travelers beware

[Will]

One thing about the "penalty" for smugglering on liquids. Maybe your missing the point, liquids themselves are not the problem. It is not illegal to have a bottle of water, or other liquids. So, of course there is no penalty if you can "caught" with a normal liquid. But liquid explosives are the issue and I'm sure if you got caught smuggling liquid explosive onto an aircraft then there would be a problem and there would be a penalty - at the least making a false dangerous godd declaration.

I don't think I'm missing the point. If you are caught with a 2 litre bottle of liquid, it is not tested; it is just thrown in the bin. It may well have been a component that could be converted to an explosive compound on board, but no-one would ever know given the current screening systme.

 

[whereishome]

They have the same thing at Cairns on JQ, QF & JL numbers/metal when you fly NRT-CNS-BNE.

It's ridiculous because there's NO LOGICAL REASON for you to leave the bloody international airside just to get back on the same plane, but I always ask about it whenever I have a connection so I know whether or not to risk it.

Bottle of Chivas in JPY ¥2500 - AUD$40ish - Regular AUD $50+

 

[kiwi2768]

Last time we went to Perth, I bought us each a "travel minis" pack consisting of a 30g bodyspray, 30g anti-perspirant, 50ml shower gel and 50ml shampoo in one, and a 35ml moisturiser, 30g anti-perspirant, 50ml shampoo, 50ml conditioner and 50ml bodywash in the other, thinking they would be ideal to take on our trip to the US. I threw them in my bag (we only had carry-on luggage) and never thought any more about them. Both packs are in clear sealed bags with a thin cardboard outer. On going through the security screening at Perth domestic airport, the bag-search dragon was almost having a fit over the two 30g aerosols. The taxi was 25 minutes late picking us up and we had only 20 minutes until the flight departed. The bag-search dragon then proceeded to pull everything out of my bag to find the friggin aerosols (of course they were at the bottom), then had to xray both the "travel minis" again. Had I known that these "travel minis" are apparently some kind of huge threat I would have left the bloody things in Perth!

 

[JohnK]

On going through the security screening at Perth domestic airport, the bag-search dragon was almost having a fit over the two 30g aerosols.

Everytime I go through BNE domestic security I am asked if I have any aerosols or umbrellas in my laptop bag. I guess they want to scan these separately.

 

[kiwi2768]

What is the big deal about aerosols though? What difference does it make whether or not it has a lid?

 

[JohnK]

No idea why they want to screen aerosols separately. I have only ever heard it in BNE.

 

[meloz]

I have also noticed attention to aerosols seems to be up everywhere of late. In OZ and OS.

Shoe, underwear and now underarm bomber???????

Meloz

 

[kiwi2768]

I suppose I'm getting a bit OT but they even want to see aerosols when we go through security at ZNE (mining town) on our way to PER. There are a lot of people here who work every day with explosives. A lady I work with does the security screening and bag/clothing swabs on her days off. She said the people who work with explosives never return a positive swab for explosives :shock:

Hubby once bought a cheap screwdriver, used it and tossed it in the bag. We forgot it was there and the bag went through the xray at PER. We picked up the bag and off we went. Another time, I had in my handbag a brand new pair of nail clippers, still sealed in the packet, which I had forgotten about. The security guy took the brand new clippers out of the sealed packet and broke that great big weapon of a nail file off :evil:

 

[samh004]

They have the same thing at Cairns on JQ, QF & JL numbers/metal when you fly NRT-CNS-BNE.

It's ridiculous because there's NO LOGICAL REASON for you to leave the bloody international airside just to get back on the same plane, but I always ask about it whenever I have a connection so I know whether or not to risk it.

Bottle of Chivas in JPY ¥2500 - AUD$40ish - Regular AUD $50+

The CX flights are pretty bad for that sort of thing, HKG-CNS-BNE and vv. You buy your duty free on board, then they land and say you have to take it with you, and then CNS security confiscate it as you’re transiting. Then you get back on board the plane and buy some more. Complete BS.

What is the big deal about aerosols though? What difference does it make whether or not it has a lid?

I have also noticed attention to aerosols seems to be up everywhere of late. In OZ and OS.

Shoe, underwear and now underarm bomber???????

Meloz

I’d guess that a deodorant can could be opened up and a device placed inside it. It might look the same, but when on board whatever is inside could be assembled or what-not into something else, as they are hollow inside?

Same thing presumably for umbrella’s as the metal stalk is generally hollow, so something could be hiding inside.

 

[meloz]

I’d guess that a deodorant can could be opened up and a device placed inside it. It might look the same, but when on board whatever is inside could be assembled or what-not into something else, as they are hollow inside?

Same thing presumably for umbrella’s as the metal stalk is generally hollow, so something could be hiding inside.

I would have thought the xray machine might have sorted out that problem?

Meloz

 

[anat0l]

I would have thought the xray machine might have sorted out that problem

I don't know why, but certain objects are insisted to be screened separately, outside of the containing bags.

Laptops are the easiest example. I'm not sure how the x-ray copes with such objects if they are in layers of bags or clothes

 

[MikedOut]

Don't get me started on the inconsistencies of aerosol screening in SYD/MEL. One day you go through Melbourne leave them in hand luggage ...no problems ...a couple of days later same aerosol take them out and put them separately in their own little basket. SYD...just send 'em on through, pulled them out once thinking this was something recently upgraded and told by security you don't have to do that on domestic.

It would be nice if domestic airports in this country could get their act together and set the tolerance on the metal detectors all at the same level....shoes on...shoes off and have a consistent approach to LAGs.

 

[tuapekastar]

I’d guess that a deodorant can could be opened up and a device placed inside it. It might look the same, but when on board whatever is inside could be assembled or what-not into something else, as they are hollow inside?

Same thing presumably for umbrella’s as the metal stalk is generally hollow, so something could be hiding inside.

I think aerosol 'screening' came into effect as a result of an incident a few years ago on a DJ plane where an areosol can leaked, causing an unnerving smell to permeate the cabin, and upset (and scare) pax. So I think it's mainly to make sure there is a secure lid.

I don't believe it is applied with equal fervour at all domestic airports.

 

[drewbles]

I think aerosol 'screening' came into effect as a result of an incident a few years ago on a DJ plane where an areosol can leaked, causing an unnerving smell to permeate the cabin, and upset (and scare) pax. So I think it's mainly to make sure there is a secure lid.

I don't believe it is applied with equal fervour at all domestic airports.

Agreed. My main complaint is the way it's enforced like you say.

Thing is, what's to stop me using said can in the QP to freshen up, and accidentally forgetting to re-cap or the cap falling off in the bag? It's really not all that logical.

 

[medhead]

I don't think I'm missing the point. If you are caught with a 2 litre bottle of liquid, it is not tested; it is just thrown in the bin. It may well have been a component that could be converted to an explosive compound on board, but no-one would ever know given the current screening systme.

Well that isn't really what you wrote in your previous post.you said there was no penalty for exceeding the LAGs rules and i was simply stating that the reason for that was that liquids are not illegal. But liquid explosives are illegal. A gun is not a very good analogy for this situation.

Do you know that they don't test the liquids collected? If they don't it is a damming indictment for LAGs rules on top of ever other negative mentioned here. But how do you know that the bins aren't take away by the AFP and tested.

No idea why they want to screen aerosols separately. I have only ever heard it in BNE.

I've had this in syd for the last few weeks. They even turned up the walk through detector to pick up shoes and were making everyone remove shoe 2 weeks ago.

I don't know why, but certain objects are insisted to be screened separately, outside of the containing bags.

Laptops are the easiest example. I'm not sure how the x-ray copes with such objects if they are in layers of bags or clothes

As you say the separate screening is because the density can mask other object behind. X-ray basically works by detecting the x-rays that aren't blocked by the density of objects. so if you layer objects that are about the same density, like an areosol can and a laptop poewr pack then the power pack will prevent a clear view of what is inside the can. Laptops can hide things that are underneath them in a similar manner.

 

[Will]

Well that isn't really what you wrote in your previous post.you said there was no penalty for exceeding the LAGs rules and i was simply stating that the reason for that was that liquids are not illegal. But liquid explosives are illegal. A gun is not a very good analogy for this situation.

Do you know that they don't test the liquids collected? If they don't it is a damming indictment for LAGs rules on top of ever other negative mentioned here. But how do you know that the bins aren't take away by the AFP and tested.

Guns are not illegal, if licenced. But it is illegal to attempt to carry it on a plane without lawful excuse.

Likewise, liquids are also not illegal. But: it *is* unlawful to disregard the LAG regulations which have been given force of law (as statutory regulations). Therefore possession of the liquids is illegal per se, regardless of their nature. But the penalties for disregarding this particular component of the aviation safety act are trivial - confiscation.

The LAGs confiscated are clearly not tested at point of confiscation. They are place into a large bin. They are not marked with your identity nor otherwise linked to the individual they were taken from. Any post-facto analysis would therefore be almost entirely pointless as the culpable individual would have departed. Or, in the case of TSA security, left the secured area and not boarded the flight. Or, as is equally easy to do - they may simply avoid having the liquid confiscated by saying 'Sorry, I forgot - but I want to keep the empty bottle. Let me go pour this water out in the sink!'.

It is this failure to conduct point-of-confiscation analysis that means there is, for all practical purposes, no penalty attached to attempting to take a reagent onboard. Like I said, no disincentive for criminals to attempt to smuggle dangerous liquids. THAT is the point.


As for the failure of analogy; the analogy is this: there is absolutely no penalty attached to attempting to illegally enter a restricted airside area with an unlawful quantity of liquids (which are legal outside the restricted area), whereas there is a significant penalty if attempting to illegally enter a restricted airside area with an unlawful firearm (even if it is legal to possess outside the restricted area).

 

[medhead]

Guns are not illegal, if licenced. But it is illegal to attempt to carry it on a plane without lawful excuse.

As for the failure of analogy; the analogy is this: there is absolutely no penalty attached to attempting to illegally enter a restricted airside area with an unlawful quantity of liquids (which are legal outside the restricted area), whereas there is a significant penalty if attempting to illegally enter a restricted airside area with an unlawful firearm (even if it is legal to possess outside the restricted area).

I didn't say that guns are illegal! ohh and the owner is licensed not the firearm.

The failure of the analogy IMO, is the ability to infer intent from someone trying to concel a firearm, vs someone who has a water bottle, or whiskey, in their carry on bag. My 5 year old takes a bottle of water with her everywhere, it is pretty easy to determine her intent in carrying that water. I also think you're making too much of this idea of an "unlawfully quantity of liquid". There is nothing illegal about having any quantity of liquid airside, the restrictions related to the source of the liquid. Duty free purchase airside = good, grog purchased at a bottlo = bads. Same quantity, different source.

If we take your example of multiple dodgy characters trying to get a quantity of liquid explosive past screening until one of them finally succeeds, then post confiscation screening will pick this up and help to be alert for the follow up attempts to get the liquids past screening. Seems useful to me.

 

[Will]

I didn't say that guns are illegal! ohh and the owner is licensed not the firearm.

I was trying hard to limit the pedantry of this dialogue, but if you *really* want to get into that, then fine. Yes, the owner is licensed. The firearm is registered, which is similar to licensing. I thought the distinction was too small to bother with muddying up the sentence by changing it to: "Guns are not illegal, if the owner has a valid licence, and the gun is registered in accordance with that license and with the state-specific firearm licensing acts, and the gun is being carried in accordance with that act, and no other acts or statutory regulations are being breached."

I inferred that you were using illegality as the distinguishing characteristic to claim guns are not analogous, because you made no comment as to any characteristic other than illegality in your sentence dismissing guns as an analogous point. I see that have now explained why you think they are not analogous:

The failure of the analogy IMO, is the ability to infer intent from someone trying to concel a firearm, vs someone who has a water bottle, or whiskey, in their carry on bag. My 5 year old takes a bottle of water with her everywhere, it is pretty easy to determine her intent in carrying that water.

This is one of the reasons why we have a permissive policy of confiscation only, which in turn is one of the reasons the entire policy is a waste of time. An attempted illegal carriage of dangerous liquids will appear perfectly harmless and go undetected, in part because it seems like such a harmless mistake.

Your pointing this fact out does not defend the policy; nor does it undermine the analogy. The comparison was drawn simply to show that there must be a disincentive attached to attempts to breach security. The analogy shows that there are two classes of item that both potentially represent threats (in this way, they are analogous), and yet only one of them is subject to penalty (in this way, they are differentiated).

I also think you're making too much of this idea of an "unlawfully quantity of liquid". There is nothing illegal about having any quantity of liquid airside, the restrictions related to the source of the liquid. Duty free purchase airside = good, grog purchased at a bottlo = bads. Same quantity, different source.

The illegal act that I was referring to in my post (vis. attempting to illegally enter a restricted airside area with an unlawful quantity of liquids) referred to the conduct of entering an area with said liquids. Again, for the sake of brevity, I didn't write out that entire phrase in full each time, although it makes no practical difference when we are discussing security screening procedures at entry points.

If we take your example of multiple dodgy characters trying to get a quantity of liquid explosive past screening until one of them finally succeeds, then post confiscation screening will pick this up and help to be alert for the follow up attempts to get the liquids past screening. Seems useful to me.

So post-confiscation screening will alert the authorities to the fact that people are attempting to smuggle 'liquid explosives' (I will use your term, again for brevity, despite its inaccuracy)? Didn't they already know that? Isn't that why they're restricting LAG? (Yes, even though I think it's a pointless response).
Also, don't forget that there is no penalty for leaving the security screening point to empty your bottle. Or (in the USA) for simply leaving when it the LAG are found and trying again at a different screening point. Or handing it over to an associate.

 

[harvyk]

Will, I think the problem with the analogy being used is that for the most part, liquids being carried through a security checkpoint where most likely going to serve a useful purpose once airside, where as a gun serves no legal useful purpose whilst airside.

Furthermore it would be possible to purchase liquids even at the airport whilst landside, place that into your bag and then forget about it. Lets say they make it a $220 fine (like an AQIS breach) that's a pretty steep price for something which really is a no harm done.

You probably wouldn't be able to purchase a gun at the airport, and chances are you won't leave it in your bag by mistake.

 

[Will]

Will, I think the problem with the analogy being used is that for the most part, liquids being carried through a security checkpoint where most likely going to serve a useful purpose once airside, where as a gun serves no legal useful purpose whilst airside.

Furthermore it would be possible to purchase liquids even at the airport whilst landside, place that into your bag and then forget about it. Lets say they make it a $220 fine (like an AQIS breach) that's a pretty steep price for something which really is a no harm done.

You probably wouldn't be able to purchase a gun at the airport, and chances are you won't leave it in your bag by mistake.

Sure. There are lots of differences between guns and liquids. Obviously. An analogy doesn't require the 2 compared items to be identical in all respects. The only respect I am claiming a similarity in is that they are both ostensibly potentially dangerous. They are, however, treated differently at security screening. There are lots of reasons for that, including intent, possible legitimate use, ease of accidentally carrying, whatever. NONE OF THAT MATTERS. The essential point is not detracted from; being that an absence of disincentives renders the security screening process ineffective in respect to LAG in protecting against actual threats, and not people who just want to have a water bottle on the plane with them.

However, despite all that, let me clarify (although this should be clear from all my posts): I am AGAINST the ban on LAGs. I am NOT trying to argue that we should make the penalties for carrying liquids substantial. I agree that there are legitimate uses for liquids airside, obviously. I agree it is easy to accidentally take them through security. These are reasons they should be allowed, not subject to farcical, useless, and counterproductive restrictions.