Are All Security Screenings necessary?

[Cocitus23]

I was a passenger on the 19 July service, CX105, HKG - MEL via ADL. We went through the customary security screenings at Hong Kong. Upon arrival in Adelaide, all passengers destined for Melbourne were instructed to leave the aircraft and to take their hand baggage with them. We did so, and were ushered into a room where we were required to undergo another security screening, which seemed more thorough and officious than the norm. We were then ushered back to the departure gate and back onto the aircraft for the flight to Melbourne. Waiting in line for the search and the search itself consumed virtually all the time we were off the aircraft. The passengers had just experienced a long overnight flight, and to a person they were grumpy about being put through this process.

I asked a Cathay ground staffer about the purpose of the security check. With an exasperated grimace, she apologised and assured me that Cathay had no wish to subject their customers to it, but "it is a government requirement". Well, sure, I accept that it is the government which requires it, but what is the reasoning of the government?

Frankly, as an Australian, I found it embarrassing that we "welcomed" foreign visitors in this way. To me, the whole process was not only frustrating but ludicrous. Can anyone tell me if this goes on at other airports, and explain the government's reasoning to me? Is there anyone out there who thinks the process is good and valuable?

Thanks,

Cocitus23.

 

[elbarto]

Would you prefer that our lapses in security be the cause of the next aviation related terrorist attack?

 

[Hvr]

Would you prefer that our lapses in security be the cause of the next aviation related terrorist attack?

Was there meant to be a TIC somewhere there?

 

[Cocitus23]

Would you prefer that our lapses in security be the cause of the next aviation related terrorist attack?

Maybe, Elbarto, I am misreading your post, but I find it to be rather snide. Of course, I have no wish for slack security, and I am not advocating that. What I am saying is that we went through a thorough security check in Hong Kong, sufficient to satisfy both the Hong Kong authorities and the airline, Cathay Pacific. Midway through our journey we were offloaded and subjected to another security check. The simple question is "Why?"

 

[Cocitus23]

Was there meant to be a TIC somewhere there?

Sorry Hvr, I must be a bit slow tonight. I don't understand your post. What is a TIC?

Cocitus23.

 

[elbarto]

Sorry Hvr, I must be a bit slow tonight. I don't understand your post. What is a TIC?

Cocitus23.

I'm assuming it means Tongue in Cheek and yes it was bit tongue in cheek.

 

[Stephen65]

Frankly, as an Australian, I found it embarrassing that we "welcomed" foreign visitors in this way.
Cocitus23.

OT but I was embarrassed last week when catching the QF transit bus from SYD international to SYD domestic. The place where the bus ends up at the domestic terminal looks like a grimy alley at a decaying industrial site complete with rubbish strewn everywhere. I don't know whose job it is at QF to keep that zone clean but they were scoring an enormous fail that day. What a great introduction to Australia for foreign visitors.

 

[Cocitus23]

Yes, Stephen65, you are off topic, but I agree with your sentiments entirely. I know the hole you are describing quite well, and I concur that it could be tidied up.

Now, if only someone would give me a reply to my question about the security screening of transit passengers.

Cocitus23

 

[sutho58]

I flew home from LAX via SIn via NRT (I know, the long way, but due to circumstances beyond my control, apparently some plane had lost an engine) anyway, whilst transiting NRT, went through security to re board the same plane. Had a rather long discussion the security officer regarding him opening my sealed duty free. No real reason but it would appear that it may happen at other airports.

 

[straitman]

I know it is slightly different but when you arrive in SYD or MEL and you are a transit passenger then you go through security again.

 

[ChrisFlyer]

I believe the official reason that the transit screening occurs is because different countries have different security rules and procedures - some more thorough than others. If a potential terrorist could board a flight in a country with very lax screening processes, arrive at a country and then board another flight (or the same flight on a continuing service) without any further screening, it makes any stringent security rules of the local country completely useless. For example, if an Indonesian airport had very lax security screening, somebody could bring explosives or other dangerous items onto an Australian-bound flight, and could then transit an east-coast airport onto a USA-bound flight (... or a flight bound for any other destination really). Transit security ensures that all passengers departing that airport have been screened in the same way.

I don't particularly enjoy it, and am glad that this is not the case for domestic flights, but it's just the way it is I'm afraid.

You could also book CX HKG-ADL, and QF (domestic) ADL-MEL, which would avoid the international transit process. You would have to collect your luggage in ADL and clear customs/immi and then re-check your bags, but you would then only be subject to the normal domestic security rules - no pat downs or liquid restrictions etc.

 

[anat0l]

I think it all comes down to that the government isn't convinced you are "sterile" unless you've been definitely screened by the Australian government. After all, if it so happens that the government on the other side was slack in their procedures, is Australia going to send them up for the blame? Come on!

Unfortunately almost every government in the world is like this. You're not "clean" unless we screen you. And then if the screening type is different, we'll re-screen you anyway (viz. domestic to international; though a lot of that has to do with once you're out of the sterile area you need to be "re-sterilised" and thus re-screened).

Governments may also advocate different screening procedures which then also adds to why they insist on "re-"screening you.

These are my thoughts anyway. If you want a more solid reason, the best you can do is ask the government.

FWIW the procedure you describe as insulting, ludicrous and anti-tourist is not uncommon on a global scale. And if you really wanted to know what most probably scares tourists away from Australia (apart from our numerous poisonous and aggressive animals), quarantine.


Ironically, I have flown CX HKG-ADL-MEL before. Having to sit in a boring departure lounge with no access to the QP whilst waiting for the last ADL-MEL leg is nuts, so if the screening went slower and used up all the time I'd be content!


This thread could easily morph into an argument whether security screening is necessary (or effective) at all.....

 

[drron]

And dont dare talk to mrsdrron about screening at HKG whilst in transit.She has a pair of tweezers that have been around the world about 5 times and have been through a lot of US airports and indeed twice through HKG before.Today they were taken from her in HKG.So not only Australia that upsets tourists with security.

 

[JohnPhelan]

We all have so much for which we can thank Osama and his colleagues ......

 

[anat0l]

And dont dare talk to mrsdrron about screening at HKG whilst in transit.She has a pair of tweezers that have been around the world about 5 times and have been through a lot of US airports and indeed twice through HKG before.Today they were taken from her in HKG.So not only Australia that upsets tourists with security.

The inconsistency at some security points around the world can drive you up the wall. Whilst I haven't had an unpleasant experience yet, I've heard of people getting stuffed around by misapplication of security procedures. I had someone who went through US security and they confiscated almost all the liquids he had on him because the checkpoint staff didn't know that 100 mL containers were perfectly acceptable - they insisted they could only be 3 fl. oz.

I love (read: not) how inconsistent Australian checkpoints are with respect to inspecting umbrellas. Ditto separate screening of aerosol containers - inconsistent.

On my recent two big trips, in transit I've found out just how "dubious" adhering to the liquids rule is. For example, I had two amenity kits after flying TG F to BKK. My transit there was for an onward flight to ICN. Obviously, you're supposed to be only allowed 1 zip bag with 100mL container liquids put in that bag. Not in the bag = not acceptable = have to dump it. I didn't move all the liquids from the amenity kits to the zip bag I had, and in any case it wouldn't have fit. They let me through without so much of a comment at all. I didn't even have to put the amenity kits separately onto a tray (I had them in my spare shopping dura-bag).

We all have so much for which we can thank Osama and his colleagues ......

The irony is that the security ballet we have to endure now (especially in the USA with the TSA) is evidence that they actually won the war.

 

[Cocitus23]

Thanks, everyone, for your replies, especially ChrisCh and Anat01. It would be good if a government employee in the policy drafting area had the courage to enter this discussion and say something like, "We do it because we don't trust our allies or the airlines to do it properly", or "We do it just to show that we are the toughest", or "We do it just to keep folks in Adelaide employed," or "We do it because we can, and it gives us a sense of power." Or, heavens above, maybe they can come up with a perfectly rational reason why they do it, in which case I am more than happy to absorb it and accept it.

Cocitus23

 

[markis10]

Screening is required for all people who intend to board a designated flight that requires screened passengers, as other countries schema are not covered under Australian law (Aviation Transport Security Regulations 2005 ), so passengers are considered by default to be unscreened despite what treatment they may have received overseas. Even passengers from another Australian port who are transiting internationally are screened.

 

[medhead]

At least you didn't experience ADL when the new terminal first opened. When getting off a regional flight they'd send you back into the secure area instead of sending you directly outside. Meeting screening people who then walked through GE secure area and straight out to baggage claim. I heard of one person refusing to give up nail clippers or whatever who was saying "I don't want to go there just send me outside." Now they do give the option to go outside before the screening point.

The irony is that the security ballet we have to endure now (especially in the USA with the TSA) is evidence that they actually won the war.

Exactly! It is sad that so many people just do not understand the irony involved.


Sent from the Throne

 

[drewbles]

And dont dare talk to mrsdrron about screening at HKG whilst in transit.She has a pair of tweezers that have been around the world about 5 times and have been through a lot of US airports and indeed twice through HKG before.Today they were taken from her in HKG.So not only Australia that upsets tourists with security.

I may have accidentally let a butter knife off an inbound international flight slip into my hand luggage once upon a time, or I may not have. At the SYD International Transfer area for QF the Security rent-a-cop may have decided it was a weapon and an argument may have ensued where he may have asked me if I was questioning his authority, and I may have said back to him in a very sarcastic way 'no i'm questioning your common sense'. I may have then commented that it came from a plane, and I also had a fork from same flight he might have said 'well you should have left it on the plane then'. Even his Supervisor may have concurred with him.

What a joke. I can go through to the Qantas club, take a knife and fork from there (Which would have had more 'weapon' power than any flimsy butter knife from any flight) and that would have been just fine. These rent-a-cops need to get a clue, and stop being 'you will respect my authoritah' to everyone. Especially at 6am whilst a visitor may be flying into SYD and then out elsewhere.

The other thing that grinds my gears is the cap-on-aerosols rule for DOM flights. What's to stop me removing the lid past security and dumping it in the bin? Or the lid falling off in my bag?

There's a lot of rules and regulations that simply defy logic when it comes to this stuff.

 

[harvyk]

These rent-a-cops need to get a clue, and stop being 'you will respect my authoritah' to everyone. Especially at 6am whilst a visitor may be flying into SYD and then out elsewhere.

The problem is that they are not allowed to use common sense for a good reason, if you allowed discretion and common sense into the mix, your likely to have an even more haphazard security theater than you have now. With each security officer making risk assessments of each item on the fly, with no real guide to say what is bad and what is not, it's likely that what is allowed through will vary from airport to airport, and even time of day to time of day. At least with overarching rules, and little room for judgement calls to be made, it means that whilst tweezers are considered bad, perhaps due to an overzealous ruling, you at least know that tweezers are probably going to be banned from the cabin everywhere, whilst your laptop would almost certainly be allowed on board everywhere. (This logic of course fails when you travel internationally, because each country would have done their own risk assessments, but this analogy does work for domestic travel)

Also "security theater" is probably a good explanation for it. A few months back I needed to write a piece of software which encrypts files for sending over the internet. Now whilst I knew that the encryption was working, and that a hacker would have a very tough time decrypting it if they intercepted it, it just didn't "feel" secure, because at both the sending end and the receiving end, it was too easy. I ended up putting in "road blocks" so to speak just so the program would "feel" secure as well as be secure. After that I realised, we humans basically equate jumping through hoops = security, we subconsciously think "it was difficult, therefore the job must been done right"