Airports - Buy two, get one free.
Oh dear,

here we go again, another massive increase in operating costs.
Small consolation I suppose, the guvmint can trumpet how many new jobs
they've created, of course as another nail goes into aviations coffin, those jobs
will disappear as aviation dies. Development sharks of course will be ready in the
wings to trumpet how many shop assistants will be required to staff their shiny
new DFO's.

The Lord giveth and the Lord Taketh away.
Reply
YET ANOTHER TERMINAL SECURITY SPILL AT CAIRNS AIRPORT

I’m not sure what the hell is going on, but Cairns airport has had yet another security incident. I was delayed yet again. That’s the third time I’ve been inconvenienced in 13 months due to security problems at Cairns airport. A colleague tells me they are aware of 5 incidents in less than 18 months due mostly to cost cutting and useless management. I’m surprised OTS aren’t hanging around like a bad smell as the airport CEO seems to be just accepting these continual problems. I also believe the security provider has just lost the contract after 28 years and apparently there are some potentially ‘interesting’ reasons for this and the Cairns Post are sniffing around the trail of bread crumbs.
Article here;

https://www.google.com.au/amp/s/amp.cair...0508562708
Reply
Australian Airports Association to draft an ‘up yours’ to Qantas and Virgin

The AAA led by its triple chinned CEO are putting together a submission on behalf of their airport members to issue an up yours to the Red Rat and that other failure led by the pint sized John Spaghetti. I believe Alliance will also be on the receiving end which will no doubt have the Managing Sook, Scott Mc’Millions bleating and moaning about how everyone is against him. Basically the AAA will be telling them to pull their heads in regarding the airport fees and charges issue.

I find it interesting how everyone including the media and airlines keep hammering airports over gouging, when the airlines are the biggest gougers of the public pocket? FFS, everyone needs to earn a crust, so why doesn’t the spineless ACCC just mandate a set schedule of fees and charges for airports and the same for airfares? That will shut the duckers up....
Reply
Bureaucratic toxicity.

From the ABC -

More and more, almost everyday other day we hear, see and witness the lengths the bureaucrats will go to and the depths to which they will stoop to protect a ministerial posterior. But, the sinister part is that by doing so, they hold the minister captive and retain both power over and control of the ministerial marbles. The scary part is that some of the smooth talking Muppets are totally dependent on the mind control – even enjoy it; all the money, kudos, power and benefits and non of the responsibility. Well, not until there is a need for a donkey on which to pin a tail. We got a punch drunk sheep: will that do?

Toot – toot – toot.
Reply
The Electric Blue Tango

The blocking of the GayBC FOI request is another act of obsfucation and avoidance of accountabity.
Electric Blue and the Miniscule are a disgrace. Equally disgraceful are the outrageous lies by the Government saying everything is fine when internal documents say otherwise. No transparency, no explanation, no nothing.

COVER UP!  COVER UP?  COVER UP.

It’s time that citizens really woke up and started voting with their feet and turfing out the dross that is managing our nation.
Reply
Yin & Yang on airport securityRolleyes

Another classic case of expensive political and bureaucratic bungling is that of the introduction of increased (feel good - PR) airport security smoke screening - coming to a town near you... Dodgy 

If you ever wanted a yin and yang on airport security here it is, via CNN:

Quote:CNN exclusive: TSA considering eliminating screening at smaller airports

By Rene Marsh and Eli Watkins, CNN


Updated 2114 GMT (0514 HKT) August 1, 2018

[Image: 170321135754-airport-security-line-file-exlarge-169.jpg]

Washington (CNN) - The Transportation Security Administration is considering eliminating passenger screening at more than 150 small and medium-sized airports across the US, according to senior agency officials and internal documents obtained by CNN.

The proposal, if implemented, would mark a major change for air travel in the US, following nearly two decades of TSA presence since the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, and comes as the Trump administration has stepped up screening measures for items such as laptops and tablets.

Internal documents from a TSA working group say the proposal to cut screening at small and some medium-sized airports serving aircraft with 60 seats or fewer could bring a "small (non-zero) undesirable increase in risk related to additional adversary opportunity."

The internal documents from June and July suggest the move could save $115 million annually, money that could be used to bolster security at larger airports.

According to the proposal, passengers and luggage arriving from these smaller airports would be screened when they arrive at major airports for connecting flights instead of the current practice of joining the already screened population at the larger airport. The high-volume airports have greater capacities and more advanced security measures than smaller locations, the documents say.

CNN terrorism analyst Paul Cruickshank said it was "stunning that this is even seriously being considered."

"Al Qaeda and ISIS still regard aviation as a priority target -- that includes aircraft where you have fewer than 60 people on board," he said. "They would see that as a way to hit the headlines. They would see that as a way to inflict severe economic damage on the United States. If you have an aircraft of 50 or so people being blown out of the sky there is going to be a great amount of panic and there will indeed be significant economic reverberations, and of course significant loss of life."

"This is so dangerous," a TSA field leader at a large airport said. The individual is not authorized to discuss the matter publicly.

Two senior TSA officials, who asked not to be identified, expressed serious national security concerns over the proposal. They said the idea was explored as far back as 2011 and has been resurrected. The documents referred to some 150 small airports in addition to some midsize ones. TSA currently screens passengers at 440 airports, according to its website.

The working group determined that the policy change would affect about 10,000 passengers who are screened by 1,299 TSA employees daily, which amounts to about 0.5% of the people who fly out of US airports on any given day. The report not list specific airports that could be affected by the policy change.

TSA spokesman Michael Bilello said the study reflects a recurring debate within the agency about its legal requirements.

"This is not a new issue," he said via email. "The regulations which established TSA does not require screening below a certain level, so every year is 'the year' that TSA will reconsider screening." Bilello did not respond to a request for the text of the regulations.
The two TSA senior officials said the level of activity around the proposal this year -- the formation of a working group to conduct a risk and cost analysis -- mean this is more than an annual exercise.

The documents said a TSA working group of 20 people, including a representative of the agency's administrator's office, met on June 21 to examine the potential risks of the policy change. An internal TSA memo dated July 17 from TSA Director of Enterprise Performance and Risk Strategy Jerry Booker to the TSA administrator's chief of staff, Ha Nguyen McNeill, outlines the group's findings. It contains no formal recommendation.

Small airport security issues

The concept of rolling back security at regional airports recalls the coordinated attacks that brought the TSA into existence.

Two of the September 11 attackers first flew from an airport in Portland, Maine, to Boston before boarding American Airlines flight 11, forcing entry to the cockpit and steering it into the North Tower of the World Trade Center. While Portland's airport likely would not be included in the proposal because of its volume of passengers, the 9/11 attackers perceived the airport to be less secure because of its relatively small size.

The proposal asserts that small aircraft would not be "attractive" to terrorists. The documents conclude that attacks with small aircraft would not as attractive a "payoff" because "the potential for loss of life" would be lower than terrorists could achieve with larger planes.

Juliette Kayyem, who was an assistant secretary for intergovernmental affairs at the Department of Homeland Security in the Obama administration, said small planes could still be weaponized to cause major loss of life.

"People, weapons, dangerous goods and what's boarding the plane are all potential risks," said Kayyem, a CNN analyst. "TSA is falling into the trap that this is just about terror. A gun could be brought on board too."

Shift from earlier administration rhetoric, policy

The proposal under consideration by TSA is different from the agency's current approach to screening passengers.

Since TSA's inception in 2001, the trend has mostly been toward more enhanced security measures, including limiting gels and liquids in carry-on bags, requiring more advanced screening and directing passengers to remove shoes and belts for screening.

In June 2017, then-DHS Secretary John Kelly announced a laptop ban from carry-ons affecting nearly 280 airports in more than 100 countries.

"Terrorists want to bring down aircraft to instill fear, disrupt our economies and undermine our way of life," Kelly said. "And it works, which is why they still see aviation as the crown jewel target."

He continued, "The threat has not diminished. In fact, I am concerned that we are seeing renewed interest on the part of terrorist groups to go after the aviation sector -- from bombing aircraft to attacking airports on the ground."


MTF...P2  Cool
Reply
Dickheaded security bullshit rules. What’s next, body scanners on Farmers properties and a requirement for them to screen themselves before spraying cotton crops? Just in case he has a kiniption and decides to fly 3000 miles to Sydney and crash his Ag plane into the Harbour Bridge? At least he didn’t have a knife or bomb making equipment in him!
Reply
PERTH AIRPORT FAILURE - BULLET FOUND ON PLANE

From the attached article; An airport security officer has been stood down after revelations 21 rounds of ammunition were carried on to a flight from Perth at the weekend by a business class passenger without being detected.

https://thewest.com.au/news/wa/perth-air...b88898564z

So once again we see that the Department of Homeland Security under Peter Dutton fails to prevent a serious security breach occurring. Body scanners, ASIC cards, ridiculous Inspectors dressing up in cargo shorts and Hawaiian shirts unshaven or dressing up as FIFO miners doesn’t prevent this incident from occurring. What a joke. No doubt the Perth Airport CEO and Board will be hiding beneath a rock somewhere also. Issues in Perth in their security oversight is something very common these days.
Reply
Paging Mr Peabody -  Rolleyes

Wonders will never cease -  Tongue 

From the RRAT Budget Estimates page - https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Bus...mates/rrat - it would appear that in less than 1 week the vast majority of QON have been answered... Dodgy

Today Senator Rex Patrick's QON 201, on PSZs around the proposed West Sydney Airport, was officially answered and combined with the departmental weblinks, made for very interesting reading... Shy

Quote:Asked Of Department of Infrastructure, Regional Development and Cities
Proof Hansard Page/Written 92
Portfolio Question Number 201
Question
Senator PATRICK: Are you looking at public safety zones around Sydney Airport? 
Mr McRandle: We're looking at public safety zones generally across Australian airports as part of the National Airports Safeguarding Framework. A consultation process commenced a little over a week ago with the community around public safety zones. It will include all airports. Queensland has already incorporated the public safety zone approach to their airports. There are others around Australia that haven't adopted it. 
Senator PATRICK: That's on your website, is it? 
Mr McRandle: It is on our website. 
Ms Spence: We can send the link to the secretariat if that would help? 
Senator PATRICK: That might be helpful, and I'm happy to help advertise that.

AnswerThe National Airports Safeguarding Advisory Group is seeking comments on a draft new Guideline I— Managing the Risk in Public Safety Zones at the Ends of Runways. The draft guideline is available on the Department of Infrastructure, Regional Development and Cities’ website at: https://infrastructure.gov.au/aviation/environmental/airport_safeguarding/nasf/public_consultation_nasf.aspx.

Download question with answer 

Answered Date 
07/08/2018




Public Consultation–National Airports Safeguarding Framework
Listen to this page
A A A

Draft New Guideline I—Managing the Risk in Public Safety Zones at the Ends of Runways

In March 2018 the Transport and Infrastructure Senior Officials' Committee (TISOC) agreed to the National Airports Safeguarding Advisory Group (NASAG) publicly consulting on the draft new National Airport Safeguarding Framework (NASF) Guideline—Managing the Risk in Public Safety Zones at the Ends of Runways.

This public consultation process commenced on 11 May 2018 and closed on 12 July 2018.
Submissions will now be considered by NASAG and be used to inform any further drafting of the guideline.
[size=undefined]
The fact sheet and FAQ below provide additional information on the draft Guideline:[/size]
[size=undefined]
Background

In 2010 the NASAG was formed and tasked with preparing the NASF.

The NASF was agreed by Governments in 2012. It is a national land use planning framework that aims to:
[/size]
  • improve community amenity by minimising aircraft noise-sensitive developments near airports; and
  • improve safety outcomes by ensuring aviation safety requirements are recognised in land use planning decisions through guidelines being adopted by jurisdictions on various safety-related issues.
[size=undefined]
The NASF has implications for anyone working in town planning, residential or commercial development, building construction or related industries. It consists of a set of guiding principles with seven guidelines.

NASAG has drafted a new Guideline for Public Safety Zones (PSZs) to mitigate the risk to people on the ground near airports by informing a consistent approach to land use at the end of Australian airport runways. PSZs seek to limit land uses that would increase the number of people in the zone or result in the storage of hazardous materials in the zone.

The Guideline will assist land-use planners at all levels to better consider public safety when assessing development proposals and rezoning requests and when developing strategic land use plans.

If you would like further information about NASF or the draft guideline, please contact Ms Sharyn Owen, Director, Airport Safeguarding on (02) 6274 6125 or at sharyn.owen@infrastructure.gov.au.[/size]

For the benefit of Mr PB (although if I was to hazard a guess he is already all over this -  Wink ) I noted the following from 'Draft Guideline' PDF:


Quote:Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA)

11. CASA is Australia’s safety regulator for civil air operations and the operation of Australian aircraft overseas. CASA is responsible for the implementation of ICAO Standards and Recommended Practices (SARPS). ICAO has not developed SARPS regarding PSZs.
12. CASA have a role in the regulation of ICAO mandated Runway End Safety Areas (RESA). RESAs are sometimes confused with PSZs. A RESA is a cleared ground area extending from the end of the runway strip for the purpose of decelerating an aircraft if it overruns the runway. - The RESA? What about the OLS & Mr Peabody's RSW? - ref: Oversight or lack there of - Part IV - UDB!
 

MTF...P2  Cool
Reply
Do ICAO/FAA smell a rat on Oz airport safety?

[Image: hd-composite-plane-crash-v2.jpg?strip=al...500&crop=1]




[Image: YMEN-DFO.jpg]

Reference: Lachie (finally) comes through - nearly?

Quote:AGA:

1) Ensure full implementation of Annex 14, Volume I requirements on Runway End Safety Areas (RESAs) at aerodromes.

&..

AGA:

Ensure that the State has a coordinated mechanism to ensure full and effective implementation of the obstacle limitation surfaces (OLS) at aerodromes, including arrangements to prohibit any building developments which could create an obstacle to aircraft operations.

Hmm...interesting?? -  Dodgy


MTF...P2  Cool
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)