Councils cannot afford regional security upgrades
Thread Starter
Councils cannot afford regional security upgrades
An article posted on ABC News online says councils can’t afford regional security upgrades. Here is a link: https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-02-07/vulnerable-regional-airports-await-basic-security-upgrades/10785772
It seems that Government funding is available for some airports but the money has not been released, and local councils just can’t afford full body scanning and passenger profiling.
Surely this must show that cost must be considered along with safety, in contradiction to the Civil Aviation Act which says that safety must be the most important consideration.
The Minister must change this “lie” in the Act to keep aviation viable. Otherwise the enormous regulatory burden will destroy general aviation. Surely that is just common sense.
It seems that Government funding is available for some airports but the money has not been released, and local councils just can’t afford full body scanning and passenger profiling.
Surely this must show that cost must be considered along with safety, in contradiction to the Civil Aviation Act which says that safety must be the most important consideration.
The Minister must change this “lie” in the Act to keep aviation viable. Otherwise the enormous regulatory burden will destroy general aviation. Surely that is just common sense.
Pay attention. He did not suggest it was a CASA liability.
Government.
All costs ... must be considered, including CASA costs.
It never ceases to amaze me that one rural airport I frequent has, apart from airline check in and loader staff, five full time contracted security/baggage scan/bomb testing staff, a new baggage x-ray machine, walk through scanner and an explosives sniffer machine, all to manage one or two Dash 8 200's (occasionally a 300) per day.
My guess running and maintaining the airport, funding ticket sales, check in and baggage handling staff, plus security staff, cost of acquisition and maintaining of scanners etc must just about equal ticket revenue! Those ludicrous costs must either come out of my ticket fare or out of my taxes.
It seems that Government funding is available for some airports but the money has not been released.....
Surely this must show that cost must be considered along with safety...
It never ceases to amaze me that one rural airport I frequent has, apart from airline check in and loader staff, five full time contracted security/baggage scan/bomb testing staff, a new baggage x-ray machine, walk through scanner and an explosives sniffer machine, all to manage one or two Dash 8 200's (occasionally a 300) per day.
My guess running and maintaining the airport, funding ticket sales, check in and baggage handling staff, plus security staff, cost of acquisition and maintaining of scanners etc must just about equal ticket revenue! Those ludicrous costs must either come out of my ticket fare or out of my taxes.
What makes you think that the airport funds ticket sales, check in and baggage handling staff. Those are airline costs that your ticket directly pays for. In fact, if the security equipment is there to service just one airline's flights, the airline may well have paid for it all themselves.
Vag is correct. This is an Aviation Security issue, not a CASA one. It has nothing to do with the Civil Aviation Act. From CASA's website:
The Aviation Security Regulations 2005 fall under the jurisdiction of the Department of Infrastructure, Regional Development and Cities Australian.
The Aviation Security Regulations 2005 can be found on the Comlaw web site.
If you have a comment to make regarding the regulations you should contact:
The Aviation Security Branch
Department of Infrastructure, Regional Development and Cities
GPO Box 594
CANBERRA ACT 2601
AUSTRALIA
Email [email protected]
ie. IT'S NOT US!!!
Vag is correct. This is an Aviation Security issue, not a CASA one. It has nothing to do with the Civil Aviation Act. From CASA's website:
The Aviation Security Regulations 2005 fall under the jurisdiction of the Department of Infrastructure, Regional Development and Cities Australian.
The Aviation Security Regulations 2005 can be found on the Comlaw web site.
If you have a comment to make regarding the regulations you should contact:
The Aviation Security Branch
Department of Infrastructure, Regional Development and Cities
GPO Box 594
CANBERRA ACT 2601
AUSTRALIA
Email [email protected]
ie. IT'S NOT US!!!
Yes, I should have paid more attention to the date on the bottom of the page I quoted (23 Jan 2018 - but is still the current incorrect information), but the point remains the same. IT'S NOT CASA!!
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Australia
Age: 66
Posts: 300
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
five full time contracted security/baggage scan/bomb testing staff, a new baggage x-ray machine, walk through scanner and an explosives sniffer machine, all to manage one or two Dash 8 200's (occasionally a 300) per day
Exactly, there will be quite a few airports in WA that have never had screening before now getting caught up in this mire. Don't confuse metal detection with body scanning. One just alarms if you have sufficient metal on or in your person. Scanners can take an image of your naughty bits - but that capability is disabled ��. You need to do more research Dick, what you are saying is going to impact small regional airports just isn't so and I dont know where all this talk about "profiling" comes from
Last edited by YPJT; 9th Feb 2019 at 14:04.
From my understanding...profiling is a big no, no. I've heard passengers say to Security Staff..."..do I look like a terrorist?" To which she replied..."What does a terrorist look like?" ...stunned silence followed.
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Australia
Age: 66
Posts: 300
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The last advice I had from Home Affairs (Oct 2018) was 40 seats. However they said this was still "subject to industry consultation".
I asked the question "one what basis was that number determined". As expected they were not allowed to provide this detail.
I asked the question "one what basis was that number determined". As expected they were not allowed to provide this detail.
Last edited by hiwaytohell; 10th Feb 2019 at 06:33. Reason: Added Home Affairs in lieu of OTS
Apparently a terrorist looks like me. White male forties, often with a couple of kids tagging along. I cannot remember a time I wasn't selected for bomb screening. It's.a running joke in our family. Sometimes I think maybe there is a form of reverse profiling. Choose the person who looks least likely to cause a fuss about it to the tired and naff contractor..
Errrm...
Just to make sure you intended to be sarcastic rather than literal, can you confirm that you understand and accept that the claimed point of security screening at airports is to protect the safety of people who fly?
Just to make sure you intended to be sarcastic rather than literal, can you confirm that you understand and accept that the claimed point of security screening at airports is to protect the safety of people who fly?
Since the increased enthusiasm for security followed the World Trade Centre attacks, I perceive a federal concern way past aviation safety. This is anti terrorist focus and way beyond the people who fly.
I suggest its both....for national security and for aircraft safety.
- Deter, detect, gather intelligence...for national security
- Stop any potential air-ragers having access to nasty, pointy, sharp **** in your passenger cabin or having their belongings catch fire in the overhead locker
This is affordable security, NOTHING to do with safety.
Put another way, all the 'security' charade that takes place in the terminal is all for nought if the airlines flight, cabin , engineering and ground crew are not comprehensively trained, competently assessed and managed, current and are a cohesive crew.
Just because a passenger goes through 'security' does not in any way guarantee the flight will be conducted safely.
Security and Flight Safety are 2 different beings.
CC
PS: I Audit both.