Aus. Security Screening Review

[fallen]

Those who have visited the DOTAR's (or whatever they're called now) website over the past few months may have noticed that there is a review of airport security screening currently underway. Since I last visited the site it has been updated to include how to make submissions and what the terms of reference are etc.

The following link will take you to the relevant page. Now's you chance to have your say.

Aviation Security Screening Review (http://www.infrastructure.gov.au/transport/security/aviation/screening/index.aspx)

[RENURPP]

Now's you chance to have your say

and they will listen of course.:bored:

[KittyKatKaper]

Interesting !
Submissions close on 19 September 2008.

I liked the During the course of the Review the Screening Review Taskforce will conduct
comprehensive and far reaching consultation both within Australia and internationally. Some of the activities are listed below:
. visited airports and consulted with the aviation security industry at 21 locations throughout Australia;
. visited Canada, France, New Zealand, The Netherlands, United Kingdom, Singapore and the United States to consult with government agencies and private aviation security corporations; I'd like that sort of consultation ! :)

On a more serious note, the review is very much focussed on pax screening, but to me (wistfull dreamer that I am), there appears to be some hope that the current idiotic ASICs for GA system could be modified. page 15 The Australian Government has moved away from formal categorisation of airports, other than designating 11 major airports as Counter-Terrorist First Response (CTFR) airports. A de facto ‘second rank’ of airports comprises those which handle jet RPT services but are not CTFR airports, and a further class of unscreened security controlled airports sits at a third level. The basis for these distinctions is not as clear cut or widely understood as it might be.

[Islander Jock]

KittyKatKaper,
I haven't read all the documents but in discussions the OTS people have indicated that there will be some major changes to the ASIC requirements including validity of the card (hopefully extended).:ok:

[mingalababya]

there appears to be some hope that the current idiotic ASICs for GA system could be modified. page 15

If you think the system's bad in Oz, consider China ... we get bag searched, frisked and metal detected by airport security staff just to get to our GA apron for circuits. :rolleyes:

[topend3]

renurrp-

no point complaining about the current system and then whinging when you can have a submission on your point of view...either contribute or dont moan i say...

[airtags]

absolutely - rule 3: Don't have a bitch unless you also suggest a solution.

Aside from the classification - it would really be good to have a standard for pax screening - just love the little bloke at XXXX who gently points aircrew to the other scanner, which according to him, "is not as sensitive"

Other inclusion could be a manners and courtesy module for screening staff - some TSA people at LAX are good examples of what we don't want!

Maybe the review could also clarify why my Auscheck processed and recently reissued ASIC worn at work is not acceptable for my GA endeavours..................apart from $ in fees there is really no valid logic.

[Kelly Slater]

The review addresses passenger screening only. It does not even acknowledge that there is a difference between crew and passengers. It is aimed more as presenting airport screening as a career choice, not at addressing Pilots complaints. They have already identified that the vast majority of Australians think that they are doing a wonderful job and you are not likely to convince them otherwise. Go ahead and write your submission but unless you work for a large organisation and can convince said organisation to put their name to your view, don't expect satisfaction in the near future.

[RENURPP]

Topend,

Where did I complain?? Looks like a sarcastic statement of fact.

I have submitted my comments, have you?????
Do I expect any results? :ugh: definitely not.
If you expect any change for the better, i suspect you have not dealt with a government bureaucracy before :mad:.
If you believe they will actually try and learn something from their review :rolleyes::rolleyes:
I suspect their decisions have already been made.

[Jenna Talia]

Don't have a bitch unless you also suggest a solution

Hey, I had a bitch once. I was married to her. :p

Maybe the review could also clarify why my Auscheck processed and recently reissued ASIC worn at work is not acceptable for my GA endeavours

This does'nt sound right. Your ASIC is acceptable for GA endeavours. I would take this further if challenged in the future.

JT

[Worrals in the wilds]

This does'nt sound right. Your ASIC is acceptable for GA endeavours. I would take this further if challenged in the future.

A couple of years ago I had the same problem with a government issued ASIC not being acceptable for GA endeavours. On the phone they made a half arsed attempt to differentiate between an AUS ASIC and a local airport ASIC and when I pointed out that the security checks were the same (and listed the checks) they got very coy very quickly. Bottom line was, I needed to pay for the second one.
The whole thing is a :yuk:

("I'm not a bitch. I've just been in a very bad mood for the past 40 years" Steel Magnolias)

[airtags]

Jenna
company endorsed (ie logo at the base of the tag) Asic is valid - but only if the company endorses its use for GA or other activities.

So based on this Auscheck can run the search and issue for RPT work ....but unless the employer endorses other uses Auscheck and CASA require a new application...oh and of course the fees!

Still awaiting the Minister's (or designated flunky's) response ...maybe I should have used an address under 07/25 for a quicker response!

...............as for the (alleged) bitch you were once married to......maybe I was the one that remarried her..........or perhaps she had an identical twin!!!!!!

no correspondence pls - send it to her - I no longer have the waterfront address.

[Islander Jock]

This is one of those pain in the bum scenarios where a company provides your ASIC but you want to use it for activities over and above what they have endorsed as being your operational requirement. Easiest way is probably to get your own ASIC and ask them maybe to go 50/50 with you. Or work for a company with a bit more foresight and flexibility who can say "ok, you're a pilot - we will give you an AUS card". That's the way I do mine anyway. It is only a simple case of assessing the need and issuing the card accordingly. It isn't rocket science and the system is hard enough as it is without Issuing Bodies trying to further keep a stranglehold on people.
Kelly Slater.
although not specifically addressed in the review being discussed here there are definitely changes looming for ASIC. Whether those changes will be for the better or worse remains to be seen. I am still waiting to view the discussion paper which was supposed to be issued by the department about a month ago..

[Jenna Talia]

company endorsed (ie logo at the base of the tag) Asic is valid - but only if the company endorses its use for GA or other activities

How would the ape challenging you know this? Is there somewhere on the ASIC this is endorsed? It does not say anywhere 'Only valid for RPT ops'. I was told by the gent at YMER who processes these things that a separate one is not required as an ASIC is an ASIC.

You would have to be very unlucky for this to be checked as it would require close examination.

JT

Lifes a bitch - then you marry one :}

[Islander Jock]

JT,
Certainly nothing on your card or even the online check that reveals what operations the card can be used for.
It is valid, unless otherwise cancelled by the Issuing Body, by the expiry date and location code printed thereon.

[Jenna Talia]

IJ,

Unless I missed something, by your last post it appears it should not be an issue.

airtags,

Have you encountered any problems by challenge in this regard?

JT

[Islander Jock]

JT,
The only way I see it possibly being an issue is that if an employer provides a card they may, rightly or wrongly, put a restriction that you can only use it whilst in their employ. However the way I see it, nothing in the regulations allows for that type of discrimination. The employer though can always cancel the card that they have provided. Once a card is cancelled, a new application starts from scratch.
If they are not allowing you to use the ASIC for GA activities, explain why you need it. If your card is location specific, a new AUS card can be issued on the basis of the original Auscheck clearance.

[Jenna Talia]

Thanks IJ. That was well explained :ok:

[Kelly Slater]

What happened to discussing the Screening Review?

[Capt Claret]

Most of the security personnel at CNS are pleasant and happy. They don't seem to have local quirks like PER or ASP. So, at CNS one can know what will be pinged and take the appropriate (legal) steps to make transit through the screening point as painless as it can be. Not free of pain but minimised pain.

However, one female screener, who isn't rude, nor does she decide to impose a different protocol to other places, does find it necessary to make comments on the number of bags one carries on a trip, or the number of shoes that show up in the cabin crew bags etc.

It's not her place to decide what a person needs to travel with. She probably goes home to her wardrobe, and sports gear, and fridge and pantry. We go to another bloody hotel room with bugger all. :=

[Muffinman]

Hey Clarie next time through CNS - pack some stilletos, stained leather straps, rubber gizmos and a soiled fishnet thingy - and stand back and watch the event unfold:E

[Islander Jock]

LR3,
I know the screening officers are an easy target. Yeah yeah the usual quips about goons, nazis, gorillas blah blah blah. The fact is though, whether you paid 20 bucks or 200 bucks per hour, under the current regs the results would be the same. That is, those items that are currently on the prohibited list would still be enforced. It is the legislation that needs to be changed.
Also, contrary to what you say about screening being the only job they could get. You might be surprised that many of screeners in regional areas are in fact professional people. I don't think they "get off" on pushing pilots around. But just maybe they get a little defensive at the none too cooperative attitudes shown to them.
It's a pain in the butt! It sucks! but at the moment we're stuck with it and I can't see it changing any time soon.

[fallen]

The report of the Review of Aviation Security Screening is now available.

Review of Aviation Security Screening (http://www.infrastructure.gov.au/transport/security/aviation/screening/index.aspx)

[Biggles_in_Oz]

So., apart from recommending more meetings and consultations, and recommending a 'standard and distinctive' uniform for the screeners who are to be renamed as 'Aviation Protection Officers', what will actually change ?

oh allright, the The Screening Review recommends that concurrently with Recommendation 10, the Office of Transport Security develop a new outcomes-based framework for implementation of Regulation 4.17, which clearly links performance of security screening processes to the nature and level of threat, and to local security risk assessments as articulated in the transport security programs of aviation industry participants. does sound promising, but I won't hold my breath waiting for the current draconian GA ASIC requirements to vanish soon.

[Worrals in the wilds]

The Review concluded that the community does not adequately value the role of an aviation security screener. Screeners surveyed for the Review said they often suffer from both a lack of respect within the aviation industry and from conflicts with the travelling public. The Review supports any strategies for improving the public image and credibility of screeners by highlighting the critical and important nature of their work. A change of job title is being proposed to better reflect screeners’ specialist role and assist in the changing of community perceptions towards the vocation.

Goodo, change the name and it all gets better, classic government thinking :ugh:. Conveniently ignore any option that requires Spending Money.
Without addressing the peanut/monkey equation and the obvious lack of training in people skills and the screening job itself, all the fancy names and outfits in the world won't improve industry or pax perception. I know there's several recommendations to address that but I wouldn't put money on many of them filtering down to the screening staff.

what will actually change ?
About 2/5s of SFA is my guess.

[feenix]

Nothing and if it does it will only get worse for aircrew

[DEFCON4]

For years I have been taking 100grm cans of tuna away with me to eat in the wee small hours when I am awake.
A "screener"(at KSA) held me up for 15 minutes while he made up his mind whether or not the can had more than a hundred mills of liquid in it.
They wonder why they dont have respect.I had spoken to quarantine and customs about this some months ago.I explained this and he then asked for written evidence.
What am i going to ?Take over the aircraft with 10mills of springwater inside my tuna?
An absolute moron drunk with power and authority.
Respect factor zero