Aviation security, curfews and land issues.

[Mr. Hat]

"outdated and lagging behind international best practice"... really?



Call for security black list overhaul | The Australian (http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/business/story/0,28124,25892553-23349,00.html)

Steve Creedy, Aviation writer | August 07, 2009

AUSTRALIA'S aviation security rules have been attacked as hastily developed, outdated and lagging behind international best practice.

In a submission calling for the rules to be reviewed, the Tourism and Transport Forum says many of the aviation security regulations were developed in haste after the September 11, 2001 attacks and with little consultation.

TTF managing director Christopher Brown called on the government to abandon its "rigid, catch-all" security regime in favour of a risk-based system.

Mr Brown cited the prohibited items list, which bans metal cutlery on flights to and from Australia, as an example of a rule that was out of step with international practice.

"Strengthened cockpit doors mean that low-risk items that do not threaten the security of the aircraft, such as tweezers and nail clippers, should be removed from the list," he said.

"Similarly, the ban on metal cutlery on international services to and from Australia should be removed -- it no longer makes sense given the increased sophistication of aircraft security.

"This would enable passenger screening resources to focus on genuine threats and bring Australia into line with other jurisdictions, where a more risk-based approach is adopted."

Mr Brown said Counter Terrorism First Response requirements also imposed significant costs on regional airports.

He also called for a review of airport curfew police.

The lobby group argued for a more "pragmatic policy" on curfew dispensations on the 5am-6am shoulder period at Sydney airport.

The transport and tourism lobby group is also urging the federal government to stop inappropriate development around airports or risk crippling airports' ability to contribute to the economy.

Airports are becoming increasingly worried by a tendency for state and local governments to approve developments in or close to airport buffer zones. TTF also raised the issue.

In a submission to the federal government's aviation white paper, TTF calls for clear policies that ensure airport growth is not stunted by nearby development and that residents are not subject to unreasonable noise levels.

Mr Brown said allowing new residential developments close to major airports resulted in a lose-lose situation, where operators could not realise growth plans and future residents were condemned to high noise levels.

He cited NSW and also local government support for the proposed residential development near Canberra airport as examples.

"The federal government should take a leadership role in safeguarding airports from such development, as part of the aviation white paper process," he said.

"Establishing appropriate buffer zones around airports, ensuring sensible land-use planning and providing residents with easy-to-use noise information would help remove ambiguity about what is acceptable."

In addition to the Canberra example, TTF's submission cites a residential development near Perth airport that was approved in 2004 against the objection of the airport operator and which is now subject to noise complaints.

It also cites a number of proposals in Brisbane, some of which have been approved, for noise-sensitive, largely residential developments under current and future flight paths.
Story

[barrybeebone]

Mr Hat

I agree that some rules such as metal knives, knitting needles etc are silly rules and out of date. But in general I think you will find Australia's aviation security regime is considered one of the better ones. Not the best but definitely one of the better ones.

What is world's best practice anyway? Anybody know?

ICAO? Well ICAO I don't see them visiting Australia every 5 minutes to complain about our aviation security regime being out of date.

[Bell_Flyer]

What is world's best practice anyway? Anybody know?

barrybeebone - pl don't encourage the close minded and low IQ guys who determined that fences have to be built at Birdsville, Thargomindah, Normanton, Bourke, Lightning Ridge, etc and other outback airports. They might start building fences at Numbulwar, Borroloola, Bickerton, Oodnadatta, Adels Grove, Dunk Island, Mawson's Hut, etc and waste even more of our tax payers dollars.

Let sleeping dogs lie - especially learning impaired ones.

[airtags]

The TTF is just posturing as it yet again seeks bucket loads of yours and my tax dollars to prop up it's inefficient and inarticulate lobbying and morbidly complacent tourism members that think the world owes them a very wealthy living.

The bleating about the pragmatic non standardised security regime is just a disguise for the real pitch for (more) govt money and endorsement of its agenda in the much awaited aviation white paper later this year

............but then again GMH did pick up a 200 mill taxpayer donation by doing the same thing.......so you can't really blame them i s'pose.

Creedy however could have done a better story that just rehashing the TTF release.

[Capt Fathom]

fences have to be built at......

Since when did a fence stop anyone?

In fact, nothing will stop a determined person!

[Torres]

Especially if the 2 meter high chain wire security fence, with coded gate is only 20 meters long and the rest of the airport perimeter fence is two strand sheep wire and star pickets. :ugh:

[barrybeebone]

Lets eb realistic, security is necessary and we all have to live with it. No security in the world is full proof and aviation security is no different in this regard.

I agree that anyone, as long as they are determined, can breach security but if you had nothing then I think you would find more security incidents occurring.

Look at what happened in Jakarta on July 17. The Marriott and Ritz hotels were considered to be some of the most secure places in town...all it took was for some religous obssessed F###wits to scope out the security, identify the gaps and the rest is history.

So whether it is Oodnadatta or Jakarta, security in some form is necessary. There will always be a debate about whether a fence, guard, CCTV or whatever is necessary. Damned if you do and damned if you don't!

[Jenna Talia]

So whether it is Oodnadatta or Jakarta, security in some form is necessary

Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh :ugh:

[the wizard of auz]

Especially if the 2 meter high chain wire security fence, with coded gate is only 20 meters long and the rest of the airport perimeter fence is two strand sheep wire and star pickets

Careful Torres. When all this rubbish was proposed and I objected on here, I was howled down by the mob. now they all seem to have finally arrived at the same conclusion I was trying to highlight way back then. Same Goes for ASIC as well. now it has been amply demonstrated that its most useful feature is to access cheap coffee, and costs far more than its worth...
I'm afraid we have a group of sheep like people with little foresight involved in the decision making part of our industry, and a group of pilots that would rather complain on Pprune than actually do something about the rubbish that is imposed upon us.
I'm usually not the type to say I told you so....... (well actually I am) but, I told you so. :ugh:

[Mr. Hat]

Hi Barry - Security is great when its applied consistently thoughtout a given industry. I'm still amazed that cleaners refuellers and others go airside without being screened. Makes the entire process a complete waste of time.

[rotaryman]

Mr. Hat

Hi Barry - Security is great when its applied consistently thoughtout a given industry. I'm still amazed that cleaners refuellers and others go airside without being screened. Makes the entire process a complete waste of time.

Given that these individuals have at least obtained an ASIC and that a certain degree of trust is placed in these people, were do you draw the line? in other words who screens the screeners??:}

[Bell_Flyer]

[QUOTE]So whether it is Oodnadatta or Jakarta, security in some form is necessary. /QUOTE]

Wow, that is arguably one of the dumbest statements I have ever read in PPRUNE – nay, let it be the dumbest statement I have ever read, period. Let’s just assume you are serious and not a member of The Chaser Team.

Jakarta – population 8,700,000. Capital and largest city in Indonesia. In fact, largest city in SE Asia! An economic, political and cultural centre. Mainly Muslim population. Has a large international airport.

Oodnadatta – population 277 (150 males, 127 females including 103 Aborigines). Lots of camels and rabbits. Surrounded by 3000 square miles of pastoral lands. The economic, political and cultural elements are probably encapsulated by the Pink Roadhouse (G’Day Dave!). Has 2 dirt strips 13/31 and 04/22. PAL not reliable on 120.6.

Do you mean to insinuate that Oodnadatta needs airstrip security? From what? Roaming camels?

How do I point out that your suppositions are uninformed and wrong-headed without insulting you? These days the politically correct thing to do is to make condescending statements about how everyone is entitled to their own opinion.

The trouble with that approach is that stupidity goes unchallenged and is given equal status with sound reasoning. If nobody ever says that anything is stupid, then nobody is ever forced to really defend a position and we end up with radio shows by Kyle Sandilands and asinine public servants creating ASIC cards for Groote Eylandt, and - most tragically - classrooms full of kids who grow up without the tools to tell fact from fiction.

Now tell me truthfully, I’ve been duped, haven’t I? You’re really Julian Morrow, aren’t you? Or Chas Licciardello. Gee you guys are funny….. loved the APEC motorcade.

[Worrals in the wilds]

This is an interesting discussion, because in my experience one of the problems with the relevant government departments is a complete inability to accept that different places have different requirements.
'One rule for all' is the current motto of federal policy (in aviation/border security, anyway) even when it completely transcends common sense. The Birdsville ASIC is a prime example.

I'm still amazed that cleaners refuellers and others go airside without being screened.

I think the main stumbling block is cost, as the government doesn't want to pay to set up all the screening points and the airports don't see why they should have to. The initial outlay and ongoing staffing costs would be huge, unlike the terminals where it's all there for pax anyway. Additionally, searching a truck takes a lot more time and people than X ray / walkthrough for one person and their stuff. Completely illogical from a security perspective, of course, and rough on aircrew and terminal dwellers.

Recently there has been random search procedure implemented at some airports (the CTFRs?) for persons going airside, but it's a long way from the sterile area entry requirements.

The federal government should take a leadership role

That'll be the day, and that goes for both current and previous governments.

[an3_bolt]

Since when did a fence stop anyone?

In fact, nothing will stop a determined person!

I can think of a REAL airport fence - the one at Narita Airport - Tokyo.

If you are going to build a fence - might as well do it properly - something Australia does not seem to do - just pathetic prickly things such as the fence at KSA Sydney. :ugh:

Motes with salt water crocs, trenches with brown snakes, 24,000V razor wire fences and a No Transgression zone with plastic body anti-personnel and anti-tank mines, followed by a couple of machine gun and flame thrower nests just for good measure. Couple of decent layers of defenses should do the trick.......

Certainly deter any of the most die hardest greenies / no airport noise people. :D

[Minimbah]

Worrels has hit the nail on the head. The Federal Government has done one risk assessment for all airports (and other aviation sites) instead of doing a risk assessment for each site. Or a least break it down into different groups of sites - capital cities, regional, bush, etc. It is obvious to all (all with common sense anyway) that the threats at SKSA are different from those at Oodnadatta :ugh:

Unfortunately, we are dealing with government and bureaucracy and there is very little good old Australian "nouse" in these areas!

[Worrals in the wilds]

an3_bolt, I love it.
However, if there's a few things Aussie airports aren't short of, it's trenches, stagnant ditches (moats) and brown snakes. I've always thought the would-be airport invader was likely to get bitten by something or fall in a hole before they got anywhere important. :eek:

The rest of the stuff you ordered should deter the birds as well, although the crocs may become a problem in themselves ;)

[Kangaroo Court]

One of the better "risk assessments" to come out of Canberra...and this guy works in tourism?

Maybe they should send him to CASA!

He obviously thinks it's a total wank like the rest of us do!

[apache]

He obviously thinks it's a total wank like the rest of us do!


CASA? or SECURITY?.... or both?!

[YPJT]

Unfortunately very few, if any, of the staffers within the Office of Transport Security have experience in the running of airports. They are largely a selection of ex military and police climbing the public service ladder. In my experience though, they do listen and will take on well reasoned and well presented recommendations for change.

Minimbah, I think you will find that risk assessments are indeed carried out for each individual airport hence the difference in obvious physical barriers.

Bellflyer, I couldn't agree more that Oodnadatta is probably the last place that needs to be security controlled but at least be thankful that the only requirement is to wear an ASIC and keep the gates locked. Sure it is not the same level of security as found at YSSY etc but it is sufficient to meet the needs in the local context.

More people with experience in the industry (aviation not security) need to be proactive at the various transport security forums. Without any input to the contrary, OTS will continue to go on it's merry way and once a lot of their recommendations hit the ministers table there will be little that can be done to stop it. Watch this space for possible future screening requirements of turbo prop RPT and even possibly turbo prop and jet charter. :{ Those items are well and truly on the agenda.

[airtags]

YPJT - sound advocacy.

I'm sure there's a bit of copying and pasting and hard lobbying going on from the green paper submissions - especially those that have the ability to initiate additional pax movement charges.

The only growth sector within aviation will be infrastructure charges and security revenues -

[Worrals in the wilds]

More people with experience in the industry (aviation not security) need to be proactive at the various transport security forums.

Absolutely. The same goes for letters to the Minister. However, getting to a forum requires time away from work, motivation and a belief that it will make a difference. Unfortunately many industry dwellers are convinced that the government doesn't care what they have to say.

I do believe that the department has an obligation to source its own consultants/experts/whatever from the industry so it can devise policy that is realistic, relevant and workable. There have been too many decisions made in haste on the 'well, no-one complained' basis rather than actually canvassing the industry to get some realistic policy. This occurs at all three levels of government in many areas, not just aviation security.

The department exists to facilitate and regulate transport security. There are two words there, transport and security. From what you're saying (and I'd agree from observation, though I didn't click till you mentioned it) security experience is ably represented, but transport experience is seriously lacking. Additionally, IME career public servants are incapable of understanding commercial concerns because the government neither goes broke or has to offer value to shareholders.

While the onus is on people to lobby the government about badly written policy, the government is elected and employed by the people to do that themselves. That's what they're there for, to govern.

[Bell_Flyer]

They are largely a selection of ex military and police climbing the public service ladder. In my experience though, they do listen and will take on well reasoned and well presented recommendations for change.

I think it was Einstein who pointed out that you cannot solve a problem with the same thinking that created it. Those who now finally realise the stupidity in spending hundreds of millions of dollars in fencing remote and outback airstrips, ASIC for pilots and so on, should involve the people who saw the problem coming and listen to the solutions that they have advocated. Only then can we sweep aside the failure of imagination.

You cannot resign from a close minded organisation to join another close minded organisation and hope to make a difference. For example, it would be terrible if Mick Keelty ever joins CASA or its board.

Additionally, IME career public servants are incapable of understanding commercial concerns because the government neither goes broke or has to offer value to shareholders.

Amen to that.

[barrybeebone]

Bell Flyer why don't you stop your whinging and go and do the job yourself. You seem to know all the problems and have the solutions. That way we all don't have to read your whinging on PPrune.

[Sunfish]

I suppose I could list the airports that have no security, but at which I'm supposed to carry an ASIC, but then someone might read them and take action.

By the way, it would be really nice for example if YMIA had a toilet airside, or someone in permanent attendance to give you the security code. The missus got tired of having to pee in the bushes.

[YPJT]

Sunfish,
A check of the number in ERSA or even a look on the airside of the gate would have saved your wife the hassle of back to nature toilet methods.

I travelled through NSW, SA and WA a few weeks back landing at no less than six SC airports and regardless of time of day was NEVER stuck airside or locked out.

[Di_Vosh]

Sunny,

YMIA does have a toilet airside. Located on the left hand side of the terminal complex (looking at the complex from airside).

Having said that, it's a 1960's style toilet; possibly not that great for the missus. :sad:

DIVOSH!

[OZBUSDRIVER]

Empire building bureaucrats:yuk: Pointing out the enemy to keep you deaf and blind!

[Bell_Flyer]

but at which I'm supposed to carry an ASIC

I sent my 11 year old progeny the other day, without an ASIC, from the group of 4 helipads next to busy runway 15/33 in YBCS (Cairns) armed with a compressor wash kit, to the security office nearby to ask for water and to use the toilet. The guards behaved like humans. Very helpful to the young one. Nobody report this to Dotars or CASA please.

And barrybeebone, I love you too.

[barrybeebone]

Dear Bellflyer,

Let me get this right.

1. You criticise the system
2. You break the rules of the system

what do you want? No security? because all we have to do is remember the 70's when hijackings were happening left right and centre in the absence of passenger screening. As soon as passenger screening was introduced the number of hijackings dropped dramatically.

I don't like the entire system either but at least I work with the system and not break the rules. Even if I don't like them.

I am convinced you were that idiot with the wooden steak knife between Melbourne and Launceston and are therefore half the reason we have some of the silly rules you complain about

By the way, DOTARS ceased to exist in name in 2007.

Lots of Love

Barrybeebone