CATSA Rant - commuting with liquids

[Amateur Turbines]

So commuting crew members in uniform are no longer allowed to carry anything over 100mls. This is just plain stupid I would love for them to come on the road for a week with only little bottles of everything! Why are they trying to piss me off so much!

[mucktuk]

You's a flea...edited by Doc for content.

[Flying Nutcracker]

Doesn't CATSA enforce the TC regulated rules? So is it CATSA that are the bad ones for doing this or could it be TC??? I could be way off on this... but don't shoot the piano player for playing a poorly written song extremely well!

[4Stroke]

So commuting crew members in uniform are no longer allowed to carry anything over 100mls.

This is news to me.....where did this come from? Press release? Company memo?

4S

[Tim Tam]

You are complaining because you choose to commute?

Unbelievable.

[KAG]

Crew members in uniform are exempt from the liquid ban. Worst case tell them your dead heading.

[TA/RA]

I have found them to be hit and miss.....

Crew members in uniform are exempt from the liquid ban. Worst case tell them your dead heading.

Carefull about using the word "dead" they might get excited that you have a hidden agenda.

[Caracrane]

Sorry to tell you that you re in the ditch KAG. Same thing happenned to me lately (as Amateur Turbines).

[WALL E]

Thankfully our people and high levels agree this is just stupid and they are looking into it hard.
That's what you get when you give a group of people power that don't really have a sweet clue how to handle it.

[shannon]

I participate in a couple of different forums occasionally, all but this one are non aviation, and this forum is the only one that I'm embarrassed to be a part of. Only on this forum would you find the whining and bitching that would make this thread acceptable. Perhaps its the average education level of pilots, may be its the maturity level, either way its an embarrassment.

[kilocharliemike]

In YUL many of the guys working on the ramp used to enter the zone through the same crew entrance as operating crew. We were told as this is a "sterile" area our lunches were subject to search and seizure if over 100ml. Some old dude had his peanut butter taken and another had a catsa dude thumb through the BLT his wife made him. To avoid this we are told to enter now through the baggage room which is a "secure" zone, still subject to random search but the wont take the lunch your wife packed you. It is right beside Tims on the arrival level. And i have seen F/A's using it. I dont see why you cant as flight crew use this entrance too. I avoid entering through the old crew checkpoint as they are always flooded with pissed of crew and employees these days.

KCM

[moreccsplease]

I participate in a couple of different forums occasionally, all but this one are non aviation, and this forum is the only one that I'm embarrassed to be a part of. Only on this forum would you find the whining and bitching that would make this thread acceptable. Perhaps its the average education level of pilots, may be its the maturity level, either way its an embarrassment.

I think it's a serious lack of moderation. Look at airliners.net for a properly moderated, professional forum if you want to read one. Titles like this thread's would have been edited fast, and the user banned. No spelling mistakes are accepted, no flaming anyone.

P.S. I agree this entire AvCanada is one major professional embarrassment, but there aren't just pilots on here.

[flyinthebug]

I participate in a couple of different forums occasionally, all but this one are non aviation, and this forum is the only one that I'm embarrassed to be a part of. Only on this forum would you find the whining and bitching that would make this thread acceptable. Perhaps its the average education level of pilots, may be its the maturity level, either way its an embarrassment.

I think it's a serious lack of moderation. Look at airliners.net for a properly moderated, professional forum if you want to read one. Titles like this thread's would have been edited fast, and the user banned. No spelling mistakes are accepted, no flaming anyone.

P.S. I agree this entire AvCanada is one major professional embarrassment, but there aren't just pilots on here.

When the mods moderate, we all complain. When the mods dont moderate, we still whine and moan. You cant have it both ways! If your so embarrassed by this site, leave it!

moreccsplease.. Are you suggesting only pilots can show professionalism? Give me a break!

[moreccsplease]

If I leave this site, the public can still view it regardless, and it's still an embarrassment when they see people from the aviation industry conducting themselves this way. Just like the journalist who posted here a week or two ago, what opinion do you think he developed of this industry by reading through this site?

[TopperHarley]

If you guys had to deal with CATSA on a very regular basis, maybe you would be compassionate towards Amateur Turbines frustrations.

That is absolutely ridiculous to have this law enforced for commuters. To blame this on Amateur Turbine because he "chooses" to commute is also stupid. Theres a large percentage of pilots at Jazz, AC and WJ who commute, and this law is about to make their already difficult life and whole lot more so.

[flyinthebug]

If I leave this site, the public can still view it regardless, and it's still an embarrassment when they see people from the aviation industry conducting themselves this way. Just like the journalist who posted here a week or two ago, what opinion do you think he developed of this industry by reading through this site?

I dont disagree with you moreccsplease. I do realize that some idiots get on here and make us all look foolish and quite unprofessional. At other times though, there is a great deal to be learned from threads on this site. I only commented on your "its not just pilots on this site". Some of the worst threads ever on this site have been written by pilots and non-pilots alike. I just didnt think it was fair to suggest if we were all "professional pilots" on this site, that the level of conversation would just naturally esculate to a professional level. There are some gifted engineers and other "aviation" people here that contribute plenty, without having ever turned a prop.

That said, the idiot that started this thread is a prime example of idiotic threads and I hope the mods vaporize this one asap.

And finally, anyone who would reach a conclusion of our industry, based on internet postings would be as pathetic as the posters that assisted him in reaching such a conclusion. Correct me if im wrong, but I thought we used this site as a means of communication and sometimes.. just to have fun?


Fly safe all.

[Finn47]

I hope you realize airliners.net is run by a commercial entity from California, in the business of selling images? I have 8 of my aircraft pics there - uploading is free - but they still don´t let me participate in the av discussion unless I fork out some cash. Been watching the forum for 5 years or so, and with the drivel going on there, too I ain´t gonna pay for the privilege. But with their money, maybe they can hire moderators. This site is free of charge and I kinda like it that way.

[Go Guns]

The liquid, gels, and aerosol exemption is fairly black and white while you're working or deadheading. Commuting falls under a grayer area however and from my understanding, when you're commuting you're really just a passenger and fall under the normal rules where the exemption does not apply. The double edge sword of the current system in Canada is that it's run and staffed by people who seem to have a pretty flimsy grasp of the rules regarding crew members. If you're in uniform you can probably get away with using the exemption, but if they called me on it I wouldn't argue. If you feel you're being unfairly treated by somebody who doesn't understand the rules you can call over a supervisor. It's worked for me and a few others I know. Otherwise we just have to play the game, complain to our supervisor and hope for change. Until then I'll be the guy going through NPS with a double double wrapped in a donut bag (which there supposed to be putting an end to but as long as they keep letting me I'll keep doing it).

ps.. If you don't like the forum piss off and go somewhere else, quit hijacking a valid thread.

[bcflyer]

So commuting crew members in uniform are no longer allowed to carry anything over 100mls. This is just plain stupid I would love for them to come on the road for a week with only little bottles of everything! Why are they trying to piss me off so much!

What airport did this happen at? As far as I know there has been no change in the liquid policy for deadheading or commuting pilots.

[star57]

Recentlly while crossing Security to catch a flight to YVR a guy from CATSA aproached me and greeted me by my first and last name with a smile, I was taken by surprise that any of those ex WalMart and laid off Army & Navy Employee,s would know me...well I let my memory work warp speed backwards and bingo!! this was a fellow that we tried to train years ago( IT Sales) and gave up on...I thanked him for his great effort and sent him packing, I guess he found a new career .

[Mach1]

Does anyone know where (or why) the 100 ml quantity came from? Was there a reason for this amount, or was it just an arbitrary decision?

[Solaris]

Does anyone know where (or why) the 100 ml quantity came from? Was there a reason for this amount, or was it just an arbitrary decision?

Airline passengers are set to see the 100 ml liquid limit for hand luggage lifted as a result of new technology.

By David Millward, Transport Editor
Published: 10:52AM GMT 12 Mar 2009


Trials of a new generation of scanners are due to take place at a number of airports across the EU next year.

The move to scrap the restrictions, which was first disclosed by the Daily Telegraph in December, follows talks with the industry and pressure from the aviation trade body, the International Air Transport Association.



Britain to oppose easing liquid rules
It is now hoped that the restriction will start to be removed in six months to a year's time.

For more than two years passengers have had to display their toiletries in a clear plastic bag before being allowed through security.

They have repeatedly fallen foul of the 100 ml limit and have been forced to surrender an array of liquids, including expensive perfume and aftershave.

Life has been particularly difficult for contact lens wearers, with solutions in small enough bottles often hard to find.

The same is true of other routine items including shaving cream and spray on deodorants.

In addition policing the restrictions has slowed down airport security because of the need to inspect the clear plastic bags before allowing passengers into the departure lounge.

The Department for Transport security executive, TRANSEC, has been working with companies on a scanner which could distinguish between benign and potentially dangerous liquids.

Smiths Detection, a company at the forefront of aviation security, has been running trials of the next generation of scanners for some time.

But several hurdles have to be cleared before the machinery can be used, including laboratory testing.

Further trials would have to take place at an airport and finally approval from the European Union and other bodies, including the Federal Aviation Administration in the United States, before the scanners can be introduced.

Following the alleged plot to down transatlantic airliners in August 2006 a blanket ban on liquids was introduced.

The 100 ml limit was introduced two months later as a concession to passengers following security advice on how much liquid was needed to create a viable explosive device.

The Department for Transport hopes that the restrictions could be lifted once the technology is in place.

"We are working with international partners to develop technological solutions that enable a lifting of restrictions and current indications are that some technology could be available for deployment on a limited trial basis at some EU airports in 2010," a spokesman said

"In the meantime the present restrictions must remain in place in order to address the real and serious threat from liquid explosives.

"Protecting the travelling public is our highest priority and we will not do anything that puts passengers at risk."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/news ... ology.html
TelegraphNews

[Amateur Turbines]

As for me being an idiot for starting this thread......do you ever go through security up to 5-6 times a day while working? The title of this thread has no bad words in it although implied, and I think that it gets my point across

I was not stopped at any airport I just received a company memo stating that effective immediately crew members commuting to work in uniform are no longer allowed to carry liquids or gels in there carry on. Now I must check in all of my bags and hope that they make it across the country every time I go to work. WJ is pretty good at not losing things but.... I don't feel like wearing my gonch inside out ....again

I have a red pass with frickin laser beams that can identify that I'M NOT A THREAT to aviation. I don't mind producing that ID every time even with a boarding pass. I'm also tired of hiding my coffee.......seriously

I believe that this is an interpretation problem like another posted a grey area where it was not understood what the difference between deadheading and commuting was. This has probably been the actual rule since 911 but some people interpreted it as, if you are in uniform you are deadheading which of course is not true. I think now we just have to try and get them to change it for good!

[ywg9]

I went thru security and the made me take off my aircrew pass put it in the scanner with my wallet and phone. I set the metal detector off and than they made me take my boots off they re xrayed those than gave me all my stuff back. than as I was walking away the CATSA person came to me and asked if i had any liquids in my jacket pocket ( thinking to myself that there was nothing in my pockets, remember you made me empty them out dumb ass)...they just finished xraying the damn thing. I mumbled something rude under my breath and walked away. I'm not sure what the training is like but if you cant tell what a bottle of liquid looks like on the xray than why are you even operating it (these are the people make air travel safer HA HA). I also dont get why CATSA/TC think that I need 100ml of liquid (or any of the other stupid things they look at for that matter) to do something bad with the plane last I checked I sit up front already in the cockpit, and isnt that why we have the back ground checks for Aircrew anway...rant dont sorry to bother you

feeling your frustration

YWG

[bawlsdeep]

Catsa is a for profit company that has the security contract on behalf of TC. If you have to give up all that person info so that you can operate a flight then I would like to see them defend in court against not being able to use the bypass facilities or the benefits of the RAIC card to simply travel in the back of the aircraft. It could be in violation of the Charter of human rights.

#4. Every person has a right to the safeguard of his dignity, honour and reputation.
#5. Every person has a right to respect for his private life.
24.1. No one may be subjected to unreasonable search or seizure.

Nothing worse than having to give up all your personal info to get a pass only to stand in line with everyone else and have to PAY CATSA to deadhead, commute or travel.

I would love to see a class action lawsuit filed against the security companies claiming that RAIC holders should not be subject to security fees or the same rules as the non-RAIC holders (general public) when commuting and such. Their first search is complete before they issue a card, The biometric search is proof of who and what you are, if they want to search again let it be done by their randomizer, which they already have. Anything more is unreasonable.