Forum Home
PC World Chat
Thread ID: 94321	2008-10-24 09:53:00	Over-reaction? Tell me who.	johcar (6283)	PC World Chat

Post ID	Timestamp	Content	User
714505	2008-10-24 09:53:00	I recently came back from four days in Melbourne with the family. While we were there my son and I visited the Old Melbourne Gaol (when Ned Kelly was incarcerated and executed). As a souvenir, my son (14) wanted to buy a pair of hand-cuffs (the full-sized kind, with a key). Thankfully I managed to talk him into a pair of thumb-cuffs instead. The catches are about the size of a NZ 50c piece, with three or four links between them. They are easily removed from your own hands by using your own fingers - just a wee catch to be moved with your fingernail. My son put them in his trouser pocket and later that day we left for the airport. When we were being scanned, after emigration, but before Duty Free, we put the contents of our pockets and anything else metal in the plastic trays to be x-rayed. My son's souvenir thumb-cuffs (a novelty/toy) were confiscated on the basis that "They are treated the same as a child's toy gun". :waughh: :stare: I was flabbergasted, and of course you can't argue with these guys, if you want to get on the plane. So I wrote an email of complaint when I got back. This is part of the text I sent: One of our visits was to the Old Melbourne Gaol, which my 14 year old son found fascinating, having recently seen the movie about Ned Kelly with Heath Ledger. When he was leaving the Gaol, he bought a memento: a pair of thumb-cuffs (I didn't want him to buy the full-sized handcuffs!!). When we were being processed through Security at the Airport, my son put the thumb-cuffs in the tray, along with the rest of his pockets contents. The Security Officer confiscated the thumb-cuffs, stating that they are "treated the same as a child's toy gun". This is patently absurd. While I can understand and accept many of the security procedures and rules that have been implemented over the last few years around international air travel, continued public acceptance of these restrictions will be tolerated only if they contain, and follow, some obvious common sense reasoning. Thumb-cuffs, each cuff no larger than a ten cent piece cannot possibly be perceived by anyone as posing any danger to anyone over the age of three. There are no offensive implications in a pair of handcuffs, let alone a pair of thumb-cuffs. A pen or a pencil have more potential to be used as weapons, however there are no restrictions I am aware of that prevent passengers from carrying either of these items onto an international flight. My son was disappointed in the actions of the Security Team and he, like me, cannot understand the reasoning behind this seemingly arbitrary action. (The ten cent piece sizing I refer to is the Aussie 10c) I got a response tonight: RE: Confiscation of thumb cuffs at Melbourne International Screening Point, October 2008 Thank you for providing feedback to assist us with our investigations. ISS Security is committed to providing the highest level of customer service which can only be delivered through constant consultation and feedback from the travelling public. In your e-mail you state that a pair of thumb cuffs in your possession were surrendered at the Melbourne Airport International Screening Point as a condition of entry. Whilst we regret the loss of your item, the provisions as outlined in the regulations below must be strictly adhered to by all aviation security personnel. These regulations are in place to ensure the highest levels of safety for all members of the travelling public. Please see below for a detailed examination of the criteria: Thumb cuffs are classed as a prohibited item according to the Aviation Transport Regulations 2005 under the following article: 1.07.5 – Things capable of being used to restrain a person and not otherwise permitted under the Act or these regulations (other examples: cable ties, handcuffs). As per 1.07 Prohibited Items Section (4), a replica or imitation of anything described in column 2 of an item in the table (as per above) is also a prohibited item. For security reasons, aviation security officers are not allowed to discuss in detail criteria associated with prohibited items being confiscated. Security officers will simply state the item is prohibited under the Aviation Transport Regulations 2005. They will then provide a list of alternatives available to the passenger in conjunction with the airline and their particular circumstances. Under no circumstances will the prohibited item be permitted to enter into the sterile area and be taken on board the aircraft. If no alternative is available the passenger will have to surrender the item at the screening point in order to proceed through to the sterile area. All surrendered items are disposed of by Melbourne Airport on a daily basis. Unfortunately there are no facilities available at Melbourne Airport to store surrendered items. Time permitting, passengers must come to their own arrangements in order to keep items that are prohibited or not allowed on board the aircraft. Who is overreacting here? Me or Airport Security?? There is no way in the world these cuffs could be used to restrain anyone who did not want to remain restrained. I'm not too worried about the loss of the thumb-cuffs - it's the principle of the thing (besides I copied the complaint to the Victorian Tourism Board who very kindly got in touch with the Gaol, who will be sending me a replacement pair). From this episode, I gather that what they say about common sense is true - it is uncommon!!! But at least you can fly safely out of Melbourne, knowing they won't let thumb-cuffs on the plane that could compromise your safety. :mad:	johcar (6283)
714506	2008-10-24 10:52:00	Blame the U.S Government for that.	bob_doe_nz (92)
714507	2008-10-24 11:15:00	Does your kid look like this: i5.photobucket.com But seriously, that's just bloody ridiculous. What the hell do they think a kid would do with a thumb-cuff?	qazwsxokmijn (102)
714508	2008-10-24 11:31:00	Yea, overkill. Airport security sux.	rob_on_guitar (4196)
714509	2008-10-24 12:18:00	Blame the U.S Government for that. Blame them and also blame the people who want to crash plans in to things.	stu161204 (123)
714510	2008-10-24 18:27:00	He should have packed them in your luggage, its stuff you carry on they get all paranoid about.	pctek (84)
714511	2008-10-24 18:40:00	The fact is,they take this to silly extremes,when asked to take my shoes off in Manchester airport,I could have shot sombody,but its the game we have to play while [edit] rule.	Cicero (40)
714512	2008-10-24 19:48:00	The world is full of idiots who are prepared to follow any rules slavishly, the basis of the incipient Nazism present in any population, NaZiLand is no exception.	zqwerty (97)
714513	2008-10-24 22:15:00	He should have packed them in your luggage, its stuff you carry on they get all paranoid about. You're right of course, and we were very careful about liquids (another dumb rule) and other stuff. But this item just completely slipped our minds (leaving aside the harmlessness of it), until it was too late...	johcar (6283)
714514	2008-10-24 22:20:00	The fact is,they take this to silly extremes,when asked to take my shoes off in Manchester airport,I could have shot sombody,but its the game we have to play while [edit] rule. The weird/inconsistent thing is, when we left Auckland, I was wanded after going through emigration and the big 'doorway' scanner, and the wand picked up my belt buckle (which I had to turn over to show it was just a buckle), the eyelets on my shoes and the titanium wires in my chest from the bypass a few years ago and the plates in my shoulder from my bike accident last year (didn't have to prove what they were though!). Coming back through Melbourne, I took off my belt in anticipation and put it in the tray, but my shoes were the only things to ring alarms. You'd think the scan settings would at least be consistent at all airports...	johcar (6283)
1 2 3 4