"Security Breach" at BNE

[WynSock]

Interesting,
there was an article on ABC news relating to the breach of security by 15 "qantas" staff this afternoon. It has since been pulled.

Non story? Or perhaps a chaser moment?

[virgindriver]

Well we had one down our end of the terminal last week and it closed down the domestic airport.

I don't recall hearing about that on the news.:}

I think it's a non event that happens more than you think (well I think anyway).

[Zoomy]

There is a security breach at every major airport every day when all the baggage handlers, cleaners and caterers go airside.:bored:

[topend3]

Zoomy

That's not actually a breach. A breach would be where something occurs in contravention to the Aviation Transport Security Act and Regulations.

There is nothing currently in either of these documents preventing airport staff working airside, provided they are displaying the appropriate identification.

[Icarus53]

Mods,

Can we get a "missed the point" emoticon? Maybe something flying over someone's head?:}

[5miles]

Can we get a "missed the point" emoticon? Maybe something flying over someone's head?

I was picturing an outswinger, sliding past the outside edge and going straight thru to the keeper.
:ugh:

[Zoomy]

Topend,
Understood, but I think you may know where I am coming from. This needs to be addressed if they are serious about security.

[no one]

Understood, but I think you may know where I am coming from. This needs to be addressed if they are serious about security.

Or maybe give flight crew the same privileges as cleaners, groundies, etc.

[tasdevil.f27]

Always new pilots were shifty characters :}

However it is a very strange system where some people who access the aircraft are screened & some are not.

At some airports ground crew get there bags checked by security before entering , OOL comes to mind, but many don't.

[Propstop]

In a country I have worked in EVERYBODY who went airside had to go through the screening point. All people who entered the terminal had to go through a detector and have any bags xrayed. Passengers went through three separate security checks and the last was a physical pat down prior to boarding the aircraft. That was REAL security, unlike the dog and pony show for passengers in Oz.

[SpannerTwister]

Given that many people here appear to be in shock and awe that.....
EVERY DAY HUNDREDS OF PEOPLE, WHO HAVE NOT BEEN SECURITY SCREENED, HAVE ACCESS TO AIRLINERS IN AUSTRALIA...in Sydney, Melbourne, Brisbane, Perth, Adelaide, Cairns, Darwin etc etc.the obvious question becomes "What do you propose to do about it ?"

What would you agree is a fair time needed to adequately screen someone...Would you agree 30 seconds ?

So, 300 people starting work at 0500 at the airport means 150 minutes of screening time. Want to put them through the "passenger screening" point, say three operators....that'll take 50 minutes. Do you propose that all staff need to be at the airport (unpaid) for 50 minutes prior to work, or should their actual work-hours be 7 hrs 10 mins with the airlines wearing the cost ?

Of course, you could have a dedicated staff screening point, how many screening operators would you propose putting on those points ?

Then of course, there's the obvious question of what do you do when you find a "weapon" ? Aircraft engineers are legitimately allowed items such as Leatherman tools, box-cutters, screwdrivers, scissors and other "prohibited" items. Likewise the motor mechanics also have a tool-box full of otherwise prohibited items. Freight staff have large scissors, knives and once again, box-cutters.

Pilots, heck, no need to bring anything to the airport, axes supplied in each and every cockpit !!

And seriously.....
1) Do you think you could actually prevent an airside worker "smuggling" anything he wanted to airside ?
2) Do you seriously think that baggage loaders, pilots, engineers or a myriad of other workers NEED a bomb to cause catastrophic damage to an aircraft ?

So, To all those who are in shock and horror that a flight attendant might carry a pair of nail scissors in her overnight bag, pray tell.....

WHAT DO YOU PROPOSE AS AN EFFECTIVE METHOD OF 100% PREVENTING ANY PERSON FROM EVER CAUSING HARM TO AN AIRCRAFT EVER AGAIN ?

Post your responses here and us airport workers will propose an effective counter-argument to each and every one of them :ok:!!!


SpannerTwister

[Mstr Caution]

Nah, the greatest threat to the operation is the missus of the Captain & they've been married for over 20 years.

Barring flight deck access has really made the whole operation much more safe.

:ugh:

[Willoz269]

Do a quick test....drive to the domestic terminal at 2am...the doors will most likely be locked.....and knock on the door for about 15 minutes until one of the security guards wakes up...they fall asleep on the passenger lounges and get very p!ssed off when you wake them up!

Security? hmmm...

[no one]

WHAT DO YOU PROPOSE AS AN EFFECTIVE METHOD OF 100% PREVENTING ANY PERSON FROM EVER CAUSING HARM TO AN AIRCRAFT EVER AGAIN ?

Take the CASA approach...make aviation so safe that an Aircraft never leaves the ground

[Worrals in the wilds]

In part I think the government continues screening because they believe the public supports it.

From the recent Aviation Screening Report's Attachment D p124,

Qualitative research further supports the view that travellers generally agree the process is sufficient and effective. Generally, strict security measures contribute to a feeling of safety among travellers, particularly when stringent screening processes are visible (i.e. travellers see others being screened, frisked or undergoing an explosive detection test). When asked what they would think if security measures were reduced, the majority of participants said they would feel less safe and would not generally welcome a less stringent security screening approach.

Of course, you can make a survey say anything you want (there were only 1000 participants and no questions about crew screening) but a fairly brief read of the statistics indicated solid public support to me. Feel free to pick it apart more thoroughly.

This is the type of information the government uses to canvass public opinion before policy changes, and it will not generally make a change perceived to be unpopular unless there are public safety issues involved(such as compulsory seatbelts). I don't necessarily agree with the 'govern by popularity' approach, but it's they way they do business.

From the same report, what opposition has there been from the industry? Very little, and most of it on here or in tea rooms, which doesn't count as a serious backlash. Attachment B (written submissions received) shows no unions, no employees' associations, no aviation workers (possibly excepting the four personal submissions) and no interest, feedback or opposition whatsoever from industry workers.

In contrast, there were 195 individual submissions from the knitting community, who obviously organized a letter writing campaign, and guess what? The report recommends dropping the ban on knitting needles and crochet hooks. See a pattern, anyone?

Before anyone asks, it's not my problem either, because I don't care about going through screening. If you do care, as many of you obviously do, there is a better process to follow than complaining on here about the lack of airside screening and poor quality of the fences. No security system is inpenetrable (even Alcatraz was breached) and IMHO public discussion here about our airports' inevitable security weaknesses only encourages breaches and gives the crazies ideas.

If you feel the lack of airside screening is a serious risk, then the same logic applies. Write a submission, form a lobby group, etc etc. Don't just complain that 'we have to, so why don't they?' because that's not an argument that will ever wash with the government, particularly if it only goes as far as a bulletin board.

Review of Aviation Security Screening (http://www.infrastructure.gov.au/transport/security/aviation/screening/index.aspx)