Legislation requiring tall fences at RPT aerodromes
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Newcastle, NSW
Posts: 61
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Legislation requiring tall fences at RPT aerodromes
Where in Australian legislation is the requirement that aerodromes serviced by an RPT airline have installed tall fencing to prevent unauthorised access?
The Aviation Transport Security Regulations 2005 mentions that security be controlled and monitored, but nothing about tall fences.
I noticed last time I was at Broken Hill the tall fences were only either side of the main terminal, the remainder were at a height I could step over.
I remember the introduction of ASIC's, tall fencing and throttle locks after September 11.
Thanks,
Haydn
The Aviation Transport Security Regulations 2005 mentions that security be controlled and monitored, but nothing about tall fences.
I noticed last time I was at Broken Hill the tall fences were only either side of the main terminal, the remainder were at a height I could step over.
I remember the introduction of ASIC's, tall fencing and throttle locks after September 11.
Thanks,
Haydn
You're right about nothing in legislation. It all comes down to individual airport risk assessments. Many security Controlled airports in remote regions have fencing as you described. Do they need anything more? Perhaps but thankfully the govt has not gone down the path of prescriptive boundaries for fencing. What gets approved for Broken Hill though would not necessarily get approved for a capital city airport.
Where in Australian legislation is the requirement that aerodromes serviced by an RPT airline have installed tall fencing to prevent unauthorised access?
The Aviation Transport Security Regulations 2005 mentions that security be controlled and monitored, but nothing about tall fences.
I noticed last time I was at Broken Hill the tall fences were only either side of the main terminal, the remainder were at a height I could step over.
I remember the introduction of ASIC's, tall fencing and throttle locks after September 11.
Thanks,
Haydn
The Aviation Transport Security Regulations 2005 mentions that security be controlled and monitored, but nothing about tall fences.
I noticed last time I was at Broken Hill the tall fences were only either side of the main terminal, the remainder were at a height I could step over.
I remember the introduction of ASIC's, tall fencing and throttle locks after September 11.
Thanks,
Haydn
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Bradd
Age: 61
Posts: 159
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well, it is kind of there.
.15 Requirements for airside generally
(1) The requirements for the fencing of, and the provision of other physical barriers to entry to, the airside area of a security controlled airport are:
(a) a barrier sufficient to delineate the airside area; and
(b) effective access control points to permit authorised access to the airside area; and
(c) patrolling, electronic surveillance or any other suitable measures to inspect the barriers for damage and to deter and detect unauthorised access to the airside area; and
(d) if possible, illumination of the aircraft parking area while a prescribed aircraft is parked there at night; and
(e) signs, at least 0.4 m wide by 0.3 m high, and otherwise complying with subregulation (4), placed at the barrier in such a way that anyone entering the area knows that it is an airside area; and
(f) either:
(i) a sign, at least 0.4 m wide by 0.3 m high, and otherwise complying with subregulation (6), placed at every entrance to the airside area; or
(ii) signs, at least 0.4 m wide by 0.3 m high, and otherwise complying with subregulation (6A), placed at the barrier in such a way that anyone entering the area knows that it is an airside area.
If it's not fairly high. it's not a physical barrier that prevents entry.
(1) The requirements for the fencing of, and the provision of other physical barriers to entry to, the airside area of a security controlled airport are:
(a) a barrier sufficient to delineate the airside area; and
(b) effective access control points to permit authorised access to the airside area; and
(c) patrolling, electronic surveillance or any other suitable measures to inspect the barriers for damage and to deter and detect unauthorised access to the airside area; and
(d) if possible, illumination of the aircraft parking area while a prescribed aircraft is parked there at night; and
(e) signs, at least 0.4 m wide by 0.3 m high, and otherwise complying with subregulation (4), placed at the barrier in such a way that anyone entering the area knows that it is an airside area; and
(f) either:
(i) a sign, at least 0.4 m wide by 0.3 m high, and otherwise complying with subregulation (6), placed at every entrance to the airside area; or
(ii) signs, at least 0.4 m wide by 0.3 m high, and otherwise complying with subregulation (6A), placed at the barrier in such a way that anyone entering the area knows that it is an airside area.
If it's not fairly high. it's not a physical barrier that prevents entry.
Last edited by Fieldmouse; 13th Dec 2016 at 05:29. Reason: clarrification
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Dog House
Age: 49
Posts: 779
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
.15 Requirements for airside generally
(1) The requirements for the fencing of, and the provision of other physical barriers to entry to, the airside area of a security controlled airport are:
(a) a barrier sufficient to delineate the airside area; and
(b) effective access control points to permit authorised access to the airside area; and
(c) patrolling, electronic surveillance or any other suitable measures to inspect the barriers for damage and to deter and detect unauthorised access to the airside area; and
(d) if possible, illumination of the aircraft parking area while a prescribed aircraft is parked there at night; and
(e) signs, at least 0.4 m wide by 0.3 m high, and otherwise complying with subregulation (4), placed at the barrier in such a way that anyone entering the area knows that it is an airside area; and
(f) either:
(i) a sign, at least 0.4 m wide by 0.3 m high, and otherwise complying with subregulation (6), placed at every entrance to the airside area; or
(ii) signs, at least 0.4 m wide by 0.3 m high, and otherwise complying with subregulation (6A), placed at the barrier in such a way that anyone entering the area knows that it is an airside area.
If it's not fairly high. it's not a physical barrier that prevents entry.
(1) The requirements for the fencing of, and the provision of other physical barriers to entry to, the airside area of a security controlled airport are:
(a) a barrier sufficient to delineate the airside area; and
(b) effective access control points to permit authorised access to the airside area; and
(c) patrolling, electronic surveillance or any other suitable measures to inspect the barriers for damage and to deter and detect unauthorised access to the airside area; and
(d) if possible, illumination of the aircraft parking area while a prescribed aircraft is parked there at night; and
(e) signs, at least 0.4 m wide by 0.3 m high, and otherwise complying with subregulation (4), placed at the barrier in such a way that anyone entering the area knows that it is an airside area; and
(f) either:
(i) a sign, at least 0.4 m wide by 0.3 m high, and otherwise complying with subregulation (6), placed at every entrance to the airside area; or
(ii) signs, at least 0.4 m wide by 0.3 m high, and otherwise complying with subregulation (6A), placed at the barrier in such a way that anyone entering the area knows that it is an airside area.
If it's not fairly high. it's not a physical barrier that prevents entry.
I only read that it needs to be obvious than any person on the other side of fence or barrier "obviously" knows it. (I assume for pineapple reasons).
Where does it say "prevents entry"?
I only read that it needs to be obvious than any person on the other side of fence or barrier "obviously" knows it. (I assume for pineapple reasons).
I only read that it needs to be obvious than any person on the other side of fence or barrier "obviously" knows it. (I assume for pineapple reasons).
Where does it say "prevents entry"?
(1) The requirements for the fencing of, and the provision of other physical barriers to entry to, the airside area of a security controlled airport are:
and by inference;
(b) effective access control points to permit authorised access to the airside area; and
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Dog House
Age: 49
Posts: 779
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No requirements in dimension or construction given - but it must have gates (other physical barriers) to airside.
(b) means the gate must be of a type that can open for "authorised" access.
Nothing is written to prevent access of unauthorised persons, kangaroo's, emu's or terrorists. But large signs in English let "anyone entering the area know that it is an airside area."
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Newcastle, NSW
Posts: 61
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Cessnock Airport and Airpark
Thank-you for the comments.
Our local council Cessnock, who owns and operates the aerodrome suggests they need to spend $500,000 installing tall fences to meet requirements to support an RPT airline.
In June 2015 the Crown Plaza Hunter Valley owner Jerry Schwatz discussed with Cessnock Council about operating a RPT service at Cessnock and was knocked back due to the infrastructure setup costs.
Cessnock Council have been using all kinds of excuses over the past 3 years (of my involvement with them) to hinder any kinds of development at the airport, while they continue to pat themselves on the back that they are doing such a good job of managing the airport.
In the same vein (and frustration) as Jerry Schwartz, the Cessnock Council would not accept our proposal to create an airpark (The Pokolbin Aviation Estate" on private land joining the Cessnock Airport. They have cited all kinds of requirements because "they are now a registered airport". This list included the requirement to have sealed taxiways (no legislation backs this up), controlled access (I think we can do that with an automatic gate). The council continually say they will not allow access to the airport.
I believe the Cessnock Council (yes they have a checkered past), are operating the airport in such a malicious way as they think they should be the only ones that make money from the airport. For one example this is evident in their hangar lease terms (5 years terms, you build a hangar then they take it off you). No new hangar has been built since 2008.
At the entry to the hunter valley and wine country, what a great place for an Airpark!
The council have been informed that Scone airport (and upper hunter council) seem to be able to manage access just fine, just down the road, by their neighbours properties.
I remember reading (I cant find the reference) Cessnock Council had been knocked back $5.9M from the Regional Development fund for the Cessnock airport development as they were not 'regional' enough. Cessnock council are not responsible for the airport asset as it is now, let alone another $5.9M! I wish in business, I could put my hand out for a $5.9M gift to then go out and make money!
The General Manager at Cessnock Council, Stephen Glenn said to me at an early meeting "Instead of selling the airport to Macquarie Bank, we need to do the things that they (Macquaire Bank) would do with the airport". Someone tell Stephen "if Cessnock Council were running Macquarie Bank ....."
Our local council Cessnock, who owns and operates the aerodrome suggests they need to spend $500,000 installing tall fences to meet requirements to support an RPT airline.
In June 2015 the Crown Plaza Hunter Valley owner Jerry Schwatz discussed with Cessnock Council about operating a RPT service at Cessnock and was knocked back due to the infrastructure setup costs.
The Australian - June 26 2015
“It needs fences built around it which would cost $500,000"
...
"After fruitless discussions with Cessnock Council, which owns Cessnock Airport, Dr Schwartz resorted to buying his own amphibious sea plane, a Lake Sea Fury LA250, to ferry guests from Sydney’s Rose Bay to Cessnock."
“It needs fences built around it which would cost $500,000"
...
"After fruitless discussions with Cessnock Council, which owns Cessnock Airport, Dr Schwartz resorted to buying his own amphibious sea plane, a Lake Sea Fury LA250, to ferry guests from Sydney’s Rose Bay to Cessnock."
Mr Schwartz said four months ago he had lodged a separate DA to build a small hangar on land he owns near the airport but he was still waiting for an outcome.
I believe the Cessnock Council (yes they have a checkered past), are operating the airport in such a malicious way as they think they should be the only ones that make money from the airport. For one example this is evident in their hangar lease terms (5 years terms, you build a hangar then they take it off you). No new hangar has been built since 2008.
At the entry to the hunter valley and wine country, what a great place for an Airpark!
The council have been informed that Scone airport (and upper hunter council) seem to be able to manage access just fine, just down the road, by their neighbours properties.
I remember reading (I cant find the reference) Cessnock Council had been knocked back $5.9M from the Regional Development fund for the Cessnock airport development as they were not 'regional' enough. Cessnock council are not responsible for the airport asset as it is now, let alone another $5.9M! I wish in business, I could put my hand out for a $5.9M gift to then go out and make money!
The General Manager at Cessnock Council, Stephen Glenn said to me at an early meeting "Instead of selling the airport to Macquarie Bank, we need to do the things that they (Macquaire Bank) would do with the airport". Someone tell Stephen "if Cessnock Council were running Macquarie Bank ....."
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Dog House
Age: 49
Posts: 779
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Take a few photos of other RPT strips with "mostly" walk over fences and a short High Fence in high human traffic areas.
Advise him/them you are happy to get a legal ruling that this is acceptable. You will then claim damages from both him and council for decisions made incorrectly by either intention or incompetence - duty of council is to serve majority of it constituents - this "should" be done in a cost effective manner.
Only do this if +50% voters in CessNOT want a RPT service. P.S. CC many inc MP's and Senators and CASA.
Advise him/them you are happy to get a legal ruling that this is acceptable. You will then claim damages from both him and council for decisions made incorrectly by either intention or incompetence - duty of council is to serve majority of it constituents - this "should" be done in a cost effective manner.
Only do this if +50% voters in CessNOT want a RPT service. P.S. CC many inc MP's and Senators and CASA.
Haydnc,
I am no expert in risk doctrine but the location, type and frequency of RPT / open charter operations would determine what type of fence you would require. If you can demonstrate your risk profile is such that say a 1.8m stock fence is sufficient then so be it. It has worked for major regional airports in WA with high frequency RPT jet operations.
In my experience, a 2m chain mesh with 3 x single strand barbed wire at the top, along the extent of the terminal precinct and apron would suffice with stock or other suitable fencing around the remainder of the perimeter. Normal signage requirements would apply.
Feel free to PM me.
I am no expert in risk doctrine but the location, type and frequency of RPT / open charter operations would determine what type of fence you would require. If you can demonstrate your risk profile is such that say a 1.8m stock fence is sufficient then so be it. It has worked for major regional airports in WA with high frequency RPT jet operations.
In my experience, a 2m chain mesh with 3 x single strand barbed wire at the top, along the extent of the terminal precinct and apron would suffice with stock or other suitable fencing around the remainder of the perimeter. Normal signage requirements would apply.
Feel free to PM me.
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: dans un cercle dont le centre est eveywhere et circumfernce n'est nulle part
Posts: 2,606
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There is no legislation. The "requirement" was to facilitate the Department of Transport (DOT) to suggest all aerodromes given a Local Airport Ownership grant were compliant with bureaucrat wishes. The simple expedient of a can of paint to delineate a secure area after a brain fart of an idea subsequent to an international disaster caused by political indifference blossomed into the cluster**** we have today. A pox on them all.
Back in the old RPA days, the standard of fencing for different areas of an airport was set out. MOS139 does not contain any fencing requirements, only that you should have one. Nowadays though, I guess it's up to the Airport Operator to interpret the Security Regs, and OTS will rule if they agree with the implementation or not. If you decide to have a security fence, then it would be prudent to meet the Australian Standard (AS1725.1 – 2010) which I assume would help if you were ever in a court room or arguing with OTS.
