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.

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.

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.

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!!!

Actually, a day is a long time in Aviation. The Department of Home Affairs is in charge of Aviation Security:

Aviation Security

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!!

Dash8-200 & 300 do not require security screening! MTOW < 20T

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.

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.

​​​​​​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..

So a >20 tonne a/c at 300kts , bomb or building does'nt have screening,.!. Unsecured and unsafe ? Mmm interesting logic.

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 **** in your passenger cabin or having their belongings catch fire in the overhead locker

Works for me.

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.

extralite

Watch closely, the explosive sniffer operator makes a note each time a passenger gets "sniffed". It is all a matter of quotas.

Dally at the end of the x-ray machine baggage roller until the sniffer operator pulls over a new "customer" then nip through.

I beat them every time! :}

There is quite a push from the Feds to reintroduce ID requirements. They are using the "terrorism" flag to get what they want, but is really to combat organized crime ie keeping tabs on known criminals thus getting the industry to do their work for them.
So therefore there is an assumed lower risk that there would be a bag substitution. Why would that happen if it is just Big Joe from the Finks travelling. Also they are working off the old school theory that a bad guy putting something nasty on an aircraft does not want to be on it when it does what it does. These days the bad guy tends to get on board with the bag with something nasty in it. It will have his bag tag on it. That's what the baggage Xray machines are for. That's why there is 100% bag screening. Then it doesn't matter who's name is on the bag, as long as whatever nasty is in the bag does not get on the aircraft.
In the end reality has to be considered. Someone wanting to do something nasty wants to make an impression. The assessed risk is they won't waste their time (or life) on a smaller aircraft and less people. A line has to be drawn somewhere.

Not so much quotas as record keeping. When they get audited by Homeland, the spooks will know how many passengers have gone through screening. The screeners will need to demonstrate that they have ETD'd a sufficient percentage of the pax to meet the "random and continuous" percentage that will exceed whatever magic number the spooks will decide is adequate.

Nowhere does The Department of Home Affairs say that security has to be "affordable", so they have nothing to admit to.

I just walk straight to the bomb sniffer, it's maybe one extra minute and gives me chance to get dressed before I head to the gate.

Yes, you look dodgy !

National Terrorism Threat Advisory

Well, we could just use the "head in the sand" technique. Didn't work too well in London, Barcelona, France..........
But (more) seriously.....you have to have a two pronged approach. One, using your "band-aid" approach to provide some sort of deterrent for idiots...and two, secret squirrel, back room, cloak and dagger stuff...to weed out the nasty, intelligent ones. We don't hear much about the number twos, as we don't need to...but it's certainly going on.

Agreed! However Propstop, I have a sad feeling that such an event is more or less inevitable for Australia in the not-too-distant future!:(

Then we will really see the excrement hit the rotary oscillator!:mad::mad:

There will be massive amounts of finger pointing by Politicians of all persuasions and a gross knee jerk reaction in legislation which will do nothing at all to prevent another occurrence, but will cause huge inconvenience for the general Public and gross restrictions on personal liberties.:mad: