Are All Security Screenings necessary?

[Cocitus23]

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.

Thanks markis10 for your very succinct statement of what the policy is, but it does not seem to me to be sensible or rational. Why not have these provisions in place to use if it is known that screening back along the line was of dubious quality, but waive it if it is assessed that the other country's screening standards are comparable to Australia's?

Cocitus23.

 

[harvyk]

Thanks markis10 for your very succinct statement of what the policy is, but it does not seem to me to be sensible or rational. Why not have these provisions in place to use if it is known that screening back along the line was of dubious quality, but waive it if it is assessed that the other country's screening standards are comparable to Australia's?

Cocitus23.

Basically it's an insurance policy, when we allow a flight to go from here to another country, we're saying that every person on that flight have been properly screened to our standards. The only way we can say that with 100% certainty is if we do it ourselves, and whilst in the example, the flight was simply going from ADL-MEL, if they simply allowed people to mingle with other pax going to other international destinations, we can no longer guarantee that every person was checked to our levels.

 

[juddles]

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

I suspect you would not accept any explanation, no matter how rational. In your opening post you describe the check as ¨ridiculous¨. IMHO it is ridiculous to suggest as you have they they may do it to ¨keep folks employed¨ etc etc.

 

[drewbles]

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)

I agree with you 100%, however, surely the most dumb rent-a-cop should realise that if it's an airline knife, it's safe to go through security (considering it is nothing more than a blunt piece of metal, and forks *are* allowed through).

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"[/QUOTE]
TSA frequently is referred to as 'security circus' or Thousands Standing Around. I've found the TSA to be better and more courteous than any Australian Security check point, and that's really saying something considering the bad rap the TSA constantly get.

 

[markis10]

Thanks markis10 for your very succinct statement of what the policy is, but it does not seem to me to be sensible or rational. Why not have these provisions in place to use if it is known that screening back along the line was of dubious quality, but waive it if it is assessed that the other country's screening standards are comparable to Australia's?

Cocitus23.

From a security perspective, assuming the worst is very much a rational idea, its inconsistencies and exceptions that make life easy for those that wish to do others harm.

Its hardly a new thing, having been around for a long time, I am not sure why the ire is being felt now, seasoned travellers know its a cost we pay in terms of an inconvenience to our travels, and it could be worse, anyone who has been subject to the TSA would probably agree there is nothing to complain about.

 

[boylero]

apparently not, if you're 11

 

[harvyk]

I agree with you 100%, however, surely the most dumb rent-a-cop should realise that if it's an airline knife, it's safe to go through security (considering it is nothing more than a blunt piece of metal, and forks *are* allowed through).

The problem is that whilst the smart ones can put 2 and 2 together and come up with 4, simply leaving it up to the security agents good judgement would leave massive scope for "but I could bring this through here last time". By having set in stone rules which says X = good, Y = bad, it means that a pax has no come back when they are told something is not allowed.

In regards to the knife issue, it's probably just easier saying "all knifes bad", rather than leave it up to the individual agent to determine how sharp the knife is, what size it is, and what's it's ability to do damage \ cause injury. They would be perfectly aware that knifes are handed out by airlines, however every airline knife I've seen, for the most part would not make an effective weapon.

As a side note, if I was going to bring a weapon on board, I'd be purchasing a bottle of something from duty free and using that as a weapon. Would be far more effective than the knifes they give you on-board. (Hello to the ASIO officer who is now following me )

 

[dajop]

I am trying to think where in the world you can arrive on an international flight and transit to another flight operating internationally (ie an international flight or a domestic flight between international terminals where such terminals exist) , and the only one I came up with was pseudo-domestic intra Europe flights within Schengen areas and I also transited ZAG once (LHR-ZAG-SJJ) there was a metal detector and x-ray at the transfer point, but it was not manned.

What can be extra fun is when it is much bigger airport than ADL, and you encounter security staff that aren't that smart, and you don't have a same day boarding pass nor does your boarding pass have the current departing airport on it. I was hassled by security at FRA presenting BP that said SIN-JFK departing previous day (I think I was first pax through that day).

 

[medhead]

A lot of linear thinking about knifes here. Lumps of long thin metal can be used for lots of things beside putting bread on butter.


Sent from the Throne

 

[k_sheep]

I thought one of the main reasons for screening upon entry was for quarantine purposes? After all, land locked countries just have their pests walk from one side to the other, bit harder on island countries.

Quarantine matters people

 

[anat0l]

I thought one of the main reasons for screening upon entry was for quarantine purposes? After all, land locked countries just have their pests walk from one side to the other, bit harder on island countries.

Quarantine matters people

With the possible exception of the that done at customs points in arrivals halls, I don't think any other screening in Australia is done for the purposes of quarantine.

 

[markis10]

With the possible exception of the that done at customs points in arrivals halls, I don't think any other screening in Australia is done for the purposes of quarantine.

We have Beagles for that job!

 

[medhead]

With the possible exception of the that done at customs points in arrivals halls, I don't think any other screening in Australia is done for the purposes of quarantine.

Besides at the South Australian border on the Duke's highway and the highway from Broken Hill?

 

[drewbles]

As a side note, if I was going to bring a weapon on board, I'd be purchasing a bottle of something from duty free and using that as a weapon. Would be far more effective than the knifes they give you on-board. (Hello to the ASIO officer who is now following me )

You've made my point thank you There are so many more bad things past security, but that doesn't factor into it.

 

[ozmille]

Also the one in BKK is quite a joke I think, I don't really care anymore but they are not really looking just having a quick browse not opening any compartments in my bags. Why bother?

 

[straitman]

With the possible exception of the that done at customs points in arrivals halls, I don't think any other screening in Australia is done for the purposes of quarantine.

Entering WA from the eastern states.

 

[harvyk]

Entering WA from the eastern states.

But is that actually done as part of security screening?

With exception to the road side stopping area's where highways cross borders (the only one I've been through is between VIC and SA, but I know there are others, and even then they simply asked if we had anything, no searching was done) I always thought domestic quarantine was done on the honour system in regards to flights. I've certainly never been asked if I was carrying any food stuff at domestic airports, and apart from the general notification that "certain foods can not be brought into this state and quarantine detector dogs work in some terminals" I have only seen enforcement (detector dogs) once whilst standing around baggage claim in PER. All other times I've seen dogs in domestic terminals they've been drug dogs.

 

[medhead]

But is that actually done as part of security screening?

With exception to the road side stopping area's where highways cross borders (the only one I've been through is between VIC and SA, but I know there are others, and even then they simply asked if we had anything, no searching was done) I always thought domestic quarantine was done on the honour system in regards to flights. I've certainly never been asked if I was carrying any food stuff at domestic airports, and apart from the general notification that "certain foods can not be brought into this state and quarantine detector dogs work in some terminals" I have only seen enforcement (detector dogs) once whilst standing around baggage claim in PER. All other times I've seen dogs in domestic terminals they've been drug dogs.

The question didn't specify being part of security screening.

I have had my car searched crossing the South Australian border.


Sent from the Throne

 

[nonscenic]

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.

I have noticed that in the last year or so the terrorist threat level has subsided from "plastic butter knives" to "metal butter knives" in QPs and in flight over Australian Airspace. The lack of consistency is astounding. After all the grannies who have had knitting needles confiscated at Australian DOM security, I was surprised when travelling from Seattle to Anchorage in 2010 to see several passengers passing the flight time away knitting (in a country obsessed with security)

 

[nonscenic]

But is that actually done as part of security screening?

With exception to the road side stopping area's where highways cross borders (the only one I've been through is between VIC and SA, but I know there are others, and even then they simply asked if we had anything, no searching was done) I always thought domestic quarantine was done on the honour system in regards to flights. I've certainly never been asked if I was carrying any food stuff at domestic airports, and apart from the general notification that "certain foods can not be brought into this state and quarantine detector dogs work in some terminals" I have only seen enforcement (detector dogs) once whilst standing around baggage claim in PER. All other times I've seen dogs in domestic terminals they've been drug dogs.

Quarantine detector dogs used to be common upon arrival at the old ADL DOM airport, and I think PER and HBT occasionally have them from personal experience. Upon arrival in Christchurch some years ago I remember a dog getting excited about a backpack I had as hand luggage. A couple of weeks earlier I had some fruit in the backpack while on a hike, so the dogs can be sensitive.

I've often looked out for the "Explosive Detector Dogs" at airports but have never actually seen a dog exploding yet