PDA

View Full Version : BNE Full Body Scanner.


China Flyer
28th Feb 2013, 01:24
Bravo Zulu to the English-speaking SO from a (well known, successful, listed) Asian carrier who refused to be scanned at BNE recently.

He opted for a pat-down, and was told that it was not an option. In reply, he said that in that case he will not be flying.

After quite a lot of too-ing and fro-ing, the on duty Manager somehow managed to get him airside for the flight, avoiding the scanner.

As someone who is senior to this chap, I am humbled by his strong approach, and hope that I show the same moral fortitude when placed in a similar situation.

:ok:

avcraft
28th Feb 2013, 02:17
Well done to that gentleman. An obscene waste of money and time is going into airport security and the innocent are being punished for the actions of a minority.

Nothing galls me more than the attitude of the arrogant and obnoxious puppets wearing airport security uniforms... As you can see I'm a little over airport security...:ugh::ugh::ugh:

neville_nobody
28th Feb 2013, 04:17
After quite a lot of too-ing and fro-ing, the on duty Manager somehow managed to get him airside for the flight, avoiding the scanner.

Yes good on him but it is a breach of the security laws. Either you have them or you don't. You can't start making exemptions to prevent diplomatic incidents.

If I tried such a stunt it would probably end in my dismissal.

Capt Claret
28th Feb 2013, 06:25
I don't agree that it's a stunt Neville.

The pollies and vested interest parties that organise these regs don't subject themselves to anywhere close to the radiation that we do by virtue of our jobs. They probably don't get screened any where near as often as we do.

I'm sure if in the medical world, radiographers were told that they had to stay in the room with a patient undergoing X-rays, there woud be a hue an cry and bugger all X-rays would be took!

DeafStar
28th Feb 2013, 07:46
Went through the scanner and was told after i had been scanned to remove my belt. I refused. Was told I could not be screened so I simply asked for my bag and told them I was going home. Was told to wait and the supervisor came over and asked me to undo my belt which i did. Proceed.

Its just a game.

Conductor
28th Feb 2013, 07:48
I have no doubt that if a QF pilot took that approach, they would be fighting for their job. One only has to read the condescending memo issued to QF tech crew by the QF BNE Airport manager (Domestic) re: security and the tacit support it gets from Flt Ops.

Koan
28th Feb 2013, 08:10
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/19/us/tsa-to-remove-invasive-body-scanners.html?_r=0

The Rapiscan backscatter units are so safe and effective they are to
be removed from USA airports. Millimeter wave type will remain in service.

Kiwiconehead
28th Feb 2013, 08:59
Didn't take long for the stormtroopers at BNE to get one into action, they'll be loving it

Traffic_Is_Er_Was
28th Feb 2013, 09:07
You cannot avoid the scanner. It is against the law to go through another form of screening for 24 hrs if you have refused to be scanned. You can change your mind and undergo body scanning at any time.

If this is the same incident I am aware of, it was one very nervous and then relieved SO that was advised he could and then did undergo scanning after initial refusal so that he could join his crew and avoid delaying the flight. There was no bravado in the instance I saw.

Irrespective of the rights or wrongs of it all (and I have been accused of being pro all of it, which I am not) the fact is it is now the law. If you break it or refuse to conform to it, be prepared for the consequences.

601
28th Feb 2013, 12:01
Slightly of topic but in the sane vein.

On a recent flight to Europe my companion was not allowed to carry a small bottle of water. fair enough.

But once through the security she was able to buy water in a much larger bottle.

Is that water screened and by whom?

Ivasrus
28th Feb 2013, 17:50
Probably used to getting the legal option for a pat-down as is available in the US.

Pat-Downs | Transportation Security Administration (http://www.tsa.gov/traveler-information/pat-downs)

neville_nobody
28th Feb 2013, 21:27
Irrespective of the rights or wrongs of it all (and I have been accused of being pro all of it, which I am not) the fact is it is now the law. If you break it or refuse to conform to it, be prepared for the consequences.

I agree. If you want to make a stand against the scanners you would want to have a pretty good plan B and a lot of money. I would suggest it would be a constitutional challenge in the High Court or some form of OH & S issue which you would have to prove in court to get your job back.

Either way you would unemployed for a few years if you took that path.

Maybe a dramatic way to exit for those thinking of retiring?:}

601
28th Feb 2013, 22:22
Are ALL airside employees (engineers, firefighters, refuellers, catering, Macas) subject to body scanning every time they enter their workplace?

Roger Greendeck
28th Feb 2013, 23:30
No. Only those people who are going to fly on the aircraft need to be screened. If you enter the departure area of an airport through the pax entry you will screen eg if you are accompanying a passenger to see them off but if you work airside eg baggage handler, maintenance etc you do not have to got through the pax entrance and don't need to be screened.

The whole thing is a farce.

TIMA9X
1st Mar 2013, 00:01
The Rapiscan backscatter units are so safe and effective they are to
be removed from USA airports. Millimeter wave type will remain in service. The clowns in Canberra probably don't even know this...

I agree. If you want to make a stand against the scanners you would want to have a pretty good plan B and a lot of money. I would suggest it would be a constitutional challenge in the High Court or some form of OH & S issue which you would have to prove in court to get your job back.

Either way you would unemployed for a few years if you took that path.
Good point, the scanner legislation is flawed for airport workers and regular airline staff who have to use the facility.. ain't much choice... it is a OH & S issue in my view as well..

Of course all politicians are regularly scanned. If not, we should demand that they are, probably the most untrustworthy of all airport users and a quick way to get the law changed is by having them scanned daily.. :E

NSEU
1st Mar 2013, 00:47
Are ALL airside employees (engineers, firefighters, refuellers, catering, Macas) subject to body scanning every time they enter their workplace?

What point would there be? For example, aircraft maintenance engineers need to purchase new tools from time to time and bring them airside (including trimming knives and other sharp implements). Staff also bring their lunch/dinner (large bottles/cans of drinks, food containers, etc) airside.... although there are random checks on MacDonald's takeaway bags :}

RENURPP
1st Mar 2013, 02:10
What point would there be? For example, aircraft maintenance engineers need to purchase new tools from time to time and bring them airside (including trimming knives and other sharp implements). Staff also bring their lunch/dinner (large bottles/cans of drinks, food containers, etc) airside.... although there are random checks on MacDonald's takeaway bags Agreed, but what point is there scanning a pilot?
They also have tools of the trade, one being an aircraft that has hundreds of tonnes of jet fuel all at the pilots beck and call. More importantly a control column and a crash axe.
They also are allowed to take food and drink in any amount through domestic security and if you are travelling international and chose to take more than the normal 100mls all you need is a baby and fill your boots.
The system is flawed, it keeps the public convinced the government is doing something and they are, but what they are doing is not sensible. Whats new there?

framer
1st Mar 2013, 04:49
I recently travelled with my six month old daughter througg Sydney internationally. We had baby milk powder in a can. Baby milk powder in smaller quantities in zip lock bags. Baby milk Pre mixed in 250ml bottles, and not a peep out of security. Complete farce.
The answer in my opinion is to take 90% of the security personnel at airports ( it seems to take about 7 of them to manage one stationary x ray machine) and employ them doing basic background travel checks of flying passengers from when the tickets are purchased and from that identifying passengers for screening. The other 10% can carry out the screening.
If Aviation Security was really a priority the first thing to change after 9/11 would have been the ability to choose your seat when booking as the hijackers did. Also, the ability to determine which flights were full and which flights were only partially booked would also have been removed.This simple step to increasing security created no commercial benefit to anyone, it was not implemented. Ie, farce.
Framer
PS before anyone rattles on about putting stuff like this on the Internet, the cowards ( I don't like the term Terrorists) had all this info wired 12 years ago.

haughtney1
1st Mar 2013, 06:35
Here here framer,

If the security services were serious and honest, they would indeed implement some common sense measures.
Of course if they profiled passengers, they would most likely find that based on past history, demographics and behavioural science that a certain individual would emerge......but we can't be seen to discriminate can we?

Tableview
1st Mar 2013, 06:56
Of course if they profiled passengers, they would most likely find that based on past history, demographics and behavioural science that a certain individual would emerge......but we can't be seen to discriminate can we?

That in essence is the problem. A friend of mine worked on a major airport security project for a global company, and their product was one which would have, based on algorhythms, thrown up potential murders/cowards/terrorists. Of course as PC swept the world it was decided it could not be implemented. So the MCTs won, and continue to win, as millions of air passengers daily are subjected to humiliating, pointless, time wasting 'security' procedures, which cost massive amounts of money.

Before PC swept the world ...... I was often picked out for questioning or a search. Male, travelling alone, booked at short notice, one way ticket, passport nationality A, issued in country B, resident in country C, journey beginning in country D and ending in country E. Passport full of stamps from 'odd' countries. Suspicious!

Did it worry me? No. Did it make me feel safer .... in some ways yes. Because I understood that the people were doing their job properly and with courtesy, not like the meatheads now who snatch water bottles out of children's hands, I was polite and cooperative. I remember leaving FRA with a huge box of Stollen and a bottle of German wine after one such stop, given to me by the 'interrogators' as thanks for being cooperative and making them laugh.


By the way, the Israelis still profile, and rightly so. And they don't seem to give a toss what the rest of the world thinks. Maybe others should adopt the same policy.

Traffic_Is_Er_Was
1st Mar 2013, 07:41
Is that water screened and by whom?

Anything that enters the sterile area at BNE is screened, whether it be goods or people. The goods are all broken down into portions/packages of sufficient size to go through an xray. If they cannot be eg construction materials etc. they are subject to other checks that satisfy the regs.

Screening only applies in a real sense to the Sterile Area. Access to Airside is covered by other regs.

Ejector
1st Mar 2013, 12:26
I think I will wrap my penis in a aluminium condom :O

framer
1st Mar 2013, 19:22
I wouldn't bother, I did that once and my girlfriend didn't think much of it at all.

Normasars
1st Mar 2013, 23:02
Your penis? Or the aluminium condom?

framer
1st Mar 2013, 23:06
Both. In the end I tied balloons to it and she was stoked.
Now back on subject before we get it closed down :O
In Melbourne I have noticed they put the pax through the scanner and the aircrew through the metal detector. I wonder if that is to avoid objections?

arkmark
2nd Mar 2013, 16:26
Dear Mr Traffic.....

Do you really believe in BNE anything that enters the sterile area is scanned ? Perhaps you should get out more. How do you think engineers move around the airport from side to side and bring vehicles from land side to air side. Sorry, you haven't got a clue what your talking about dude.....only staff who choose to enter through the terminal (and yes pilots can enter through the other gates also if they are smart) need to subject themselves to all that self serving b**lshit. Go through the gate underneath or around, using your id and your in without scanning of any kind, then walk up the air stairs, and your in the terminal without needing to deal with the security [email protected]

arkmark
2nd Mar 2013, 16:27
Oh .... also ...... why is it that communist Australia seems to be the only country using these gadgets when the rest of the world is free ?

ejectx3
2nd Mar 2013, 21:36
It's not a case of "if we're smart". At every airport we could get aboard without going through security no problem but if observed doing this there'd be hell to pay.

Fantome
2nd Mar 2013, 23:19
It is almost for some a deterrent to using Australian security airports at all. The several so-called pat downs my wife has been subjected to in the last
year were in the main invasive, offensive and humiliating. Admittedly she has metal hips and knees, but that does not excuse the worst, a butch mannered hostile and insensitive groping, probing woman, (paid by us to do it), deriving a grim kind of satisfaction in causing the maximum discomfort she could get away with. When seeing my wife's distress during that encounter, I went to take a photograph and was immediately told by one of the officious members of the over-staffed gestapo "No pictures allowed in or near security. Put your camera away please."

By what means can these farcical over the top provisions be scaled down or
modified? How can our legislators be made to see that in Australia at least the ruthless, cunning, skilled and determined criminal mind could outwit the present safeguards, rendering them absurd. But more to the point, that the probability of any such hostile act is remote enough as to be dismissed. We are living with a paranoia that feeds upon itself.

Capt Claret
2nd Mar 2013, 23:51
Fantome,

An official written complaint will see the video footage, as far as I know in place at ALL security screening points, reviewed pretty promptly. I'm fairly confident you'd be able to get a copy.

I got to see a copy of my alleged belligerent behaviour at a central airport. Nothing came of it because the footage didn't back up the claims of the neanderthals at the screening point.

YPJT
3rd Mar 2013, 01:50
Good point Clarrie. Conversely video footage has put paid to claims by precious travellers that the process they were subjected to was humiliating, degrading or in some other way inappropriate.

All well and good refusing on principle, religious, health or other reason but the fact of the matter is and as per the posted signage;

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

Berore I get jumped on by everyone, I agree that in principle crews should not necessarily be subjected to the same processes. I have been told anecdotally it is done to satisfy public perceptions.

I have asked this before, what is your employer or union doing about taking your concerns to the regulator? I'll tell you in case you're wondering - SFA. If I have got that part of it wrong I am more than happy to stand corrected.

601
3rd Mar 2013, 05:09
On a recent flight to Europe my companion was not allowed to carry a small bottle of water

The next step in this screening, was "follow me" and a full pat down.

While I was waiting for my partner to return, I was having a conversation with one of the other staff. After she returned about 5 minutes later, I was then asked to do a explosive check.

It was a quiet afternoon in security. At least we did not have to wait to board the aircraft. They were waiting for us.

neville_nobody
3rd Mar 2013, 05:40
I have been told anecdotally it is done to satisfy public perceptions.

Which is the most illogical argument of all time as there is crash axe on every aircraft.........

Traffic_Is_Er_Was
3rd Mar 2013, 09:50
arkmark,

Do you really believe in BNE anything that enters the sterile area is scanned ?

Perhaps a read of page 11 - 12 of this" http://www.bne.com.au/sites/all/files/content/files/Security%20Awareness%20Booklet_080610.pdf might set you straight. And yes, it does get done. It's probably the same at all the Designated Airports.

Unfortunately it is not I who do not have a clue. Your awareness of the various security zones throughout a major airport is frighteningly lacking. There is a world of difference between them. We're not just talking about gaining access airside, or to a tarmac.

We are talking here about body scanning at BNE. That only applies to access to the Sterile Area (Level 3 Departures) at the International Terminal, while the Sterile Area at the Domestic (Level 2) does not have them.

Go through the gate underneath or around, using your id and your in without scanning of any kind, then walk up the air stairs, and your in the terminal without needing to deal with the security [email protected]

Enter one of the Sterile areas (look it up) without having been screened and, after the area has been evacuated, swept by security, and all staff and passengers/public have been re-screened back in, with commensurate delays to airline ops, you will find yourself having a not so nice chat to the AFP and in all likelihood your access privileges withdrawn for some indeterminate time, if not permanently. You could also face a fine or prosecution if they feel like it.

There's a reason why access to the Sterile Areas is prevented except through highly regulated channels. It's to keep d*ckheads like you out.

YPJT
3rd Mar 2013, 10:03
Traffic,
Well said. Thank god someone knows what they are talking about. :D

Derfred
3rd Mar 2013, 12:12
Except of course all the engineers, caterers, cleaners etc who have access to the sterile area via the aerobridge door...

framer
3rd Mar 2013, 21:05
and what's the point in having a sterile boarding area when Jo Bloggs hops in and out of the cargo hold of the aircraft that all the " sterile" folk are travelling on, he sits in there emailing and texting on his mobile phone 4m away from the refueller and all with no screening...... What's the point of having a sterile area?

YPJT
4th Mar 2013, 00:47
The purpose of the sterile area along with CBS is to ensure that all persons and things "departing" on a prescribed aircraft are screened.

Captain Nomad
4th Mar 2013, 01:56
The purpose of the sterile area along with CBS is to ensure that all persons and things "departing" on a prescribed aircraft are screened.

Sheesh, the argument is going in circles. How can this be 'ensured' when people who are not being screened have access to aircraft? The key difference is that the unscreened are not 'visible' to the public and therefore there is an illusion of complete 'security.' Just like the sense of security Joe Public gets from seeing the Captain walking through the scanner because they can't see his cockpit crash axe...

framer
4th Mar 2013, 02:14
The purpose of the sterile area along with CBS is to ensure that all persons and things "departing" on a prescribed aircraft are screened.
Ahh I get it. So if Jo Bloggs in catering or Baggage handling or Cleaning is a cleanskin for a group of baddies and wants to leave something on the aircraft then he or she should take it through screening as it is going to be " departing".
Boy I hope they are honest chaps otherwise the billions of dollars we spend on "visible security" has been wasted.

YPJT
4th Mar 2013, 02:47
Lets be honest here for a moment. The whole gripe is that you, as tech or cabin crew have to be screened whereas others who have access to aircraft and or sterile areas do not.

There is one side saying that crews should not be screened. The other is saying that everyone and everything going into a secure area and/or aircraft should be screened. I would suggest the later will create more problems than it solves.

The Green Goblin
4th Mar 2013, 03:20
Yep walking with an engineer to the Airbus.

I go through the screening and get ETD screening, hand luggage screening, full metal detectors, body scanning.

He is waiting in the flight deck when I get there after walking airside and up the aerobridge stairs.

When I worked for a smaller airline I'd give the caterers my lunch and water bottle for international flights and they'd take it and place it on my aeroplane so it wasn't confiscated through security.

Silly system we work in.....

Fliegenmong
4th Mar 2013, 07:44
GG :D:D (ten characters and all that....)

The Green Goblin
4th Mar 2013, 09:54
I also don't get why guys like YPJT have such strong opinions on this subject when they are a bloody flight instructor working at Jandakot! (At least if memory serves me correctly).

When you work at the coal face, see cleaners, rampies, engineers, ground staff all going in and out of the sterile area and ramp all daylong via the aerobridge you realise the whole system is a farce.

It's just visible security to make the punters feel like the government is doing something proactive (although realistically reactive).

YPJT
4th Mar 2013, 13:50
I also don't get why guys like YPJT have such strong opinions on this subject when they are a bloody flight instructor working at Jandakot! (At least if memory serves me correctly).
You clearly don't have a clue who I am or what I do for a living. I am not about to get into a pissing contest with you over this but rest assured I do indeed have a good deal of experience in dealing with the act and regs. Surprisingly, or perhaps not so, the greatest level of ignorance is embedded amongst the pilot fraternity from weekend warriors through to RPT jet drivers.

Read my previous post on 03 March particularly the last paragraph. About all you will achieve prattling on here is an ulcer and no real change.

Fantome
4th Mar 2013, 18:04
digger . . . .. .you'd be better off leaving the commentary to those who have been directly subject to the farce for years now. To talk of pissing contests only shows you up in a poor light. And lacking in respect. However familiar you may be with the minutia of the act, the orders and every skerrick of the legislation.

REPEAT . . Nothing, but nothing, can save us from the lunatic fringe, the smartest of them vs the smartest your men can deploy . . no contest.

prospector
4th Mar 2013, 21:51
Yes, but, the system is very good at stopping the method that the last lot used.

If the intent to do harm is there, with some new and innovative method the chances of it succeeding would be very good, in my opinion.

Piltdown Man
4th Mar 2013, 22:16
Nothing spreads an infection like security around the world faster than "security." It's quicker than AIDS, SARS, and the flue virus. But unlike those viruses, it remains unchanged during its journey. The bullsh!t peddled by the onastic cretins responsible for its reproduction are almost proud of its creed. Wherever it is thrust down the neck (or up the ar5e) of the innocent, it's justification remains the same, but just as pointless.

When will the t055ers responsible for its existence realise they are p!55ing up the wrong tree?

PM

caneworm
5th Mar 2013, 01:08
Real Estate, Financial advisors, Human Resources and now Aviation Security.
All unproductive industries.

Flyer517
5th Mar 2013, 02:13
On a recent trip to Hawaii, we went through the usual double screening at SY before departure. When I asked the security guard why the second screening was necessary, he said that this is what the US requires for all flights travelling there. The funny thing is, in the US they screen once and it is pretty much the same as the initial screening at SY.
Of course it could be an uninformed guard answering me, but it isn't the first time I've received that answer.

From a layman's perspective, this makes no sense whatsoever. Either they need it or they don't. And in the US they do a LOT better job of the customer service side that's for sure. Always incredibly friendly and respectful.

There were at least a dozen security personnel present at SY with just 3 of them doing the screening. The rest were just standing around chatting. What a bloody waste of money.

And having travelled internationally over the past couple of years with a child, the incredible insensitivity of the screeening staff is mind boggling. Particularly when they want you to wake a sleeping 6 month old baby as he had to patted down. Next time through they said no need for the pat down. WTF???

They way I see it, nobody is going to take the law makers seriously unless they are consistent at EVERY port, and there at least appears to be some reasoning behind what they are doing.

As for screening crew, what if they do have half a kilo of Semtex strapped to their colon? If a crew member wants to take the aircraft down, all they would need to do is use the crash axe on the rest of the crew and lean on the yoke. Hasn't that been done before?

Rant over...

Flyer

MakeItHappenCaptain
5th Mar 2013, 09:14
Those who are confused as to what a "sterile area" actually is, generally;
Airside is not a sterile area.
The aircraft is not a sterile area.
The international disembarking aerobridge and areas leading to customs and the arrivals hall are not sterile. (Some airlines still use metal cutlery and the TSA wannabes (Aussie security are positively delightful to deal with compared to their Yank counterparts...half even know how to smile!) would have kittens if they knew there was a metal fork within throwing distance of a screening point.)
Transiting pax pass back into the sterile area and need to be rescreened.
Domestic aerobridges (and the flights, crashaxes notwithstanding:rolleyes:) are sterile.
The sterile area is only the transition area between landside and airside where pax are roaming "freely". Everyone is screened (the security as well on entering the area) with the exception of AFP and identified on-duty police.

The problem is actually not the aircraft, it is carrying prohibited items (and possibly losing them) in the sterile area.

This is not an all inclusive, exhaustive definition, but is purely meant to help the commonly misunderstood purpose of this area. (ie. if you want to bignote youslf by picking it apart, you can make like a bird and flock off.) i do know what I'm talking about, I worked at BN Intenational for 18 months :((it paid bills, I hated it, preferred guarding the US bound QF and SQ aircraft airside where I didn't have to deal with pax).

Agree the full body scan is excessive, like the pat down option, however last time I asked for this in the US, the fcuknut tried to tell me it wasn't an option until I showed him his own regs. They are tools over there.

Just to throw the cat amongst the pidgeons, from Aust. Transport Security Regs 2005;
Division 4.3

4.61 Aviation industry participants authorised to have prohibited items in possession in sterile areas

(1) An aviation industry participant is authorised to have a prohibited item in its possession in the sterile area if:
(a) the item is a tool of trade; and
(b) the aviation industry participant takes reasonable precautions to ensure that the item remains under its control.

(2) For paragraph (1) (a), something is a tool of trade if the relevant aviation industry participant requires it for a lawful purpose.

But try quoting that to the average screener.:E

601
5th Mar 2013, 22:31
The problem is actually not the aircraft, it is carrying prohibited items (and possibly losing them) in the sterile area.

Dah

Sterile areas do not fly.

I always had it in the back of my mind that it was not about keeping the aircraft "sterile" but to keep a group of people build an empire within the public "service" and giving the traveling public a false sense of "security"

I guess for me it was when loading passengers baggage into the baggage area of WWII, (yes some pilots do load their own aircraft) I found various items, including dangerous goods, that should have been removed from the passenger's baggage at the screening.

tecman
6th Mar 2013, 08:35
The security drives all frequent travellers to distraction, especially when you observe first-hand how laughably ineffective it is (many examples noted in this thread but nothing more telling than a pack of jobsworths lolly-gagging about their weekend, boyfriends or whatever and ignoring the screening equipment). Sadly, it's largely a self-perpetuating security myth bolsted by the financial gains that are made by the contractors et al.

Here at Perth, the largely incoherent and under-employed jobsworths make the odd facile attempt at screening, usually picking the easiest and least likely targets. (Indeed, our particular jobsworths often look like they should be on the other end of the screening process).

I've often though that some sensible person should start 'take your chance' airline, raise the fingers of derision to the regulators, and appeal to the likes of me. If they had a halfway decent bubbly in the business cabin, I'd be in there like a shot.

DeltaT
6th Mar 2013, 20:40
While the first round of Body Scanners are known to be unsafe as someone mentioned earlier. Which type is the one in BNE?

I found some articles re the Millimetre Wave Scanners which seems just as bad.
HERE (http://www.naturalnews.com/027913_full-body_scanners_DNA.html)
HERE2 (http://www.infowars.com/full-body-scanners-increase-cancer-risk/)
Now after reading the above, here is what is published by CASA
CASA info (http://travelsecure.infrastructure.gov.au/bodyscanners/files/INFRA1581_OTS_FS_A4_BODY_SCANNER_HS_INFO_SHEET_1012_FA_WEB.P DF)

No choice but to go through them?...I think reading the above might make you do a real hard think on what you will do...

ejectx3
6th Mar 2013, 21:02
US safety rules relaxed: Pocket knives and sports equipment currently
banned on US flights will be allowed back in aircraft cabins, the US
Transportation Security Administration (TSA) announced yesterday.
Passengers will be able to carry knives with folding blades 6cm or shorter,
as well as sporting goods such as golf clubs, hockey clubs, and
novelty-sized baseball bats, the federal agency said.

The Green Goblin
6th Mar 2013, 22:46
'take your chance' airline

Would never work. Even if you have the choice to take your 'chance' the citizens in suburbia don't get that option.

Hence screening is required on any aeroplane big enough to cause mischief.

P.S

I would not have a problem with screening if everybody working airside was subjected to it. I have a problem when it's not consistent and open to interpretation by individual screeners.

Case in point, I went through body screening and was told to remove my wings, bars, pens, asic, tie, belt, shoes, watch etc etc.

I asked where it was written that I was required to do that? He in his infinate wisdom said so he wouldn't get any false paints on the picture. I told him I would not be complying with his instructions and he can screen me as is or not at all. The supervisor intervened and asked to remove my pen and watch. I complied and went through.

What a farce this system is......

tecman
7th Mar 2013, 05:17
While 'take your chance' was tongue-in-cheek, the moment you start being willing to argue minutiae rather than tackle the substantive issue, we're exactly where the terrorists and profiteers want us.

Going Boeing
7th Mar 2013, 09:43
While Albo's Circus runs out of control, the Yanks start relaxing their security measures.

TSA to allow pocket knives on US flights

Pocket knives and sports equipment -- banned on US flights since the September 11, 2001 attacks -- are to be allowed back in aircraft cabins, the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) said Tuesday.

Passengers will be able to carry knives with folding blades 2.36 inches (6 centimeters) or shorter, as well as sporting goods such as golf clubs, hockey clubs, and novelty-sized baseball bats, the federal agency said.

TSA chief John Pistole said the new guidelines, which come into effect on April 25, would bring US security regulations into line with international standards.

Among the sporting goods to be allowed as carry-on baggage will be billiard cues, ski poles, hockey sticks, lacrosse sticks and up to two golf clubs, Pistole said.

Baseball bats measuring 24 inches (60 centimeters) or shorter and weighing no more than 24 ounces (680 grammes) will also be permitted.

"This is part of an overall risk-based security approach, which allows Transportation Security Officers to better focus their efforts on finding higher threat items such as explosives," Pistole said.

Source : AFP

Traffic_Is_Er_Was
7th Mar 2013, 10:27
At the end of the day it is Government that makes the regulations that dictate screening procedures and equipment. The Airports have to implement them. The staff at the screening points have to do it. You don't like it and the Airports would far rather not have to deal with it. There's no point in ranting and raving about BNE, SYD or MEL being a*seholes when they are as much over a barrel as you are. Fail to comply and they cop flak too.

Mud Skipper
7th Mar 2013, 19:36
Traffic, it's the implementation at each airport which varies.

Just as a good CSM might set the tone of the rest of her/his crew, so it is at different airports. Some carry on like little Hitlers and make up the most draconian interpretation of the rules whilst others are able to find a smile and still do a thorough and safe job.

You should get about a bit more if you haven't seen this in action.

YPJT
8th Mar 2013, 09:35
make up the most draconian interpretation of the rulesdon't suppose you would care to give some specific examples?

Fantome, don't patronise me. It only shows you up in a poor light and lacking in respect.

Captain Peacock
9th Mar 2013, 01:18
don't suppose you would care to give some specific examples?
1. Dedicated crew lanes in the US (with no microwave machine) where you don't need to do LAGS
2. If no dedicated lanes in the US, you go through pax channel but no need to get microwaved (and of course no LAGS for crew)

How about the new knife rule in the US? Or there are some jurisdictions where you don't need to remove your laptop from your bag - Hong Kong and Japan? (need to be corrected on this one).

framer
9th Mar 2013, 01:54
Some Ausi ports you need to remove your IPad , some you don't.
In one Ausi port you need to put your entire flight bag in a " special" large tray, all the others you don't. That probably wouldn't bother me if they had them available but half the time they haven't kept them stockpiled and you have to wait for them to finish their conversation and get one for you.

YPJT
9th Mar 2013, 05:00
I think they want you to remove and screen computers separately partly due to the fact that it can be opened.

Dedicated crew lanes would be a great idea but it comes down to a question of cost as well as the additional footprint of floor space. Unfortunately unlike US, Australia makes no provision for any exemption to the requirements so it would be hard justifying a dedicated lane.

Another frustrating inconsistency is that some screening points require you to carry your cigarette lighter on your person but at others you can have it in the bag.

Captain Nomad
9th Mar 2013, 10:50
Another frustrating inconsistency is that some screening points require you to carry your cigarette lighter on your person but at others you can have it in the bag.

Once it comes to boarding the plane there is only one interpretation of this according to the DG rules - on your person or not at all! It would seem they would be negligent by turning a blind eye to a potential DG non-compliance/incident by allowing a person to be carrying such DG in a bag through security... I would have thought consistently staying on top of important things like that would have been a priority?! :confused: :suspect:

Spotlight
9th Mar 2013, 22:19
Captain Nomad. I think you have fallen victim to some perhaps understandable confusion.

The security screening is done; not for DGs but for prohibited items not allowed to be taken airside through a security screening point. Such as 110ml of face cream. Once airside of course you can buy the face cream in an even greater quantity, and a cigarette lighter at ports with a smoking area and vendors that meet a demand and make a profit from such things.

The fact that an aware traveler removes metal objects from his pockets and places them in his bag so as to move efficiently through the screening process with the least delay to those behind him can not be the basis of an allegation of intent to commit the offense you point to.

If you are referring to situations where secondary screening is required at the gate due to the country of destination rules or an alert status then I understand what you are saying.

Jock p
11th Mar 2013, 08:26
Classic


EXCLUSIVE: Former Newark TSA screener dishes on lax security at what may be America's most unsafe airport - NYPOST.com (http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/confessions_of_tsa_agent_we_re_bunch_OhxHeGd0RR9UVGzfypjnLO)

EXCLUSIVE: TSA screeners allow fed agent with fake bomb to pass through security at Newark Airport - NYPOST.com (http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/newark_tsa_bomb_boozled_eTIZBp2X7B299qO5WCWvAK)

Captain Peacock
11th Mar 2013, 22:58
don't suppose you would care to give some specific examples?LAGS. Done international in Australia, why not domestic?

DeafStar
18th Mar 2013, 11:59
Can a security guard at a screening point be allowed to look at your asic? Ie take down your name and numbers written on it? Happend to me today. Just reached out and grabbed it and wrote it in his notebook. All because I was unhappy (but compliant) with his confusing and harrasing behaviour!

thorn bird
19th Mar 2013, 02:52
Can someone explain why a small
Aerosol of deodorant with the lid on
Is okay, but not okay with the lid off??
when does the aerosol become the property
The security company? I got threatened
For breaking the spray mechanism before
I gave it to the neandathal confiscating it.

Capetonian
19th Mar 2013, 04:27
Neanderthals developed into modern man and became relatively civilised.

I think it is entirely inappropriate to refer to some security staff as Neanderthals as they display no potential for such development or civilisation.

YPJT
19th Mar 2013, 06:24
Do you really think the screeners decide what they will and won't allow through a screening point? Those decisions are made by OTS and generally in consulation with the same outfits that you work for.

You really are barking up the wrong tree taking your frustraion out on them. Sure they are an easy shot to take your frustrations out on but some of the comments here do make me wonder about the maturity and common sense of some.

If you don't like the way you are spoken to you always have the right to make a complaint to their supevisor or even take it up with the screening authority which will be either the airline or airport operator. Too bad many seem to think a better way is to come on here and do nothing but stamp their feet and make childish insults because screeners don't bow in awe to the superior beings who despite regular travel don't understand the basic requirements.

Capetonian
19th Mar 2013, 07:56
I appreciate that the 'operators' work according to rules defining what may or may not be allowed. What I do not accept is that the way some, and it's as always a minority, speak to people when there has been no cause for rudeness, and the bullying threatening attitude they adopt, often towards small children and the elderly.

I can't speak for others but I can assure you that when appropriate I do complain, to them, to the supervisor, and in writing to the authority. The fact that I also express it here does not mean I have not complained through the appropriate channels.

framer
19th Mar 2013, 09:25
because screeners don't bow in awe to the superior beings who despite regular travel don't understand the basic requirements.
You're living in the 80's if you think any of us expect that. The fact that you write it exposes something about your mindset though.
What I do not accept is that the way some, and it's as always a minority, speak to people when there has been no cause for rudeness, and the bullying threatening attitude they adopt,
I agree. Every single time I encounter a security worker ( and customs etc) I do so with a smile and I ask " how are you today? " and I am often completely ignored or the person responds with a short sharp rude instruction. Have we reached a stage where we have to train basic manners in order to appear in a positive light to our travellers and tourists?

YPJT
19th Mar 2013, 09:42
OK framer, so would you care to also address the other facts in my post.
You're incredible

Fliegenmong
19th Mar 2013, 10:28
Stateside, when travelling on staff tickets, ('Stamped' as such) I put my hands above my head, until they tell me to put them down, I'm effectively being treated as a criminal, and so I raise my hands above my head as though I am being apprehended....

A Comfy Chair
19th Mar 2013, 12:11
Do you really think the screeners decide what they will and won't allow through a screening point? Those decisions are made by OTS and generally in consulation with the same outfits that you work for.

Actually YPJT that is why I, and I know many of my colleagues, get infuriated.

It IS the screener who decides what they will and will not allow through. The inconsistency between screeners is abysmal.

Same airport, separate days, and you have a completely different approach and attitude from the screening staff. One day one item is fine, the next it is banned and confiscated. One day you have extremely polite and great screening staff who make light conversation and make the experience pleasant, the next day it is nothing but blunt instructions and rudeness.

One airport has one policy at one screening point, and another at another, even though they both access the same sterile area...

Staff are also simply not in a position to make a complaint. Most airlines label staff who complain as troublemakers, and it is pretty clear that operations managers at airlines do not have any sway. Delay a flight because you are upholding your right to discuss an issue with the supervisor... you'd want to be pretty confident. Even the admitted targetting of flight crew at one particular airport for explosive trace detection because they don't (read can't) complain took a long time to be stopped. Yes, it happened, and yes, it was put in writing at the time.


Staff are absolutely powerless to influence the continued ridiculous and unacceptable variation in standard at our screening points, and have finally reached a breaking point. As much as it is nice to say that all crew should be polite and not rock the boat, when you have been subjected to this for so long, even the most sane and sensible amongst us reach a breaking point. Crew are going to complain - and here is at least a venting place that doesn't get you into trouble.

As an aside - if anyone can explain why a pilot should go through the standard detector, have their bags screened, undergo explosive trace detection, and THEN be selected for random pat down screening requiring the removal of uniform such as wings, tie and belt, I'd love to hear it. I'd also like to know why the screeners should be surprised, and indignant, that a request was made for this to occur in private. I'd be particularly interested in why they are also not equipped for this staffing wise, and 10 minutes elapsed before such a screening could occur, and in this time no other passengers for the flight were selected for ETS or pat down screening. Good use of resources? Having to close a screening lane just to have enough staff to do a private screening? Really?

YPJT
19th Mar 2013, 21:57
A comfy chair,
Could not agree more about the inconsistencies that occur from airport to airport and dare I say even between screening points on the same airport. This problem is well known and is one of the many things being addressed. As there are many screening authorities the problem is that each develop their own interpretation on what is a prohibited item where it is not specifically prescribed in the regs.

I do agree that there should be some concession to flight crews but when you look at that from a commercial point of view, it would be cost prohibitive at most ports to establish a dedicated screening lane for a group that would constitute less than 10% of total throughput. .

At the meetings I attend none of the carriers representatives seem to be raising concerns on behalf of flight crew. It is your own company security that you need to raise these issues with.

Captain Dart
19th Mar 2013, 22:32
YPJT, I fly internationally and at many ports there is a sign at the security points clearly stating, 'Priority for Flight Crew' or words to that effect. This enables us to legitimately, and of course politely, push in to the queues so that we can get on with our jobs and get the people to where they want to go.

There is no need for a separate crew channel, surely the security budget runs to a cheap sign. I offered to go down to Officeworks once and make one up for my base port, but when I suggested it to the security wallahs the eyes just glazed over...

Traffic_Is_Er_Was
20th Mar 2013, 07:09
The "neanderthals" who screen, the "bogans" who sit down the back, the "meatheads" who throw bags, the "morons" who clean......all comments I have read over the time in this forum. Is it any wonder some of you don't get no respect?

thorn bird
20th Mar 2013, 07:17
Wally I completely agree the terrorists have won, I often wonder
how many shares the Bin Laden's have in the security industry.
I was standing in the sheep pens in front of security
at yssy the other morning, and the thought occurred
to me what a target rich environment for your friendly
neighborhood suicide bomber I was standing in.
Perfect choke point to wipe out a few hundred or so
all before you've even been examined by anybody

Capetonian
20th Mar 2013, 07:24
Every time I go through the farce of so-called security I realise that Bin Liner and Co. won. The world just lay back and allowed them to screw it.

Square Bear
20th Mar 2013, 19:48
The security at Brisbane International has taken on the task of randomly weighing carry on baggage, prior to entry into the secure/customs area.

Can not work out how they have the authority for this, especially since not 10 minutes prior the check in staff are happy to allow you to proceed.

Could not find any reference to authority to do so in the regs.

YPJT
20th Mar 2013, 23:09
Square Bear,
Whilst nothing in the regs requires them to do this also nothing precludes them from doing so.

The screeners may well be employed by BAL in which case it is little more than an additional allocated task. Pax flouting cabin bag limits has been a driver for this being done. My guess is that it is easier to resolve at the entry to the sterile area rather than at the boarding gate.

Animalclub
20th Mar 2013, 23:10
especially since not 10 minutes prior the check in staff are happy to allow you to proceed.

Not every passenger takes ALL their carry on baggage to the check-in desk.

Capt Fathom
21st Mar 2013, 00:36
The security at Brisbane International has taken on the task of randomly weighing carry on baggage, prior to entry into the secure/customs area.

That would be an interesting exercise. The amount (size and weight) of in cabin baggage allowed can differ significantly from one airline to the other. And between classes on the same flight!

Perhaps some people need to leave the kitchen sink at home!

framer
21st Mar 2013, 03:17
If they grab that new duty with two hands and run with it I will be happy. Too often check-in and gate staff turn a blind eye to oversized carry on and then it becomes the Pursers' problem just minutes before scheduled departure. If the Purser elects to do what is legally required and have the bag transferred to the hold, they not only have one more confrontation in their day, they may well run late. Then, the gate staff who turned a blind eye will log the delay under "crew".
I hope YBBN security get stuck in :)

neville_nobody
21st Mar 2013, 04:04
Could get interesting if they weigh a pilot's bag. Everything in mine is what I legally require for flight so nothing can be taken out and it weighs a tonne...

What are they going to do then? Could make for a interesting phone call if I tell ops I have to stand down because security won't let me through because they want to remove a bag that I legally require to be with me during the operation of the aircraft or the return sector if I'm paxing.

Conductor
21st Mar 2013, 10:07
The security at Brisbane International has taken on the task of randomly weighing carry on baggage, prior to entry into the secure/customs area.

Can not work out how they have the authority for this, especially since not 10 minutes prior the check in staff are happy to allow you to proceed.

Could not find any reference to authority to do so in the regs.

I guess it depends who they are employed by. If employed by an airline then I guess they have authority to enforce baggage limits, provided they have actually been directed to do so. If employed by the airport corporation I would suggest they have no authority to deny you taking baggage in if it conforms to LAGs and security requirements.

Square Bear
21st Mar 2013, 13:05
As mentioned, carry on weight depends on the airline and whether J or Y class. Not that sure that the security carry the information to be so discerning.

2nd hand, was told of a rostered and uniformed tech crew member who was told his bags were too heavy, it required security supervisor intervention to allow the overnight bag and flight bag to progress to screening, , customs hall and then aircraft.

1st hand, was told I was fortunate that my flight bag and carry on bag was under weight, even after I mentioned that as being the tech crew it would not be an issue. This was totally dismissed with the comment being that the airlines get shirty if the bags are too heavy.

Anyway, I still do not see where the security guys get authority to weigh carry on. Whilst it may save problems at the gate, I just do not see the jurisdiction, and curious as to what would be the ramifications should I refuse to allow my bag/s to be put on the scales.

billyt
21st Mar 2013, 22:39
A bit of humour on security.

Best marriage proposal ever - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/embed/dYslhL71k1M?rel=0)

fallen
22nd Mar 2013, 02:35
Anyway, I still do not see where the security guys get authority to weigh carry on. Whilst it may save problems at the gate, I just do not see the jurisdiction, and curious as to what would be the ramifications should I refuse to allow my bag/s to be put on the scales. Perth International used to do this. Service paid for by the Airlines. Crew obviously exempt. Business class given a generous interpretation of the limits although if you rocked up with 25kg the airline rep. may have had a quiet word to you in the lounge.

Ramifications? As tech crew you would just walk on through after politely explaining that the restrictions were only to be applied to passengers. And that would be the end of it.

No idea about Brisbane but I could guess it's very similar.

YPJT
22nd Mar 2013, 04:11
Just my two cents worth. You would hope that they would not be treating tech crew carry the same as for pax for the reasons already stated. If it is something that has just been started then I would suggest the screeners have not been briefed properly.

Anyway, I still do not see where the security guys get authority to weigh carry on.They are either contracted by the airline or the airport itself in which case so long as the screening requirements are being met, there is nothing to stop them being given the additional responsibility.

I remember many years ago flying SAA out of Joburg. An airline ground staffer was always at the door on the aerobridge and if in his / her opinion the cabin bag was too big it was tagged and loaded in the hold. No ifs, buts or maybes. Anyone who wanted to argue was given the option of their checked bags being unloaded and them being escorted back landside. Worked a treat. :ok: