SYD Airport Security Confiscates "Dangerous" Tuna

[bulstrode]

I have always treated the guys who scan crew carry on bags with respect and courtesy.
Today that ended.
My two cans of John West 185gm tuna and three beans were confiscated.
Why?
The scanner could not determine the liquid content of the cans and therefore determined they were a dangerous good.
I asked for written information regarding this.None was available.
I wanted to speak to a supervisor.He would not present himself.
Now I'm pissed off.
I have been taking canned tuna away with me for years.All of a sudden its a dangerous good.
The amount of liquid contained in the cans is less than a teaspoon full.
I have the screeners name and intend to take this further.
The world has gone mad

[remoak]

Ah yes but was it dolphin-friendly tuna?

I think you will find that the world went mad quite some time ago. About the time hi-viz vests became part of our uniform...

[yowieII]

International or Domestic? Probably lunchtime:hmm:

[rmcdonal]

They got my toothpaste the other day, half used so I figured less then 100ml. If they keep this up it maybe worth throwing it over the fence, walking through security, putting on your vest, going airside and picking it up.
:ugh::ugh::ugh::ugh::ugh:
Just a sec guys someone is at the front door.... :}:oh:

[YPJT]

Bulstrode,
Domestic or Intl flight? At that quantity it may have exceedded the 100ml container limit for intl.

If it was domestic. Nothing in the regulations prohibits the carrying of canned food on a flight. Can the screeners guarantee the integrity of every sealed food item that is loaded into an aircraft galley or is taken into the sterile area for retail?

It's a bit long winded but below is an extract of the Methods, Techniques & Equipment Version 4 which the screeners are bound to follow. I think in your case they may have overstepped their mark.

Call the aviation section of the office of transport security and get their take on it as well.

5.2 The methods and techniques to be used for the screening of goods entering a sterile area
(1) Screening officers performing the screening of goods going into a sterile area must carry out the methods and techniques to be used for X-ray observation of personal effects set out in clause 2.25 of this notice.
(2) Where possible, goods that are on pallets should be broken down to fit through the aperture of the X-ray observation equipment.
(3) Goods that cannot be cleared by X-ray observation equipment must be subjected to a physical search.
(4) The physical search of goods can only be carried out where the person has given his or her consent or the goods have been left unattended.
(5) When requesting permission to check the goods, the screening officer must not give control of the goods to the person.
(6) Screening officers carrying out the physical search of the goods must:
(a) if applicable, be aware of the reason for concern on the X-ray image, including the location of the uncertain item;
(b) inspect the goods, to an extent sufficient for the screening officer to be satisfied that the goods do not contain a prohibited item or weapon; and
(c) ensure that objects that prevent visual identification of suspicious or prohibited items or weapons are removed from the goods.
(7) If a suspect item has been located it must be removed and the goods subjected to re-screening using X-ray if possible. If necessary, the suspect item can be re-screened.
(8) If aerosols are detected at the screening point, they must be removed and physically examined. (The screening officer is not required to spray the item: a visual examination is sufficient.) If there is any doubt about the item after an external examination, screening officers will need to use their judgement to determine what further action might be necessary. This may include further examination of the item to establish its contents, prohibiting the item from entering the sterile area, or requesting the attendance of a law enforcement officer. The screening officer must refer serious or threatening situations to the supervisor or a law enforcement officer.
(9) Screening officers should also be mindful of:
(a) the weight of goods. Many items, such as pillows, stuffed toys, cigarette cartons, cosmetics and aerosol cans, are naturally lightweight. Any weapons hidden within such items would normally make the items unusually heavy; and
(b) any aspect of the goods that appears unprofessional or repaired, or shows signs of modification, tampering or external switches, batteries or wires.
(10) Where a physical search of goods is required as above, the goods being physically searched must also be subjected to screening by the use of ETD equipment. When screening goods using ETD equipment the goods must be broken down into the smallest reasonable units for the consignment
(11) If the items are fresh foodstuffs in trays and cannot be subjected to ETD for hygiene reasons then the goods must be visually inspected and subjected to screening using a hand held metal detector.
(12) When the items or goods are cleared, the cleared goods can enter the sterile area as long as those goods have not been mixed with uncleared goods, held in a secure location and there has been no unauthorised access to those goods.

[bulstrode]

International departure.
Amount of fluid in can 8 mls.Checked and measured

[twiggs]

It is ridiculous but you have overlooked the fact that the can itself holds more than 100ml and going strictly by the regs, it is classed as a LAG.
It has nothing to do with the amount of fluid inside, just as it doesn't matter whether a 150 gm tube of toothpaste is half full.

The screener was just following the letter of the law.
Plenty of us do the same, not saying it's right, just they are not in the wrong either.

[Dunnza]

Well we know what the screener had for lunch!

[bulstrode]

Mls are a measure of fluid/liquid
Grams are a measure of weight.
Liquids
Aerosols
Gels.....LAGS
Tuna is not a liquid and therefore does not come under the description of LAGS.
Toothpaste is classified as a gel.
Contacted the Australian Office of Transport Security.
They agreed with me .
The matter will be investigated

[skylarker]

I have lost to date 12 x 185gm of tuna at sydney int'l security over the past year and now have resorted to the smaller cans instead..
Yes they are regarded as a LAG as they exceed the 100ml limit.
The world has gone mad.
Funny how the duty free workers go through the same security with pallet loads of stock (LAGS) in front of me.
What gives.:mad:

[twiggs]

Mls are a measure of fluid/liquid
Grams are a measure of weight.
Liquids
Aerosols
Gels.....LAGS
Tuna is not a liquid and therefore does not come under the description of LAGS.
Toothpaste is classified as a gel.
Contacted the Australian Office of Transport Security.
They agreed with me .
The matter will be investigated

You better go and tell the pilots that they need to change their order from tonnes of fuel to litres then! :ugh:

[bulstrode]

Take it up with the Australian Office of Transport Security.
You are comparing tuna with AV Gas..get a life...as a security screener. You appear to have the aptitude for it

[Eclan]

Grams are a measure of weight. A gram is a unit of mass. The newton is the metric unit of measure of weight. It is happenstance that on this planet (not sure about yours), gravity is constant at the surface and therefore to all intents and purposes, mass can be viewed as a weight.

You don't "weigh" 75kg, you have 75kg of mass.

Why don't you freeze your tuna? It will then be a solid instead of a liquid and they have no leg to stand on.

Or... order room service!

[bulstrode]

The world is full of pedantic buffooons.
Irrespective of the above observations tuna is not a LAG which therefore negates it as a dangerous prohibited good.
Everything has weight..even air.
What is under discussion is tuna which is not a liquid.
As mentioned the fluid contained inthe can is less than 8 mls.
The AOTS agrees with me.Thats all I care about.It will be investigated.
Further at 0300 many hotels dont have room service available.
I am often awake in slip ports at this time and do get hungry.Hence the tuna

[Eclan]

Further at 0300 many hotels dont have room service available. I am often awake in slip ports at this time and do get hungry Wouldn't the FAAA would have something to say about that? The world is full of pedantic buffooons. Just trying to help. If you're planning to take on the bureaucracy, you should try to be accurate. What is under discussion is tuna which is not a liquid. As mentioned the fluid contained inthe can is less than 8 mls. I believe the requirement is for all liquids to be in containers with a volumetric capacity of less than 100ml. Your tuna was, by your own admission, in a container with a mass inside of 185g. This is held to be the "equivalent" of a volume of 185ml of pure water. How do the hapless jobsworths in security know it didn't hold 185ml of water and 0mg of tuna?

Kind of obvious how this will end...

[bulstrode]

How much space does one kilo of lead occupy compared to the space one kilo of water occupies?
Extend the resultant answer to water and tuna.

[woftam]

This whole thing is a bit fishy ;)

[tobzalp]

These Security fools are a prime example of the stupidest peoeple in society trying to protect us from the most dangerous threat in the modern world. What hope do we have?:ugh:

[aiming point]

Semantics aside, it's a can of friggin Tuna jeeeze.....what the hell is wrong with the people on this planet.....by standing by and allowing the "Power Mongers" to get away with what they have since 9/11..... the near total destruction of our Civil Liberties and Freedoms......then we deserve as a weak, spineless and fearful mass of sheep to have our pathetic tin of Tuna confiscated. :*
Come the Revolution. :ok:

[twiggs]

Easy solution, check it in next time.

[Eclan]

...a mass inside of 185g. This is held to be the "equivalent" of a volume of 185ml of pure water. How much space does one kilo of lead occupy compared to the space one kilo of water occupies? Extend the resultant answer to water and tuna. Re-read the above. All that mattered was what it was "held to be" by the jobsworths. Maybe they were wrong but you still lost your tuna!

If you're desperate, try emptying a tuna can and filling it with water, then measuring how much it holds so you can see if you're right. A 266gm tube of toothpaste holds a volume of 175ml of toothpaste. Or lead or tuna or anything else. Looks like you're out of luck!

Personally I'd just buy a new can of tuna or pay for a Hilton burger with my allowances.

[bulstrode]

Again I say not all hotels have room service available at 0300
My purchase of tuna is an attempt to eat healthily.
Eating food at restaurants or hotel room service on a regular basis is detrimental to one's health.
When I am contacted by the AOOTS the result will be carried with me and shown to the offending nincompoop
It should be noted that SYD is the only australian port where tuna is a problem.
The prohibiton of tuna is not evident on any government website.
Next time I will take 3 cans of tuna and let the prick open one and measure the contents.
Tell me Eclan has there ever been a recorded incident of an Aircraft being hijacked or disabled by 185grms of tuna or 8mls of fluid prior to the current security checks.
Tuna is also not an issue in any American port.I buy it and consume it onboard.
Why ?
Because crew meals are crappe
Excellent source of protein and omega3s
Try some .
It will improve your mental acuity









i

[Pegasus747]

lets just put a few things into perspective....

firstly the people that work in screening security at the airport probably earn less than the people working inside at Krispy Kreams..

Secondly and more importantly you need to think about who is actually running security at the airport and most shopping centres and night clubs in sydney and around australia.

As i said to someone in Qantas Security the other day it looks to me by appearances that Al Qaeda is running the international terminal , hezzbolah is running the qantas domestic terminal and the PLO is running the Virgin/Jetstar terminal.

As a sideline they all have a monopoly on the taxi ranks and the westfield shopping trolleys :)

[Eastwest Loco]

Agreed Pegasus on the Airport Security detail.

That was the hole in security with 9/11. Catering and cleaning companies were lowest bidders for security contracts, so they got the gig.

I guess it was FM Tuna - AM Tuna would have got through.:}

On the last 12 trips through MEL security, my laptop and I have been pulled aside 8 times for the bomb check. I do not mind at all or complaind but Muhammed al Farouk and his swarthy rels behind me breeze through. it just makes me wonder. I could take out the entire T1 in Melbourne with a decent fart after a Melbourne market bratwurst (ask me for directions to the legendary bratwust stall!!) but they could take out the Airport!

best all

EWL

[Eclan]

Sorry to say it Bullstrode but it's partly because of the IGNORANT that things get worse and not better in the security scene. Your tuna case is a perfect example. It's all been pointed out to you here but all you can think about is how much water might or might not be in the can and whether or not it could be used as a weapon. If you really work in the airline industry then surely you're not that dim. Hang on.... are you cabin crew???

[RadioSaigon]

... the stupidest peoeple in society trying to protect us from the most dangerous threat in the modern world...

Which to all intents and purposes would be defined as the stupidity displayed by the stupid people that make these nonsensical, farcical rules -and those "entrusted" to enforce them.

As to the original topic -make as much grief for the Richard Cranium's as you can man, more power to your wrist! :ok:

[SeldomFixit]

I'm not that fond of Tuna :confused:

[Icarus2001]

The funniest part of this tale (or tail) is that the lid of the can is the most dangerous part of the item once the can is opened. Mate check tuna with your crew baggage...problem solved...or buy Tuna at destination port. Or for regular hotels, rent a safety deposit box and leave a stash behind for next time or perhaps...

Yes, I take your point.:bored:

Edit: I just checked a 185g can in the pantry, it is quite large. Why not buy more of the smaller cans, they should be under 100g of "volume" if you get my point.

[twiggs]

It should be noted that SYD is the only australian port where tuna is a problem.
The prohibiton of tuna is not evident on any government website.
Next time I will take 3 cans of tuna and let the prick open one and measure the contents.
Tell me Eclan has there ever been a recorded incident of an Aircraft being hijacked or disabled by 185grms of tuna or 8mls of fluid prior to the current security checks.
Tuna is also not an issue in any American port.I buy it and consume it onboard.


You have just verified why this is about LAGS regs and not the incendiary capabilities of tuna: Crew are subject to LAGS regs in Aus but are exempt in the USA.
Just check it in next time and save yourself a headache.

It does sound like you need a big improvement of mental acuity so you had better double your intake of tuna, or give up because it's not working yet.;)

[blow.n.gasket]

This is one of the reasons why LAGS was introduced.

If it means I can't take my tin of tuna on board, so be it!


Mother of Satan ;triacetone triperoxide, peroxyacetone,
TATP has been identified in explosive devices in a number of cases involving terrorists. Richard Reid (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Reid_(shoe_bomber)), who attempted to down American Airlines Flight 63 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Airlines_Flight_63) with a bomb concealed in his shoe, possessed a device containing plastic explosive with a TATP trigger. It is also believed that acetone peroxide was used as the explosive in the 7 July 2005 London bombings (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7_July_2005_London_bombings).[13] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acetone_peroxide#cite_note-12) On September 5, 2006, homemade TATP was found during the arrest of seven suspected terrorists in Vollsmose (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vollsmose_terrorists), a neighborhood in the Danish city Odense (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Odense),[14] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acetone_peroxide#cite_note-13) as well as on September 4, 2007, during the arrest of eight suspected Al-Qaeda (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Qaeda) collaborators in Copenhagen (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copenhagen), Denmark (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denmark).[15] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acetone_peroxide#cite_note-14)
In addition, the participants in the 2006 transatlantic aircraft plot (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_transatlantic_aircraft_plot) may have planned to use TATP as the liquid bombs that would destroy U.S. airliners flying from London to the United States.[16] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acetone_peroxide#cite_note-15) Initial speculation was that the explosive would be mixed in airplane lavatories. It is highly questionable whether such a plot could have been executed, due to the supplies needed, the smell mixing would create, and the time it would take to prepare without drawing suspicion from passengers and the flight crew.[17] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acetone_peroxide#cite_note-16) UK prosecutors recently revealed that the plan was for the explosive to be synthesized outside security and introduced into apparently sealed bottles using a hypodermic needle.[18] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acetone_peroxide#cite_note-17)
TATP was the explosive used to manufacture the suicide bombs (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suicide_attack) that were to be used by Palestinian terrorists (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinian_terrorists) Gazi Ibrahim Abu Mezer (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gazi_Ibrahim_Abu_Mezer) and Lafi Khalil (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lafi_Khalil&action=edit&redlink=1) for their 1997 suicide bombing plot on the New York City Subway (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_City_Subway). The bombing never came to fruition as Mezer boasted to his Egyptian roommate of the plot and not wishing to be implicated the roommate went straight to the police. After hearing what he had to say, the NYPD (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_City_Police_Department) Emergency Service Unit (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergency_Service_Unit) raided the apartment that the two rented. Both men were shot and injured in the raid and recovered after surgery. Mezer was convicted of terrorist charges and sentenced to life imprisonment (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_imprisonment). He currently resides at ADX Florence (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ADX_Florence). Khalil was convicted of lesser charges and deported to Palestine upon his release. His whereabouts are currently unknown.
Traces of what the explosive detection (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Explosive_detection) device considered to be TATP was also found on a contractor's bag of toiletries in a Swedish nuclear power plant (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oskarshamn_Nuclear_Power_Plant) on the 21st of May 2008 [19] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acetone_peroxide#cite_note-18) during a routine inspection. The man and another man working with him were detained but released the day after since no evidence of them possessing any actual explosives could be obtained.[20] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acetone_peroxide#cite_note-19)
A member of the French anti-speed camera (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traffic_enforcement_camera) group, Front national anti-radars (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FNAR) (FNAR), was hospitalised after losing both hands to an accidental explosion of his bomb based on TATP. [21] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acetone_peroxide#cite_note-20)
A 13-year-old student in Hong Kong was injured on March 28, 2009 when he tried to light some TATP powder, which was provided by another 14-year-old boy and Police found six bottles of TATP from his apartment. Police believe those bottles of TATP were homemade by the 14-year-old boy for curiosity's sake. Including the injured boy, 3 teenagers were later arrested on explosives possession charges

[Dangnammit]

How about cracking the tin open and eating it there and then.

My mum had a similar incident going o/s. They wouldn't let her bring her half bottle of water across, so she drank it, passed through security and bought another bottle right in front of that guard- same brand too! :cool:

[Dangly Bits]

What happens if you and your mate have just short of the "legal limit" of liquid on board and mix them both?

Or if you actually produce liquid that will be more than 100 mls? What then?

[figjam]

Oh, how much I have enjoyed reading this thread! (I am now retired.)

This sort of thing is not new. I landed an RAF C130 at SYD in 1968 for a few day's stopover. Not long after we had arrived at the hotel I had a call from the Customs at SYD asking me to return to the airport to open our aircraft survival kits so they might inspect them as they believed they contained flick knives..................

Needless to say, after I explained that these were sealed items and opening them would render the aircraft unserviceable, sensibility ruled and I enjoyed my three day's off in Sydney without further interruption.

On the other hand, these people, whatever role they are in, are only carrying out their instructions and if by exercising some discretion, their actions or non actions come back to haunt them, we all know that they will be taken to task by their superiors, whose only interest is in saving their own arse!

[A_B_P]

I'm not taking either side I just thought this might be why the tuna was confiscated.

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

Do a search on liquids and gels.


All liquids, aersols and gels are covered by the quantity restrictions. A liquid, aerosol or gel is defined as:
a substance that is a liquid when at room temperature;
an aerosol;
a gel;
a cream; or
a paste.

If you are unsure whether an item falls within the restrictions, pack it in your checked baggage.
Common liquids, aerosols and gels carried by passengers include drinks, creams, perfumes, toothpaste, lipstick, lip balm, deodorants, honey and other similar substances.
Other items include sauces, stews, jams, pastes, and canned food items with a high liquid content (e.g. abalone, mushrooms etc.).The items listed above may only be taken through the security screening point, and onboard the aircraft, if they meet the quantity limits and are in a resealable bag whose four sides add up to no more than 80cm. Aviation security screening officers have the final say if there is any doubt about a product a passenger is trying to take through a screening point and onboard the aircraft.

[68+iou1]

I’m not proud of this BUT!
I live and work in Spain. A country that has experienced continues to experience serious terrorist attacks.
I was positioning out of uniform, when security noticed that I had liquids in my bag. I was stopped by an armed police officer, who asked me into a room to search my bag. I opened my bag and pulled out my ID, before I could say a word. He apologized, opened the door and told me to have a good day Captain!
Viva Espangna!

[Lodown]

Tuna's out, but we can take on two tubes of epoxy and make up a pretty good knife in the bathrooms in 15 minutes.

[lowerlobe]

bulstrode....

I'm with you as this is ridiculous but the problem is twofold here...

First is the person or type of person that is being employed by the security firms virtually anywhere....

Second is that they are not the sort of people who want or are capable of making decisions for themselves....

The mentality of some people never ceases to amaze me...A friend asked me if I could price a new remote control for his Chrysler in LA on my next trip...Apparently,the cost in Australia was horrendous and if cheaper in LA could I buy one.

I went to the local dealer and indeed it was and I bought one for him.When the spare parts chap was out the back getting me the unit I noticed on the back of the door (for staff to see) leading to the parts room was an official FBI wanted poster for Osama Bin Laden...this was just after 911...

When he came back I asked him what did he think was the possibility that Osama Bin Laden would actually come into this dealership and order a spare part from them....

I admired the patriotism of the dealership but....he could not understand my point...

I don't like your chances for getting a satisfactory response from anyone on this because they will only be covering their backsides...but let us know.

By the way Twiggs....as usual you could be a bit more diplomatic...try to work on your people skills some....ROTFL....:D:D:D:D:D

[max1]

Does the bomb squad collect everything confiscated during the day and take it out to a range and do a controlled detonation?
I don't think they should take chances with any of it. If they consider it that dangerous they should blow it up. No use putting it in the rubbish for the poor garbos to take their chances. It would be fun to watch the toothpaste and tuna neutralised.

[NoseGear]

You can add Vegemite to the list of possible explosives that are "covered" under LAGS regulations....and Id just love to have that one explained:ugh: Lost 2 jars of it on the way through SYD security a few months ago, tried reasoning with the guy....you can probably imagine how that went:yuk::{:hmm:

And to the guy doing the "crew" lane at Brisbane airport late on the night of August 8th, never have I seen the public treated to such abuse from an overbearing, rude, ignorant individual, it was disgusting to watch.....if you can read, which I doubt, you should be ashamed of yourself....I guess you can take comfort in the fact you are not alone:mad::rolleyes:

Ahhhh....thats better....

Nosey

[42ongo]

A mentioned the security guys and gals are not in the super tax bracket

I must say that here in LHR the vast majority of them are very nice

if you pass the time of day with them and go thru with a smile on your face its surely got to be better than spoiling for a fight they are only trying to do their job

The 100ml or equivalent limit we have is set in stone so there's absolutely no point arguing the toss

I never go thru with any liquids gels or the like just buy it all the other side
no confiscation risk no stress :ok:

[Ultralights]

so when are the pilots going to unite and strike against being treated like terrorists???

[DEFCON4]

Qantas Crews are subjected to high level security checks by the AFPolice in order to obtain ASIC clearance
They also require US Visas and are therefore subjected to further scrutiny and ten printed.
A gnit on a gnats nuts couldnt sneak past this level of attention.
Why are crews subjected to further screening before going to work?
To provide theatre for Joe Public his missus and the kids.
Some bureaucrat has determined that by screening crews it somehow validates the screening of Joe and his family.
How many Qantas crew have ever been suspected of terrorism?
None
How many Qantas crew have attempted to hijack an aircraft?
None
How many Qantas aircraft have been threatened by a crew member wielding a can of tuna?
None.
All this commentary regarding mass,volume and weight is total nonsense .
It has somehow been assigned importance by several individuals with a Readers Digest subscription.
Stupidity and navel gazing once again rear their ugly heads on PPrune.
Rather than maligning the author of this thread all crew members should rally and end this bloody insanity.
The people employed to do the screening are subjected to less scrutiny than the people they screen.
Even to the most salacious miscreant this must be seen to be absurd.
Tuna being prohibited on an aircraft.What bollocks.
There are already objects on an aircraft that can be used as weapons.
Why the hell arent they removed?.

[onetrack]

I have to agree with DEFCON4. As with all Govt regulations, the differences in the wording - the interpretation - and the execution - of security regulations, are all vastly different. Go to a different airport, and a different security screener, and the tins of tuna would never have rated a mention.

I read in Q pax info, where laptops have to have the battery removed prior to screening (batteries can hide explosives, ya know! :cool: )
I recently travelled PER-DRW-PER. Upon entering security screening at PER, I asked if the battery had to be removed, as the laptop was complete in its case. No problem! - straight thru the scanner, battery installed, and the laptop in its case.

Upon return, going thru DRW security, I was instructed in no mean manner, to get the laptop out of the case! The battery wasn't mentioned. Fortunately, I forgot all about the 125ml of olive oil in a half-full bottle I'd left in my camera bag - an oily liquid would almost certainly have been ID'ed as liquid nitroglycerin. Thank God I never discovered it until I got home, or I'd still be in a Darwin interrogation cell.

The most interesting part is when the missus flies with her new replacement knees. 500g of titanium in each knee, brings out some amazing reactions - even though the security people get told prior to screening. One woman insisted on jiggling the missus's pants, convinced that shaking them would loosen any hidden explosives.
The walk-thru scanner in PER goes ballistic with the titanium knees - the one in DRW never uttered a murmur (newest technology, we were informed - :cool: )

Sad to say, the greatest problem is that the security people are the people of the lowest skills, paid the lowest amount, to carry out a job that must rapidly turn into a farce, with the incredible variety of items and possibilities that they must regularly face.
Throw in an officious Anglo-Indian into the mix, whose level of diplomacy and people skills were bottom of the CV when he applied for the job in PER, and I don't envy anyone who has to face these people on a daily basis.

[packrat]

Shoes off
Computer out
Keys watch mobile in a tub
Toothpaste,shaving gel,2 beers and some washing liquid..no problem.
Tuna in brine wouldnt raise wouldnt rate a mention.
Australian airports are a zoo where the monkeys are in charge.
Who put them there and who allows them to stay?
The bureaucrats put them there and we allow them to stay through our apathy and pine nut size balls
Apathy and complacency are the enemies of everyone in aviation.
The biggest enemy on PPrune are those that buy into this discussion with their inane moronic comments and are not crew..tech or cabin
The armchair boofheads whose lives are not affected in anyway by the monkeys running the zoo.
To them I say: sod off

[FlexibleResponse]

Don't blame the poor ill-educated and miscreant low-paid security screeners...

...blame the idiot politicians that we elected and that put such idiots in charge of security thereby enforcing idiotic regulations framed by same idiot politicians.

We elected these fawkwit politicians...so who are the real idiots here?

[haughtney1]

Don't forget, there is an awfully large pot of Gold to be found at the end of the "security" rainbow.
Its a self sustaining entity, and it will only get bigger..less capable and infinitely less flexible.
The results (as we have in the UK) need to be seen to be believed...cue idiotic security directives, terrorists under everyones beds, many and varied scenarios played out for an insignificant level of threat...and best of all, elevated stress levels for those who have to pass through the security apparatus which is manned for the most part by failed shelf stackers, retired prison officers and James Bond wannabes.

Yep Oz, you have a lot more to look forward too!

Oh yes, I forgot to mention....."security" is there for "your" safety :ugh:

[Eclan]

Why are crews subjected to further screening before going to work.........objects on an aircraft that can be used as weapons. Yes, all the talk of physics is pointless in the bigger scheme but at least possibly gives the punters like Bullstrode a bit of a clue as to the processes involved. But even less worthwhile than pedantics is the endless and predictable remonstrations about the other "weapons" to be found onboard an airliner by those who are fully-informed yet somehow still ignorant.

It's been pointed out time and time again, even on pprune, that the main perceived threat in mind with regard to aircrew is the "innocent" crew-member who is coerced into carrying an item into the sterile area for use by a culprit in his illegal activities.

If you plan to rally the industry to some sort of action, at least demonstrate an understanding of your goal. Rather than rant about weapons already on board an aircraft, try to understand the bigger picture. It's been discussed here ad nauseum but some people just don't seem to get it.

Trying to argue with the security drone about your can of tuna is pointless, immature and frankly the vain hope of success held by the crew member demonstrates a level of IQ which should not be seen in a professional pilot.

If I was a passenger, I'd rather be flying with the guy who's seen to breeze through security effortlessly because he was smart enough to remove all items of interest from his bags long ago. Not so keen on flying with someone who's so dumb he's still arguing the toss every time he goes to work, after all these years, instead of just putting his tuna in his suitcase. It's a mug's game.

When you organise your rally, please post the details; I'll be there.

[haughtney1]

It's been pointed out time and time again, even on PPRuNe, that the main perceived threat in mind with regard to aircrew is the "innocent" crew-member who is coerced into carrying an item into the sterile area for use by a culprit in his illegal activities.

Its also been pointed out to the numerous agencies concerned that aircrew are actually part of the solution rather than being considered part of the problem.
The coerction argument has been put forward by people with little or no understanding of how a crew work together in the REAL world.
Quite frankly, the notion that someone would be able to hold it together in any normal sense in such a stressful situation is completely laughable, with the inevitable outcome being that person being stood down or removed from duty.
I'm afraid the same security apparatus that has dreamt up this Hollywood inspired scenario is the very same apparatus that assumes that armed airside Police Officers (as they are here in the UK) are never screened as they could never be "coerced"

Its beyond stupidity.

[YoDawg]

Thus the use of the word "perceived" and in italics. :rolleyes:

[Ron & Edna Johns]

It's been pointed out time and time again, even on PPRuNe, that the main perceived threat in mind with regard to aircrew is the "innocent" crew-member who is coerced into carrying an item into the sterile area for use by a culprit in his illegal activities.

If this is the case then why are they not worrying about "innocent" Australian air-side workers who could be "coerced"? Workers such as engineers, caterers, baggage handlers. None of them, not ONE of them, gets screened in Australia as they go air-side! We all know it, no one is doing anything about it.

Heck, they don't even have to be "innocent" or be "coerced". They can take contraband through on their own volition for their own devious reasons. And they're not going to blow up with the plane if they toss something explosive into the bulk hold, or the like....

Everyone in the industry knows this. It's no secret. The pilot charade is all for show. Trouble is, no one with any real power to fix it is listening.

[DEFCON4]

The point of all this is that crew screening in Australia is generally out of step with crew screening world wide.
The assertion that a Qantas Captain is going to jeopardize the safety of his own aircaraft is nonsensical.Even more so that he/she would do it with a can of tuna.
This is much like the little boy who had his toy soldier confiscated by a screener because the toy soldier had a gun.The soldier was 10cms in height.
Screening for crew is theatre for the public.Nothing more despite the protestations of a few dilettantes

[twiggs]

Well I had to look up that word because I have never heard it, but here it is for anyone else that is interested.
dilettante

One entry found.


Main Entry: dil·et·tante
Pronunciation: \ˈdi-lə-ˌtänt, -ˌtant; ˌdi-lə-ˈ\
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural dil·et·tantes or dil·et·tan·ti \-ˈtän-tē, -ˈtan-tē\
Etymology: Italian, from present participle of dilettare to delight, from Latin dilectare — more at delight (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/delight)
Date: 1748 1 : an admirer or lover of the arts
2 : a person having a superficial interest in an art or a branch of knowledge : dabbler (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/dabbler)
synonyms see amateur (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/amateur)
— dilettante adjective
— dil·et·tant·ish \-ˌtän-tish, -ˌtan-, ˌdi-lə-ˈ\ adjective
— dil·et·tan·tism \-ˌtän-ˌti-zəm, -ˌtan-, ˌdi-lə-ˈ\ noun
Reference:

dilettante - Definition from the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/dilettante)

[DEFCON4]

This thread is about about the stupidity of screening aircrew and the way in which it is applied.
It is not about having a limited vocabulary.
Get off the pot Louise Twiggs.You are indeed an amateur in this branch of knowledge.

[QF DRIVE]

The security screeners are only doing what they are told to do. Its the government who implement the rules to cover their backsides in the case of a terrorist act.

The reason why you have the same racial groups working for the security company is that the company encourages staff to bring family members to the recruitment seminars to promote harmony and engagement with the staff.

Whoever the screeners are they are also subject to police and ASIC checks before they are let loose preventing the killer tuna on an aircraft.

[twiggs]

The problem is there are some crew who know some very uncommon words, but are too thick to realise that the security staff are just doing their job.

It is no different getting the tuna confiscated than getting your water bottle taken that you are prepared to drink in front of the security staff.
The issue is not about whether the item is known to be dangerous or not.
It is about the fact that it is in a container that is too large and has some liquid or gel contents in it.
That's the rules and most people get that idea.
Yes it is ridiculous, but they are sticking to the letter of the law and they can't be faulted for that.

I agree that security staff display very poor customer service skills, but that is not their job.
I think it's a bad reflection on crew in general that some of us resort to ridiculing the people who are doing the job they are paid to do by referring to their race, religion or perceived lack of intellectual ability.

[grrowler]

I'm often amazed by how often crew members seem surprised when security grabs their 110g toothpaste, or when the metal detector is set off by the metal in their shoes - just like what happened yesterday:rolleyes:

Instead of trying to teach common sense to a group of people who are neither paid for, nor often capable of, such thought, why not just have a little think about it before getting to the screening point. Hmmm, metal objects into sidepocket of bag, get your ziplock bag of <100g toiletries out, take your shoes off (and eat any large cans of tuna:}).

Ok, a can of tuna being considered a LAG is stupid (as mentioned, I'd be more worried about someone trying to slash me with the lid or throwing the can at me, or maybe forcing me to eat it:uhoh:), but it's not an argument you're going to win at the screening point. Just spend an extra few cents and buy 2 smaller cans.

WRT the liquid content of the tuna (not that it really matters as the LAGs regs relates to the capacity of the container, not the contents), I'm pretty sure the cans show the "drained mass" or % of tuna somewhere, so you could try to use that in your argument. Good luck!

[surfside6]

Have never noticed a screener with an ASIC.Must check next time time.
What is also at issue here is the screeners make up what is allowed on an aircraft and what is not.
There should be a list of goods that are considered dangerous and therefore for aircraft carriage.What I am suggesting is transparency where we are all on the same page regarding aircraft security
The dangerous goods list issued to aircaft employees does not include tuna.
Just for the record I have been taking tuna(with brine) onboard for over two years.
Therein lies another problem ....inconsistency.
Can anyone produce a definitive list of prohibited items that includes tuna?
The closest I can find is this:
Common liquids, aerosols and gels carried by passengers include drinks, creams, perfumes, toothpaste, lipstick, lip balm, deodorants, honey and other similar substances.
Other items include sauces, stews, jams, pastes, and canned food items with a high liquid content (e.g. abalone, mushrooms etc.).
Note that this indicates food item with "High" liquid content.
The tuna I take is a 250grm can and definitely cannot be classified as high liquid content(1.58% liquid)
The reason I take tuna onboard?
I dont take a hold stowed suitcase to work.Havent done for ten years

[surfside6]

Twiggs your makeup bag would be bigger than Bulstode's Tuna.
Do they let you take that on board?
How big is your botox bottle?.
That is liquid isnt it?
Twiggs without make up and/or botox.Shudder the thought.

[dirtysidedown]

Some years ago, post 9/11, I was stopped by a drone. He was most concenned about my Jepps as the folder could easily be used as a weapon. He called a supervisor to discuss this. His supervisor was most supportive of him and agreed it was a good idea to confiscate.

When I would not surrender my Jepps, something of a commotion occurred, and the security drones were finally convinced that the aircraft would not depart without the Jepps. We we allowed on our way.

Not Syd, but Bne.

In Bne, it is a requirement that a cigarette lighter is to be carried on one's person. Not in a nav bag. When I quereied this, the drone responded that if it exploded,(for some reason), the person holding the lighter would notice it,[sic]. I asked him if he thought that it would be better if it "exploded" harmlessly in my nav bag it would be preferalble to it exploding not so harmlessly in my trouser pocket and rendering me incapcitated. BLANK LOOK.

There must be a million of these things happenning every day.

Bring on the revolution.

Problem is, pilots are as weak as piss and we all learnt a valuable lesson a few years back if I remember rightly.

[twiggs]

In Bne, it is a requirement that a cigarette lighter is to be carried on one's person. Not in a nav bag. When I quereied this, the drone responded that if it exploded,(for some reason), the person holding the lighter would notice it,[sic]. I asked him if he thought that it would be better if it "exploded" harmlessly in my nav bag it would be preferalble to it exploding not so harmlessly in my trouser pocket and rendering me incapcitated. BLANK LOOK.

This example is quite perplexing.
On one hand we have posters pointing out how brain dead they think the security staff are, then when they question said staff as to why there is a regulation, they expect an answer that the security person is not required to know or give.
Then when the security staff supply an answer they think is correct in an attempt to pacify the crew concerned, they are still not happy.

As cabin crew, I know that a passenger is permitted to carry matches or lighter on their person only.
I don't know why, although I might try to tell a passenger what I think is the reason, but it is not something I am required to know.
(apart from the fact that is classified as dangerous goods if not on the person)

[Eclan]

...why are they not worrying about "innocent" Australian air-side workers who could be "coerced" ....such as engineers, caterers, baggage handlers....... None of them, not ONE of them, gets screened in Australia as they go air-side! ........And they're not going to blow up with the plane if they toss something explosive into the bulk hold.... Ron (or is it Edna??) I do not know for a fact if all those ground staff are screened or not. At a guess I would've said they are but it sure seems to be held as fact by those here on pprune that they are not. It IS a rumour network, after all.

I have never followed any ground staff to work to see where they access the airside and if they're screened so I don't know if what you say is true. I'm not saying you're wrong or right. I'm sure DEAFCON or some other hysterical will rush to point out this irrefutable "fact" which "everyone" knows, but as for me, I sure as hell don't believe something is a fact just because I read it on pprune! This thread is about about the stupidity of screening aircrew and the way in which it is applied. Actually Bullstrode started the thread with the topic of the confiscation of her tuna cans for being a "dangerous good" versus being a LAG item (whether it really is considered a LAG or not) and the fact that previously, no one had ever enforced this "rule". She elaborated by hinting she'll be treating the screening staff without courtesy or respect from this day on due to the confiscation of her "LAG" items by ONE individual. The confusion by Bullstrode between DGs and LAGs has nothing to do with the "stupidity" or otherwise of screening aircrew. The point of all this is that crew screening in Australia is generally out of step with crew screening world wide. Generally? Compared to where? Have you been through security screening in London - EGLL or EGKK? Or KJFK or KLAX? It sounds more and more like you don't have any idea what you're talking about. The assertion that a captain is going to jeopardize the safety of his own aircaraft is nonsensical. Of course it is, just ask the relatives of the Silkair 185 or EgyptAir 990 victims. And no tuna involved but you missed the opportunity to point that out... :{

If you look through the hysterics of DEAFCON etc, you can see the real issue is the uncertainty of exactly WHY a can of tuna should be confiscated. Liquid content is silly. But don't expect a drone on the security desk to be able to think about this.

By all means launch a rally about the whole system but please don't confuse short-sightedness and lack of nous and commonsense by SOME dim-witted crew (including possibly yourself) who are unable to cope with the realities of the current under-performing system with the real issues of inconsistency and a lack of direction and discipline by the powers behind the mindless drones on the screening desk. That just makes you look silly and unprofessional in front of the passengers and your fellow crew who get to watch your theatre "performance". In fact I think I've seen you in action before.

[Machinegun Fellatio]

The previous post added nothing intelligent to the discussion but did manage a poor attempt at insulting a few people.
If you look at the previous posters history thats ALL he does.
Insult people.
Thats easy to do.
Wonder why doesnt present a well constructed logical argument instead of stooping to childish invective.?
Lack of education?Lack of intellect.
Probably spends too much time indulging his favourite pastime.
Picking the fly****e out of pepper.
Now that requires a keen eye and plenty of patience .
A dilettante fly****e pepper picker.Wow!
This whole security screening process is out of control.No commonsense involved.Just too much testosterone and self importance.
Bloody tuna as a threat?
What has happened to our society?.Has everyone gone totally bonkers?
Have the extreme religious right frootloops finally taken over democracy?
Our personal freedoms and civil liberties are being removed all in the name of security.
What next? Mandatory sterilization for all male aviation personnel?
Guess who will be in charge?
Yep.The self appointed keeper of the moral high ground.....Poster 61

[Eclan]

Machinegun Fellatio says: Wonder why doesnt present a well constructed logical argument instead of stooping to childish invective.? And follows it with: Lack of education?Lack of intellect. Probably spends too much time indulging his favourite pastime. Picking the fly****e out of pepper. A dilettante fly****e pepper picker But somehow ignores: How big is your botox bottle?. That is liquid isnt it? Twiggs without make up and/or botox.Shudder the thought. It is not about having a limited vocabulary. Get off the pot Louise Twiggs.You are indeed an amateur dilettantese (WTF????) It will improve your mental acuity get a life...as a security screener. You appear to have the aptitude for it Read post #15 where I replied to "The world is full of pedantic buffooons" without resorting to her style of insults. Just because you might see yourself in the previous descriptions of the weaker links in aviation does not mean you should lower yourself to vitriole.

Speaking of contributions, did you have anything besides tragic grammar and loose spelling to add to to thread, yourself? Last edited by Machinegun Fellatio : Today at 10:39. Oh I see you've now gone back to try to add something worthwhile after having a re-think of your disgraceful post. Some very original thought there, Fellatio, well done.

Frootloops. Morale (not moral?). Testosterone. The religious right. Some deep-thinking stuff by Mr. Fellatio.

Fellatio, instead of getting all worked up and personal like you, I simply call it like I see it, including pointing out the soft-minded because they do none of us any service. I apologise if these observations hurt you a little; perhaps it's because the shoe fits?

PS: Machinegun Fellatio, interesting name - for some reason, I get the impression you're male. If you're a cabin crew, I hate to think which end of that activity you're on but it sure does say something about your focus in life so I won't get too worried about your opinion here. But a big THANKYOU for helping me pass the time on my day of reserve.

[Eclan]

You are in dire need of relief old son Thanks for the sly offer, Fellatio, and in these modern times who is anyone to malign you for your lifestyle choice. I'm sure you're good at it, Fellatio, but all the same I do prefer the fairer sex!

Not sure how the mods will view the thread being hijacked for use use as a "beat" by the cabin crew though...... :yuk:

[argusmoon]

Snap Shot
All liquids, aersols and gels are covered by the quantity restrictions. A liquid, aerosol or gel is defined as:
a substance that is a liquid when at room temperature;
an aerosol;
a gel;
a cream; or
a paste.
If you are unsure whether an item falls within the restrictions, pack it in your checked baggage.
Common liquids, aerosols and gels carried by passengers include drinks, creams, perfumes, toothpaste, lipstick, lip balm, deodorants, honey and other similar substances.
Other items include sauces, stews, jams, pastes, and canned food items with a high liquid content (e.g. abalone, mushrooms etc.).
The items listed above may only be taken through the security screening point, and onboard the aircraft, if they meet the quantity limits and are in a resealable bag whose four sides add up to no more than 80cm. Aviation security screening officers have the final say if there is any doubt about a product a passenger is trying to take through a screening point and onboard the aircraft.

Did you know?
Some items that you carry with you may not immediately seem to be liquid, aerosol, or gel products. These include snow domes or toys with liquid inside. These items should be packed in your checked baggage. Even items that are not designed to be opened may contain liquids, aerosols or gels
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is taken From Transport Security Website:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
There are 4 issues here
1.Quantity limits
2.High liquid content
3.Security officers have the final say.
4.It mentions passengers but does not include Aircrew or Cabin Crew

[Spanner Turner]

Can anyone explain the reason that your LAG's need to be in a plastic, resealable bag of specific dimensions?

example, I turn up with a 10gram tube of toothpaste but it isn't in a resealable plastic bag - therefore it will be confiscated.

next day I turn up with a 10 gram tube of toothpaste in said bag. I pass the screening point and then remove the toothpaste and dispose of the plastic bag on the way to the gate.
Maybe miscreants like me should have a security officer assigned to me for the duration of my flight to ensure my dangerous, nasty goods remain in the correct resealable plastic bag (whose dimensions do not exceed three bees dicks by four gnats nuts)


:E :E :E

(ps - I've only ever had to part with one small bottle of water in these scaredy cat times)

.

[twiggs]

I thought the point of the plastic bag was that it's volume was about 1 litre so it limited the total volume of the individual items to less than 1 litre.
Of course when you only have one item it is being a bit ridiculous to enforce that rule, but it is the rule, so technically they can enforce it.
It doesn't matter that you have disposed of the bag past the screening point as it has already served it's purpose. (unless your toothpaste tube decides to empty it's contents in your overnight bag, and then you'll kick yourself for throwing away the plastic one.)

[firepussy]

Why does anyone with an ASIC need to be screened?
Perhaps it has nothing to with security but more to do with deterring Crews from smuggling drugs and other contraband.
HNL LAX SFO NRT all have no problem with crew carrying LAGS and/or other foodstuffs.Tuna included.
The only place in the world that is truly anal is Australia.While it has been pointed out that a pilot performed CFIT and killed himself and all pax on board the aircraft under his command that has more to do with his state of mind rather than tuna in his flight deck bag.
Commonsense has been abandoned and has been replaced by small minded stupidity.
Pax need screening.Australian aircrew dont.The background checks surely are enough.You have to be Snow White to pass the checks performed by the AFP and the American Government
You dont however need to be Snow White to a security screener

[barrybeebone]

Firepussy

When you get an ASIC, you have had a police background check, an immigration record check and an ASIO check for politically motivated violence. So that is the past dealt with. We can all argue as to whether it is perfect but no system ever is.

As for the future, who the hell knows what will happen, how do we know you or any other pilot won't become a whacko in future and try and kill people? So to combat this they screen people. No one can be certain they won't become a whaqko. Generally speaking, the vast majority do not become whacko's but you can't identify this. The answer screen everyone that enters through the terminal.

As for all the ground staff that don't get screened. I agree they should but the reality is we have a powerful lobby group called Qantas and they seem to convince the government that ground crew screening will cost too much and therefore should not occur. So they win for now, but who knows what will happen in the future.

[firepussy]

So now we have a situation where there was very little screening prior to 911and no nutjobs.But post 911 all pilots have turned into nutjobs and are a potential threat to everyone.
Gee Who flies the plane?
How do you screen for a person's state of mind?
Are all screeners qualified psychologists?
Who is stupid?
Run that by me again Bazza but this time without your foot in your mouth.
What are screeners looking for?
Anything that can be used as a weapon.Anything that explodes and anything that is potentially combustible.
In short anything that compromises the safety of an aircraft and its crew
Why have I seen golf clubs,cricket bats and knitting needles on board aircraft but the poor soul who started this thread gets his tuna taken off him?
Whats wrong with that picture?Think carefully before answering.You wouldnt want anyone to think you are a fool.Would you Bazza?

[barrybeebone]

Firepussy

what part of my last posting did you not comprehend? I will spell it out one more time for you because your intelligence seems to have been sucked out by all those scary radiation waves coming from your computer

"the vast majority do not become whacko's but you can't identify this. The answer is to screen everyone that enters through the terminal. "

The logic behind checking everyone and not singling anyone out is the same reason behind the the thousands of other laws that apply to everyone, not just one or two people... but everyone. For example we need to have traffic lights (remember those funny looking things at traffic intersections that change colours between red, amber and green? - You may have seen them on Sesame Street recently!) We need these because the original laws of telling people to give way at intersections do not work. So to make sure it is fair for everyone, they introduced traffic lights - For everyone!

It is amazing what you can say with your foot in your mouth firepussy..try it!

[tail wheel]

How do we go from a retention of a can of tune to a frivolous and uninformed debate on why cabin crew should not be subject to airport security screening? :confused: :confused:

Aircraft crew are subject to airport security screening procedures because they are not exempt from security screening under the Aviation Transport Security Act 2004. :=

If you don't like it, write to your politician. For those in love with the sound of their own keyboards, repetitious, pointless posts on PPRuNe will not change Australian laws.

We're tired on the number of Reported Posts! :=

This thread has passed it's use by date.

:mad: