Pax forces his way onto MEL tarmac

[Oakape]

Piltdown Man, that would have to be one of the best analysis of the current security regime I have read in a long time.

Except he is wrong about this! -

Arming the door would not have helped. All modern aircraft disarm their slides when the door is opened from the outside.

Throws everything said into doubt when facts are wrong.

[morno]

I asked in another thread but no one answered my question.

If you think the current security is a farce, what do you propose in its place? Or do you think everyone should just be able to wander on in without being challenged?

[IsDon]

Originally Posted by morno

I asked in another thread but no one answered my question.

If you think the current security is a farce, what do you propose in its place? Or do you think everyone should just be able to wander on in without being challenged?

Interesting question. Yes, actually, having no security whatsoever would achieve the same outcome as the current theatre provides.

Think thats preposterous, then ask yourself, when was the last time you walked through a metal detector, or a multi hundred thousand dollar body scanner to get on a train, or go to a football match.

All of these are soft targets. Terrorists have targeted trains, busses, football matches, concerts basically anywhere people gather in large groups. Yes they’ve also targeted aircraft, but why are airports singled out when they are no more likely a terrorist target than any other event or form of public transport.

Somebody is making a fortune out of peddling irrational fear.

[GA Driver]

Originally Posted by Oakape

Except he is wrong about this! -

Arming the door would not have helped. All modern aircraft disarm their slides when the door is opened from the outside.

Throws everything said into doubt when facts are wrong.

No, that’s correct for an Airbus. Perhaps not all modern aircraft, but the aircraft in question and all others currently manufactured by airbus function this way.

[Di_Vosh]

Yes they’ve also targeted aircraft, but why are airports singled out when they are no more likely a terrorist target than any other event or form of public transport.

Not having a go at you personally, but it's comments like this that remind me why pilots should stick to flying aeroplanes.

There are plenty of reasons why airports and aeroplanes are high-value targets for terrorists. Have a read of the linked article.

https://www.macleans.ca/news/world/w...so-frequently/

In a nutshell, a successful terrorist attack at an airport means that a nation cannot provide security for it's own international gateway; one of the most important prestige items for any nation. People will stop coming, causing economic damage far in excess of the (already considerable) damage caused by the attack.

Further, the increased security measures required divert police, military, and other security actors from their previous tasks. If the terrorists have active members in that country, those members may have more freedom of movement and to act, because the forces that may have prevented them from acting have now been diverted into protecting the airport. So you now need more police, military, etc.

There is an extra economic cost of that extra airport security; some or all of which becomes permanent. The extra security emplaced AFTER an attack will always be significant, due in no small part to restore public (worldwide) confidence that you're going to prevent another attack.

Have a read of the article.

DIVOSH!

[UnderneathTheRadar]

Agree it's entirely the world we live in where people are encouraged to believe that they are deserving, special and VIP - all in the interests of getting them to hand over more money. Its convinced the muppets of the world that they are actually somehow special and the rules don't apply to him.

Flew SYD-MEL Friday and the muppet next to me clearly felt the same. Didn't believe the requirement to put phones in flight mode applied to him (was frustrated when he lost service and was no longer able to flip between apps every 5 seconds in some maniacal way), somehow managed to have his music so loud via his own earphones that I needed to get my earplugs out (even on climb) and didn't believe the seatbelt sign applied to him - cast it off whilst still on the high-speed taxiway after landing.

I reckon if CASA wanted to get a PR win from 95% of travelling passengers, they'd do a quick compliance check of phones after takeoff and seatbelts on taxi-in. Airlines would be able to stay arms length ("it was CASA, nothing to do with us") and maybe the travelling public would start paying attention to rules that might just save them when the time came....

/rant off

[Ascend Charlie]

A lot cheaper, more effective, but a quick way to inflame the Professionally Offended, would be to prohibit the Bearded Camel-Riders from going anywhere near an airport. There ain't many who aren't of the BC-R type who do that sort of stuff.

[Rated De]

Originally Posted by Di_Vosh

Not having a go at you personally, but it's comments like this that remind me why pilots should stick to flying aeroplanes.

There are plenty of reasons why airports and aeroplanes are high-value targets for terrorists. Have a read of the linked article.

https://www.macleans.ca/news/world/w...so-frequently/

In a nutshell, a successful terrorist attack at an airport means that a nation cannot provide security for it's own international gateway; one of the most important prestige items for any nation. People will stop coming, causing economic damage far in excess of the (already considerable) damage caused by the attack.

Further, the increased security measures required divert police, military, and other security actors from their previous tasks. If the terrorists have active members in that country, those members may have more freedom of movement and to act, because the forces that may have prevented them from acting have now been diverted into protecting the airport. So you now need more police, military, etc.

There is an extra economic cost of that extra airport security; some or all of which becomes permanent. The extra security emplaced AFTER an attack will always be significant, due in no small part to restore public (worldwide) confidence that you're going to prevent another attack.

Have a read of the article.

DIVOSH!

All valid points.
One question though if we may?

If the risk is that obvious why is it that third party contractors and indeed some foreign owned companies actually screen at Australia's privatised airports?

[Piltdown Man]

Slightly off track, but I think it’s only the Boeing 737 that has a totally manually operated girt bar. Now let’s face it, they are not very modern are they. Their design dates back to 1964. So I’ll stand by my assertion.

PM

[Di_Vosh]

There ain't many who aren't of the BC-R type who do that sort of stuff.

Until whomever wants to do some damage shaves off his beard, wears a suit, and says all his prayers before arriving at the airport. Further, "BC-R" might be most of the current threat, but only a little over 20 years ago in the U.K it was the IRA and they used to detonate bombs in and around Britain on almost a monthly basis. FARC and Tamil Tigers also spring to mind as threats that have only diminished in the past few years.

If the risk is that obvious why is it that third party contractors and indeed some foreign owned companies actually screen at Australia's privatised airports?

Economic cost, and (possibly) the ability for an Australian based security company to have the scope, experience, and scalability to provide the level of security required at an airport. I'd need more information about your concerns to answer your question better. But in simple terms Chubb airport security costs a lot less than having the entire organisation run a-la the TSA in the U.S., for example. As far as motivation is concerned, I never seen any evidence that the $25.00 per hour Chubb employee takes his or her job any less seriously than the TSA employee.

DIVOSH!

[AerialPerspective]

Originally Posted by wiggy

FWIW I’m sure if you folk regard the U.K. as being in Europe or not these days but generally there’s no security staff at most U.K. gates either, though doors to jetties are normally kept locked until boarding/pre-boarding commences...

Of course anyone at the gate probably has already been screened by security.

My memory is that if you push hard enough you can open those swipe card operated doors. Security at every gate is unsustainable, we’re already getting closer to a Police State thanks to mega minister Mr Potato Head. As long as there are sufficient security personnel available to apprehend people like this that should be enough and regardless of how people are treated by an airline there is no excuse for the behavior of the passenger in this case.

[AerialPerspective]

Originally Posted by Roller Merlin

This clown had apparently been ejected for aggressive behaviour inside the terminal but then he managed to get back inside! Proceeded to a gate where he pushed over a staff member to get on the tarmac where he punched another. The crew held the door closed to keep him out.

Small point but ‘tarmac’ is a road material... it’s called the ‘apron’... it may be covered in tarmac or concrete material but it’s an apron.

[AerialPerspective]

Originally Posted by airtags

Door from terminal is swipe access only therefore the questions to be asked centre on boarding/flight closed procedures for ground/terminal staff. Also there's a need to re-think JQ's often illogical/inflexible positions that are designed to disempower and limited the decision making propensity of staff. I understand the lowest common denominator theory is a pathway for lower labour costs, but this often prevents common sense decisions being made.

My personal view is that if we haven't closed the a/c doors then its better to board a 'late to the gate' pax rather than have the ramp rummage around for 15 minutes finding bags to offload and delaying the other money paying pax who at the end of the day are customers/clients. Treat people with respect and a service culture and generally the behavioural response is positive - treat them poorly and they will have a lesser value/quality perception which is reflected in their behaviour.

AT

Yeh, then everybody turns up late because they know they’ll get on and this rubbish about how airlines treat people is rubbish. I’ve been flying for 50 years, never had a bag lost or damaged... maybe because I don’t buy a bag that’s made out of flimsy thin material held together by spit.
There’s no excuse for this type of behavior and blaming airlines is ridiculous, a rational person would just fly with someone else next time not break the law.
What you’re suggesting means if someone doesn’t like the way Myer treats them they should be able to run in and steal product then jump out through a window.