Good pickup or screening gone overboard?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Sydney
Posts: 21
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Good pickup or screening gone overboard?
This weekend I traveled from Sydney to Coffs Harbour to attend the 10th annual Sawtell Chilli Festival. Wanting to minimise time at each airport, I packed lightly to ensure that I would be carrying less then 7kg, in a bag not exceeding 105cm in total linear measurement.
The festival was fantastic and I purchased a small quantity of pastes and sauces with which to share with chili loving friends, who could not attend. Overall quantity was less than 2 litres in sturdy glass receptacles not exceeding 200ml each.
My trouble began during the baggage screening process. The screener detected the glass sauce and paste jars, but could not identify the items. I was asked to remove some contents of the bag for a re-screen.
The screener assisted me in removing some items and then declared that I would not be able to travel with my beloved chili delights as they posed a risk to the aircraft and the safety of passengers. I then inquired what that risk might be, he informed me that the sauces could contain an oil and be flammable. I assured the screener than the items were not considered dangerous goods in accordance with the IATA dangerous goods regulations and that the only potential danger existed if consumed by the uninitiated. No MSDS was offered during purchase of the items, no label suggested that the item contained any flammable liquid, toxic or corrosive substance or any other indication of being a dangerous good.
He then consulted his supervisor who then declared, “Na, they can’t go”. I inquired to what the issue was with carrying the items as carry on. His response was that the items posed a spill hazard that could “Cause a mess” if spilled. The bag, which was still open at the time, had a plastic leak proof liner built into it and the clothing around the bottles would have served equally as absorbent material.
I was then asked if someone could collect the products prior to 6pm, to which my answer was no. He then informed me I had to work out something to get it checked in. The VB gate staff were helpful in this process and issued me a new pass with the baggage receipt on the spot.
So after a bit of a long-winded story, I’d like to know was this team of screeners going overboard? or was there judgment bang on to prevent an air disaster?
I feel the gaseous contents of my bowel from the previous days sampling may have posed a greater risk to safety.
The festival was fantastic and I purchased a small quantity of pastes and sauces with which to share with chili loving friends, who could not attend. Overall quantity was less than 2 litres in sturdy glass receptacles not exceeding 200ml each.
My trouble began during the baggage screening process. The screener detected the glass sauce and paste jars, but could not identify the items. I was asked to remove some contents of the bag for a re-screen.
The screener assisted me in removing some items and then declared that I would not be able to travel with my beloved chili delights as they posed a risk to the aircraft and the safety of passengers. I then inquired what that risk might be, he informed me that the sauces could contain an oil and be flammable. I assured the screener than the items were not considered dangerous goods in accordance with the IATA dangerous goods regulations and that the only potential danger existed if consumed by the uninitiated. No MSDS was offered during purchase of the items, no label suggested that the item contained any flammable liquid, toxic or corrosive substance or any other indication of being a dangerous good.
He then consulted his supervisor who then declared, “Na, they can’t go”. I inquired to what the issue was with carrying the items as carry on. His response was that the items posed a spill hazard that could “Cause a mess” if spilled. The bag, which was still open at the time, had a plastic leak proof liner built into it and the clothing around the bottles would have served equally as absorbent material.
I was then asked if someone could collect the products prior to 6pm, to which my answer was no. He then informed me I had to work out something to get it checked in. The VB gate staff were helpful in this process and issued me a new pass with the baggage receipt on the spot.
So after a bit of a long-winded story, I’d like to know was this team of screeners going overboard? or was there judgment bang on to prevent an air disaster?
I feel the gaseous contents of my bowel from the previous days sampling may have posed a greater risk to safety.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: turn L @ Taupo, just past the Niagra Falls...
Posts: 596
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Clear to Drop
I feel the gaseous contents of my bowel from the previous days sampling may have posed a greater risk to safety.
I reckon you should have treated the over-zealous gits to a copious inundation of the Stinking Brown Fog in recognition of their efforts 
Overboard!!
I suspect the rejection had no basis in the regulations. I bet they had no idea, hadn't found any nail files that morn/afternoon so the easiest response was NO.
Good idea, I may save one up for each trip through security. Great idea. If they decide a ETD is required they will get more than they bargained for
I suspect the rejection had no basis in the regulations. I bet they had no idea, hadn't found any nail files that morn/afternoon so the easiest response was NO.
Good idea, I may save one up for each trip through security. Great idea. If they decide a ETD is required they will get more than they bargained for
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Sunny side up
Posts: 1,206
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I vote overboard!
In four years of security screening, the only foodstuffs I saw refused carriage were live crabs (due to the risk of escape) and two litres of home distilled gin with an alcohol content of about 90% (promptly declared flammable by the airline, which probably saved several lives at the destination
).
I haven't read the Act recently, but I'd be very surprised if chili was a dangerous good, even in these paranoid times.
In any case, surely a spill in the hold would be more detrimental to an aircraft than in the cabin... I recall four litres of blue paint leaking all over a Qantas 737 hold that rendered the aircraft unservicable for some hours (checked in by a pilot who should have known better), and a Prize Wally secretly transporting a drum of noni juice from the islands that covered most of the baggage and the hold in vile smelling slime, that aircraft was delayed for a day while they cleaned it out!
Did you ask the actual airline staff? In my day they used to have the final say on whether to uplift 'dangerous' goods.
Worrals
In four years of security screening, the only foodstuffs I saw refused carriage were live crabs (due to the risk of escape) and two litres of home distilled gin with an alcohol content of about 90% (promptly declared flammable by the airline, which probably saved several lives at the destination
). I haven't read the Act recently, but I'd be very surprised if chili was a dangerous good, even in these paranoid times.
In any case, surely a spill in the hold would be more detrimental to an aircraft than in the cabin... I recall four litres of blue paint leaking all over a Qantas 737 hold that rendered the aircraft unservicable for some hours (checked in by a pilot who should have known better), and a Prize Wally secretly transporting a drum of noni juice from the islands that covered most of the baggage and the hold in vile smelling slime, that aircraft was delayed for a day while they cleaned it out!
Did you ask the actual airline staff? In my day they used to have the final say on whether to uplift 'dangerous' goods.
Worrals
DOTARS hand baggage rules
I agree its all over the top.
DOTARS say "Each container of liquids, aerosols or gels in your carry-on baggage must be 100 millilitres/grams or less". So your guys were just following the rules. (The link talks about international airports but I'm pretty sure these are the rules anywhere security screeing is being done).
I know you were looking for some tolerance, but security types are not renowned for being smart (have the flexibility of a steel girder).
Yep its all over the top, but them's the rules and us peasants have to work within them.
Overall quantity was less than 2 litres in sturdy glass receptacles not exceeding 200ml each.
I know you were looking for some tolerance, but security types are not renowned for being smart (have the flexibility of a steel girder).
Yep its all over the top, but them's the rules and us peasants have to work within them.
) doesn't that only apply to International flights? I didn't think LAG screening was in place for domestic operations.
The 100ml restriction is for international flights only, not domestic flights.
Because the 737 from Sydney to Auckland is obviously carrying a lot more fuel than the 747 bound for Perth...
Because the 737 from Sydney to Auckland is obviously carrying a lot more fuel than the 747 bound for Perth...
More from DOTARS
26 regional airports with Jet Services get it too. Coffs Harbour is mentioned.
Woops - This refers to checked bag screening - not the issue in the post.
26 regional airports with Jet Services get it too. Coffs Harbour is mentioned.
Woops - This refers to checked bag screening - not the issue in the post.
Last edited by bentleg; 6th Jul 2008 at 12:08.
I don't want to be the best pilot in the world - Just the oldest
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Here and there
Posts: 1,013
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Clear to Drop,
I agree with the previous posts. Screeners clearly got it wrong as LAGs regulations apply to intl flights only.
Suggest you write to the head of security of airline concerned so they can take it up with their screening providers. Also send a copy to the office of transport security, Dept of Infrastructure so they can clarify the matter with security.
If you know you are in the right and in this case it appears you clearly are, then you need to report the matter. Bringing it to the attention of the responsible people is the only way to make sure things like this don't happen to others.
I agree with the previous posts. Screeners clearly got it wrong as LAGs regulations apply to intl flights only.
Suggest you write to the head of security of airline concerned so they can take it up with their screening providers. Also send a copy to the office of transport security, Dept of Infrastructure so they can clarify the matter with security.
If you know you are in the right and in this case it appears you clearly are, then you need to report the matter. Bringing it to the attention of the responsible people is the only way to make sure things like this don't happen to others.
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: in a sorry state of permit-icitus
Posts: 120
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I suspect security were hoping you would find it all too hard and hand over the dangerous goodies for the staff to dispose of - the pantry out the back is filling up quite nicely for the end of year chrissy party.
And since when has security worried about a mess being caused in the cabin as they watch with envy the duty free sliding under their snouts.
My company wings were scrutinised a while ago - apparantly one troll doing some form of private securing pin survey.
And since when has security worried about a mess being caused in the cabin as they watch with envy the duty free sliding under their snouts.
My company wings were scrutinised a while ago - apparantly one troll doing some form of private securing pin survey.
Just returned from a quick RTW jaunt and it would seem every country has it's own security quirks.
Worst was DRW where we had a small packet of face wipes (a bit like wet ones) confiscated. Apparently the packets must contain 10 or less wipes to be allowed on board (ours was a packet of 20 of which 5 or so had been used). The packet of wipes had been around the globe once already and travelled internationally at least 6 times.
Seems a bit petty to me.
Worst was DRW where we had a small packet of face wipes (a bit like wet ones) confiscated. Apparently the packets must contain 10 or less wipes to be allowed on board (ours was a packet of 20 of which 5 or so had been used). The packet of wipes had been around the globe once already and travelled internationally at least 6 times.
Seems a bit petty to me.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Oz
Age: 77
Posts: 590
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Clear to drop
The airlines have a security contact by email and the few times I have desired to carry items such as this i have got OK by email in advance and carried the emil with me in case.
Only needed to use it as leverage once, and that was with 2 x 500 g buckets of produce in oil - apology sir, all aboard, no problems!!!
The airlines have a security contact by email and the few times I have desired to carry items such as this i have got OK by email in advance and carried the emil with me in case.
Only needed to use it as leverage once, and that was with 2 x 500 g buckets of produce in oil - apology sir, all aboard, no problems!!!
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Mel-burn
Posts: 4,875
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The truth is that they don't give a flying toss about your Chilli and nor would I if I were in their situation.
It goes in checked baggage or it stays on the ground !
Your Chilli antics probably caused them to miss a real criminal who slipped through wearing his police issue handgun on his side.
Common sense versus what's legal unfortunately don't always align so work with the system and it *should* get you safely to your destination.
It goes in checked baggage or it stays on the ground !
Your Chilli antics probably caused them to miss a real criminal who slipped through wearing his police issue handgun on his side.
Common sense versus what's legal unfortunately don't always align so work with the system and it *should* get you safely to your destination.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Oz
Age: 77
Posts: 590
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
XXX
I believe you are not correct.
The item CTD mentions is no prohibited, therefore it should be OK to travel in hand luggage.
Given what I have noted airside of baggage handling; no way would my two 500 g tubs have travelled in my checked baggage. Why volunteer for them to be drop kicked and oil throughout my clothing.
Why should they be not carried anyway? Like CTD my hand luggage was under dimension and under weight - compared to those trying to weightlift cases and somehow fit them into the overhead lockers.
The problem is not CTD diverting people from finding criminals, it is a lack of training and ability to determine facts at the screening point. Do not blame the victims for the failings of the system please. Common sense is fixing the system, not further erodong the rights of the good peoples.
I believe you are not correct.
The item CTD mentions is no prohibited, therefore it should be OK to travel in hand luggage.
Given what I have noted airside of baggage handling; no way would my two 500 g tubs have travelled in my checked baggage. Why volunteer for them to be drop kicked and oil throughout my clothing.
Why should they be not carried anyway? Like CTD my hand luggage was under dimension and under weight - compared to those trying to weightlift cases and somehow fit them into the overhead lockers.
The problem is not CTD diverting people from finding criminals, it is a lack of training and ability to determine facts at the screening point. Do not blame the victims for the failings of the system please. Common sense is fixing the system, not further erodong the rights of the good peoples.
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Australia
Posts: 51
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You'll get the same ruling at a number of screening points. As pointed out, nothing to do with LAGs. But way before lags, there was a loosely applied rule that if a container wasn't labelled it was prohibited. The idea being, no label, no idea what is in the container, so could be a dangerous good, so can't go. It's a silly rule for a number of reasons so most screeners would use a bit of common sense and as long as it wasn't going to have fellow passengers passing out in their seats etc it would be acceptable. But some screeners would say no. And yes, some would take it home and have it for dinner.
If you want to complain write to the airport manager. Tell them you had a wonderful time in their neck of the woods and would love to come back and spend some more money, but one thing troubled you from your last visit.
If you want to complain write to the airport manager. Tell them you had a wonderful time in their neck of the woods and would love to come back and spend some more money, but one thing troubled you from your last visit.
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: InDahAir
Posts: 314
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Or you could drive...then we'd all be out of a job including the poor bloody security bloke who thought he was just doing his job. I think you could have packaged it and sent it by other means.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Oz
Age: 77
Posts: 590
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Am I missing something here?
The gentleman endeavoured to board with quite legitimate hand luggage meeting all the rules.
Now it is suggested he should have acted alternatively?
How many of those suggesting that would be happy to have a police officer suggest they should move on from their 1 Hour parking space because they had been there for 10 minutes and might inconvenience someone else by staying for their allotted time.
Fix the system. Rather than the 'poor security guy thinking he was doing his job' he should have access to a database or hotline to resolve such matters rather than everyone getting wound up about HIS misunderstanding.
The gentleman endeavoured to board with quite legitimate hand luggage meeting all the rules.
Now it is suggested he should have acted alternatively?
How many of those suggesting that would be happy to have a police officer suggest they should move on from their 1 Hour parking space because they had been there for 10 minutes and might inconvenience someone else by staying for their allotted time.
Fix the system. Rather than the 'poor security guy thinking he was doing his job' he should have access to a database or hotline to resolve such matters rather than everyone getting wound up about HIS misunderstanding.
Flying with Air NZ from Auckland to Christchurch, I got my shaving foam taken off me because it was a dangerous good. After telling him that I was able to carry it from Christchurch to Auckland, why it is now a dangerous good on the return flight
Mr Plastic Policeman told me since it didn't have the lid on it, it is considered an inappropriately packaged dangerous good and took it off me, and wrote out an infringement notice stating that I was warned against carrying a dangerous good, and in the future if I tried it again I would be fined...
Question.. Can the Plastic Police at our airports fine us for this?
Mr Plastic Policeman told me since it didn't have the lid on it, it is considered an inappropriately packaged dangerous good and took it off me, and wrote out an infringement notice stating that I was warned against carrying a dangerous good, and in the future if I tried it again I would be fined...
Question.. Can the Plastic Police at our airports fine us for this?