Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Shame or fame for Chester?

Chester's regional airport security clusterduck cont/-

Via the Oz today:

Quote:Regional airlines resist moves to ramp up terror security
[Image: 9ed91801e59116837b9762cf7ac70254?width=650]
The Regional Aviation Association has warned against increased security measures in regional airports.
  • The Australian
  • 12:00AM August 11, 2017
Regional airlines have closed ranks to fight any move by Transport Minister Darren Chester to have them step up security following the alleged terror plot to bring down an airliner.

Regional Express has warned against “giving in to hysteria” by requiring more extensive screening of passengers and carry-on bags, saying to do so for “all such potential targets would be so prohibitively expensive and onerous that normal life would be shut down”.

“Smaller regional aircraft carry fewer passengers than most buses and it would be senseless to enforce screening on the former while leaving vulnerable the tens of thousands of buses plying the streets each day,” a Rex statement said.

Regional Aviation Association chief executive Mike Higgins said if the current regulation requiring the screening of passengers on airliners weighing more than 20 tonnes were extended to smaller aircraft, “then the smaller operators will not fly”.

Mr Higgins said he feared the government’s desire to be seen to act could nip in the bud moves by the Office of Transport Security to actually reduce the cost of screening at regional airports.

The pushback follows Mr Chester’s decision last week, revealed by The Australian, to order his departmental secretary to review regional airport security following claims from airline pilots, union leaders and security experts that regionals represent the weak spot in the aviation sector attractive to terrorists.

Mr Higgins said that ironically, the review being carried out by senior OTS official Garth Donovan was looking at options to reduce costs to regional airlines of security screening, and should be almost complete.

Such adjustments could involve not putting all passengers through a walk-through metal detector, but randomly checking some with a handheld device, he said. Similarly, rather than have an X-ray machine screen every piece of carry-on luggage, some bags could be randomly examined by hand.

Mr Higgins said he feared Mr Chester’s desire to be seen to be tough on airport security could push Mr Donovan’s review “to one side”. Mr Donovan declined to comment.

The Australian last week revealed that at Wagga Wagga airport in regional NSW, QantasLink flights to Sydney flying Q400 aircraft that can carry up to 76 passengers have to screen passengers and their carry-on luggage.

However, Rex, which on that route flies Saab 340s that can carry 34 passengers but weigh less than 20 tonnes, is exempt, and passengers can walk unchallenged onto the aircraft.

Mr Higgins said this made sense; “it depends on the risk appetite for the passenger” which airline they flew.

Considerable discussion developed last week about flights from Port Lincoln in South Australia, where screening was removed in 2015 when Qantas put on two Q300 aircraft, which can carry 56 passengers but weigh under 20 tonnes. Qantas spokesman Stephen Moynihan said the motivation was operational efficiency, not security savings.

& from the other side of the cyclone security fence... Big Grin

Quote:Ground crew screen plea ignored

[Image: 0277e451de5600fdb85a8b03324d969e]12:00amEAN HIGGINS

The government has passed on a call to require airside staff to go through security screening.

& via a NX MR... Wink

Quote:Aviation Security: Loophole Motion Defeated

10 August 2017

Senator Nick Xenophon is gobsmacked the Federal Government and the Opposition today voted down his move to close a loophole which allows some airport staff to avoid mandatory screening.

Baggage handlers, catering and ground service staff with Aviation Security Identification Cards are not subjected to the same screening procedures which apply to passengers, pilots and cabin crew.

" I have great respect for the work that ground crew at airports do, but this loophole fails to pass the most cursory of pub tests” said Nick.

Government , Labor and Greens Senators combined to defeat the motion.

“It's quite disappointing considering the assurances the Government gave after the recent terror-related arrests that security at our airports was being boosted,” Senator Xenophon said.

The Australian Airline Pilots Association (AusALPA), the peak body representing  professional pilots (including commercial airline pilots) has previously raised serious concerns over the inconsistencies in security screening but their alarms constantly been ignored.  

“ Well it's happened again," Nick remarked.

“How can the Government continue to ignore the peak body representing 5000 commercial aircraft pilots?

“ Australian travellers are going to trust the opinion of an experienced pilot over a politician any day when it comes to measures that will improve airline safety.”

Senator Xenophon says he won't be giving up on having the loophole closed.


MTF...P2 Confused
Chester softcocks the Carmody delay on drone review - Dodgy

Reference Drone Wars: Post #37 & #38

Quote:Oz Flying..

"CASA's discussion paper on drone regulation is now ready for industry comments. This may be just a fringe issue to many of us who are still struggling with AirVenture, Part 61, rising rents, SIDs and every other spear in the side that is depleting our lifeblood at the moment, but you can bet it's very important to the drone community, which I have no doubt will be pouring feedback into CASA. If the general aviation community takes a stand-off approach to this, then the feedback from the drone people is all they will have. It's probably a critical enough issue for general aviation to take notice and speak up, or we certainly won't be listened to on this topic in the future."

In a nutshell - time for a recreational GA summit. Sort it out then act as one. Lead or follow, but don't get under anyone's feet.

In a follow-up to the above I note that our totally inept, WOFTAM of a miniscule put out a belated press release yesterday, that pays homage to the CASA initiative of putting out a discussion paper 10 months after Chester called for the review:

Quote:Aviation Safety Drone Discussion Paper released
Media Release
11 August 2017

  • Discussion Paper sets out Australian and international aviation safety regulatory arrangements covering remotely piloted aircraft, commonly referred to as drones
  • Paper seeks industry and community comment on potential future regulatory approaches to cover the emerging and increased application of drone technology
Federal Minister for Infrastructure and Transport Darren Chester has welcomed the release of a discussion paper focusing on the regulation of remotely piloted aircraft (RPA)—or drone—operations and air safety.

Mr Chester said the Civil Aviation Safety Authority's (CASA) paper would give the wider community, as well as government agencies and industry, the opportunity to have input into consideration of future safety regulation of drones.

“Drones are a rapidly growing part of the aviation sector, and we must get the balance right between ensuring the safety and security of the public, and avoiding unnecessary red tape,” Mr Chester said.

“As the paper indicates, aviation safety regulators around the world are facing challenges in maintaining high levels of safety without unnecessarily impeding opportunities to use drones for industry and recreational applications.”

The discussion paper seeks comment on five key aviation safety issues:
  • drone registration;
  • training and education of drone operators;
  • geo-fencing;
  • counter drone technology; and
  • future approaches to drone aviation safety regulation.
Mr Chester said the review would take into account technological and operational growth of the RPA community, and developments in the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) and other international aviation safety agencies.

“I encourage interested parties to make a submission,” Mr Chester said.

The discussion paper is available online:
[Image: puke-Bucket.jpg]

 Puke..retch - UDB! Dodgy

MTF...P2  Cool

Ps Remember this?
Quote:9 September 2016

Seeking access to risk assessments for the changes to CASR Part 101 to determine any possible risk or hazard it would present to current aviation activities and the general public. (2.59mb)

 FF based their whole revision/amendment to CASR Part 101 on the above FOI'd research paper (which they just so happened to have sponsored); yet Chester does not even berate Carmody for taking 8 months to respond to his called for review and 10 months to put in place a consultative industry stakeholder discussion paper - Dodgy

Forum Jump:

Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)