Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > PPRuNe Worldwide > The Pacific: General Aviation & Questions
Reload this Page >

Councils cannot afford regional security upgrades

The Pacific: General Aviation & Questions The place for students, instructors and charter guys in Oz, NZ and the rest of Oceania.

Councils cannot afford regional security upgrades

Old 7th Feb 2019, 22:12
  #1 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 4,077
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.
Dick Smith is offline  
Old 8th Feb 2019, 05:16
  #2 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Sunshine Coast
Posts: 140
Pay attention. This has nothing to do with the Civil Aviation Act. It is a Transport Security matter that has nothing to do with CASA.
Vag277 is offline  
Old 8th Feb 2019, 06:49
  #3 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: Queensland
Posts: 2,375
Pay attention. He did not suggest it was a CASA liability.

It seems that Government funding is available for some airports but the money has not been released.....
Government.

Surely this must show that cost must be considered along with safety...
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.
Torres is offline  
Old 8th Feb 2019, 10:33
  #4 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 277
Where is this place of which you speak Torres ?
On eyre is offline  
Old 8th Feb 2019, 13:18
  #5 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: QLD - where drivers are yet to realise that the left lane goes to their destination too.
Posts: 1,957
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!!!
Traffic_Is_Er_Was is offline  
Old 8th Feb 2019, 19:47
  #6 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 1,133
Actually, a day is a long time in Aviation. The Department of Home Affairs is in charge of Aviation Security:

Aviation Security
peuce is offline  
Old 9th Feb 2019, 04:30
  #7 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: QLD - where drivers are yet to realise that the left lane goes to their destination too.
Posts: 1,957
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!!
Traffic_Is_Er_Was is offline  
Old 9th Feb 2019, 07:13
  #8 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Australia
Age: 61
Posts: 298
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
Dash8-200 & 300 do not require security screening! MTOW < 20T
hiwaytohell is offline  
Old 9th Feb 2019, 13:04
  #9 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 277
Originally Posted by hiwaytohell View Post
Dash8-200 & 300 do not require security screening! MTOW < 20T
Yes but the new regs coming in I believe go by passenger numbers not MTOW. 50 pax or more will require screening so that traps the Q300.
On eyre is offline  
Old 9th Feb 2019, 14:45
  #10 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: WA
Posts: 1,185

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 15:04.
YPJT is offline  
Old 10th Feb 2019, 01:10
  #11 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 1,133
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.
peuce is offline  
Old 10th Feb 2019, 05:59
  #12 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 4,077
The screening base on the pax number in the aircraft sounds like “ affordable safety “ to me.

Great. But admit to it!
Dick Smith is offline  
Old 10th Feb 2019, 07:27
  #13 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Australia
Age: 61
Posts: 298
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.

Last edited by hiwaytohell; 10th Feb 2019 at 07:33. Reason: Added Home Affairs in lieu of OTS
hiwaytohell is offline  
Old 10th Feb 2019, 07:31
  #14 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: gold coast
Posts: 50
Originally Posted by peuce View Post
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.
​​​​​​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..
extralite is offline  
Old 10th Feb 2019, 07:38
  #15 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Sunshine Coast
Posts: 140
This is affordable security, NOTHING to do with safety.
Vag277 is offline  
Old 10th Feb 2019, 08:03
  #16 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Australia/India
Posts: 2,527
Originally Posted by Vag277 View Post
This is affordable security, NOTHING to do with safety.
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?
Lead Balloon is offline  
Old 10th Feb 2019, 09:01
  #17 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Sunshine Coast
Posts: 140
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.
Vag277 is offline  
Old 10th Feb 2019, 11:29
  #18 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: australia
Posts: 1,105
So a >20 tonne a/c at 300kts , bomb or building does'nt have screening,.!. Unsecured and unsafe ? Mmm interesting logic.
aroa is offline  
Old 10th Feb 2019, 20:05
  #19 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 1,133
I suggest its both....for national security and for aircraft safety.
  1. Deter, detect, gather intelligence...for national security
  2. Stop any potential air-ragers having access to nasty, pointy, sharp shit in your passenger cabin or having their belongings catch fire in the overhead locker
Works for me.
peuce is offline  
Old 10th Feb 2019, 23:19
  #20 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Everywhere
Posts: 347
This is affordable security, NOTHING to do with safety.
says Vag277.

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.
Checklist Charlie is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us Archive Advertising Cookie Policy Privacy Statement Terms of Service

Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.