Razor gangs hit Broome?
Thread Starter
Oh dear, what has become of Prooooon? Time was this thread would have been closed long ago with accompanying sarcasm from a mod!
So what's the story?
Wheelie Bin is enjoying retirement a bit too much? Got the boat parked off Jumpinpin and is sitting on the sundeck sipping margaritas?
Tiddels is..........? Well who would know what Tiddels might get up too!
And Much Ado seems to be No Ado at all!
So what's the story?
Wheelie Bin is enjoying retirement a bit too much? Got the boat parked off Jumpinpin and is sitting on the sundeck sipping margaritas?
Tiddels is..........? Well who would know what Tiddels might get up too!
And Much Ado seems to be No Ado at all!
Don't forget about he who likes to Look Left too.
I have seen the screeners screened so there is a set of checks and balances. At a regional airport, a group of us had checked in and were about to go through security. For some reason I noticed a person who looked somehow, well suss, but didn't pay a lot of attention at the time. There was also another person with a clipboard under his arm and no apparent luggage. After a bit of milling around we had all lined up for screening when I noticed the suss person just in front of me, he had quietly infiltrated himself into the middle of our group. Just after he went through the security gate everything happened at once. Bells rang, lights flashed the conveyor stopped and a security person said loudly "who owns that bag". I was surprised to find myself, and about three other people pointing at the suss guy who was grabbed, as was his bag, and taken off to another room while the rest of sort of stood around looking silly and watching the second person standing off to the side writing in his clipboard. I wondered whether we should crash tackle him, he had a sort of association with the other person and no one was taking much notice of him. After about ten minutes the suss guy emerging with smiling security people, wearing an ASIC and some looking more like a normal person. Suprise, suprise, it was all a test of the screeners, which they had obviously passed, as they picked up whatever he had in his bag and had taken the appropriate action. The other one with the clipboard finished his notes and rejoined his mate. I still wonder why we did not crash tackle him at the time and wondered also if the security should have grabbed him as well, although I suppose they had no ways of realising they were together. Anyhow, well done by security, every one was happy but I still wonder what our actions as passengers, as I was at the time, should have been.
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Santa Barbara
Posts: 912
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You should have crash tackled both of them and worried about the nanny state action against you afterwards. Because, surely our nanny state would have backed you up, erring on the side of caution. Unless of course either of the suss people were part of a minority group that could have accused you of profiling, putting aside the fact that profiling is the most effective (and cost effective) tool available 
Been away for a few days, enjoying the vagaries, inconsistencies and non-standardised handling by Australia's Airlines. Same Airline, same aircraft...very different procedures and announcements. It appears that Screening is not the only area which enjoys "local versions" of its product. But I digress.
And gee, I hated going through security screening, but who doesn't? I'd certainly be doubtful of your sanity level if you enjoyed it. But i digress.
Nope. it's standard practice where I come from. Why make it difficult for the XRay Operator?
Maybe in the olden days, but now we're REQUIRED to investigate ANYTHING suspicious...or it's our job.
Nope...but why try to look through something when you can more easily see it by itself. Is it really such an inconvenience if we re-arrange the tray??
Nope.
One. As soon as you enter the Airport Screening area, by law, you have given implied permission for you and your luggage to be searched. By Law, we are not required to seek permission again. However, you are also quite entitled to withdraw your permission at any time....however, you will not be entering the sterile area.
Two. How did we suddenly get into your pants pocket. You said you had a pouch, presumably on your belt. I just wanted a look at it...as is my responsibility. Having said that, IF I was suspicious of something in your pants pocket, I would advise you that I was going to search it, whilst offering you a private room for the search, but I would NOT need to seek your permission. Once again, you would be quite entitled to withdraw your original implied permission. But you would not be entering the sterile area.
I would conduct the search using our normal OH&S safety precautions.
I would have to know the full details of the situation and how it was handled before commenting, however, once again, if I had any outstanding suspicions, I would be REQUIRED to resolve them. If that means a personal search, then that is what would happen...using the approved procedures...as I detailed above.
And gee, I hated going through security screening, but who doesn't? I'd certainly be doubtful of your sanity level if you enjoyed it. But i digress.
MakeItHappen.....I have never had a screener scatter my stuff through the tray and in my opinion it was purely because he thought I was trying to hide something.....
.....We demonstrated how it was possible for a person to walk through the metal detector with a steak knife in the small of your back and it wouldn't be detected, however when asked if we could go further with a pax we suspected was doing this, we were told as long as they didn't set the detector off, we were not to do anything more.
...but are you really agreeing that an x-ray can't see through a cap with the items listed?
Security is as much psycological as physical. You treat people like a person and it gets very hard to be angry with them. "Catch more flies with honey..." Start throwing your weight around, especially in crowd control, and you make your job infinitely more difficult. Am I wrong?
Quote:
I also have no problem with a Security Officer searching inside your letherman pouch. Better safe than sorry...and I bet it didn't hurt a bit and took about 10 seconds....
When I started doing security in general, the regs were that if you were searching someone's bag, you asked the person to remove the contents and this practise was carried into airport screening. I understand how the rules changed in the last few years so that screeners removed the bag from the pax's posession to find the item (so the pax didn't utilise a potential weapon), however are you telling me you would seriously stick your hand into a passenger's pants pockets, let alone without asking them? You have to be kidding me.
I also have no problem with a Security Officer searching inside your letherman pouch. Better safe than sorry...and I bet it didn't hurt a bit and took about 10 seconds....
When I started doing security in general, the regs were that if you were searching someone's bag, you asked the person to remove the contents and this practise was carried into airport screening. I understand how the rules changed in the last few years so that screeners removed the bag from the pax's posession to find the item (so the pax didn't utilise a potential weapon), however are you telling me you would seriously stick your hand into a passenger's pants pockets, let alone without asking them? You have to be kidding me.
Two. How did we suddenly get into your pants pocket. You said you had a pouch, presumably on your belt. I just wanted a look at it...as is my responsibility. Having said that, IF I was suspicious of something in your pants pocket, I would advise you that I was going to search it, whilst offering you a private room for the search, but I would NOT need to seek your permission. Once again, you would be quite entitled to withdraw your original implied permission. But you would not be entering the sterile area.
Let's suppose there was a blade of some sort in the bottom of the pouch. Are you really going to jam two fingers in there to find out?!? Not very smart.
The guard asked what it was and I showed her. There was no asking, "do you mind if I check?" Pretty sure the rules haven't changed about notifying someone before you put your hands on them.
Thread Starter
Much as I hate to prolong this thread, can anyone tell me why I have to take my small laptop out of my carry-on bag for separate screening but, apparently, it is now OK to leave my iPad in my carry-on bag?
I have always taken both out of my bag for screening but yesterday I heard a security guy tell the person in front of my that it was not required for the iPad.
OK, and for those following the saga like a soap opera - same wallet, same pocket no problem - as I goose stepped RMs through screening!
Dr
I have always taken both out of my bag for screening but yesterday I heard a security guy tell the person in front of my that it was not required for the iPad.
OK, and for those following the saga like a soap opera - same wallet, same pocket no problem - as I goose stepped RMs through screening!
Dr
apparently, it is now OK to leave my iPad in my carry-on bag?
Dr, you'd probably remember the days when we had to pull out our Super 8 or VHS-C camcorders and turn them on for the screener to see the screen working. If the battery was flat, you could expect delays whilst they inspected the device in futher detail to determine if it was safe for travel or not. Then you'd hop on the airliner to be confronted with passengers smoking away happily in their seats. Those were the days :-)
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Santa Barbara
Posts: 912
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bull**** Squawk, I'm older than you and I've never seen anybody smoking on an aircraft so you couldn't have 
Ohhh, seriously, who gives a ****? Pull your laptop out of your backpack, leave your iPad in, if they ask you to pull it out, whatever......give them their moment in the sun. We all know how flawed the system is and that a 4 year old child would do a better job, smile and wave, it's about 3 minutes out of your day and if you can't forward plan being at the gate taking into account the obvious profiling that the explosives test is, you don't deserve to board an aircraft 
And gee, I hated going through security screening, but who doesn't? I'd certainly be doubtful of your sanity level if you enjoyed it
Thread Starter
taking into account the obvious profiling that the explosives test is
Mrs Forky gets tested for explosives on at least 90% of the times she goes through security!
Interesting profile that they are using!
...can anyone tell me why I have to take my small laptop out of my carry-on bag for separate screening but, apparently, it is now OK to leave my iPad in my carry-on bag?
Are you sure about that Peuce? re: Ipads?
Initially in Australia when the iPad first came out and for some years later they HAD to be removed from your bag for inspection. Only following the FAA exemption was this relaxed. I reasonably suspect this was then relayed to Australian screeners without reference to the FAA. There was so many complaints about it, they were compelled to act.
Are you suggesting a different timeline or sequence of events?
Dr., have you seen the movie "Shallow Hal?" What you see is a skinny youthful blonde princess... security obviously see a security risk
How old are you exactly !! Smoking was banned on Australian aircraft in 1987.
I also recall flying to LAX on United in 1990 where I was adjacent the smoking section in the rear of a 747. I also recall visiting the cockpit on that flight and being able to put my hands on the controls with auto-pilot engaged. Those were the days!
Initially in Australia when the iPad first came out and for some years later they HAD to be removed from your bag for inspection. Only following the FAA exemption was this relaxed. I reasonably suspect this was then relayed to Australian screeners without reference to the FAA. There was so many complaints about it, they were compelled to act.
Are you suggesting a different timeline or sequence of events?
Mrs Forky gets tested for explosives on at least 90% of the times she goes through security!
Interesting profile that they are using!
Interesting profile that they are using!
Bull**** Squawk, I'm older than you and I've never seen anybody smoking on an aircraft so you couldn't have
I also recall flying to LAX on United in 1990 where I was adjacent the smoking section in the rear of a 747. I also recall visiting the cockpit on that flight and being able to put my hands on the controls with auto-pilot engaged. Those were the days!
Squawk...I admit I haven't been around the joint long enough to know all its history and culture, and as procedures change so frequently and rapidly, I tend to confine myself to current rules and reasons. What you say may have been a catalyst at some stage, but the training and explanations given now...reflect what I said. Obviously, what I see on the xray screen also reflects my response.
P.S. I remember, in the not too distant past, being a visitor on a QF B747-400 flight deck out of SYD, bound for LAX. The crusty old captain nearly had me asphyxiated with his Marlboro smoke
So, I decided to withdraw to the passenger cabin. Maybe that was his technique.
P.S. I remember, in the not too distant past, being a visitor on a QF B747-400 flight deck out of SYD, bound for LAX. The crusty old captain nearly had me asphyxiated with his Marlboro smoke
So, I decided to withdraw to the passenger cabin. Maybe that was his technique.
Sorry, Peuce, but all I'm hearing is "this is how it should have been done" vs. how certain leeser expeiences individuals are actually doing it. It is not standard procedure to damage my property by scattering my smokes all over the tray, otherwise every airport would be doing it. I never had a problem seeing a capfull of personal effects with an x-ray and am pretty sure the technology hasn't degraded.
He was not making it easier for the screener. The tray was alreay on the entry belt when I placed the inverted tray over it. He retrieved the tray from halfway inside the machine and asked, "Why did you do that?", before spreading everything around. Really seem normal to you? He had no problem as the tray passed him the first time.
Secondly, I have no problem with my luggage being searched, but while I am wearing something, pouch or not, it is on my person and you don't have any authority to start rummaging around there uninvited. I Have every right to knock your hand away if you stick it in either my pants pocket or a pouch attached to my belt without advising or asking me and no legal precedent will alllow you to do so or prosecute me for my reaction. You have to ask before you touch me and I would like to see you prove otherwise. Again, your excuse for another guard's behaviour is "what should have been done".
You cannot honestly say you would accept anyone doing it to you.
So you are saying you wouldn't have just jammed two fingers in there to make sure it was actually empty without asking? Good for you, Mr Perfect, but that is not how this search went...
Stop excusing other guards' behaviour. You are not being criticised personally, so just accept the fact that due to the large staff turnover and inexperince in this sector of security, they don't all carry out their job uniformly and to the same standard. It's no diferent to aviation, despite our best desires and efforts.
Now wait for Peuce to spout how he does a better job than a 4 year old and how the system is indeed infallible and you should be happy Osama bin Manicure and the Al Qaeda emery boards can't file the captain's nails so short he can't fly the plane properly (quote Uncle Chop Chop)...
He was not making it easier for the screener. The tray was alreay on the entry belt when I placed the inverted tray over it. He retrieved the tray from halfway inside the machine and asked, "Why did you do that?", before spreading everything around. Really seem normal to you? He had no problem as the tray passed him the first time.
Secondly, I have no problem with my luggage being searched, but while I am wearing something, pouch or not, it is on my person and you don't have any authority to start rummaging around there uninvited. I Have every right to knock your hand away if you stick it in either my pants pocket or a pouch attached to my belt without advising or asking me and no legal precedent will alllow you to do so or prosecute me for my reaction. You have to ask before you touch me and I would like to see you prove otherwise. Again, your excuse for another guard's behaviour is "what should have been done".
You cannot honestly say you would accept anyone doing it to you.
I would conduct the search using our normal OH&S procedures.
Stop excusing other guards' behaviour. You are not being criticised personally, so just accept the fact that due to the large staff turnover and inexperince in this sector of security, they don't all carry out their job uniformly and to the same standard. It's no diferent to aviation, despite our best desires and efforts.
We all know how flawed the system is and that a 4 year old child would do a better job, smile and wave, it's about 3 minutes out of your day and if you can't forward plan being at the gate taking into account the obvious profiling that the explosives test is, you don't deserve to board an aircraft
Captain.....as I said in a previous post, I'm not an apologist for the whole Security Screening Industry. I just try to answer questions, based on my knowledge, training and experience...at MY port.
You can judge for yourself how well it is carried out at YOUR port. If you consider it unprofessional or illegal, contact the relevant Authorities there. If you choose not to, that's your call.
Nothing in Law is straight forward, but to answer your question, a Screening Officer is not permitted to "frisk search" a person, without their consent. EXCEPT, according to the ACT....."when the Officer has a reasonable excuse".
Also bear in mind...if consent is not given, then, according to the ACT..."the Screening Officer must refuse to allow the person to pass through the screening point"
So, for me, these questions immediately come to mind...was it a "frisk search"?...was consent given?...was consent not required, due to a "reasonable excuse"?
As you and the Screening Officer were the only ones there...you'll have to thrash that one out....and as I said, contact the relevant Authorities if you feel you were aggrieved.
Other than that, I don't know what you want me to say.
P.S. Just looking back over my previous post, the wording (and my addled brain) may have implied that consent was not required for a personal search. Wrong. It is. Searching property does not require a further consent request. However, a Screening Officer must seek further consent if a secondary frisk search is required. This consent can be obtained in various ways. It may be a small acknowledged word ... or it may be a lengthy two way communication.
Just goes to show you that, not only can the system be fallible, but the inmates as well.
You can judge for yourself how well it is carried out at YOUR port. If you consider it unprofessional or illegal, contact the relevant Authorities there. If you choose not to, that's your call.
Nothing in Law is straight forward, but to answer your question, a Screening Officer is not permitted to "frisk search" a person, without their consent. EXCEPT, according to the ACT....."when the Officer has a reasonable excuse".
Also bear in mind...if consent is not given, then, according to the ACT..."the Screening Officer must refuse to allow the person to pass through the screening point"
So, for me, these questions immediately come to mind...was it a "frisk search"?...was consent given?...was consent not required, due to a "reasonable excuse"?
As you and the Screening Officer were the only ones there...you'll have to thrash that one out....and as I said, contact the relevant Authorities if you feel you were aggrieved.
Other than that, I don't know what you want me to say.
P.S. Just looking back over my previous post, the wording (and my addled brain) may have implied that consent was not required for a personal search. Wrong. It is. Searching property does not require a further consent request. However, a Screening Officer must seek further consent if a secondary frisk search is required. This consent can be obtained in various ways. It may be a small acknowledged word ... or it may be a lengthy two way communication.
Just goes to show you that, not only can the system be fallible, but the inmates as well.
Last edited by peuce; 7th Dec 2015 at 03:48. Reason: You have to be careful with your word choice on this Forum.
Nothing in Law is straight forward, but to answer your question, a Screening Officer is not permitted to "frisk search" a person, without their consent. EXCEPT, according to the ACT....."when the Officer has a reasonable excuse".
So, for me, these questions immediately come to mind...was it a "frisk search"?...was consent given?...was consent not required, due to a "reasonable excuse"?
Reasonable? You tell me.
Consented? Definitely not.
What do I want you to say?
Nothing.
I didn't ask a question. I relayed an experience. I made a complaint at the time and it was dealt with.
You interjected and have continually excused this officer's behaviour as perfectly reasonable as if every security screener is perfect in their standardisation and interpretation of the rules and never at fault. This was never an attack on all screeners, nor you specifically. I've been there and done this particular job, so am qualified to comment. Nuff said.
Last edited by MakeItHappenCaptain; 9th Dec 2015 at 08:52.
