New Security Screening Requirements

[Angle of Attack]

From ABC Newsite 7/3/07

Air travellers face tighter security

International travellers leaving the country will need to carry toiletries in their hand luggage in a clear plastic bag from the end of this month.

The Transport Minister Mark Vaile says the move brings Australia's security arrangements into line with the United States and United Kingdom after a potential terrorist attack was foiled at London's Heathrow Airport last August.

"Any liquids, aerosols or gels will need to be no larger than 100 millilitres in size," he said.

"They'll need to be packed in a one litre clear, plastic container so that when passengers travelling on international flights out of Australia arrive at the screening point, they will need to take that out of their hand luggage and have that screened separately at the same time as you do with a laptop computer at the moment."


My Bold in that report, but I regularly fly in to USA and UK and I havent seen passengers with the clear plastic bags doing this as Mr Vaile describes, except for immediately after the liquid terrorist scare. Is he telling porkies? These regulations were rubber stamped as usual through the senate, I find it interesting how we still have no guidance whether aircrew will be affected by this limitation. Does anyone know?:confused:

[B A Lert]

The BAA reckons this restriction still applies:

http://www.baa.co.uk/

On this page is a link to more detailed information. Lord knows what is the go in the Land of The Free!

[Angle of Attack]

Thanks BA indeed it seems it does apply in the UK however as Aircrew I don't need to take a clear plastic bag as desribed, I wonder if we will have the same dispensation in Australia? I doubt it somehow...

[jetstar21]

Just one point that has been overlooked is that when travelling to the USA from Brisbane, a final security check is made just prior to boarding where one is subjected to a substantial check where ball point pens are taken from passengers, refills removed and the pen returned. The refill is thrown in a box. However, some of these more expensive pens have a sleeve attached which also ends up in the airport box rendering the expensive pen useless forever after.

Take note that at no time are passengers advised of this extra intrusion into their lives and pending destruction of their property.

I won't elaborate here about the security personnel doing these checks as it is probable enough has been said on the matter.

Also, it would appear that the reason for checks has been lost when one observes the checks aircrew must go through. Is it not a fact that aircrew are meant to take control of the aircraft?

[J430]

And I had my plastic elcheapo pen (rigid plastic refil) taken too!:{ :{

And I said.....I have an ASIC.....and I use this to fill out my PILOTS logbook....what sort of threat amI??:ugh: :ugh: :ugh:

Lucky it was a cheapie, or I might have stabbed a security officer to..........a biro mark from it:E

FARKIN IDOITS.....DOTARS, the security folk....the lot! Ohhh and dont start me on US security, its probably less effective than it looks....refer my other posts on that. It has more holes than a Roo Roadsign outside of Goondi !:E

J:ok:

[B A Lert]

Just one point that has been overlooked is that when travelling to the USA from Brisbane, a final security check is made just prior to boarding where one is subjected to a substantial check where ball point pens are taken from passengers, refills removed and the pen returned. The refill is thrown in a box. However, some of these more expensive pens have a sleeve attached which also ends up in the airport box rendering the expensive pen useless forever after.

If this is not applied in Sydney and Melbourne, why is Brisbane so different? (Ok, I know that Queenslanders are different from the rest of us) The standard is AUSTRALIAN and should be applied equally across the board. Why not?

[J430]

B A Lert
is it ok to take a pen on board???? Of course QF will give you one to fill out your customs forms.......on board:eek:

Its stupid.......Stupid is what stupid does....or something like that

PAF....can't even have a sharp wit:O

J:ok:

[Angle of Attack]

Yeah I remember being stabbed by a sharpened lead pencil in school goddamn it if that was in my neck i wouldnt be here! State Schools I still love them! haha! How about a fork? I think we all agree that the current security screening does nothing to deter a determined terrorist.

(How about a porcelain knife?? They are sharper and more lethal than any current metal knifes and undetectable by current means? but hey thats another story) from the net
"Ceramic knives present a conceptual problem to the security industry since ceramics are not picked up by metal detectors. Ceramic knives can be detected by extremely high frequency scanners, although (as of 2006) these scanners are not yet in widespread use."

Let's face it no aircraft Cabin is secure no matter how much spin and crap the politicians talk about! I'm just wondering if we are going to be further inconvenienced by a further check which is both time consuming and frustrating. If anyone knows please post. I have wrote to politicians no reply as of yet... :ugh:

[Jet_A_Knight]

I wonder what kind of security restrictions they have planned for crowded subway stations.:hmm:

[chimbu warrior]

I was departing a small Pacific country last week and was informed by security that no liquids or gels WHATSOEVER were permitted in hand luggage. Not even toothpaste! This is just plain ridiculous.

And there are no exceptions or exemptions for crew.

After a 11-hour flight without a chance to gargle or brush my teeth, you don't want to get close to me.

What upset the passengers most was that this policy was introduced without any forewarning.

Not smart.

[Capt Claret]

The friendly Qantas ground staff at my local were kind enough to offer the crew members overnight use of a brolly to enable a dryish walk from the terminal to the car (370mm rain in 4 days!). "Thanks", said Claret, "I'll drop it off on my way through in the morning".

Next morning Claret is held up in security while the Neanderthal on duty went to check with their supervisor as to whether a Qantas umbrella can be taken through the terminal. :ugh:

As an industry, we don't need to worry about SARs or other similar events to cause a downturn in travel demand, the security forces around the world are doing it for us. :{

[Chocks Away]

"Also, it would appear that the reason for checks has been lost when one observes the checks aircrew must go through. Is it not a fact that aircrew are meant to take control of the aircraft?"
Well said Jetsatar21.
"Sucurity Staff" (term used loosely:} ) TAKE NOTE OF ABOVE!
Enough said.
"Here endeth the lesson"

[max autobrakes]

Parts from Hansard:


Another Bill rushed through Parliament by Johny "desiccated coconut" Howard, in order to look like he's tough on terrorism.
When the Howard government wants to fast track legislation through parliament it certainly does not hesitate. In 2005 , the government announced its intention to rush through the major antiterrorism bill in one day! It listed the bill for debate in the house of Representitives on Melbourne Cup day 2005. Not only did Howard try to restrict debate to one day but intended to have that debate on a day when most Australians would be focused on the Race. The day Australia stops!
The howard government also announced a quickie Senate inquiry into that bill that was restricted to just one day of hearing.
That was for a bill dealing with a raft of important antiterrorism matters that were complex and had serious issues of privacy and human rights involved.
In the end despite Howard trying to rush this through debate ,pressure from Labor forced a rethink.

When Howard wants to act quickly to protect his own political hide he certainly knows how to achieve it.
When he needs to act quickly to protect the travelling public he moves with the speed of a sloth.

Me thinks that if the Government is inundated with complaints about this drivel ,the old coconut might just rethink his position.

Here's hoping common sense will pre-vail! ( I know don't mention that waste of space)

[distracted cockroach]

This whole gels and liquids thing for tech crew is a joke. We often pax across the Tassie (in civvies) and operate back....via the transit area only. As a result, overnight bags are taken with us as hand luggage to avoid the hassles of Customs, baggage claim, getting back through to departures without a ticket (but I'm operating crew, yes but you need a ticket, no I don't, I'm operating crew, so where's your uniform, in my bag. Here's my ID, I want to go through so I can get changed, get on the plane and fly it back across the Tasman, well you can't go through without a ticket, well I give up then!)
So to add to the complications, all gels and liquids need to fit in a 1 litre plastic bag, and nothing more than 100ml. Most times it would be easier to check in the overnight bag, but the hassles outlined above mean that is more bother than it's worth. So, shampoo, shaving creme, deodorant, toothpaste etc etc for sometimes up to 3 or 4 nights away, all in a 1litre bag.
Ridiculous....I don't want some security guy and all my fellow passengers to see my heamorroid cream, personal lubricants and other such overnight essentials. The only danger they represent is to myself:E
I think if I wanted to endanger the aircraft, I could easily come up with something a bit more lethal than a mixture of Old Spice, hair gel, KY and Colgate!:ugh:

[OpsNormal]

Whoa! Old Spice all by itself would be enough to just about clear the aircraft wouldn't it? That is seriously heavy gear.... :} ;) ;)

[Taildragger67]

Angle,

My transits through UK terminals this year has had me getting handed a little plastic bag for my smells & potions. Maybe they do it randomly.

Must be having an effect on the duty free industry - eg. on a EGLL-YSSY service, whilst the punters could buy anything they like airside at LHR, chances are it'll get taken off them again at security at the transit port... no??

[blow.n.gasket]

As a silly old bit of fluff ,could I suggest the following.
As techy's ,keep your in-cabin bags, however just check-in a large suitcase ,and maybe fill it with a few phone books, must keep up the illusion!.With multisector domestic patterns and numberous aircraft changes, I believe the whole system would come to a standstill very quickly,as you wait,collect and recheck your bag in with 30-45 min turnarounds.Buggered if I'm going anywhere without my toothbrush and copius quantities of toiletries!
There are only so many Falcon 900's around to ferry polly's on their junkets! :ooh:
PS this bullcrap law is soon to be introduced domestically in Australia.
The present government still thinks that being tough on security is still a vote winner. :ouch:

[topend3]

And I said.....I have an ASIC.....and I use this to fill out my PILOTS logbook....what sort of threat amI??

it don't matter, this doesn't make you special, once the rules are introduced they have to be blanket i.e. apply to everyone.

holding an ASIC doesn't mean you are exempt from security...

[Angle of Attack]

But topend the issue is you are exempt in the States and UK from these requirements at the moment as operating aircrew. And with this countries record in security being a pain in the a$$ I'm guessing we wont be exempt here :confused:

[Don Esson]

Are some of you people naive or just plain stupid?:ugh: :ugh: There are many flaws in the security checking process and the various requirements but to suggest that crew be exempt from screening is quite absurd.

As screening is now reasonably thorough, there are not that many ways by which an ill-intentioned person should be able to harm, or attempt to harm, a commercial aircraft. If crew were to be exempt from the security requirements, it would be only a matter of time before crew impostors became de riguer. After all, how easy is it to get hold of crew uniform/ID cards, fair means or foul? For example, how may crew secure their uniforms and ID cards when not on duty?

Please think about this issue a little more deeply and stop the carping. Rather than bang on about being screened, isn't it better to submit meekly and set an example to the masses? I know this would be a pain in the backside and great loss of face to many but the message that 'this is serious' is hard to ignore when they see bods in uniform being checked. Security screening of crew is a non-issue. Put your energy into addressing the serious flaws that we know are in the system.

[Capt Claret]

But Don, what about the caterers and their truck load of galley carts? What about the engineers and their van load of implements? What about the Ground staff that bring bits of paper the the aeroplane?

If, and I say IF the security measures imposed on us actually did something, I could understand. As it is, all they do is make the Govt look like they're doing something, when in fact their just pandering to the wider communities xenophobic fears and insecurities.

I'm buggered if I can understand why I can't go see the POCO and get a weather update, without having to be re-screened! I'm damned if I can understand why I never, ever, have to take my boots off at one port, or rarely at others, but at a few, have to take them off almost all the time.

Just wait till the next aviation/economic downturn comes, and see how much worse it is for the impost of the expense of the so called security. :mad:

[Biggles_in_Oz]

Please think about this issue a little more deeply and stop the carping. Rather than bang on about being screened, isn't it better to submit meekly and set an example to the masses? I know this would be a pain in the backside and great loss of face to many but the message that 'this is serious' is hard to ignore when they see bods in uniform being checked.
That's fine as far as it goes, but what is annoying me is the stupidity of the 'security' checks.

Forcing travellers to use a transparent plastic bag for their carry-on liquids does make the inspectors job easier, but., I believe that that portion of aviation security will actually be reduced, because the inspectors will probably now just inspect the contents of containers based on the labels/logos of those containers.
Apart from the traveller humiliation angle, what is the actual security benefit of the transparent bags ?

[Dehavillanddriver]

Don
If you believe that the security applied to commercial aircraft in Australia is such that it would be difficult for someone to do harm, then you are naive.
There are holes you could literally drive a bus through and to suggest that the screening of crews actually adds to the security of the aircraft is silly.
We "carp" on about it because it is stupid and actually impedes air safety. How many pilots have been through screening and almost been stripped to their undies and then had to go and fly an aeroplane. The stress caused by the screening actually imposes a greater risk to the safety of that aircraft than any percieved terrorist threat.
To add insult to injury we dont screen train pax or vehicles driving through our major cities.
It only takes a look at the deaths caused in Iraq by IED's placed in vehicles and exploded in crowded urban areas to see that the threat is not in aeroplanes.

[Don Esson]

Biggles and Clarrie have just identified some of the the real issues. Banging on about crew checks will not solve anything. Someone needs to sit down with a clean sheet of paper and start all over again, asking questions each step along the way. Instead of following the world, the Australian authorities really should develop a sensible and pragmatic solution that applies all over the country in a uniformly (no pun intended!) and consistent manner. I too am perplexed by the inconsistent application of the requirements and, in some instances, the sheer stupidity of them. That they are enforced by people, some of whom being from the bottom of the gene pool, with little training, initiative or personality doesn't help very much either. Some "people" issues could & should be immediately addressed.

DhD, getting so stressed is a waste of time and energy. Rules are rules no matter what one thinks so one just has to go with the flow. I know it's hard but the dummies doing the checks are just doing as they are told - don't shoot the messenger. As I suggest, the issue is much bigger than crew checks (and anything else belonging crew!!).

[distracted cockroach]

Don
Tech crew ARE exempt from the gels and liquids requirement in the UK and Europe (someone correct me if I'm wrong), so why not here?
Why carp on? Because we deal with this stuff day in, day out whenever we are at work, not like Joe Pax who travels maybe once a week or less.
I submit willingly to the "explosives residue" test every time I pax into SYD (maybe I just look suspicious or something, but I seem to be nabbed every time), but I'm in civvies so don't expect special treatment. When I'm donned in full monkey suit however, with all the required passes and IDs, I expect to be treated with a modicum of dignity, and respected for my position. As has been stated earlier, if I wanted to do something subversive, it would not be with my toiletries, and would surely have a far more newsworthy result.
I'm trusted enough with 70 tonnes of people and fuel to be locked into the control compartment, so why would I possibly be trying to make an IED out of toothpaste?
The comment about all the other airside staff who are not screened at all is also valid. There are people with practically unlimited access to aircraft with criminal records that would make your hair curl...FACT.
It is not about being elitist, it is about being practical and sensible.
And just the other day, a screened passenger was most concerned about the large hunting knife he had inadvertently brought on board.....through all the metal detectors etc. It was safely secured for him for the remainder of the flight, and returned on arrival. Appropriate paperwork was filed questioning the effectiveness of screening, but nothing will change. Is it just windowdressing? Effectively yes. There are many ways to get things onto aircraft and I'm not going to describe them here, but it is easier than many (not in the industry) would believe.

[max autobrakes]

Dear topend3
then why did they include in the Aviation Security Act a dispensation for "Tools of the trade" even if that tool of the trade is "prohibited item".
I would have thought a pencil, a biro, a ruler ,a logbook etc etc could all be construed as tools of the trade for pilots.

[Angle of Attack]

Distracted Cockroach, Yes in the UK and USA (which I have learned now already has the 100ml / 1litre limit and al in a plastic bag) operating aircrew are not required to comply with this. I can take my 160g toothpaste and 200 ml moisturizer or whatever and am not required to put them in a plastic bag or seperate them at all. They security just confirm the bags from a pilot or cabin crew member and they let you go.

I guess what I am wondering and no one seems to know yet is whether or not we will be exempt from this in Australia (exempt from the liquid rule not security screeening) My hunch is they are going to make us do it here, but no one seems to know , they are starting in a couple of weeks.. Vaile said the requirements are to " put us in line with UK/USA security rules" That means I hope that we wont have the liquid problem as aircrew but.. no one really knows.:confused:

[Selac66]

It is harder to swallow these restrictions when the reason for them didn't exist. The ringleader of the trans-atlantic liquid bomb plot has been cleared of all terrorism charges.

No passports, no plane tickets, no bombs, no plot.

The restrictions are a convenient reminder that there are terrorists around every corner.

[lowerlobe]

Selac66...

That is exactly the problem we face in counter terrorism.We are in the main playing to a set of rules and they are not...

In life we are faced with a number of rules and regulations designed to stop the minority.Do any of the crew here that are harping on about the ignomy of having to go through security checks with normal people have any problems being stopped by a RBT unit?

Not all people drink and drive but all of us have had to stop our journey and have to go through the process of breath analysis.

It is true that we should start with a clean sheet as far as airport security is concerned and close the gaps that you could drive a bus through but at the end of the day is it that much to put up with.

[Pinky the pilot]

I must say that what I read and hear of all the current security screening practices that have been reported on these pages do make me curious.
I wonder how these practices would have dealt with someone like me in one of my previous occupations of twenty years ago, on a Seismic Survey Crew, ie that of a 'Seismic Preloader.'

In short, I made up multiple explosive charges to put down deep shot holes, working with explosives and elictrically fired detonators,the explosive being mainly anzomex 'A' boosters; a small cylindrical shaped 50/50 mixture of PETN and TNT. Approximately three 'A' boosters would have been (very roughly) equivalent in blast force to a stick of Gelignite. These boosters came in boxes of 600. In my work conditions of five or six weeks on to ten days off I would use about four to five boxes a tour.

One of the side effects of being in contact with this type of explosive was that my body would absorb some of the nitro chemicals; ie my fingernails would turn an orange/yellow, very similar to the effect of a chain smoker. Indeed the visual effect was considered identical! Also, the skin on the back of my hands would turn a similar colour.

If I had to go through a security check as is the current practice, and I was subjected to the explosives residue check I think all fellow Ppruners would know the likely outcome!! :suspect: :uhoh:

At the time as was the requirement I carried my Blasters permit with me on travelling to and from the crew but given the current hysteria (and I used that term advisedly) I wonder if these days I would present somewhat of 'a problem!':eek:

[Selac66]

lowerlobe,

I think I see the point you are making. My call is for a proportional response. Using your DUI example, in Victoria in 2002, 31% of road driver/rider fatalities were found to have a BAC of 0.05% or greater. A large minority doing the wrong thing justifies a vigorous RBT campaign which few people could argue with.

Compare this with the liquids policing which is based on a plot which appears did not exist. Policing to detect/deter a minority of 0%.

My own comparison:
8 Mar 94 Heathrow mortared by IRA. Ops continued.
10 Mar 94 Heathrow mortared by IRA. Southern runway closed.
13 Mar 94 Heathrow mortared by IRA. Airport closed for two hours.

Three attacks over six days with minimum disruption because the policy was ‘we aren’t going to let them get the better of us’.

Same airport 12 years later sees it descend into chaos for a week based on a plot which Tony Blair had known about for months and which appears to be without substance. This suggests a policy of ‘keep the public afraid’.

[lowerlobe]

Selac66...I know what you mean.One of the problems we have is the politician.They have two agenda's and both are linked.

The first is that they need to be seen to be doing something.

The second is that they want to be re-elected.

I agree that they want to continue this atmosphere of fear.The end justifies the means and that is to get re-elected.

However as far as your figures go with drink driving I’m not so sure. There might be 31% of road fatalities with a BAC of .05% or greater however, how many people use the roads in comparison to these figures. Figures in NSW show that the fatality rate is .8 per 100 million vehicle km’s.

Therefore the number of people driving compared to the number of fatalities is small and therefore I don’t think you could say that they are the large minority.

As far as the alleged liquid bomb makers in the UK how do you know they were not in fact doing that? You cannot say that there is 0% just because they did not carry out the act.

As far as I remember the police did know about the intention or creation of bombs and were content to watch until they had sufficient evidence. However someone in the security forces blinked when one the them disappeared. The problem may be not that they are innocent but that you cannot establish a guilty case in a court of law.

Imagine a hypothetical situation here. Imagine if you could go back in time and warn the FBI or whoever of the 9/11 hijackers acts. You convince the authorities that an act of terror is about to happen.

The hijackers are watched and are arrested in the transit area moments before boarding and after passing through security and found to have box cutters.They are not carrying any bombs or any other device in the traditional sense of hijacking.

Your case would be thrown out of court because they have not carried out any act of aggression other than carrying box cutters which they would inevitably have an excuse for and they would walk free.

Just because you cannot prove guilt in a court of law does not mean they are innocent and did not have intent to carry out an act of terrorism.

It's easy for some here to say that aircraft are not the likely targets anymore and I hope your right.However perhaps that is because of the security measures we have in place.They might not be full proof and we certainly need to fix that but you cannot argue that there has not been a major aircraft event such as 9/11 since.

As I said we are playing to a set of rules and the terrorists are not.

[Whiskey Oscar Golf]

I agree with most posters who say the new security screening is tiresome and in some cases offensive. The thing we must all keep in mind though is who we are trying to protect ourselves from. We are dealing with an evolving, intelligent enemy. They are contsantly figuring out new ways to kill us. This means our screening and security will also be evolving to meet this threat. We won't always get it right, we won't be efficient and we won't be comfortable. Our success will come from a lack of incidents, something that is hard to measure.


The only thing we can hope for is that our security and screening processes neaten up over time so they deal with the ever changing threat and make air travel easy again. For those that are compaining about being pulled up, try being me who looks ethnic. I get the spectro every time as well as the uneasy glances from my fellow passengers who are just waiting for the allah akbar scream. In this modern climate of fear it's hard being a monobrow.

[Chimbu chuckles]

The fact remains that crew could be strip searched at the security point, walk to the aircraft stark bollock naked and be forced to remain that way all through their work day and that would have no effect on the ability of a subversive psyco 'pilot' to carry out his evil intent.

We are locked behind a security door and have the ultimate weapon at our finger tips...the aircraft.

Don to suggest we should 'meekly submit' to this abject stupidity is completely WRONG. We should be objecting in the strongest possible terms...right up to industrial action if necesary.

For a terrorist pilot to try and carry on some sort of explosive in his shampoo would be completely counter productive and risk being caught...instead he can just walk on carrying NOTHING and have absolutely NO FEAR of being caught before he makes it to the controls of a 300000lb bomb.

To suggest someone could copy an ID and steal a uniform and pretend to be a crew member is just Hollywood fantasy BS...he would be found out before the aircraft even pushed back off stand because of his complete lack of knowledge of company SOPs...assuming the crew didn't bat an eyelid at someone completely unknown to any of them just turning up.

This stupidity needs to be fought and fought hard...because it is so stupid that it merely serves to illuminate how completely clueless the people in charge are.:mad:

[fl610]

Chuck, as usual spot on :ok:

[lowerlobe]

Quote from Chimbu "We should be objecting in the strongest possible terms...right up to industrial action if necesary".........

You have got to be kidding ...

That would only confirm what Darth has been saying about crew ....

[Selac66]

lowerlobe,

Comparing like with like. I didn’t say 0.8 deaths per 100 million vehicle kms was a large minority. I said that 31% of deaths to DUI was a large minority. To summarise;

Case for RBT:

Percentage of deaths to DUI 31%
Deaths per 100m vkm 0.8
Offenders not caught your guess

Case for liquid screening:

Percentage of airline deaths from liquid bombs 0%
Liquid bomb deaths per 100m vkm 0
Offenders not caught 0

Now strengthening cockpit doors has a precedent and I can come at taking my shoes off, but all the flap over a bunch of amateurs with a big idea but no passports, no tickets and no bombs is nothing but political manipulation of the traveling public. I would suggest that aircraft remain a likely target but that they will also continue to be used as a means of keeping the ‘war on terror’ myth bubbling along.

‘They might not be full proof and we certainly need to fix that but you cannot argue that there has not been a major aircraft event such as 9/11 since.’

What event was that?

[lowerlobe]

Selac66...

Facts are facts and that is that the number of deaths on roads compared to the number of people driving is small however we still have to accept RBT as a means of lowering that rate even further...The figures do not suggest that 30% of drivers would test greater than .05% BAC.

I thought my example was clear enough but the fact that the alleged bomb makers in LHR did not have passports or tickets does not mean they did not have them but the police did not find them..therefore they were found not guilty

The event I was referring to was 9/11 attacks..

I am not talking about the invasion of Iraq however do you think that the war on terror is a myth?

[Selac66]

ll,

We may have squeezed enough out of the DUI analogy, but, with limited police resources, concentrating on the contributor to a third of road deaths could probably be justified.

The police did not find their passports? I hadn't checked into that.

Commenting on the war on terror will only lead to censorship/banning. You think that the US wasn't warned? Pm me if you're interested.

[fallen]

Currently there is no exemption for crew. And I can't see why one would be introduced.

Along with restrictions on LAGs there will also be the introduction of random frisk searches. No one seems to have mentioned this and I would have thought that this would be more intrusive than having to show what sort of toothpaste you use.

[distracted cockroach]

"Currently there is no exemption for crew. And I can't see why one would be introduced.

Along with restrictions on LAGs there will also be the introduction of random frisk searches. No one seems to have mentioned this and I would have thought that this would be more intrusive than having to show what sort of toothpaste you use."

Something about multiple overnights and multiple trans-Tasman crossings with an un checked-in overnight bag. A weeks worth of toiletries etc won't fit in a one litre bag.
Random frisk searches - knock yourself out. It's not a massive inconvenience. Pissing around with checked in luggage and so Customs clearance (in and outbound) when you are only in transit and have a 50 min turnaround, as opposed to hand luggage only, equals major hassle.
If there was a reliable crew baggage aircraft to aircraft transfer system, then it wouldn't be a problem, but too many times have I experienced my overnight bag going somewhere different to me. Record time missing was 6 weeks. Jeeze, the toss-up between having a beer in the pub at the end of the day in my uniform and infringing company procedure, and being the laughing stock in the hotel bathrobe....decisions decisions!

[Biggles_in_Oz]

It's our patriotic duty to meekly submit to the 'security' checking, because it reduces unemployment and improves the GNP.

http://www.wondermark.com/d/220.html
http://www.wondermark.com/d/225.html

[TrafficTraffic]

:uhoh: As An ATC I hope they dont take my pen off me - where am I going write down all those level requests?

You guys can only wipe out one acft load - If I was really good(or bad) I could do 2 or 3 at a time.....I can see clear plastic bags being introduced to get into the tower or centre :=

TT

[Centaurus]

OK I can understand the need for security checks and frankly they don't worry me. What does worry me is the clear disregard by check-in people and the final departure lounge staff, AND the flight attendants at the front door when it comes to stopping the huge carry-on bags that are hauled into the cabin.
One of the grim aspects of the recent Garuda 737 overun accident was the report by survivors of the overhead lockers bursting open and bags falling on to passengers heads. This is a common event in accidents such as these. Most of the time these are mini-suitcases weighing a great deal more than the six kilo limit and certainly enough to stun the victim if not knock him unconscious. Yet, we see the ridiculous situation every day where cabin staff insist on dimming cabin lights (no problem with blindingly bright focussed overhead reading lights) and insisting on window blinds being left up for take off and landing (in case of fire?) - yet ignoring the far greater danger of suitcases and other heavy bags being stuffed into overhead lockers. And yet pilots are fed reams of bulldust about "Threat and Error management!! Where are our priorities? Certainly not in cabin safety that's for sure...

[Angle of Attack]

Well I am sorry for the delay in my reply but I have just been informed of the new requirements in regard to Operating Aircrew. As I expected, Australia has bucked the norm and become Anal about these new requirements. Quote

"Many ICAO member countries including the US, Canada, Germany, Japan, Hong Kong, India, Philippines, Korea and Taiwan have introduced these recommended measures for passengers. These countries, however, have provided an exemption for operating crew who are in uniform."

I have no comment.... all I can say is pathetic, pathetic , pathetic, we have raced to the bottom in conditions, and raced to the top in stupidity.

Just vote out these idiots please, if only to have a change???

[Jose Cuervo]

The people introducing these laws have gone completely mad. I read this article some weeks ago regarding the difficulty of making one of these so called 'binary liquid explosives' that theses security measures are supposed to prevent.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/08/17/flying_toilet_terror_labs/
So we are all being duped by politicians who have been watching too many Hollywood movies!

[pakeha-boy]

CC,....if you were an FFDO, then you wouldnt have to go through this nonsense.....life is Goooooooooooooood!!!!! PB

[roamingwolf]

Centaurus

Mate I could not agree more.One of our guys was weighing in cabin bags that looked like they would be over the limit during boarding.He used one of those gadgets you use to weight fish and was handing bags to ground staff that were to heavy.

The result was he got hauled over the coals by the office because some frequent whinger put a dob in.They never argued that the bags were over weight but it was not company procedure.

safety again losses out to marketing and the almighty dollar

[fallen]

Angle of Attack wrote ..."Just vote out these idiots please, if only to have a change???"

??? yep. The other idiots support it. So don't expect any change.

[DEFCON4]

Arent all these amenities available in those in those pax packs.
Oh no, just thought, using those would be stealing ....bugger!

[Selac66]

I'm dragging this up again mainly for lowerlobe's interest.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/6558569.stm
BBC:
"And Mr Benn, a candidate for Labour's deputy leadership, confirmed that UK officials would stop using the term.
The White House coined the phrase after the attacks of 11 September 2001.
Mr Benn said: "In the UK, we do not use the phrase 'war on terror' because we can't win by military means alone.
"And because this isn't us against one organised enemy with a clear identity and a coherent set of objectives."
The 'War on Terror" is a simplistic notion designed to mould opinion. The liquid bomb plot is a part of this political campaign.

[EPIRB]

Try this out http://www.addictinggames.com/airportsecurity.html