travelers beware

[N860CR]

As mentioned, nothing to do with "trusting Singapore", it's simply the law in this country.

I dare say screening in Singapore is a hell of a lot better than in Darwin, so such a comment is probably from some thick, racist DRW security guard without any substance.

 

[markis10]

As sort of mentioned by NM and medhead I believe that it’s all about Australia DF lobbying and what not to make the sale instead of overseas ports doing so.

Sam, Nuance own many of the duty outlets overseas that would be the last stop before Australia and most of Europe airport duty free ones as well, airport owners are like the shopping centres, they get a rent calculated on a percentage of the shops sales, both Nuance and DFS are overseas based companies, our airports are not, I think the government pays more attention to what local companies say.

 

[samh004]

Sam, Nuance own many of the duty outlets overseas that would be the last stop before Australia and most of Europe airport duty free ones as well, airport owners are like the shopping centres, they get a rent calculated on a percentage of the shops sales, both Nuance and DFS are overseas based companies, our airports are not, I think the government pays more attention to what local companies say.

Well failing my misguided idea, there must be another way of exerting pressure on the airports.

Everyone knows it’s wrong, no one will speak up about it.

 

[medhead]

Well failing my misguided idea, there must be another way of exerting pressure on the airports.

Everyone knows it’s wrong, no one will speak up about it.

I think the problem is that despite the situation with airport and DF shop owners, liquid explosives are a credible thread that have be deployed by people of seedy character. Until they implement detectors capable of screening for liquid explosives, i'd rather be protected and exerting pressure will never work as there is a safety issue involved, regardless of the other realities of being ripped off.

Of course, i don't even feel ripped off, i only really buy a decent single malt with similiar prices in Oz and SIN or gin which is cheap here or Bundy which can only really be got in Oz.

 

[pomjim]

"Bundy which can only really be got in Oz." Ha, you can buy Bundy in any bottle shop in Cambodia for about $12 US mate!!

 

[markis10]

Bundy which can only really be got in Oz.

Bundy can be purchased by liquor outlets anywhere in the world that has access to Smirnoff, Johnnie Walker, Smirnoff etc, they are owned and distributed by Diageo which is proactively pushing the product in all commonwealth countries. I used to get a bottle for $5 in langkawi for drinking when I got tired of JW Blue @ $80

 

[harvyk]

I think the problem is that despite the situation with airport and DF shop owners, liquid explosives are a credible thread that have be deployed by people of seedy character. Until they implement detectors capable of screening for liquid explosives, i'd rather be protected and exerting pressure will never work as there is a safety issue involved, regardless of the other realities of being ripped off..

My question is then, why is it only international flights that LAG rules apply??? Are aussie domestic planes tougher so that a liquid explosive wouldn't do anything???

Whilst I don't want to see LAG rules for all flights here like they have in the US, it does seem a little strange that they have no problems with LAG's on domestic flights, but of 101ml of liquid aboard an international flight is a big no no...

 

[Blackadder]

My question is then, why is it only international flights that LAG rules apply??? Are aussie domestic planes tougher so that a liquid explosive wouldn't do anything???

Whilst I don't want to see LAG rules for all flights here like they have in the US, it does seem a little strange that they have no problems with LAG's on domestic flights, but of 101ml of liquid aboard an international flight is a big no no...

I guess longer distances travelled (generally), more tempting for those wanting to try to blow the thing out the sky.
Likewise in the LOTFAP, domestically they have had those wanting to cause harm hence the reactive restrictions.

 

[medhead]

My question is then, why is it only international flights that LAG rules apply??? Are aussie domestic planes tougher so that a liquid explosive wouldn't do anything???

Whilst I don't want to see LAG rules for all flights here like they have in the US, it does seem a little strange that they have no problems with LAG's on domestic flights, but of 101ml of liquid aboard an international flight is a big no no...

That is an anomaly. But a few keys differences are the demographics of australia (admittedly not a big difference). Also international flights have been targetted in the past, possibly because of the much larger fuel load lead to a great effect (Im not going into details on thsi but you know what I'm talking about). the manila to japan flight (according to air crash investigators) the explosion was in a seat where in some 747 their is a fuel tank immediately below, again a suggestion that fuel load is a consideration.

"Bundy which can only really be got in Oz." Ha, you can buy Bundy in any bottle shop in Cambodia for about $12 US mate!!

Gee, why didn't i think of that when i was in the SIN DF shops or the FRA DF. I'm here transiting SIN why didn't I transit in Cambodia where there is a dodgy bottle shop. Thanks for the suggestion, given I'm talking about DF purchases I'm not sure how it helps. But I'll bear in mind that Cambodia has good bundy prices in bottle shops next time I'm travelling somewhere. In fact, I'm probably going to Tokyo in May, do you think i should drop into cambodia on the way back?

Ohh and US$12 for a 700 ml bottle, is pretty comparable to what i've paid in DRW and SYD DF shops.

Bundy can be purchased by liquor outlets anywhere in the world that has access to Smirnoff, Johnnie Walker, Smirnoff etc, they are owned and distributed by Diageo which is proactively pushing the product in all commonwealth countries. I used to get a bottle for $5 in langkawi for drinking when I got tired of JW Blue @ $80

That may be so, and i found it strange. But the last time i was travelling international. I couldn't see any bundy in the duty free shops at either SIN or FRA. Well certainly no my preferred OP bundy or bundy black (or whatever the upmarket bundy is called today)

 

[Bundy Bear]

Its a good reminder that if continuing on a flight then you can't buy duty free at on your first flight.

I flew SIN-ADL-MEL in January and some passenger got his alcohol taken away from him in the Adelaide transit.

I usually buy my alcohol back in Australia yes it probably cheaper in other places but then do don't have to carry it so far.

 

[NM]

I think the problem is that despite the situation with airport and DF shop owners, liquid explosives are a credible thread that have be deployed by people of seedy character. Until they implement detectors capable of screening for liquid explosives, i'd rather be protected and exerting pressure will never work as there is a safety issue involved, regardless of the other realities of being ripped off.

While I agree there is a significant risk from liquid explosives, the risk is mitigated at all international airports before departure, so someone arriving from SIN has already been screened and so has the duty-free booze they purchased at SIN airport. Same goes for places like HKG where all passengers are screened for liquids when entering the airport (either via HKG Immigration or by international arrivals), yet the Australian government insists that all passengers departing for Australia where they will be guided through the arrivals duty-free shops before reaching immigration counters, must not have purchased their duty-free booze within the secure confines of HKG airport.

As stated before, its not a matter of lack of trust (they trust the manual visual inspection of carry-on bags at the boarding gate even though anyone could carry a few litres of liquid explosives in their pockets), its about maximising the probability that passengers will spend their money at the shops in Australian airports rather than overseas outlets.

 

[medhead]

While I agree there is a significant risk from liquid explosives, the risk is mitigated at all international airports before departure, so someone arriving from SIN has already been screened and so has the duty-free booze they purchased at SIN airport. Same goes for places like HKG where all passengers are screened for liquids when entering the airport (either via HKG Immigration or by international arrivals), yet the Australian government insists that all passengers departing for Australia where they will be guided through the arrivals duty-free shops before reaching immigration counters, must not have purchased their duty-free booze within the secure confines of HKG airport.

Yes, sorry I forgot about this double screening thing in HGK. But I had the impression that the only screenign in SIN occurred at the gate. But either way it is clearly stupid to deal with transit pax in this way.

Perhaps it is not only the Australian government, because I've heard for liquids being taken when arriving into FRA from outside the EU and transferring to a flight to MAD.

 

[JohnK]

I never did like the silly LAGs rule in place and do not understand what they are trying to achieve with it.

I would be surprised if it had anything to do with security. A 1 litre bottle of spirits is dangerous but 10 * 100mL bottles are OK.

 

[samh004]

I never did like the silly LAGs rule in place and do not understand what they are trying to achieve with it.

I would be surprised if it had anything to do with security. A 1 litre bottle of spirits is dangerous but 10 * 100mL bottles are OK.

Well it’s actually as many 100mL bottles as you can fit in a 1-quart bag (which is just under 1L apparently). So you might fit 9 in. Per the 3-1-1 rules.

 

[harvyk]

I never did like the silly LAGs rule in place and do not understand what they are trying to achieve with it.

They do kinda make sense. They have determined that the amount of liquid explosives a terrorist could fit into a single 1 litre bag would not be enough to take down a plane.

Some of the things they are forgetting are

1. Terrorist rarely work alone. Infact for the original plot there where 24 people involved, with 8 of them planning on taking bombs onboard. This means that within the current rules, they would have been able to take 8 litres of explosives onboard.

2. Not every type of explosive is liquid. It would be more than possible to hide explosives in other common carry on item types. (think underwear)

3. (and this one is my favourite) We have to be lucky everytime without fail. Terrorists only have to get lucky once. I doubt being a security scanner at the airport is the most exciting of all jobs, I'm sure that they are not always as careful as they should be.

 

[NM]

Yes, sorry I forgot about this double screening thing in HGK. But I had the impression that the only screenign in SIN occurred at the gate. But either way it is clearly stupid to deal with transit pax in this way.

Yes, but other countries accept the taper-evident bags sealed and showing a receipt from SIN duty-free shops, while Australia still insists that the bags be delivered to the gate post screening.

Perhaps it is not only the Australian government, because I've heard for liquids being taken when arriving into FRA from outside the EU and transferring to a flight to MAD.

Indeed not the only one. The EU rules are to benefit EU "businesses". There is no practical reason to trust SIN or HKG screening processes any less than trusting all EU airports.

 

[JohnK]

Well it’s actually as many 100mL bottles as you can fit in a 1-quart bag (which is just under 1L apparently). So you might fit 9 in. Per the 3-1-1 rules.

So not quite 1L but still 900mL's. Not much difference.

They do kinda make sense. They have determined that the amount of liquid explosives a terrorist could fit into a single 1 litre bag would not be enough to take down a plane.

Some of the things they are forgetting are

1. Terrorist rarely work alone. Infact for the original plot there where 24 people involved, with 8 of them planning on taking bombs onboard. This means that within the current rules, they would have been able to take 8 litres of explosives onboard.

2. Not every type of explosive is liquid. It would be more than possible to hide explosives in other common carry on item types. (think underwear)

I still think the LAGs rule does not make any sense. And you have given my argument perfectly good reasons at least twice....

 

[Will]

I am frankly astounded by the number of people here who seem to support the LAG rules.

They are an ineffective and annoying waste of time and money.

Liquids can be easily smuggled onboard, and if caught, there is no penalty (unlike trying to smuggle a gun, for instance). This means that criminals could just continue trying until they succeed, with no cost attached (again, unlike guns).

For a perfect explanation, see: Schneier on Security: The Two Classes of Airport Contraband

For examples of how easy it is to bypass the restrictions, see The Things He Carried - Magazine - The Atlantic

Furthermore, the restriction is NOT against all liquids. What is though to be 'duty-free' alcohol may not be, as at Schiphol. Even more ridiculously, 'medical' liquid is *exempt*. Therefore, bring in two bags of clear fluid marked 'saline', for 'cleaning contact lenses', for instance, and the TSA and Australian authorities will allow it on board.

It's all just cover-your-a*se politics from security policy advisers, and it detracts from our security.

 

[medhead]

I am frankly astounded by the number of people here who seem to support the LAG rules.

They are an ineffective and annoying waste of time and money.

Liquids can be easily smuggled onboard, and if caught, there is no penalty (unlike trying to smuggle a gun, for instance). This means that criminals could just continue trying until they succeed, with no cost attached (again, unlike guns).

For a perfect explanation, see: Schneier on Security: The Two Classes of Airport Contraband

For examples of how easy it is to bypass the restrictions, see The Things He Carried - Magazine - The Atlantic

Furthermore, the restriction is NOT against all liquids. What is though to be 'duty-free' alcohol may not be, as at Schiphol. Even more ridiculously, 'medical' liquid is *exempt*. Therefore, bring in two bags of clear fluid marked 'saline', for 'cleaning contact lenses', for instance, and the TSA and Australian authorities will allow it on board.

It's all just cover-your-a*se politics from security policy advisers, and it detracts from our security.

Well I support the LAG rules in principle as mentioned. But that doesn't mean that I don't see all the faults in how they have been implemented. It is a classic case of misdirected effort as you outline. I'm caught up with this wasted security effort in my work as well, and I could point out the major faults in what they are trying to implement. I have a classic example where I have to secure something and I think to continue using it for it's intended use it is impossible to secure it. But I'm still going to have spend 100s of hours doing stuff.

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.

 

[anat0l]

I do not support the LAG rules but I am not going to go out of my way physically, legally or politically to see that they are removed.

I take an apathetic view and simply know they are the rules and go by them, because I'd rather have a smooth journey than get caught up trying to argue principle and perhaps score a few visits to the slammer in the process. Frankly, when you look at practice, most screeners actually don't pay a lot of attention to LAGs (except where the computer has "flagged" it for them). I have travelled with LAGs in excess of the 1L rule or where they have not been packed in a sealed zip-lock bag not more than 1L, but haven't been pulled up on it. (In some countries, they only care about the 100 mL rule, not that it has to be in a 1L plastic bag, or that the bag needs to be screened separately to luggage!)

Some people may hold me as a social hypocrite and a serf/mindless idiot, but anyone else who is travelling internationally but is against LAG rules or who isn't in jail because they made a voice against LAG rules is also a hypocrite (if not more so) for the same reasons.

All I do know is that my life would be a lot easier when LAG rules are gone.

Most security screening isn't flawless, but on the other hand it can never be flawless. 100% detection rate? Not possible, unless you subject every single pax to:

• Full, certified background and police check
• Full body and cavity search before every flight
• Full immigration check, even if transiting or transferring
• Full psychological profile check (i.e. the "ask two questions" thing that US and UK immigration inspectors like to do)
• Every single advanced security screening check that is in force today - performed at least twice on a passenger
• Explosives and drugs check on every passenger and all items of hand baggage and checked baggage thoroughly, i.e. unpack all bags completely, swab all items and insides of bags, test everything. And that should be done at least twice.
• Every passenger receives 10 x 100mL standard issue bottles to be used for LAG purposes. If you lose one, you must pay to replace it. No other 100mL bottle will be accepted.
• All current LAG exemptions must be certified at least a week in advance of travel by a relevant security authority, which will then repack the exempted LAG in a certified container. If the container is lost, damaged or destroyed, tough luck.

Not to mention other things like if an accident occurs on a plane (e.g. bomb blew up), then by rights the origin airport should be locked down and every employee that works at the airport (i.e. is issued a pass to work there) is remanded in custody and treated as a suspect to the crime. After all, it could literally be anyone, couldn't it?

Even if we implemented that and more extreme measures to travel security, not only would enjoyment of travel be a certain impossibility, but I'd still hazard a guess that at least 1 in 1,000 pax will get away with non-fatal infractions and accidents/incidents will still occur at a rate of at least 1 in 100,000.