Increased aviation security at Australian airports

[Melburnian1]

One would really think that the airlines might realise that a threat to their business models (despite QF's excellent profits, and VA's probably unjustifiable sunny optimism with its loss making though cashflow positive 2016-17 annual results released today) is perception that travel is not 'safe.'

They may not always know any resultant damage to their businesses as those who decide not to travel don't generally communicate it to a transport operator.

Surely the airlines ought to be co-operating with law enforcement agencies. A few requests may be frivolous but most will be a genuine search for evidence.

 

[esseeeayeenn]

Interestingly QF and VA are both charging $50 and $30 respectively for information requests by the AFP. Apparently other corporates are doing the same. QF even has a portal for this...Great corporate citizens...

From The Australian:

Nocookies | The Australian
View attachment 103632

Never mind the fees, if the requests are NOT to do with public safety they should need a warrant to get such information.

 

[Pushka]

This 3 person security swab is nonsense.

That is - 1 security person and three people called up together. Each person swiped then each persons bags swiped then just one machine reading. Me (female) and two random men. We were all lined up in the Qantas priority in Melbourne just now.

 

[Melburnian1]

This 3 person security swab is nonsense.

That is - 1 security person and three people called up together. Each person swiped then each persons bags swiped then just one machine reading. Me (female) and two random men. We were all lined up in the Qantas priority in Melbourne just now.

Pushka, wouldn't that be a breach of the contract between the security company and (in this case, because it owns the terminal in Melbourne) QF?

Are they doing this to falsely get a 'count' of passengers swabbed up, or it it simply laziness?

 

[Pushka]

Pushka, wouldn't that be a breach of the contract between the security company and (in this case, because it owns the terminal in Melbourne) QF?

Are they doing this to falsely get a 'count' of passengers swabbed up, or it it simply laziness?

I'm not sure about breaches but clearly it cannot isolate any troublesome passengers. Or if something was found I can imagine the headlines '3 people test positive' and trying to prove you were innocent these days? Let alone the stress that would cause.

 

[mannej]

Pushka, wouldn't that be a breach of the contract between the security company and (in this case, because it owns the terminal in Melbourne) QF?

Are they doing this to falsely get a 'count' of passengers swabbed up, or it it simply laziness?

Simply it's a method to increase efficiency. Statistically speaking the majority of results are likely to be negative, so it gets more tests done in the same amount of time. I don't see how that would breach any contract.

 

[Pushka]

Simply it's a method to increase efficiency. Statistically speaking the majority of results are likely to be negative, so it gets more tests done in the same amount of time. I don't see how that would breach any contract.

But in my case potentially 2 innocent people are targeted if a positive result occurs. Guess they couldn't care less.

And remember should that ever happen then retesting those 3 people separately to isolate one from the other is useless as we've now all been contaminated with the dirty swab.

 

[Pleb Status]

It was the longest wait yesterday that I have experienced this year to get through security at PER T1 Int. Queue extended deep into the zigzag area before security.

I would put the queue length/wait time down to having only one security station open (rather than the normal two security stations) than to any extra screening efforts etc.

The explosives tester basically confirmed that his employer chose to close one of the security stations so less staff would be required 'during quieter periods'....

So as normal, the security contractor can deliver a lower level of performance (increased wait times) while making the same amount of money and blame the delays on others ('extra screening' requirement which has not been dropped).

 

[mannej]

But in my case potentially 2 innocent people are targeted if a positive result occurs. Guess they couldn't care less.

And remember should that ever happen then retesting those 3 people separately to isolate one from the other is useless as we've now all been contaminated with the dirty swab.

So they the test individually with an individual swab each, but statistically speaking how often will that occur?

And no, not everyone has been contaminated with the dirty swab.

 

[Pushka]

So they the test individually with an individual swab each, but statistically speaking how often will that occur?

And no, not everyone has been contaminated with the dirty swab.

Suspect they could be. She tested each person first. Then went back and tested each bag.

Statistics? Only takes 1 person in the thousands of travelers at Aus airports and if you are that 1 person....

 

[TheRealTMA]

Simply it's a method to increase efficiency. Statistically speaking the majority of results are likely to be negative, so it gets more tests done in the same amount of time. I don't see how that would breach any contract.

How many positive results do they actually get? 1-2 a year?

 

[Virgin Bart]

How many positive results do they actually get? 1-2 a year?

I've tested positive three times in six months. Grr.

 

[TheRealTMA]

I've tested positive three times in six months. Grr.

Assuming you weren't actually playing with nitrogen based explosives or amox on your way to the airport, what was the cause of the positive readings?

 

[Strategic Aviation]

There are a few industries that deal with explosives and similar materials/residues, most obviously mining.

 

[Virgin Bart]

Assuming you weren't actually playing with nitrogen based explosives or amox on your way to the airport, what was the cause of the positive readings?

No, but I was before going to the airport.

 

[Melburnian1]

No, but I was before going to the airport.

Virgin Bart, what then happened after you tested positive?

Did you have 10 questions thrown at you? Were you held up for a few minutes answering these?

 

[Virgin Bart]

Virgin Bart, what then happened after you tested positive?

Did you have 10 questions thrown at you? Were you held up for a few minutes answering these?

Not at all. Had three subsequent tests done each time. One in person, one on shoes and one on carry on. Shoes and body tested positive again. Scanned shoes, patted down and all good.

Note all three occasions were pre-latest scares.

 

[Austman]

I've tested positive a few times as well.

It's been usually (but not exclusively) after my "close" attendance to Chinese New Year fireworks (not in Australia).

 

[spudseamus]

I remember somewhere that " playing cards " have a substance that can set off an explosive alert? Can anybody confirm .

 

[Happy Trails]

I remember somewhere that " playing cards " have a substance that can set off an explosive alert? Can anybody confirm .

It was a factor in the case of the 'Birmingham Six', though I'd hope the technology's improved since then.


[h=2]http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-12664938Test doubts[/h]Expert witness Frank Skuse said Mr Hill and Mr Power had tested positive for nitroglycerine in Greiss tests - chemical analysis looking for the presence of organic nitrate compounds.
Other scientists had argued the test was unreliable because a positive result could be gained from nitrocellulose in a range of innocent products.
In the autumn of 1985, World in Action demonstrated how shuffling an old pack of playing cards containing the substance produced a positive Greiss test. The accused men had played cards on their train journey.