Is it the job of airport security to weigh passenger's cabin baggage?

[ozbeachbabe]

I've ridden a train in Germany where two men got on with nothing bar a crate full of bottled beer. But a large Esky onto a small aircraft for carry-on? This is ridiculous.

Oktoberfest?

I happened to be speaking to a security person who often goes in & out of BNE and apparently there are three different security companies who each look after the QF/JQ/DJ screening points!

He pointed out that if or when there is a security breach eg a 92 year old is found with a butter knife airside, BAC wouldn't know who to blame as they wouldn't know which company or screening point was responsible for the 'breach'.

Things could get complicated.....

 

[anat0l]

Oktoberfest?

Hardly likely. A little bit late for Oktoberfest.

Then again, travelling on public transport with alcohol in hand / at hand isn't entirely unusual in Germany.

 

[Flashback]

Hardly likely. A little bit late for Oktoberfest.

Then again, travelling on public transport with alcohol in hand / at hand isn't entirely unusual in Germany.

Yeh, just Germans being Germans!

I loved the fact that you could buy single bottles of beer at the top of the U-Bahn/S-Bahn station to consume on the walk from there back to the hotel.

 

[medhead]

Legally defined goods versus company policy are often two very different things, one often being in addition to the other, in the case of Australia Post they have decided to declare all lithium batteries as dangerous goods, this is not the case in law, after all we all take lithium batteries on aircraft legally and the screening point allows this. There is a legal definition of dangerous goods or prohibited items which scanners are empowered to look for, no issues/arguments there and its OT to this conversation.

Airlines and cargo agents are required to prevent what they consider hazardous or dangerous to the aircraft and its passengers from being taken on board under the regulations previous posted:

Exactly. they are required to prevent what they consider to be hazardous or dangerous. As you state in the first sentence legally defined goods (i.e. Dangerous Goods) are different from company policy. Notwithstanding the dictionary definition of dangerous and goods, the term "Dangerous Goods" has a different legal definition. So it is wrong to say that something considered hazardous or dangerous is somehow Dangerous Goods. The airline cannot add anything to the list of prescribed dangerous goods. What they are doing is defining separate items that they consider to be a safety issue and not allowing those to be cared in addition to any DG requirements. The imprecise use of words in layman's terms creates great confusion when those words also have a separate legal meaning, leading to 4000 forum thread pages that are OT.

dan·ger·ous   –adjective
1.full of danger or risk; causing danger; perilous; risky; hazardous; unsafe.
2.able or likely to cause physical injury: a dangerous criminal.

goods (ɡʊdz) — pl n
1. possessions and personal property

That includes the prescribed DG or PI's as well as what the airline wishes to add to that list such as the quoted Cellos in the case of QF and not DJ or excessive weight cabin baggage, the law is not clear on the powers of the screening point to assess this at a DOM terminal.

Airport screeners (not airport security) may well be employed to do such work, but their rights to enforce airline policy versus whats mandated in law are being called into question by this thread. If we had legislation that was more specific in its scope and allowed screeners to police airline policy while ensuring they were trained in the correct policy at the same time then this thread would be a lot shorter than it is or not even exist.

Is anyone questioning the right of airport screeners to enforce airline policy? I don't think the legislation needs to be more specific, I think you've clearly shown that airline policy restrictions on carry on are reasonable and enforceable under the legislation (only disagree about terminology). I don't recall major disagreement with the suggestion that an airline could contract security to enforce their policies. But there has been some questioning of who security is working for at the various airports. There has also been questions raised about the ability of security to properly enforce the varying cabin baggage limits.

So in the case that security is contracted to the airline, and hence is equivalent to an employee, and is adequately trained, there shouldn't be any reason that the airline couldn't direct security personnel to enforce their policies to achieve the general requirement of the legislation to protect the safety of the aircraft. Having said that, I don't think those conditions would exist at BNE and therefore I would probably think it is not appropriate for security to be weighting passenger bags in the case for the OP.

If it's Dangerous Goods it's not allowed as carry on - Full stop.

Ummmmmmm.......... :?:
Not exactly. I've carried DG in my cabin luggage on occasion. All legally labelled, packaged and documented etc. Airline probably would have stopped me had they known (due to stupid knee jerk policy) but luckily I wasn't required to tell them

note to self, why did I read this thread again

 

[medhead]

Oktoberfest?

Things could get complicated.....

Probably just going to a football match.

I wandered down to the back (2nd class :shockof an ICE and there was a whole carriage full of people with crates of beer all wearing similar sporting attire. All very orderly in the German manner. (maybe they had only just started)

 

[harvyk]

Well Im not sure the finer points of DG laws, but given Aircraft are actually owned by a private organisation, that organisation has rights to say what is or is not allowed inside it's property.

The same as I have the right to disallow items into my car (eg muddy shoes) and airline has the rights to disallow certain items (eg overweight bags) into their aircraft.

Provided it's rules do not contradict certain non-discrimination laws and safety laws they are free to allow or disallow what they like.

Now back to the original topic, well given it's possible to have no real contact with an airline until boarding, it makes sense to have private security enforcing rules, be it airport based or airline based. Like airline representatives, they do not know all the rules, and lets face it there have been many topics on AFF where the subject of airline reps overstepping the mark or not understanding their own companies rules has come up.

What I expect will happen is a more cleaver airline will realise that people like people contact (usually) and that the airlines will start placing in their own people as the first contact point people have at airports.

 

[medhead]

Well Im not sure the finer points of DG laws, but given Aircraft are actually owned by a private organisation, that organisation has rights to say what is or is not allowed inside it's property.

The same as I have the right to disallow items into my car (eg muddy shoes) and airline has the rights to disallow certain items (eg overweight bags) into their aircraft.

Provided it's rules do not contradict certain non-discrimination laws and safety laws they are free to allow or disallow what they like.

Totally agree, don't think anyone has disagreed with this point. In fact, I'd fight to defend that right for airlines. But remember this if your not in Sydney and ever find that nuclear medicine treatment or radiotherapy treatment is not available. It could very well be because of an airline exercising it's rights.

Now back to the original topic, well given it's possible to have no real contact with an airline until boarding, it makes sense to have private security enforcing rules, be it airport based or airline based. Like airline representatives, they do not know all the rules, and lets face it there have been many topics on AFF where the subject of airline reps overstepping the mark or not understanding their own companies rules has come up.

What I expect will happen is a more cleaver airline will realise that people like people contact (usually) and that the airlines will start placing in their own people as the first contact point people have at airports.

this idea of contact will make the new QF system interesting. "Imagine if you could just fly" suggests no or very limited contact with a person.