Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > PPRuNe Worldwide > Australia, New Zealand & the Pacific
Reload this Page >

NZ Domestic flights at 'high risk' according to report

Wikiposts
Search
Australia, New Zealand & the Pacific Airline and RPT Rumours & News in Australia, enZed and the Pacific

NZ Domestic flights at 'high risk' according to report

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old 23rd Apr 2009, 03:23
  #1 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Omnipresent
Posts: 323
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes on 2 Posts
NZ Domestic flights at 'high risk' according to report

Link to Stuff.co.nz article

A summary of the report, released today, said domestic flights of fewer than 90 seats with unscreened passengers and carry-on baggage were a high-risk area.

Drunks, people with a metal illness and those holding an excessive grudge posed the biggest threat on domestic flights.

The threat of terrorism was found to be "very low".

The summary said greater screening of crew and carry-on baggage would be the best way to increase security.
Do these numptys have a clue? Drunks, Grudge holders and those with mental illness pose the greatest threat, so you're going to increase screening for Captain Smith and FO Jones, so that they will be unable to bring on those ever so deadly screwdrivers and pliers they require in the course of their duties?

The story does continue on to suggest strengthening cockpit doors on all aircraft (This is a good idea, but wouldn't this be prohibitively expensive, particularly B1900/Jetstream size which don't have one to begin with?), "security committees at airports" (to talk about security and do not a lot) and "enhanced training and education for airport workers".

I agree something needs to be done, but a report full of such mindless drivel?
NZScion is offline  
Old 24th Apr 2009, 02:49
  #2 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: NZ
Posts: 835
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
You can't have a reinforced cockpit door on an aircraft that doesn't have an emergency egress in the cockpit.

You can't have a cockpit door closed for the duration of the flight on an aircraft that doesn't have a flight attendant, so reinforcing it is a moot point.

Screening of crew (especially flight crew) won't acheive anything but delays (like the current sceening of crew on larger aircraft).

It would be nice to screen pax and carry-on baggage but I think the cost-benefit ratio is prohibitive.
Cloud Cutter is offline  
Old 24th Apr 2009, 04:47
  #3 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Tropopause
Posts: 54
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
A simple statistical check should sort this.....

1 plane attempted hijack.....since....?

How many domestic flights per day.......since....?

hmmm seems the odds are relatively low, no point passing on even more cost to the passenger when times are tough enough to get bums on seats.

FL440
FL440 is offline  
Old 24th Apr 2009, 05:10
  #4 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: dubai
Posts: 942
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Cant really see anywhere NZ is really a prize target for OBL and the boys, can you?
doubleu-anker is offline  
Old 24th Apr 2009, 10:13
  #5 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Enzed
Posts: 2,289
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
You guys don't get it do you?

It's all about growing the security industry, nothing to do with common sense.

I wonder who did the review. I'd be willing to bet that Avsec had a fair bit of input. Their empire stands to gain from this, more staff, means more managers which means more money for the people at the top since they have a bigger empire to look after.

Have to agree with FL440

1 plane attempted hijack.....since....?

How many domestic flights per day.......since....?
Profiling of Pax would be better value for money.

As for screening, a determined hijacker can probably get some sort of weapon past the screening. I reckon a stainless Parker Pen could do enough damage in the right hands.

All screening does is piss of the travelling public. We all probably know at least one person that doesn't fly as often now because of the hassles and delays caused by the screeening process.

Then of course once we screen the Pax the crew will need screening as well, and of course the groundy's and the fuelly's etc, the whole process mushrooms. I think I might run off now and set up a security company to take up all this new work. $$$$$$$$$$$$$

Last edited by 27/09; 24th Apr 2009 at 10:27.
27/09 is offline  
Old 24th Apr 2009, 10:22
  #6 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Omnipresent
Posts: 323
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes on 2 Posts
Another story on stuff.co.nz today

Aviation security report 'bunkum' - travel | Stuff.co.nz
NZScion is offline  
Old 24th Apr 2009, 21:06
  #7 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: NZ
Posts: 835
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
It's all about growing the security industry, nothing to do with common sense.
I'd say it's more to do with CAA knee-jerk reaction. Just like their stance on post maintanence system check flights after the A320 accident.
Cloud Cutter is offline  
Old 25th Apr 2009, 03:42
  #8 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: out there
Posts: 102
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Bout time NZ got with the times.....
The Hill is offline  

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.