SYD Airport Security Confiscates "Dangerous" Tuna
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Sodor
Posts: 47
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SYD Airport Security Confiscates "Dangerous" Tuna
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
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
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: back of the crew bus
Posts: 1,312
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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...
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...
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.
Just a sec guys someone is at the front door....
Just a sec guys someone is at the front door....
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.
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.
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 705
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Sodor
Posts: 47
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Measures.A lesson for 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
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
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 97
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 705
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Sodor
Posts: 47
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Recourse Twiggs
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
You are comparing tuna with AV Gas..get a life...as a security screener. You appear to have the aptitude for it
Last edited by bulstrode; 14th Aug 2009 at 07:53. Reason: appeasing an idiot
Grams are a measure of 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!
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Sodor
Posts: 47
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Good God !
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
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
Further at 0300 many hotels dont have room service available. I am often awake in slip ports at this time and do get hungry
The world is full of pedantic buffooons.
What is under discussion is tuna which is not a liquid. As mentioned the fluid contained inthe can is less than 8 mls.
Kind of obvious how this will end...
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Planet Plazbot
Posts: 1,003
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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?
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: YMML
Posts: 51
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Come the Revolution.