SYD Airport Security Confiscates "Dangerous" Tuna

[Ultralights]

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

[DEFCON4]

QF Tech +Cabin Crew High Level Background Security Checks

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! )
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 - )

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]

Leaving The US as a Crew Member

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

[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.

[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]

Eclan = Dilettante

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
• 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
synonyms see 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

[DEFCON4]

Thread Drift By a Dilettante

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

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), 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]

Screeners with An ASIC

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 Makeup Bag

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]

Originally Posted by dirtysidedown

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)