New (Microwave) Scanners at FRA - No "opt-out"?
Nov 9, 2015, 3:23 pm
#46
Moderator: Lufthansa Miles & More, India based airlines, India, External Miles & Points Resources
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: MUC
Programs: LH SEN
Posts: 48,196
They were introduced the last week of September on most Y/non elite lanes in MUC and created havoc. Now they have taken a few out. The main reason is the fact they didn't change the arrangement and just replaced the previous metal detectors with the L3 ATD. This breaks the flow completely as people don't know when to step forward, or out, or to wait for the result, are held back or coaxed out etc.
Nov 10, 2015, 9:21 am
#47
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Washington, D.C.
Programs: UA Premier 1K: PlAAtinum; DL SM, MM; Marriott Gold; CO Plat Emeritus; NW Plat Emeritus
Posts: 4,776
Nov 19, 2015, 11:01 am
#48
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 46
haha
I was at MUC in august, when there was only one L3 scanner in the non-Schengen area, only used on US bound pax. I noticed that the space in the security hall is extremely small, and didn't foresee them installing any more, since it would be WAY too tight to fit lines of pax and scanners in every lane. Now that they put more in... what a joke of a situation: massive queues and nobody wants to use them 
This is the fault of the German Interior Ministry. They thought it would help their "increased security for Europe" initiative. Studies have proved that the scanners are actually less effective at detecting knives and guns than traditional metal detectors, and FAR less effective than the best solution, which is of course sniffer dogs. You can ALWAYS opt-out if it's in the EU, and don't let any badly trained moron tell you otherwise!
This is the fault of the German Interior Ministry. They thought it would help their "increased security for Europe" initiative. Studies have proved that the scanners are actually less effective at detecting knives and guns than traditional metal detectors, and FAR less effective than the best solution, which is of course sniffer dogs. You can ALWAYS opt-out if it's in the EU, and don't let any badly trained moron tell you otherwise!
Nov 19, 2015, 2:53 pm
#49
Moderator: Lufthansa Miles & More, India based airlines, India, External Miles & Points Resources
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: MUC
Programs: LH SEN
Posts: 48,196
Nov 19, 2015, 3:13 pm
#50
Suspended
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Watchlisted by the prejudiced, en route to purgatory
Programs: Just Say No to Fleecing and Blacklisting
Posts: 102,095
The reference about sniffer dogs seems to be implicitly about interdicting explosives rather than about interdicting knives and guns.
The strip search scanners don't require genius to be gamed so as to smuggle contraband WEIs, a fact which is driving various bodies to consider having passengers subjected to both the WTMD and the strip search machines prior to being cleared to fly.
The strip search scanners don't require genius to be gamed so as to smuggle contraband WEIs, a fact which is driving various bodies to consider having passengers subjected to both the WTMD and the strip search machines prior to being cleared to fly.
Nov 21, 2015, 2:07 am
#51
Join Date: Mar 2001
Posts: 522
I fly out of DUS, CGN and FRA quite regularly.
DUS Terminal C has recently gotten a lot more polite with opting out (or maybe I have been lucky with the staff). No more request to have a chat with the police.
Opting out seems to take the staff right of their routine, with quite undesirable results for security.
DUS Terminal C has recently gotten a lot more polite with opting out (or maybe I have been lucky with the staff). No more request to have a chat with the police.
Opting out seems to take the staff right of their routine, with quite undesirable results for security.
Nov 22, 2015, 1:26 pm
#52
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 46
I mean sniffer dogs in combo with walk through metal detectors. It would be far more effective, and wouldn't mean strip searching passangers. I suppose L3 would hate that, since these machines are £350000 each, so that fills their pockets nicely. A dog wouldn't do that, and L3 needs the money to make weapons to bomb people.
Nov 23, 2015, 12:22 pm
#53
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: mostly not far from AMS, otherwise NUE
Programs: FB Silver, Hilton Diamond
Posts: 2,381
After a mere three months I have finally received a response from the Dutch ministry of defense.
As a reminder, I contacted them about the compliance of Schiphol (AMS) with EU regulation 1147/2011, which requires passengers be informed about the voluntariness of the use of body scanners within the European Union and the fact that passengers at AMS are not informed about this fact.
I specifically asked them the following questions:
1) Do you agree that passengers at Schiphol are not made aware in any way that the use of body scanners is voluntary? If not, why not?
2) Do you agree that as such Schiphol is in breach of EU regulation 1147/2011? If not, why not?
3) How does the KMar (Koninklijke Marechaussee) intend to ensure this situation is resolved, i.e. that passengers are informed of their rights?
4) When does KMar expect to be able to ensure Schiphol complies with EU 1147/2011?
Their response today - paraphrased from Dutch:
They also attached two photos of the placards in question:
My take:
ad a) It is wholly irrelevant that Schiphol has information about the voluntariness on its website. There are passengers who either have no Internet access or who do simply do not consult every airport's website on the hunt for information such as this. However the regulation states that passengers must be informed prior to security check, and this applies to all passengers, therefore the website is irrelevant and insufficient.
ad b) These placards are insufficient in terms of informing passengers of their rights to opt out. They merely tell passengers to ask if they have any questions. Passengers may not be aware that they can opt out and therefore may not have that question, yet they still have that right and the regulation requires passengers be informed about their rights.
ad c) I doubt that the Commission has signed off on this wording because it is quite blatantly not sufficient to comply with the regulation. I have asked the Ministry to provide me with a reference that I can use to approach the European Commission. If they did sign off, then this needs to be taken up with the European Commission.
In general: In my view the act of informing a passengers of their rights is a "push" activity (the passenger is told), rather than a "pull" activity (the passenger has to ask). Case in point: Article 14 of EU 261/2004 which also describes a requirement to inform passengers of their rights, namely by airlines, stating very, very clearly who the onus of information is on:
As a reminder, I contacted them about the compliance of Schiphol (AMS) with EU regulation 1147/2011, which requires passengers be informed about the voluntariness of the use of body scanners within the European Union and the fact that passengers at AMS are not informed about this fact.
I specifically asked them the following questions:
1) Do you agree that passengers at Schiphol are not made aware in any way that the use of body scanners is voluntary? If not, why not?
2) Do you agree that as such Schiphol is in breach of EU regulation 1147/2011? If not, why not?
3) How does the KMar (Koninklijke Marechaussee) intend to ensure this situation is resolved, i.e. that passengers are informed of their rights?
4) When does KMar expect to be able to ensure Schiphol complies with EU 1147/2011?
Their response today - paraphrased from Dutch:
Originally Posted by Dutch Ministry of Defense
a) Schiphol is informing passengers on its website (http://www.schiphol.nl/Reizigers/OpS...curityScan.htm) that the use of the bodyscanner is voluntary.
b) In addition Schiphol has posted placards near and at the security filters informing passengers that they can ask staff if they have any questions.
c) The Ministry of Security and Justice has submitted these particular placards to the European Commission, which has signed off on them.
b) In addition Schiphol has posted placards near and at the security filters informing passengers that they can ask staff if they have any questions.
c) The Ministry of Security and Justice has submitted these particular placards to the European Commission, which has signed off on them.
My take:
ad a) It is wholly irrelevant that Schiphol has information about the voluntariness on its website. There are passengers who either have no Internet access or who do simply do not consult every airport's website on the hunt for information such as this. However the regulation states that passengers must be informed prior to security check, and this applies to all passengers, therefore the website is irrelevant and insufficient.
ad b) These placards are insufficient in terms of informing passengers of their rights to opt out. They merely tell passengers to ask if they have any questions. Passengers may not be aware that they can opt out and therefore may not have that question, yet they still have that right and the regulation requires passengers be informed about their rights.
ad c) I doubt that the Commission has signed off on this wording because it is quite blatantly not sufficient to comply with the regulation. I have asked the Ministry to provide me with a reference that I can use to approach the European Commission. If they did sign off, then this needs to be taken up with the European Commission.
In general: In my view the act of informing a passengers of their rights is a "push" activity (the passenger is told), rather than a "pull" activity (the passenger has to ask). Case in point: Article 14 of EU 261/2004 which also describes a requirement to inform passengers of their rights, namely by airlines, stating very, very clearly who the onus of information is on:
Originally Posted by EU 261/2004
Obligation to inform passengers of their rights
1. The operating air carrier shall ensure that at check-in a clearly legible notice containing the following text is displayed in a manner clearly visible to passengers: "If you are denied boarding or if your flight is cancelled or delayed for at least two hours, ask at the check-in counter or boarding gate for the text stating your rights, particularly with regard to compensation and assistance".
2. An operating air carrier denying boarding or cancelling a flight shall provide each passenger affected with a written notice setting out the rules for compensation and assistance in line with this Regulation. It shall also provide each passenger affected by a delay of at least two hours with an equivalent notice. The contact details of the national designated body referred to in Article 16 shall also be given to the passenger in written form.
3. In respect of blind and visually impaired persons, the provisions of this Article shall be applied using appropriate alternative means.
1. The operating air carrier shall ensure that at check-in a clearly legible notice containing the following text is displayed in a manner clearly visible to passengers: "If you are denied boarding or if your flight is cancelled or delayed for at least two hours, ask at the check-in counter or boarding gate for the text stating your rights, particularly with regard to compensation and assistance".
2. An operating air carrier denying boarding or cancelling a flight shall provide each passenger affected with a written notice setting out the rules for compensation and assistance in line with this Regulation. It shall also provide each passenger affected by a delay of at least two hours with an equivalent notice. The contact details of the national designated body referred to in Article 16 shall also be given to the passenger in written form.
3. In respect of blind and visually impaired persons, the provisions of this Article shall be applied using appropriate alternative means.
Nov 23, 2015, 2:11 pm
#54
Join Date: May 2010
Programs: Delta Silver, HH Gold, Accor Gold, IHG Platinum
Posts: 5,342
Agree that saying PAX are informed they can ask questions is not the same as informing them about their right to opt-out.
I opted out for the first time yesterday at AMS and luckily did not need to educate them about that right. Shoes did need to come off for a separate scan and screener asked for my reason to opt-out.
BTW everyone in front of me went through the scanner and almost everyone still needed a frisk search. I think if everybody skips the scan it might be faster.
I opted out for the first time yesterday at AMS and luckily did not need to educate them about that right. Shoes did need to come off for a separate scan and screener asked for my reason to opt-out.
BTW everyone in front of me went through the scanner and almost everyone still needed a frisk search. I think if everybody skips the scan it might be faster.
Nov 23, 2015, 5:24 pm
#55
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Seattle, WA
Programs: DL Diamond 1.7MM, Starlux Insighter, Bonvoy Titanium, Hilton Gold, Hertz PC
Posts: 3,949
They are legally required to allow an opt out. It is part of what allowed the scanners to be used in the EU.
The only place that does not allow an opt out of a body scanner at an airport check point is Australia (which to do so, the government backtracked on what they had promised, then ignored every single public comment on the matter). Even then, in the 3 years since they got forced on people departing Australia, I have yet to be forced into one.
The only place that does not allow an opt out of a body scanner at an airport check point is Australia (which to do so, the government backtracked on what they had promised, then ignored every single public comment on the matter). Even then, in the 3 years since they got forced on people departing Australia, I have yet to be forced into one.
The screener pulled me aside after I was through the checkpoint and offered a helpful hint: they will allow anyone to opt out for a manual screening if they state they are claustrophobic. They suggested I offer that justification in the future. Kind of defeats the whole point of a mandatory screening if there's a blanket optout that doesn't require any doctor's proof, but there you are.
Nov 30, 2015, 2:39 am
#56
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 3,537
I'd like to know if wait times have gone up or down after introducing these scanners?
I departed from Hamburg a couple of times recently and every time it took 20 minutes or so whereas in the past it always felt like I breezed through. Same time so if there is a difference it's because of the scanners. I understand that I am biased so that's why I want to know if there is any data available so I can prove or disprove.
I departed from Hamburg a couple of times recently and every time it took 20 minutes or so whereas in the past it always felt like I breezed through. Same time so if there is a difference it's because of the scanners. I understand that I am biased so that's why I want to know if there is any data available so I can prove or disprove.
Now, I do think they're a huge waste of money...
Nov 30, 2015, 3:41 am
#57
Suspended
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Watchlisted by the prejudiced, en route to purgatory
Programs: Just Say No to Fleecing and Blacklisting
Posts: 102,095
I'd like to know if wait times have gone up or down after introducing these scanners?
I departed from Hamburg a couple of times recently and every time it took 20 minutes or so whereas in the past it always felt like I breezed through. Same time so if there is a difference it's because of the scanners. I understand that I am biased so that's why I want to know if there is any data available so I can prove or disprove.
I departed from Hamburg a couple of times recently and every time it took 20 minutes or so whereas in the past it always felt like I breezed through. Same time so if there is a difference it's because of the scanners. I understand that I am biased so that's why I want to know if there is any data available so I can prove or disprove.
All the airport-utilized machines produce images of the naked body and then are run for supposed discrepancies.
If you want government-supplied data on this, FOIA DHS/TSA since they have plenty of reports on this.
I avoid the strip search machines because I don't want to encourage their use -- I see them as an expensive waste of money, slowing things down, unnecessarily invasive, and easily tricked to miss contraband WEIs.
Dec 11, 2015, 2:26 pm
#58
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: mostly not far from AMS, otherwise NUE
Programs: FB Silver, Hilton Diamond
Posts: 2,381
The European Commission has now responded within less than two weeks of my enquiry.
In essence they're saying they're not responsible for the approval of an member state's implementation of EU 1147/2011, but that authority lies with the national government.
They do say however that as far as they are concerned airports can comply with the regulation by posting signs that say passengers should ask if they have any questions (as Schiphol has done) and by then - upon question - informing passengers of their rights. Or in other words, we should praise those airports that have signs proactively informing passengers about their rights.
To me this seems unrealistic since we know there have been cases where security folks have misinformed (potentially on purpose) passengers that they are required to pass through the body scanner if they want to fly.
I'll try to push back, but it doesn't seem like I'll be getting somewhere.
Follows their verbatim response:
In essence they're saying they're not responsible for the approval of an member state's implementation of EU 1147/2011, but that authority lies with the national government.
They do say however that as far as they are concerned airports can comply with the regulation by posting signs that say passengers should ask if they have any questions (as Schiphol has done) and by then - upon question - informing passengers of their rights. Or in other words, we should praise those airports that have signs proactively informing passengers about their rights.
To me this seems unrealistic since we know there have been cases where security folks have misinformed (potentially on purpose) passengers that they are required to pass through the body scanner if they want to fly.
I'll try to push back, but it doesn't seem like I'll be getting somewhere.
Follows their verbatim response:
Originally Posted by EU
Thank you for your email dated 30th November 2015, titled, “Implementation of regulation 1147/2011 by Amsterdam Airport Schiphol”.
In reply to the issues you raised therein, allow me to specify the applicable rules included in the relevant EU regulation.
Firstly it is the responsibility of national authorities to ensure that regulations are implemented correctly. Hence the Commission never authorises any measures that are implemented at EU airports.
As you correctly indicated in your email, the relevant EU regulation obliges airports to inform the passengers of the technology used, the conditions associated to its use and the possibility for passengers to opt out from being screened by a security scanner.
Nevertheless, it is up to the airports to decide on how to provide this information to the passengers. They can choose written or oral formats as long as every passenger receives the information before being subjected to screening with a security scanner.
Hence, although the sign which are shown in your email may not be as such sufficient for compliance with the regulation, it would be so in combination with oral explanations given by staff before the screening process. .
To conclude, allow me to assure you that the Commission takes enquiries from citizens very seriously. To this end, we will take this issue up with the Dutch appropriate authority and ask them to ensure that the requirements of the regulation are adhered to. Whilst hoping that you find the clarifications in this email useful, should you require further information do not hesitate to contact the undersigned.
In reply to the issues you raised therein, allow me to specify the applicable rules included in the relevant EU regulation.
Firstly it is the responsibility of national authorities to ensure that regulations are implemented correctly. Hence the Commission never authorises any measures that are implemented at EU airports.
As you correctly indicated in your email, the relevant EU regulation obliges airports to inform the passengers of the technology used, the conditions associated to its use and the possibility for passengers to opt out from being screened by a security scanner.
Nevertheless, it is up to the airports to decide on how to provide this information to the passengers. They can choose written or oral formats as long as every passenger receives the information before being subjected to screening with a security scanner.
Hence, although the sign which are shown in your email may not be as such sufficient for compliance with the regulation, it would be so in combination with oral explanations given by staff before the screening process. .
To conclude, allow me to assure you that the Commission takes enquiries from citizens very seriously. To this end, we will take this issue up with the Dutch appropriate authority and ask them to ensure that the requirements of the regulation are adhered to. Whilst hoping that you find the clarifications in this email useful, should you require further information do not hesitate to contact the undersigned.
Jan 4, 2016, 4:18 am
#59
Join Date: Mar 2001
Posts: 522
After a mere three months I have finally received a response from the Dutch ministry of defense.
As a reminder, I contacted them about the compliance of Schiphol (AMS) with EU regulation 1147/2011, which requires passengers be informed about the voluntariness of the use of body scanners within the European Union and the fact that passengers at AMS are not informed about this fact.
As a reminder, I contacted them about the compliance of Schiphol (AMS) with EU regulation 1147/2011, which requires passengers be informed about the voluntariness of the use of body scanners within the European Union and the fact that passengers at AMS are not informed about this fact.
:roll eyes:
That said, I was treated professionally after I requested an opt-out.