what are our rights when passing through security???

[YPJT]

Monopole,

"Is this your bag sir? Do you mind if I open it? It looks like you may have 'x' that needs to be screened serperatly."

That is pretty well how it should be handled. But you can't tell me for a minute there hasn't been a snooty tech or cabin crew member, bag chucker, refueller, check in /customer service staff etc that at some time spoke to you in what you considered an inappropriate manner.

[Aussie Bob]

Because they have a job to do set down to them by their bosses and at the end of the day they want to keep their job, get their pay and pay off their mortgage etc...

Don't forget that the Security Operative is just doing their job. They don't make the rules and they don't even interpret them themselves, they are told how to do it.

like a lot of guys have said, they have thier job to do...

You mob that espouse the opinions above are a bit sad. Clearly you think bad behavior and a lack of common sense are part of the job description and therefor excused.

While I am sure the security screeners occasionally see the worst of the traveling public, a bit of courtesy and some manners should be part of the training. An excuse for the lack thereof is NOT "this is my job".

[YPJT]

Aussie Bob, fair call mate but personally I do sympathise with them when a know it all who in fact knows f**k all about the regs or procedures tries to debate the matter. Its not the screeners job to give a detailed lesson on specific provisions of the legislation.

I've personally seen the most appalling behaviour by all classes of people going through the screening point. Suits, bogans, fluro clad knuckle dragging miners, families and more. It has got to be one of the most thankless jobs going and usually for bugger all pay.

[Aussie Bob]

Its not the screeners job to give a detailed lesson on specific provisions of the legislation.

Too true, not the tarmac terriers either.

[Burnie5204]

Yes, as the posters above all say 'the regs' are no excuse for rudeness but then this thread wasn't about rude security staff - it was about the regs and personal rights.


But then as someone earlier also said it's all just 'Security Theatre' which can/will only catch the unwitting, unknowing, accidental breach like a passenger with their 150ml suntan lotion or deodorant can (though I accept the deodorant IS a safety issue) or stupid and not the determined, organised criminals. Just look at the UPS packages a few years ago where they managed to get 2 bombs past security screening and eventually onto aircraft by disguising them as printer cartridges.

[Ixixly]

Aussie Bob, please don't go cherry picking my posts to make it seem like I'm saying something I'm not. If you're going to do that use the whole post some people don't miss parts like this:
"If they are being pricks about it then surely there must be some way to report them, perhaps someone can shed some light on that process instead?"

So NO, I dont think "bad behavior and a lack of common sense are part of the job description and therefor excused" as I said, if they are doing that then I'm sure there is a method for reporting them, just as if you or I did something wrong in our jobs or put our passengers ill at ease they would be within their rights to report us to our Chief Pilots or other Management.

[thorn bird]

At the end of the day it all comes down to "Money".
I mean go to the security screening area at terminal two every morning at around six am. Now if I was a terrorist, which I'm not, I'd think what a target rich environment, a couple of A380 loads all nicely jammed up in sheep pens waiting for a virgin seeker to merge with the sheep and kaboom...72 virgins..yeah!! and didnt have to face any sort of security!!.
If someone said to me.."A lot of Dotars staff are major shareholders in security companies"..I wouldnt be surprised.
Of course those security companies are making so much money they have surplus with which to "lobby" (another name for bribe) the right people and round and round it goes.

[YPJT]

Of course those security companies are making so much money they have surplus with which to "lobby" (another name for bribe) the right people and round and round it goes.

Sorry thorn bird but nothing could be further from the truth. I have been involved in a few tenders recently and to propose an amount that would guarantee a decent wage and conditions will see your bid tossed in the too expensive basket.

[kaz3g]

Aviation Transport Security Act

If you are there at the screening point you are presumed under the law to have consented to the screening process in all its hoary details as provided in the regulations.



41A Consent to screening procedures
(1) If:
(a) a person is at a screening point; and
(b) the person must receive clearance in order:
(i) to board an aircraft; or
(ii) to enter an area or zone of a security controlled airport that is referred to in Division 2 of Part 3;
the person is taken, for all purposes, to consent to each screening procedure that may be conducted at the screening point in accordance with regulations made under section 44.
(2) Subsection (1) does not apply to a screening procedure if:
(a) the procedure is a frisk search; or
(b) the person refuses to undergo the procedure.

44 Requirements for screening and clearing
(1) The regulations may, for the purposes of safeguarding against unlawful interference with aviation, prescribe requirements in relation to one or more of the following:
(a) screening;
(b) receiving clearance;
(c) the circumstances in which persons, goods (other than cargo) or vehicles are required to be cleared;
(2) Without limiting the matters that may be dealt with by regulations made under subsection (1), the regulations may deal with the following:
(a) the persons who are authorised or required to conduct screening;
(aa) the persons or things that must not pass through a screening point;
(b) the things to be detected by screening;
(c) the procedures for dealing with things detected by screening;

(d) the circumstances in which persons must be cleared in order to:
(i) board an aircraft; or
(ii) enter a landside security zone, a landside event zone, an airside area, an airside security zone or an airside event zone;
(e) the circumstances in which goods, other than baggage and cargo, must be cleared in order to be taken:
(i) onto an aircraft; or
(ii) into a landside security zone, a landside event zone, an airside area, an airside security zone or an airside event zone;
(f) the circumstances in which baggage must be cleared in order to be taken:
(i) onto an aircraft; or
(ii) into a landside security zone, a landside event zone, an airside area, an airside security zone or an airside event zone;
(h) the circumstances in which vehicles must be cleared in order to be taken;
(i) onto an aircraft; or
(ii) into a landside security zone, a landside event zone, an airside area, an airside security zone or an airside event zone;
(i) the places where screening is to be conducted;

(j) the methods, techniques and equipment to be used for screening;
(k) the notices that are to be displayed in places where screening is to be conducted;
(l) the supervision and control measures for ensuring that persons, goods (other than cargo) and vehicles that have received clearance remain cleared in areas or zones that are not cleared areas or cleared zones;
Note: Regulations made under subsection 94(2) must prescribe training and qualification requirements for screening officers and set out requirements in relation to the form, issue and use of identity cards.
(3) Regulations made under paragraph (2)(a), (2)(aa) or (2)(j) may provide that some or all of the matters set out in that paragraph are to be specified in written notices made by the Secretary. Such a notice may provide that the notice is only to be given to the persons, or classes of persons, specified in the notice.
(3A) Without limiting paragraph (2)(j), the equipment to be used for screening may include the following:
(a) metal detection equipment;
(b) explosive trace detection equipment;
(c) body scanning equipment such as an active millimetre wave body scanner.
(3B) If:
(a) body scanning equipment is to be used for the screening of a person; and
(b) the equipment produces an image of the person;
the image must only be a generic body image that is gender‑neutral and from which the person cannot be identified.
(3C) If body scanning equipment is to be used for the screening of a person, the equipment must not store or transmit:
(a) an image of the person that is produced by the equipment; or
(b) personal information (within the meaning of the Privacy Act 1988) about the person.
(4) Regulations made under this section may prescribe penalties for offences against those regulations. The penalties must not exceed:
(a) for an offence committed by an airport operator or an aircraft operator—200 penalty units; or
(b) for an offence committed by an aviation industry participant, other than an accredited air cargo agent or a participant covered by paragraph (a)—100 penalty units; or
(c) for an offence committed by an accredited air cargo agent or any other person—50 penalty units.
Note: If a body corporate is convicted of an offence against regulations made under this section, subsection 4B(3) of the Crimes Act 1914 allows a court to impose fines of up to 5 times the penalties stated above.

[ozbiggles]

And people wonder why some people call some pilots sooks.
Are some of you advocating there should be no security checks? Or just no security checks on pilots because pilots are above the law and should be treated as gods?
Grins and bear it, it also sets an example for the ice cream licking public that anyone can be checked...it's called a deterrent.

[Avgas172]

And what say god forbid that a nasty terrorist dresses up as a pilot with his Malaysian documents pinned to his chest and his Thai ASIC card proudly displayed, changes into his civvies in the nearest dunny, then proceeds into YOUR aeroplane .....

Oh Dear, I'm gonna get a visit from Asio ......

[freighterone]

Security checks for all aircrew

Good post! Agree fully. All aircrew should take responsibility and set the example for everyone. It's our safety we are talking about.
So stop winging, act with courtesy and get on with life!

[Aussie Bob]

I think what it all boils down to is that people want to carry unnecessary and unneeded items on board that would be better in the cargo hold.

The obvious reason for this is airlines policy of charging for baggage and the result is overstuffed overhead lockers that the last on board have trouble getting anything into.

The savvy traveler knows instinctively what passes easily through the screening process and is seldom hindered by metal detectors.. The savvy traveler with carry on luggage only will leave dumb stuff like spanners and toenail clippers at home.

If checking luggage was free and the limit on carry on stuff was enforced the trip through the screen would be quick and easy and the complaints would all but cease.

[YPJT]

Cynical pilot, that is indeed an ongoing problem. The regs can't cover every conceivealbe item and therefore sometimes the on duty supervisor has to make a call. That call may well differ from port to port or even between screeners at the same port.

Bet they take home more than the average GA pilot

Centrelink recipients probably make more too

[Square Bear]

The obvious reason for this is airlines policy of charging for baggage and the result is overstuffed overhead lockers that the last on board have trouble getting anything into.

The reason people like to carry baggage on board is because they want to make a quick exit from the airport without wasting time at the baggage carousel!

Back to the subject though, observed a Security Staff member who had just entered the secure area undergoing the explosives check. Made me feel less inclined to feel picked on.

[rmcdonal]

Back to the subject though, observed a Security Staff member who had just entered the secure area undergoing the explosives check. Made me feel less inclined to feel picked on.

Two reasons:
1. It provides a zero for the equipment to check it is working. Often if they get a positive they will test themselves again to check that the equipment is not just putting out false positives, to do that they need to check that they are clean first.
2. It provides an easy tick in the box when they are adding up how many people were screened.

Anyone else noticed that some of the screeners have visitor ASICS? Seems a bit suss to have someone doing that job who has not yet passed their own background check.

[YPJT]

More than likely the ones that have a yellow Visitor Identification Card (VIC) are under training and therefore under full supervision of an ASIC holder at all times.
The regs require a screening officer to display an ASIC.

[kimwestt]

At YWLM some time ago, had a Metro parked out front of the terminal, and loading pax and bags.
I still had my leatherman on me, and the security bloke had a dummy spit. Fair enuf, I'd forgotten to leave it in the a/c.
When I said I had to have it so I could complete a pre flight inspection - eng oil insp flaps - it got interesting. My position was that the a/c wouldn't be moved until that was done, and they were wanting it moved for inbound stuff.
The security supervisor turned up, winked at me, and said give the leatherman to him.
So I did, walked through the scanner, was handed back the leatherman, together with another wink, and a cryptic comment about the scanner operator, along the lines of common sense, and we all got on with our jobs.

[Check_Thrust]

Are some of you advocating there should be no security checks? Or just no security checks on pilots because pilots are above the law and should be treated as gods?

Some might be, but I'm not.

And what say god forbid that a nasty terrorist dresses up as a pilot with his Malaysian documents pinned to his chest and his Thai ASIC card proudly displayed, changes into his civvies in the nearest dunny, then proceeds into YOUR aeroplane

Agreed, however I do find it a bit annoying / peculiar that AFP officers appear to pass by security with no checks at all. Now I do realise that they are not travelling and obviously carry a lot of equipment for their job that would normally not be permitted past the screening point and they require said equipment, (I am not saying their tools of trade should be confiscated entering the "sterile" area) but there does not appear to be any verification that they are actually AFP officers when they simply bypass the screening point, ie no credential checks, no checks against AFP staff duty rosters etc, they just appear to be accepted that they are who they appear to be based off their uniform (and I guess the sidearm helps too) which could yield a similar result to the scenario that Avgas172 was pointing out.

Having said all that, I might be wrong and not privy to the fact that they might be checked / screened at the start of their shift or something along those lines and then are not required to be rechecked until the next shift change.

Avgas172, I too might be getting a visit from ASIO now...

(Apologises for the slight thread drift)

[YPJT]

Kimwestt, that very scenario was a problem for everyone a few yrs back. It was a pain in the arse for all concerned and enforcing it was embarrassing.