View Full Version : New airport measures not enough: expert

9th Feb 2010, 17:36
Michael Carmody thinks everyone needs to sacrifice their rights to privacy if they wish to travel on an RPT aircraft, and that all passengers should be profiled.

In my opinion, and considering that Australian Governments still look down upon Australians as "subjects of the Crown", I think he will get his wish.

My own view is that at least a couple of gaping holes I can think of will still be left and that the ingenuity of potential terrorists will rise to the occasion.

New airport measures not enough: expert

By Brigid Glanville for PM and staff

Aviation security experts have generally welcomed the Federal Government's plans to improve airport security, but one expert says the raft of measures do not go far enough.

Body scanners will be introduced at Australian international airports from next year to screen outbound travellers as part of the Government's $200 million plan.

Prime Minister Kevin Rudd said the measures were recommended in the wake of the botched Christmas Day terrorism attack in the US, where a man allegedly attempted to set off a bomb on a flight bound for Detroit.

But Michael Carmody, the former head of security at the Federal Airports Corporation, says the Government should be regulating airport security functions ahead of private companies.

"Unfortunately when you start talking about private companies engaging in this process, you start talking about a profit motive," he said.

"There is a reason that Qantas and other airlines outsource the provision of their security and that's primarily due to cost and efficiency."

Mr Carmody says it is difficult to know whether $200 million will be enough to roll out the security measures. He says the devil in the detail is yet to be seen.

"I think what's more important is that we have that overarching strategic plan of which everything - from passenger screening to baggage screening to advance technology to passenger profiling - all form a component," he said.

"It's important that we consider the mix of those components as distinct from each individual measure."

Virtual strip search?

The introduction of body scanners in airports overseas has led to a barrage of criticism.

There has been concern in the US and Britain that the scanners could breach child protection laws, while privacy advocates have dubbed the technology a virtual strip search.

Greens Senator Scott Ludlam says the scanners have "an unnecessary and quite disproportionate intrusion into privacy".

"There's also the concern about how effective they would actually be, whether they would actually have a measurable impact on security at airports," he said.

The Government admits the new technology will be an inconvenience, but it says it will ensure the privacy of Australian travellers is protected.

Mr Carmody says privacy concerns must be overcome in order to ensure security at airports.

"We must move forward. This technology offers us the ability to scan and develop a profile of the passenger very quickly," he said.

"We must move on this initiative and we must put issues of privacy to one side."

Transport Minister Anthony Albanese says the new screening will take about six minutes, but it is unsure what percentage of passengers will be subject to the additional check.

The Government will also fund new multi-view x-ray machines and scanners to detect liquid-based explosives.

The roll out of screening at regional airports will be fast-tracked and there will be twice as many detection dogs and double the number of passengers screened for explosives.

There is also more money for risk profiling of passengers.

New airport measures not enough: expert - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation) (http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/02/09/2814865.htm?section=justin)

9th Feb 2010, 20:51
Michael Carmody - isn't he the ex-tax commissioner?

Typical fool who spends all his time working out new ways to screw the Australian public.

9th Feb 2010, 21:02
"We must move on this initiative and we must put issues of privacy to one side."

Privacy should be put aside! you should give up your rights to live in a free world (ironic don't you think) so we can pretoect you against the boogie man!...oh...and we have to increase charges and taxes to pay for your safety!!! We will also be able to strip search you before you go on the bus, subway, trains, shopping malls, and raid your home if we suspect foul play. It is for your own safety!! We must defeat the terrorist ( and when will "they" be defeated"....NEVER!!!!)

What a load of BULL###T!!! I'll vote to keep my freedom and take the risk of the so called "terrorist"!! I find it very scary how the public are so keen to give up their privacy and freedoms for this "war on terror" (biggest scam in history)

These massive decisions should at least be put to the people for a vote. I thought we were supposed to live in a Democratic society.

Do you seriously believe there will always be complete professionalism by the people in charge of these scanners?? After all, human behavior is... well......human behavior! I find this absolutely disgraceful!!


9th Feb 2010, 21:23
Exactly. There comes a time when enough is enough.

If you give them the means, eventually some of them will abuse it.

airport security pervert caught (http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/airport-security-pervert-caught/story-e6frg6po-1225793725037)


9th Feb 2010, 21:29
Any idea as to wether long term exposure to radiation from these new full body scanners can cause health issuses?

Capt Claret
9th Feb 2010, 21:54
From the ABC website. I agree with this report, rather than Carmody's.

More airport security 'won't stop terrorists'

Posted Wed Dec 30, 2009 1:35pm AEDT
Updated Wed Dec 30, 2009 2:27pm AEDT

A former Customs officer has called on the Government to resist pressure to beef up airport security in the wake of the attempted plane bombing in the US.

Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, 23, allegedly tried to set off a bomb hidden in his underpants as his Northwest Airlines flight approached Detroit on Christmas Day.

Writing on ABC Online's The Drum, former Customs officer Allan Kessing says any likely response to the incident would look like action, but would "do nothing to deter and capture serious terrorists".

And he says most airport security measures, including metal detector searches, are a waste of time.

Mr Kessing says the most effective counter-terrorism measures take place long before a suspect arrives at the airport, so increased security levels would be a "waste of resources".

"Behind the scenes, far more effective measures have been undertaken which cannot, and should never, be discussed publicly," he said.

"It is delusional to imagine that safety or security will be provided by extended restrictions on the overwhelming majority of the public.

"While 100 per cent security is impossible, much is done, quietly and unobtrusively, by Customs and other federal agencies, using known and well-tested risk assessment techniques."

Mr Kessing says he is confident Australian security forces would have detected Abdulmutallab "before he came within cooee of Lagos airport".

"Several recognised risk factors, not including his father warning the authorities or being on a danger list, were obvious," he said.

"Any one of these warning bells would have been deafening to Australian Customs, using current procedures and systems. More than one would have woken the dead."

And he says most airport security measures are mere "window dressing".

"Physical screening after passing Customs is utterly futile, and only serves as the window dressing [and] public relations beloved of politicians and loathed by the public."

He says metal detectors that target ordinary people are "a bit like losing a watch in Melbourne and looking for it Sydney because the weather is better".

"There can be few airline passengers who haven't been bemused or annoyed by the inane restrictions on items and impositions on people - grandmothers forced to remove shoes and belts to pass through metal detectors and intrusive examination of handbags and personal items.

"Low-hanging fruit is not usually worth picking."

Mr Kessing says security staff responsible for baggage checks and metal detectors are "usually low paid and relatively poorly trained, if at all".

"Private businesses are responsible for the security staff that outgoing passengers, after passing through the Customs passport control, encounter for the carry-on baggage X-ray checks and personal metal detectors," he said.

"These staff are not sworn officers, but employees of commercial companies, often sub-contracted from a variety of sources."

Federal Transport Minister Anthony Albanese recently announced a review recommending a relaxation of the rules on what items can be carried in cabin luggage.

Low-risk items listed in the review include umbrellas, nail clippers and knitting needles.

After the attempted terror attack on the Amsterdam to Detroit flight on the weekend, Mr Albanese defended the changes, saying they would not reduce security.

And the link ... More airport security 'won't stop terrorists' - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation) (http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/12/30/2782788.htm)

9th Feb 2010, 22:30
a bit like losing a watch in Melbourne and looking for it in Sydney because the weather is better

Beautiful. :D

Everything is so wonderfully reactionary too. Them bad-guys-from-somewhere-else use liquid explosives, so ban liquids. They use shoes, so take off everyone's shoes.
It's a bit like Germany banning the name Adolf in 1951 to stop world war two from happening.
Here's an idea... stop demolishing their country. Then stop lying about it in front of everyone *angry look at Tony Blair*

Capt Claret
9th Feb 2010, 22:56
Why the authorities trot out the failed xmas incident as justification, mystifies me. They knew about the nutter, failed to do anything, and now we need more security. Qe? :rolleyes:

Worrals in the wilds
9th Feb 2010, 23:15
I don't necessarily disagree with him, but the ABC report doesn't mention that Allan Kessing was sacked from Customs, prosecuted and convicted under section 70 of the Crimes Act. He was found guilty of leaking highly protected Customs reports to the Australian newspaper and was probably lucky to escape jail.

The fallout from the leak led to the Wheeler report and a lot of bad publicity for the government, which it thoroughly deserved. At the time many public servants (myself included) thought that if the government had spent as much time hunting down drug smugglers as they did hunting down Kessing, he wouldn't have needed to leak the reports in the first place.

He is certainly a former Customs officer, but I just find it odd that the ABC quotes him as an ordinary ex officer and doesn't mention the unusual circumstances and big controversy that led to him being 'ex'. :confused:

stubby jumbo
9th Feb 2010, 23:26
Agree with the posts thus far.

Sadly, the Horse bolted the day those people drove aircraft into the Twin Towers.

The "care factor" for many of the Security Personnel at Airports that I walk past is very low indeed ( though I hardly blame them-what a job !)

The only way to stop "these people" from trying to blow up passenger aircraft is to screen everybody via SECURITY PROFILING ..........BEFORE THEY CLICK "ACCEPT TO PURCHASE" ON THEIR E-TIX.

Hell-Big Brother is all around us-watching. Bank Accounts, Mobile Phone use-pin points your locations, Tax Dept ( Carmody -take note !) So :

Why is is so hard to profile some "low life" who has stuff strapped to his torso BEFORE the wombat gets even close to the terminal.??:ugh:

All Governments love scaring the masses. It gets them votes. For this crowd to spend $200m over 5 years on Body Scanners etc is laughable. I notice QF came out and supported ( yeah -because they weren't putting up the cash !) Think BIG PICTURE -boys and girls.
Terrorists are not dumb.
They have lots of money.
They already have runs on the board ( and a few run outs :D)

Profiling is the only way to go to rid us of this constant threat.

9th Feb 2010, 23:46
Why on earth are people calling Michael Carmody a 'security expert'? He is nothing but a senior public servant, an administrator, a paper shuffler, a Humphrey Appleby for christ sake. His only actual expertise on security would be how to lock his front door on the way to work. His history is all as a canberra public oxygen thief ( they stopped being public servants a long time ago). A quote from the CEOforum website below.

One of the most experienced and senior public servants in Canberra is Michael Carmody (now CEO of the Australian Customs Service, after many years’ service as the Taxation Commissioner).

Brigid Glanville is so typical of so called journalists these days, no fricken research, just cause someone purports to be an expert doesnt mean they are, and Carmody is most certainly NOT a security expert. His wish to bypass privacy concerns is as Humpy would call it " the thin end of the wedge" and so true to form from the conservative old boys club.

9th Feb 2010, 23:46
Last week I had the 'pleasure' of the full body scan in Amsterdam, the scanner operator was quite happy to show me the results, a slightly blurred image that pinpointed my watch I had failed to remove. It was no hassle. I did not feel it intrusive.

However, at the same time there were airport workers bypassing the system, presumably because they were 'authorised'.

Scanning is just one part of the solution, the vetting of airport staff is another, and of course profiling is another part.

If someone objected to a body scan on my flight, then it's him or me on the flight, I would refuse to travel with that individual.

10th Feb 2010, 00:23
I think it's too easy to become mired down with these arguments....

We have so called experts such as Michael Carmody who is really just a senior public servant....If they want an expert how about employing a real expert with experience in security.

This has to be simplified somewhat....

The question should be "Are we going to do something about airport security"


If the answer is YES,then we do all we can.We employ properly trained people and pay them good money so we don't get the situation we have now.

We also scan everyone who has access to an aircraft....

Not just pax and crew but everyone...no exceptions.

There also has to be consistency in security screening because it certainly is not the case at the moment.

bates motel
10th Feb 2010, 00:28
You guys have both hands on it if you think this will have any positive impact on aviation security. This is window dressing in an election year.
While airport security screening ponts are staffed by the calibre of person currently employed, this new system will be open to abuse or at best not used to it's optimum capability.
Assuming for a moment it is used correctly and ethically, airport security will continue to be a farce in oz when numerous workers, (porters/caterers/engineers/contractors) cross from roadside to airside and back several times a day unscreened.
And another thing, who was the aipa knob on the news giving this the "pilot's tick of approval" and why?

10th Feb 2010, 00:52
I don't trust airport security workers.

In particular, the one's dressed like 'one of those.'

10th Feb 2010, 01:32
If aircrew are subjected to this screening on a regular basis then there are health concerns dependant on the technology used.
Having a party?
Want to know who the international pilots are?
Turn out the lights....the glow is a dead give away

10th Feb 2010, 02:48
If you are subject to any form of radiation on a regular basis I think you would have reason to be concerned...

Then again the majority of people do not seem to be too concerned with having a mobile phone semi permanently attached to their head.:hmm:

10th Feb 2010, 06:21
Nothing winds me up more than getting a once over by security and thus being a minute or so late to the aircraft only to do my walk around and when I look in the fwd hold I find some 22 year old loader drop-kick sitting in there texting or listening to his ipod. They look like they've been in the industry all of five minutes and no doubt don't give a stuff about it seeing as they are shirking work, and guess what......they cross between secure areas and non-secure areas at will without any sort of scanning. Absolute farce the whole security thing.
(no disrespect to normal hard-working groundies intended.....I used to be one :))

10th Feb 2010, 09:10
Try not to politicise this argument Mr hat.It was no different under Howard and Costello and certainly would be no better under Captain Catholic and his ironing deputy Bishop.
Until everyone is screened any system is a joke no matter who is in government.

Erin Brockovich
10th Feb 2010, 14:54
I won’t be succumbing when this suspect initiative rolls out in my neck of the woods.

I’ll be walking to the office airside via the side gate like the rest of the non screened airside workers.

No more radiation for me thanks and just wait for the nude photos to start appearing in Zoo Mag and the like.

Oh well. It’s all for the good of the common collective.

10th Feb 2010, 20:42
It's interesting when you talk seriously to ordinary Australians, that they recognise the medling in world (read other peoples business) by certain super powers, will result in extremist activities in reprisal. As an alliance country WE have danced to the Iron Eagle's tune now for some time and are unfortunately complicit in many yet to be prosecuted 'illegal' activities. Oil, and money my friends. As soon as I saw the idiot media trot out an 'expert' I thought, "oh yea, sais him", and it wasn't long before I heard the self fullfilling prophet and his doctrine of tripe all in the name of empire building.

How long before some nut points a PA31 loaded with NItropil and desiel, launched from a dirt strip (no screening there my friend) at a fully loaded B747 at the holding point. What will be the response then, perhpaps Surface to Air missiles at every airport????

Give me a break

If I see one more Minister, or one more 'expert' tell me about 'airport safety' I think I will go and drive bloody trains

mates rates
10th Feb 2010, 22:57
This is just the politicians being seen to be doing something in case of an attack.The reality is any terrorist can drive down Bay st. Brighton (sydney) put their tinny in the water row out to the end of 34 and blast the S..t out of any aeroplane on approach with their rocket launcher.

Qantas 787
10th Feb 2010, 23:16
Exactly mates rates. What is stopping a car/truck driving along QF Drive, stopping as an aircraft is on final approach and stopping to denoate something?

Terrorists are always going to get around any rules in place. The only way to stop it is stop all flying - but the then the terrorists win.

It is the same as car accidents - governments keep putting in rules and punishing people, but while there are roads and people drive, there will always be accidents and people will be killed.

10th Feb 2010, 23:23
I wonder if Mr Carmody has any afiliations, directly or otherwise, with companies supplying screening equipment?
He is a "former" head of security of an organisation that ceased to exist a long time ago. Sounds very much like someone desperately trying to keep themselves in the limelight.

10th Feb 2010, 23:34
Mates Rates is right and it could as easily be one of these religous fanatics knocking off a petrol tanker and driving it into a shopping center or the center of Sydney,the Bridge or wherever and detonating it.

That's all true but does that mean we stop protecting air travel?

We need some QC who would take this on and with the airline unions paying him/her to take the case and show how stupid it is being done now.Once the public see's what a farce it is things might change.

11th Feb 2010, 00:00
Mr Hat.

I can assure you that train drivers, doctors, bus drivers and even the odd lawyer in the transport industry is subject to Drug and Alcohol testing.

Saw a legal eagle summarily dismissed because of imbibing a couple of beers at lunch and then returning to his (transport) employer. Biggest mistake was going back to work!

The whole security issue revolves around managing the risks. The incidence of 'terrorist' events around aviation is miniscule compared to the total overall activity in the industry sector.

If the objective of 'additional security' is to curtail the terrorist's options, then the sarin episodes in Japan, the bombings in Madrid and London should have had the same overlay of 'security response' as is now imposed at airports. Didn't happen did it - well at least not to one of the 52 'free states'.

You are NEVER going to be able to completely cocoon aviation from threats - if in fact the threat exists in any real magnitude. While a certain superpower fails to recognise that those who oppose it have intelligence also, we will always be in a cycle of knee-jerk, populist catch-up responses to events as they occur.

I was given a piece of sage commentary recently. Years ago you could ride a motorbike without a helmet. Then to make it 'safer' helmets became law. Bikes got far more powerful. Net result. Helmet just keeps the bits all in one place when the bike and rider part company. Hasn't stopped the event happening, but has sure removed one of the joys of riding. Much the same issue with aviation.


psycho joe
11th Feb 2010, 01:46
As voting citizens living in a democracy YOU people voted in this government. So this policy is effectively YOUR doing.

If you don't like it then you should change the governments policy by becoming involved in your local council.

That's a stupid argument isn't it?

It's the same stupid argument trotted out by the AFAP supporters to excuse AFAP ineptitude. BTW where is our all mighty union (sorry, Federation) on this matter. Unusually quiet considering their normally very vocal stance in the media.:rolleyes::rolleyes:

"Helloooo is there anybody out there......"

12th Feb 2010, 05:16
Is it possible that airport security is in reality just a smoke screen put in place to make pax feel safe? If so the level of security doesn't really matter. It is just the appearance that matters. Keep them happy and they will continue to fly. This explanation might explain why there is no need seen for screening of ground staff. It's all about appearances. Screen the aircrew though because this is easy and visible to all. Thus it makes a good show.

psycho joe
13th Feb 2010, 06:41
Is it possible that airport security is in reality just a smoke screen put in place to make pax feel safe? If so the level of security doesn't really matter.

Precisely. A serious terrorist could simply walk into the check-in area of an airport at a peak time, with multiple suitcases of explosives and manage to kill hundreds; All without going anywhere near a security scanner.

Multiply that across all the major airline check-in counters at each eastern captital city airport simultaneously and voila you've just taken out the entire east coast aviation network, killed thousands of people and none or your compatriots ever had to go near a security scanner. :ooh:

But as long as they scan Pilots (the real threat) then we'll all be safe.:hmm:

Keith Myath
13th Feb 2010, 12:01
Quote psycho joe

Precisely. A serious terrorist could simply walk into the check-in area of an airport at a peak time, with multiple suitcases of explosives and manage to kill hundreds; All without going anywhere near a security scanner.

Try doing that at Ben Gurion airport. If you manage to get to the check-in counters with a bomb, you will find the area is surrounded with blast proof glass. If we were serious regarding security at airports, you should have a good look at how the Israelis do security, otherwise the Keystone Cops will prevail.

Quote “thestar.com”

The 'Israelification' of airports: High security, little bother
Cathal Kelly Staff Reporter
Published On Wed Dec 30 2009.

While North America's airports groan under the weight of another sea-change in security protocols, one word keeps popping out of the mouths of experts: Israelification.

That is, how can we make our airports more like Israel's, which deal with far greater terror threat with far less inconvenience.

"It is mindboggling for us Israelis to look at what happens in North America, because we went through this 50 years ago," said Rafi Sela, the president of AR Challenges, a global transportation security consultancy. He's worked with the RCMP, the U.S. Navy Seals and airports around the world.

"Israelis, unlike Canadians and Americans, don't take s--- from anybody. When the security agency in Israel (the ISA) started to tighten security and we had to wait in line for — not for hours — but 30 or 40 minutes, all hell broke loose here. We said, 'We're not going to do this. You're going to find a way that will take care of security without touching the efficiency of the airport."

That, in a nutshell is "Israelification" - a system that protects life and limb without annoying you to death.
Despite facing dozens of potential threats each day, the security set-up at Israel's largest hub, Tel Aviv's Ben Gurion Airport, has not been breached since 2002, when a passenger mistakenly carried a handgun onto a flight. How do they manage that?

"The first thing you do is to look at who is coming into your airport," said Sela.

The first layer of actual security that greets travellers at Tel Aviv's Ben Gurion International Airport is a roadside check. All drivers are stopped and asked two questions: How are you? Where are you coming from?

"Two benign questions. The questions aren't important. The way people act when they answer them is," Sela said.

Officers are looking for nervousness or other signs of "distress" — behavioural profiling. Sela rejects the argument that profiling is discriminatory.

"The word 'profiling' is a political invention by people who don't want to do security," he said. "To us, it doesn't matter if he's black, white, young or old. It's just his behaviour. So what kind of privacy am I really stepping on when I'm doing this?"

Once you've parked your car or gotten off your bus, you pass through the second and third security perimeters.
Armed guards outside the terminal are trained to observe passengers as they move toward the doors, again looking for odd behaviour. At Ben Gurion's half-dozen entrances, another layer of security are watching. At this point, some travellers will be randomly taken aside, and their person and their luggage run through a magnometer.

"This is to see that you don't have heavy metals on you or something that looks suspicious," said Sela.
You are now in the terminal. As you approach your airline check-in desk, a trained interviewer takes your passport and ticket. They ask a series of questions: Who packed your luggage? Has it left your side?

"The whole time, they are looking into your eyes — which is very embarrassing. But this is one of the ways they figure out if you are suspicious or not. It takes 20, 25 seconds," said Sela.

Lines are staggered. People are not allowed to bunch up into inviting targets for a bomber who has gotten this far.

At the check-in desk, your luggage is scanned immediately in a purpose-built area. Sela plays devil's advocate — what if you have escaped the attention of the first four layers of security, and now try to pass a bag with a bomb in it?

"I once put this question to Jacques Duchesneau (the former head of the Canadian Air Transport Security Authority): say there is a bag with play-doh in it and two pens stuck in the play-doh. That is 'Bombs 101' to a screener.. I asked Ducheneau, 'What would you do?' And he said, 'Evacuate the terminal.' And I said, 'Oh. My. God.'

"Take Pearson. Do you know how many people are in the terminal at all times? Many thousands. Let's say I'm (doing an evacuation) without panic — which will never happen. But let's say this is the case. How long will it take? Nobody thought about it. I said, 'Two days.'"

A screener at Ben-Gurion has a pair of better options.
First, the screening area is surrounded by contoured, blast-proof glass that can contain the detonation of up to 100 kilos of plastic explosive. Only the few dozen people within the screening area need be removed, and only to a point a few metres away.

Second, all the screening areas contain 'bomb boxes'. If a screener spots a suspect bag, he/she is trained to pick it up and place it in the box, which is blast proof. A bomb squad arrives shortly and wheels the box away for further investigation.

"This is a very small simple example of how we can simply stop a problem that would cripple one of your airports," Sela said.

Five security layers down: you now finally arrive at the only one which Ben-Gurion Airport shares with Pearson — the body and hand-luggage check.

"But here it is done completely, absolutely 180 degrees differently than it is done in North America," Sela said.
"First, it's fast — there's almost no line. That's because they're not looking for liquids, they're not looking at your shoes. They're not looking for everything they look for in North America. They just look at you," said Sela.

"Even today with the heightened security in North America, they will check your items to death. But they will never look at you, at how you behave. They will never look into your eyes ... and that's how you figure out the bad guys from the good guys."

That's the process — six layers, four hard, two soft. The goal at Ben-Gurion is to move fliers from the parking lot to the airport lounge in a maximum of 25 minutes.
This doesn't begin to cover the off-site security net that failed so spectacularly in targeting would-be Flight 253 bomber Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab — intelligence. In Israel, Sela said, a coordinated intelligence gathering operation produces a constantly evolving series of threat analyses and vulnerability studies.

"There is absolutely no intelligence and threat analysis done in Canada or the United States," Sela said. "Absolutely none."

But even without the intelligence, Sela maintains, Abdulmutallab would not have gotten past Ben Gurion Airport's behavioural profilers.

So. Eight years after 9/11, why are we still so reactive, so un-Israelified?

Working hard to dampen his outrage, Sela first blames our leaders, and then ourselves.

"We have a saying in Hebrew that it's much easier to look for a lost key under the light, than to look for the key where you actually lost it, because it's dark over there. That's exactly how (North American airport security officials) act," Sela said. "You can easily do what we do. You don't have to replace anything. You have to add just a little bit — technology, training.. But you have to completely change the way you go about doing airport security. And that is something that the bureaucrats have a problem with. They are very well enclosed in their own concept."

And rather than fear, he suggests that outrage would be a far more powerful spur to provoking that change.
"Do you know why Israelis are so calm ? We have brutal terror attacks on our civilians and still, life in Israel is pretty good. The reason is that people trust their defence forces, their police, their response teams and the security agencies.

They know they're doing a good job. You can't say the same thing about Americans and Canadians. They don't trust anybody," Sela said. "But they say,... ' So far, so good...' Then if something happens, all hell breaks loose and you've spent eight hours in an airport. Which is ridiculous. Not justifiable

"But, what can you do? Americans and Canadians are nice people and they will do anything because they were told to do so and because they don't know any different."

13th Feb 2010, 22:10
I think we all know that the Israeli's are a hard bunch and don't take $h!t from anyone.
We also know that Tel Aviv would probably be one of the hardest if not the hardest airports to hit even though it would be very high on a number of groups hit lists.
It's easy to say that the Israeli's security at Ben Gurion airport is more efficient and less invasive and could teach Australian airports a thing or two.

The problem as we all know is that of ego and to get the Australian government and airport authorities to take advice and learn from the Israeli's would be like asking Tony Abbott to legalise abortion and wear board shorts when he's on the beach.:E

The real question is how does it compare to American and European airports in size and passenger volume?

Would their techniques work with airports the size of O'Hare,JFK,Heathrow,Frankfurt etc,

Can you imagine stopping every car that was driving into those airports and asking "How are you?"

Even a 30 second friendly chat would have cars backed up for miles and the author talks about only a 30 or 40 minute security delay compared to Western airports.
Has anyone every tried driving into or out of a Rolling Stones concert compared to a normal drive to the arena?

The other point is that I doubt that the Israeli's use private contractors and do things on the cheap like Australia and allow anyone who has airside access to sidestep security and that means pilots or cleaners.

The Israelification would also mean a huge and I mean immense military presence.

Israel because of their position and past history does have the military to do this on a per capita basis and maybe America as well but not us.

We probably have 90% of our military overseas at the moment.

Erin Brockovich
14th Feb 2010, 05:12
Is it possible that airport security is in reality just a smoke screen put in place to make pax feel safe? If so the level of security doesn't really matter. It is just the appearance that matters.
Terrorism might be a real threat in Israel but it isn’t in Australia. How many deaths have occurred in Australia as a result of terrorist activity? None

How many deaths have occurred as a result of a poorly thought out scheme to insulate your house? 4 – and this dangerous policy is still ok to continue.
Yet another $200mil is being spent to what? – safeguard Australian citizens?

What about the rising road toll? Oh that’s right – speed is the major cause of death even though the speed limits are coming down. You can’t fill the coffers with better roads and driver training.

This policy smells. Smoke, Mirrors, Incompetence and Ass covering at best. Threat to democracy at worst.

14th Feb 2010, 05:47
Terrorism might be a real threat in Israel but it isn’t in Australia
Another terrorism expect on Pprune.Tell that Erin to the police who caught these guys planning to do some recreational shooting on Holdsworthy army base.
Have you thought that the reason no one has committed an act of aviation terrorism lately is because of airport security.
I get the feeling that the main reason why so many people on PPrune are against airport security is that it offends them to have to go through security.

So Erin what is your plan,to stop all airport security and hope for the best?
How many deaths have occurred in Australia as a result of terrorist activity? None
How about the Hilton Hotel bombing in Sydney with 3 dead from memory.

How about the hijacking of a commercial aircraft in Alice Springs in the 70's?

Erin Brockovich
14th Feb 2010, 06:29
I think you’re conveniently overlooking the glaring contradiction that doing star-jumps in front of an x-ray machine in the terminal doesn’t secure anyone, when no-one cares about the other people roaming airside freely. It is just a farce, waste of money and an insult to the traveller and tax payer.

Red you might not be offended by stupid policy on a daily basis, but most of us are. What would offend you?
Would you be offended by a night time curfew?
Being implanted with an identification tag?
Or maybe living in common quarters surrounded by barbed wire – all in the name of security of course.

The lack of free thinking today is astounding. I hope the gen Z’s see the wood though the trees.

BTW my “plan” would be an adjustment to foreign policy to reduce the risk before it gets here. But I suppose 50m of razor wire at RPT dirt airstrips and confiscating water bottles will do.

14th Feb 2010, 08:02
I think the Michael Carmody quoted is not the CEO of Customs (and former tax commissioner) but a former director in the Federal Airports Corporation. The Customs guy never worked for the FAC

porch monkey
15th Feb 2010, 01:05
Let me see, Ben Gurion is 1 airport. How many international airports does Israel have? Now, have a think about what the cost in pure dollars and cents to do the same at all of the international airports here, or in the US. Next question - Who's paying? You and me. I want value for my money, and plainly I'm NOT going to get it either way.

porch monkey
17th Feb 2010, 08:26
Na mate, cause they'd then just give the ak's to the lowest bidding muppets anyway. The fed's wouldn't find a friggen bomb hidden in their own lockers, most of them at least. And that's an observation from the inside, as
you are aware.

17th Feb 2010, 11:01
I think you’re conveniently overlooking the glaring contradiction that doing star-jumps in front of an x-ray machine in the terminal doesn’t secure anyone, when no-one cares about the other people roaming airside freely. It is just a farce, waste of money and an insult to the traveller and tax payer.

I think it's been said countless times before that consistency has to be achieved and it's not at the moment.If one person has to be screened then everyone has from cleaners to even pilots.To have the front door locked tight but leaving the back door wide open is the problem.To turn around and say that because cleaners are not checked then we might as well not screen anyone is not the answer.
Red you might not be offended by stupid policy on a daily basis, but most of us are. What would offend you?
Would you be offended by a night time curfew?
Being implanted with an identification tag?
Or maybe living in common quarters surrounded by barbed wire – all in the name of security of course.
Erin,It looks like some people have delicate sensibilities but I'll tell you what offends me.
Having to pay exorbitant insurance because of other people in our society.
Having to pay for things like airbags and other passive safety devices because the average driver couldn't drive their finger into a tub of warm butter.
Listening to people who make claims that are clearly naive.
BTW my “plan” would be an adjustment to foreign policy to reduce the risk before it gets here
Erin,a case of too little too late.It's a little late to close the barn door, the horse has bolted a long time ago.

Erin Brockovich
18th Feb 2010, 04:32
but I'll tell you what offends me. Listening to people who make claims that are clearly naive.
Yes yes, I totally agree with you. I don’t like Albanese and Rudd either.

It's a little late to close the barn door, the horse has bolted a long time ago.
Sorry for being blunt but it’s a stupid analogy. To stop pouring petrol on the fire would be more apt, so as the fire would eventually die down.

You have to solve the problem – not just treat the symptoms.

Worrals in the wilds
18th Feb 2010, 07:47
You have to solve the problem – not just treat the symptoms.

Sure, but the first problem is that several thousand people have daily access to aircraft. The second problem is that our community contains a certain percentage of criminals. Fortunately, in this country almost all of those criminals are into drugs, weapons, theft and pornography rather than ideological acts of terror. There is no method of completely excluding criminals from a workplace, no matter how stringent the checks and surveillance.

As for the airports, you can screen those thousands of people, but only to a certain degree until it costs an absolute fortune and starts to affect aircraft turnaround times. Searching trucks properly takes time and manpower, and there are a heck of a lot of trucks coming into an airport. This is without considering the screening of tens of thousands of airside workers, many of whom repeatedly cross between airside and landside twenty or so times a day.

It can be done, and several countries do it, but the cost, time and infrastructure requriements are BIG. In a place with few actual terrorist incidents, you have to ask if it's worth the money and hassle factor.

I know that sterile area screening is an embuggerance because I worked in terminals for some years, including positions that required frequent too-ing and fro-ing through the screening points, many times a day. It's a pain in the arse, a total waste of time and nothing more than a gesture, but the public want it (according to the screening review), it keeps the crazies under control and it's not going away. You may be dismissive of crazies, but most actual security incidents at Australian airports have involved people with mental health issues, the Sydney bikie debacle being a notable exception.

Any other 'initiatives' will be over and above the existing circus, and don't expect anything other than poorly trained, badly paid subcontractors. If the government was remotely serious about airport security it would have taken back the screening points on 9/12 but it didn't, so it isn't.

Erin Brockovich
18th Feb 2010, 14:36
You have to solve the problem – not just treat the symptoms.
I was referring to the “problem” as how Australia might be viewed by religious extremists. We were relatively off the radar outside our region until our support of the ‘Dash for Oil campaign’ – and all the campaigns thereafter.

The Government caused the perceived “problem” with its foreign and defence policies. Airport security is now on the agenda in an attempt to be seen responding to a perceived threat as a result of the government created problem.

Bloody madness. The added bonus for government is the ability to control the population using fear. Terrorism has never been so popular.

20th Feb 2010, 14:19
Well said and very true. However we also have a large administration within the federal govenrment convincing us that the risks are all well and truly identified and as long as we keep listening to their warnings and accepting their doctrine, we will be safe.

21st Feb 2010, 02:27
Australian airport staff smuggle drugs and guns | News.com.au (http://www.news.com.au/national/australian-airport-staff-smuggle-drugs-and-guns/story-e6frfkvr-1225832603365)

21st Feb 2010, 07:32
Sorry for being blunt but it’s a stupid analogy. To stop pouring petrol on the fire would be more apt, so as the fire would eventually die down.

Sorry,but your analogy is naive and shows a complete lack of understanding of the problem with not only terrorism but of religious fundamentalists.This is not about Labour vs Liberal politics but of the view held by Islamic fundamentalists regarding western society.

I take it that you are were favour of leaving Iraq in control of Kuwait?

Do you think that even if the western powers said "sorry about that we'll leave the middle east for you to sort out" the fundamentalists would leave us alone.

Getting back to the problem of airport security I'll ask the question again.

Do we do something about airport security or not?

Most of those here who attack airport security do not suggest an alternative but instead come out with statements such as Terrorism might be a real threat in Israel but it isn’t in Australia.How many deaths have occurred in Australia as a result of terrorist activity? None
Attacks such as the Hilton bombing in Sydney and the hijacking of an aircraft at Alice Springs had absolutely nothing to do with Iraq or Afghanistan but resulted in loss of life Erin.

Terrorism is not new and has been around for a long time.One of terrorists main methods is a very public statement and you can't get much more public than aviation and the media coverage of them.