps someone can shed some light on that process instead?"

So NO, I dont think "bad behavior and a lack of common sense are part of the job description and therefor excused" as I said, if they are doing that then I'm sure there is a method for reporting them, just as if you or I did something wrong in our jobs or put our passengers ill at ease they would be within their rights to report us to our Chief Pilots or other Management.

[thorn bird]

At the end of the day it all comes down to "Money".
I mean go to the security screening area at terminal two every morning at around six am. Now if I was a terrorist, which I'm not, I'd think what a target rich environment, a couple of A380 loads all nicely jammed up in sheep pens waiting for a virgin seeker to merge with the sheep and kaboom...72 virgins..yeah!! and didnt have to face any sort of security!!.
If someone said to me.."A lot of Dotars staff are major shareholders in security companies"..I wouldnt be surprised.
Of course those security companies are making so much money they have surplus with which to "lobby" (another name for bribe) the right people and round and round it goes.

[YPJT]

Of course those security companies are making so much money they have surplus with which to "lobby" (another name for bribe) the right people and round and round it goes.
Sorry thorn bird but nothing could be further from the truth. I have been involved in a few tenders recently and to propose an amount that would guarantee a decent wage and conditions will see your bid tossed in the too expensive basket.

[kaz3g]

If you are there at the screening point you are presumed under the law to have consented to the screening process in all its hoary details as provided in the regulations.



41A Consent to screening procedures
(1) If:
(a) a person is at a screening point; and
(b) the person must receive clearance in order:
(i) to board an aircraft; or
(ii) to enter an area or zone of a security controlled airport that is referred to in Division 2 of Part 3;
the person is taken, for all purposes, to consent to each screening procedure that may be conducted at the screening point in accordance with regulations made under section 44.
(2) Subsection (1) does not apply to a screening procedure if:
(a) the procedure is a frisk search; or
(b) the person refuses to undergo the procedure.

44 Requirements for screening and clearing
(1) The regulations may, for the purposes of safeguarding against unlawful interference with aviation, prescribe requirements in relation to one or more of the following:
(a) screening;
(b) receiving clearance;
(c) the circumstances in which persons, goods (other than cargo) or vehicles are required to be cleared;
(2) Without limiting the matters that may be dealt with by regulations made under subsection (1), the regulations may deal with the following:
(a) the persons who are authorised or required to conduct screening;
(aa) the persons or things that must not pass through a screening point;
(b) the things to be detected by screening;
(c) the procedures for dealing with things detected by screening;

(d) the circumstances in which persons must be cleared in order to:
(i) board an aircraft; or
(ii) enter a landside security zone, a landside event zone, an airside area, an airside security zone or an airside event zone;
(e) the circumstances in which goods, other than baggage and cargo, must be cleared in order to be taken:
(i) onto an aircraft; or
(ii) into a landside security zone, a landside event zone, an airside area, an airside security zone or an airside event zone;
(f) the circumstances in which baggage must be cleared in order to be taken:
(i) onto an aircraft; or
(ii) into a landside security zone, a landside event zone, an airside area, an airside security zone or an airside event zone;
(h) the circumstances in which vehicles must be cleared in order to be taken;
(i) onto an aircraft; or
(ii) into a landside security zone, a landside event zone, an airside area, an airside security zone or an airside event zone;
(i) the places where screening is to be conducted;

(j) the methods, techniques and equipment to be used for screening;
(k) the notices that are to be displayed in places where screening is to be conducted;
(l) the supervision and control measures for ensuring that persons, goods (other than cargo) and vehicles that have received clearance remain cleared in areas or zones that are not cleared areas or cleared zones;
Note: Regulations made under subsection 94(2) must prescribe training and qualification requirements for screening officers and set out requirements in relation to the form, issue and use of identity cards.
(3) Regulations made under paragraph (2)(a), (2)(aa) or (2)(j) may provide that some or all of the matters set out in that paragraph are to be specified in written notices made by the Secretary. Such a notice may provide that the notice is only to be given to the persons, or classes of persons, specified in the notice.
(3A) Without limiting paragraph (2)(j), the equipment to be used for screening may include the following:
(a) metal detection equipment;
(b) explosive trace detection equipment;
(c) body scanning equipment such as an active millimetre wave body scanner.
(3B) If:
(a) body scanning equipment is to be used for the screening of a person; and
(b) the equipment produces an image of the person;
the image must only be a generic body image that is gender‑neutral and from which the person cannot be identified.
(3C) If body scanning equipment is to be used for the screening of a person, the equipment must not store or transmit:
(a) an image of the person that is produced by the equipment; or
(b) personal information (within the meaning of the Privacy Act 1988) about the person.
(4) Regulations made under this section may prescribe penalties for offences against those regulations. The penalties must not exceed:
(a) for an offence committed by an airport operator or an aircraft operator—200 penalty units; or
(b) for an offence committed by an aviation industry participant, other than an accredited air cargo agent or a participant covered by paragraph (a)—100 penalty units; or
(c) for an offence committed by an accredited air cargo agent or any other person—50 penalty units.
Note: If a body corporate is convicted of an offence against regulations made under this section, subsection 4B(3) of the Crimes Act 1914 allows a court to impose fines of up to 5 times the penalties stated above.

[ozbiggles]

And people wonder why some people call some pilots sooks.
Are some of you advocating there should be no security checks? Or just no security checks on pilots because pilots are above the law and should be treated as gods?
Grins and bear it, it also sets an example for the ice cream licking public that anyone can be checked...it's called a deterrent.

[Avgas172]

And what say god forbid that a nasty terrorist dresses up as a pilot with his Malaysian documents pinned to his chest and his Thai ASIC card proudly displayed, changes into his civvies in the nearest dunny, then proceeds into YOUR aeroplane ..... :E

Oh Dear, I'm gonna get a visit from Asio ...... :eek:

[freighterone]

Good post! Agree fully. All aircrew should take responsibility and set the example for everyone. It's our safety we are talking about.
So stop winging, act with courtesy and get on with life!

[Aussie Bob]

I think what it all boils down to is that people want to carry unnecessary and unneeded items on board that would be better in the cargo hold.

The obvious reason for this is airlines policy of charging for baggage and the result is overstuffed overhead lockers that the last on board have trouble getting anything into.

The savvy traveler knows instinctively what passes easily through the screening process and is seldom hindered by metal detectors.. The savvy traveler with carry on luggage only will leave dumb stuff like spanners and toenail clippers at home.

If checking luggage was free and the limit on carry on stuff was enforced the trip through the screen would be quick and easy and the complaints would all but cease.

[YPJT]

Cynical pilot, that is indeed an ongoing problem. The regs can't cover every conceivealbe item and therefore sometimes the on duty supervisor has to make a call. That call may well differ from port to port or even between screeners at the same port.

Bet they take home more than the average GA pilot
Centrelink recipients probably make more too :{

[Square Bear]

The obvious reason for this is airlines policy of charging for baggage and the result is overstuffed overhead lockers that the last on board have trouble getting anything into.

The reason people like to carry baggage on board is because they want to make a quick exit from the airport without wasting time at the baggage carousel!

Back to the subject though, observed a Security Staff member who had just entered the secure area undergoing the explosives check. Made me feel less inclined to feel picked on.

[rmcdonal]

Back to the subject though, observed a Security Staff member who had just entered the secure area undergoing the explosives check. Made me feel less inclined to feel picked on.
Two reasons:
1. It provides a zero for the equipment to check it is working. Often if they get a positive they will test themselves again to check that the equipment is not just putting out false positives, to do that they need to check that they are clean first.
2. It provides an easy tick in the box when they are adding up how many people were screened.

Anyone else noticed that some of the screeners have visitor ASICS? Seems a bit suss to have someone doing that job who has not yet passed their own background check.

[YPJT]

More than likely the ones that have a yellow Visitor Identification Card (VIC) are under training and therefore under full supervision of an ASIC holder at all times.
The regs require a screening officer to display an ASIC.

[kimwestt]

At YWLM some time ago, had a Metro parked out front of the terminal, and loading pax and bags.
I still had my leatherman on me, and the security bloke had a dummy spit. Fair enuf, I'd forgotten to leave it in the a/c.
When I said I had to have it so I could complete a pre flight inspection - eng oil insp flaps - it got interesting. My position was that the a/c wouldn't be moved until that was done, and they were wanting it moved for inbound stuff.
The security supervisor turned up, winked at me, and said give the leatherman to him.
So I did, walked through the scanner, was handed back the leatherman, together with another wink, and a cryptic comment about the scanner operator, along the lines of common sense, and we all got on with our jobs.

[Check_Thrust]

Are some of you advocating there should be no security checks? Or just no security checks on pilots because pilots are above the law and should be treated as gods?

Some might be, but I'm not.


And what say god forbid that a nasty terrorist dresses up as a pilot with his Malaysian documents pinned to his chest and his Thai ASIC card proudly displayed, changes into his civvies in the nearest dunny, then proceeds into YOUR aeroplane

Agreed, however I do find it a bit annoying / peculiar that AFP officers appear to pass by security with no checks at all. Now I do realise that they are not travelling and obviously carry a lot of equipment for their job that would normally not be permitted past the screening point and they require said equipment, (I am not saying their tools of trade should be confiscated entering the "sterile" area) but there does not appear to be any verification that they are actually AFP officers when they simply bypass the screening point, ie no credential checks, no checks against AFP staff duty rosters etc, they just appear to be accepted that they are who they appear to be based off their uniform (and I guess the sidearm helps too) which could yield a similar result to the scenario that Avgas172 was pointing out.

Having said all that, I might be wrong and not privy to the fact that they might be checked / screened at the start of their shift or something along those lines and then are not required to be rechecked until the next shift change.

Avgas172, I too might be getting a visit from ASIO now... :uhoh:

(Apologises for the slight thread drift)

[YPJT]

Kimwestt, that very scenario was a problem for everyone a few yrs back. It was a pain in the arse for all concerned and enforcing it was embarrassing.

[noclue]

Can we as flight crew use the magic wand screening point that the baggage guys/engineers can use? No bomb trace testing that way.

[Kharon]

I dare say there are those who have, often with surprising results, danced the ancient dance of the 'flambéed rectum'. I found this delightful piece on 'another' aviation website, (thanks KM). I expect the chances of an inadvertent spontaneous combustion episode were as remote (S/F separator checked pre flight) as were the chances of actually setting the aircraft to fire; but still, it adds a possible new challenge to our erstwhile security systems. Imagine, not being relentlessly screened by Nitrates snifter, but by the more sinister Methane probe. Anymore than 200 cc's in board, and your grounded mate. Anyway, FWIW; it gave me a chuckle.

Flight Grounded. (http://metro.co.uk/2006/12/05/flight-grounded-by-farting-woman-454499/)

[morno]

On many an occassion, at regional ports in QLD, I have gone into the terminal to have my coffee, then just walked down to the airside gate, entered the code, gained access back onto the apron and walked back to my aircraft. All without the need to go through security (and yes it was operating).

Someone please tell me, what is the point of it then?

morno

[Traffic_Is_Er_Was]

I would guess that you can do that because you are wearing an ASIC, have been provided with the code to the gate, and thus are "authorised" to be in the Security Restricted Area. If however, they are operating screening points to control access, and you are knowingly circumventing them, then I'd say you are committing an offence under Section 3 of the regs.

[thorn bird]

Something I found rather amusing.
The latest heinous terrorist threat is "NUTELLA"
A friend of mine had a jar of it confiscated recently
with lots of tut tutting and stern looks.
Now the question is this stuff still safe for my grandkids
to put on their toast? or is there a likelihood of them detonating
when they go outside to play?

[KittyKatKaper]

Well that 'heinous' threat will annoy a lot of Europeans, especially the Italians.
They love the stuff and it's for sale everywhere !

[500N]

"The latest heinous terrorist threat is "NUTELLA"
A friend of mine had a jar of it confiscated recently
with lots of tut tutting and stern looks."


I would have opened the jar and eaten the lot of it by the spoon full
in front of them ! That would have p'd them off.

[Kharon]

That's too easy a question Thorny; Nutella is a known producer of high test Methane. The potential to use the gas, through a suitable delivery system as a weapon has been investigated by ASIO and determined to be a valid threat. Transport in the hold is acceptable, but not in the cabin. QED.

[thorn bird]

Good grief !!!! Kharon thanks for the warning, I'll keep the
Little beggars away from naked flames until nature takes its
Course. Now what about baked beans?? Hell we could end up with
Spontaneous combustion!!! Or an answer to future fuel shortages,
Not self loading cargo....self propelling cargo!!

[morno]

I would guess that you can do that because you are wearing an ASIC, have been provided with the code to the gate, and thus are "authorised" to be in the Security Restricted Area. If however, they are operating screening points to control access, and you are knowingly circumventing them, then I'd say you are committing an offence under Section 3 of the regs.

The entry gate provided me access to the 'non-secure' area with that blue line that supposedly keeps terrorists out.

morno