Aviation security, curfews and land issues.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 2,382
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Aviation security, curfews and land issues.
"outdated and lagging behind international best practice"... really?
Call for security black list overhaul | The Australian
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AUSTRALIA'S aviation security rules have been attacked as hastily developed, outdated and lagging behind international best practice.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
Call for security black list overhaul | The Australian
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
Last edited by Mr. Hat; 7th Aug 2009 at 21:02.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Some are and some are not
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.
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.
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Down Under
Posts: 139
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dumb and dumber
What is world's best practice anyway? Anybody know?
Let sleeping dogs lie - especially learning impaired ones.
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Australia
Posts: 545
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
the media release has nothing to do with aviation
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.
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.
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. 
Guest
Posts: n/a
Damned if you do and damned if you don't
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!
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!
So whether it is Oodnadatta or Jakarta, security in some form is necessary
Last edited by Jenna Talia; 11th Aug 2009 at 01:10.
Bugsmasherdriverandjediknite
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Bai, mi go long hap na kisim sampla samting.
Posts: 2,849
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 2,382
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 290
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mr. Hat
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??
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.
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Down Under
Posts: 139
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Really Dumb and Really Dumber
[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.
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.
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Sunny side up
Posts: 1,206
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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 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.
That'll be the day, and that goes for both current and previous governments.
'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.
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
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: n/a
Posts: 221
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Since when did a fence stop anyone?
In fact, nothing will stop a determined person!
In fact, nothing will stop a determined person!
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.
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.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Australia
Age: 74
Posts: 64
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Risk Management
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
Unfortunately, we are dealing with government and bureaucracy and there is very little good old Australian "nouse" in these areas!
Unfortunately, we are dealing with government and bureaucracy and there is very little good old Australian "nouse" in these areas!
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Sunny side up
Posts: 1,206
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
The rest of the stuff you ordered should deter the birds as well, although the crocs may become a problem in themselves
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.
The rest of the stuff you ordered should deter the birds as well, although the crocs may become a problem in themselves
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: InDahAir
Posts: 314
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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!
Maybe they should send him to CASA!
He obviously thinks it's a total wank like the rest of us do!
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.
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.
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Australia
Posts: 545
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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 -
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 -