Security screening AFTER the flight?

Status
Not open for further replies.

garyjohn951

Active Member
Joined
Jul 21, 2006
Messages
560
Points
0
I don't think a suicide bomber destroying himself on Sydney Bridge will do much damage to the bridge, might kill himself and one, two or 10 others but the massive steel structure will barely have a dint, but a 35 seater plane will be all pieces including 35 dead
 

dajop

Enthusiast
Joined
Jul 1, 2002
Messages
12,951
Solutions
3
Points
1,345
garyjohn951 said:
I don't think a suicide bomber destroying himself on Sydney Bridge will do much damage to the bridge, might kill himself and one, two or 10 others but the massive steel structure will barely have a dint,

What if he is on a fully packed peak hour train at the time? Be sure to be more than 10 people. It doesn't take much imagination to think of ways to cause significant damage, disruption and loss of life. Look what a couple of cars and trucks in a tunnel managed to achieve accidentally here in Melbourne last week. Who knows what could happen down there with an orchestrated deliberate effort.

My point it's all about the bang (or in this instance lack of bang) for bucks and it will impose a significant cost on regional air travel to introduce screening at Burnie and most other regional airports. It is much costlier on a per head basis to screen passengers going on 4 or 5 flights a day, than arrival screening where there will be more like 30 flights a day. And if you look at the risks, if that expense is going to be incurred, it would be better spent on increasing security at the major city train stations (as an example).

Having said that I am fully convinced that TT or ACA will have a big expose on it one day and some polly will see votes in it out it will roll (probably during the federal election later this year). Suddenly there will be security screening at Mudgee for the 2 19 seater Beechcraft flights a day.
 
Last edited:

NM

Enthusiast
Moderator
Joined
Aug 27, 2004
Messages
16,547
Points
1,295
Qantas
LT Gold
Virgin
Red
clifford said:
Where are these airports, NM? Haven't come across them myself (and maybe it's an airline issue).
Some examples include ATL, MCO, MEM, CVG, CLE. I expect there may be others as well.
 

simongr

Enthusiast
Joined
Jul 10, 2006
Messages
14,426
Points
0
Its not justthe fact that you would have to screen people - you would have to change the design of many of the regional airports I have been to to create sterile areas. I am not sure you are getting the concept of risk - 35 people dead in a field is simply not that big a deal in the scheme of things. A bit brutal but IMO true. When the terrorists are thinking about their bang for the buck its just not worth it.
 

garyjohn951

Active Member
Joined
Jul 21, 2006
Messages
560
Points
0
Yes, that is exactly the problem it is not only the cost the security but the cost of rebuilding regional airports that most are reasonably new over the past 10 - 15 years anyway.
Take Mildura for instance, you would need to double the size to have gateway lounges AFTER security, all with seperate toilets, eateries, etc. Currently all PAX whether inwards or outwards use same seats, toilets, etc.
 

Soundguy

Member
Joined
Jun 15, 2006
Messages
323
Points
0
The airport security in Australia is not going to stop any serious criminal, it is really only to appease the minds of the masses that something looks like it is being done and to deter the less serious criminals. There are very significant security holes; with some knowledge (and a lot of evil intent) a person could bring down a flight out of any of our airports; thankfully knowledge is not a big thing with the average jihadist. You would have to go to countries that are under constant threat like Israel or India to see security actually intended to prevent a terrorist attack.
 

SeatBackForward

Established Member
Joined
Jun 20, 2006
Messages
4,291
Points
735
garyjohn951 said:
I don't think a suicide bomber destroying himself on Sydney Bridge will do much damage to the bridge, might kill himself and one, two or 10 others but the massive steel structure will barely have a dint, but a 35 seater plane will be all pieces including 35 dead

The SHB is a steel arch bridge, the deck that the trains and vehicles travel on is not a structural component. You'd have to knock out the arch to do damage, but another weak point is/are the two giant bearings

thrust_bearing.jpg


The whole arch rotates at these joints and transfers the load into the foundations. Mind you its a pretty chunky bit of steel.
 

JohnK

Veteran Member
Joined
Mar 22, 2005
Messages
43,731
Points
3,070
Guys, I am sure that most people can get access to this type of information but is it really necessary to discuss it in an open forum?
 

Kiwi Flyer

Senior Member
Joined
Sep 24, 2004
Messages
5,546
Points
0
JohnK said:
Guys, I am sure that most people can get access to this type of information but is it really necessary to discuss it in an open forum?

What difference does it make? Nothing secret being posted in this thread.
 

jaxjax

Junior Member
Joined
Oct 17, 2006
Messages
29
Points
0
Kiwi Flyer said:
What difference does it make? Nothing secret being posted in this thread.

Be alert, not alarmed. Now where's that fridge magnet...


jaX
 

Happy Dude

Established Member
Joined
Oct 13, 2006
Messages
1,518
Solutions
2
Points
500
simongr said:
I am not sure you are getting the concept of risk - 35 people dead in a field is simply not that big a deal in the scheme of things. A bit brutal but IMO true.

Quite possibly the most repulsive thing I've ever read. Just mention that to the vendor as you purchase your ticket to Port Arthur.

With the new liquid restrictions in force, a fine example of just how serious airport security is supposed to be, I find it quite ridiculous that some airports have no security at all. And to lump it in the too expensive or never gonna happen category is contemptable.

I don't recall the dimensions of the terminal at Burnie but the amount of space for the x-ray machine and metal detector at Tullamarine didn't seem overly massive. They could get rid of the pointless gift shop or move the hire car booths if space was such a big issue. Even a desk with a guy with a handheld detector would be something. He could keep the quarantine guy company.
 

Dave Noble

Senior Member
Joined
Oct 10, 2005
Messages
6,419
Points
0
Happy Dude said:
Quite possibly the most repulsive thing I've ever read. Just mention that to the vendor as you purchase your ticket to Port Arthur.

With the new liquid restrictions in force, a fine example of just how serious airport security is supposed to be, I find it quite ridiculous that some airports have no security at all. And to lump it in the too expensive or never gonna happen category is contemptable.

The comment was made in relation to an aviation incident and is irrelevent to a land based tourist destination.

In context , I do not see that what was said was repulsive, but a view on the relative security risks of different locations. I didn't see any comment that suggested that the same applied to all things

With travel there is a balance that needs to be made between security, risk and conveniance. The security of flights could be increased if , from all ports, all luggage was fully searched by hand and each item in a case was individually x-rayed and tested for explosives and if no hand luggage was allowed and each passenger was strip searched. I suspect that the additional costs in relation to the risks would not make this a popular change

if some v small airports were required to redesign to having a sterile zone past security and for addiitonal x-raying of bags to be performed, then with some locations, I suspect that with the additional upfront costs and the ongoing running, that some airports would elect to cease operating commercial services .

Which would be preferable; having low risk flights having lower security from minor ports or for flights from those ports to no longer be available?

Dave
 

dajop

Enthusiast
Joined
Jul 1, 2002
Messages
12,951
Solutions
3
Points
1,345
Happy Dude said:
Quite possibly the most repulsive thing I've ever read. Just mention that to the vendor as you purchase your ticket to Port Arthur.

Repulsive or not these are exactly the sorts of thing decision makers have to (directly or indirectly) take into account in a society that is not of limitless resources. Some of the questions that could have been asked:
Should for example $x00,000 per annum be spent at Burnie airport for security? Or is it better spent elsewhere (eg extra surveillance at Flinder St Station)? To answer - need to look at the risk (which is a combination of the probability and the consequences), and no doubt the consequences include considering the magnitude of loss of life in different scenarios.

So you decide that it is not worth spending $x00,000 p.a. at Burnie, then you have to ask is it worth the risk then of keeping Burnie airport open? With many rural airports, an alternative is increasing land based transport, which comes with it own risks (look at the late 80's when there were many more buses plying the highways and the consequences that brings eg Grafton etc)

Each individual can of course make their own decision, and could choose land based transport (in most instances, car, train or bus - but from Burnie either car to DPO & boat or car to LST and air with enhanced security). Which brings me to another question, what level of security is in place on the Spirt of Tasmania?

Happy Dude said:
With the new liquid restrictions in force, a fine example of just how serious airport security is supposed to be

But is it? It only applies to international flights. Once agains someone has looked at the cost/benefit and risk equation to determine what extent it should be implemented (or the more cynical amongst would say an opinion poll as been done to decide what is politically acceptable and what is not). Screening or not, you can still get on a 747 to Perth (from Sydney or Melbourne) without such liquid restrictions. If they are so important, they should be implemented on those routes as well. In fact that is probably a bigger threat than no screening at many rural airports.
 
Last edited:

Happy Dude

Established Member
Joined
Oct 13, 2006
Messages
1,518
Solutions
2
Points
500
Dave Noble said:
The comment was made in relation to an aviation incident and is irrelevent to a land based tourist destination.

No, it's not irrelevent, as it directly led to a massive overhaul of Australia's gun laws, just as 9/11, Lockerbie and more recently the 'sports drink' episode in Britain has lead to the tightening of security at airports everywhere, sometimes to levels that could only be described as hysterical (Dave's link to the family holiday cancelled because the word "bomb" was taken out of context by overzealous - putting it nicely - security officers, is a pretty good example of that).

I get the gist of what Simongr was referring to, ie 35 dead is not as bad as say, 350 dead, but what's repulsive is the notion that someone, somewhere has decided (let's call it "risk assessment") that the lives of 35 people is worth risking in order to not spend money already levied for the very purpose of reducing risk. As Garyjohn951 commented "yeh better the bomb goes off on a Dash 8 than a 747, less people dead
good policy"

There is a world of difference between "all luggage was fully searched by hand and each item in a case was individually x-rayed and tested for explosives and if no hand luggage was allowed and each passenger was strip searched", and simply zipping the luggage/carry on (at least the carry on!) through a x-ray machine.

Dajop, the liquids ban is most certainly a fine example of just how serious the government is taking airport security. Whether it's all for show is open to interpretation, but I agree that it is illogical to not apply liquids bans to domestic flights, particularly between major airports. Which is kind of my point vis-a-vie not screening at all at Burnie. And don't forget that the flights you mentioned do have x-ray screening and metal detectors where passengers can be quizzed about "suspicious" items they're putting on an aircraft.

It must be remembered that airports have a mandate to pass on the costs of new security procedures implemented in the wake of 9/11. By spending the money on security measures the authorities are seen to be doing all they can to minimise risk. By having no security at all, despite the obvious precedents, I believe that it could be argued that they aren't doing all they can.

In the light of all the hysteria surrounding airport safety, when governments are telling us that they are doing all they can do to make air travel as safe as possible, and charging us for the priviledge, I am most perplexed that some flights into major airports simply have no security all.

You can bet your shirt that if additional security were introduced to Flinders Street Station that ticket prices would rise. And it couldn't or wouldn't come from any airport budget.
 

Dave Noble

Senior Member
Joined
Oct 10, 2005
Messages
6,419
Points
0
Happy Dude said:
You can bet your shirt that if additional security were introduced to Flinders Street Station that ticket prices would rise. And it couldn't or wouldn't come from any airport budget.

And if ticket prices rose too much people would stop using the trains. It *is* all about risk assessment and assessing cost/benefit

Dave
 

Kiwi Flyer

Senior Member
Joined
Sep 24, 2004
Messages
5,546
Points
0
Not allowing any baggage is safer than allowing any, no matter what the screening procedures are. Would you advocate we should not have any luggage (checked or carry on)?

Flying naked is safer than flying with clothes on - less places to hide stuff. Would you advocate we should not be allowed to wear clothes?

Just because some rule makes travel safer doesn't mean we should blindly make those rules. It is about assessing relative risks.

Take another example - many areas are prone to bush fires, floods, hail, cyclones, drought, etc. Housing everyone in places less prone to these reduces the risk of loss in natural disasters (property and lives). But it may not be practical or cost effective to do so.
 
Vinomofo is the best wine deals site on the planet. Good wines, real people and epic deals, without all the bowties and bs.

AFF Supporters can remove this and all advertisements

JohnK

Veteran Member
Joined
Mar 22, 2005
Messages
43,731
Points
3,070
Happy Dude said:
No, it's not irrelevent, as it directly led to a massive overhaul of Australia's gun laws, just as 9/11, Lockerbie and more recently the 'sports drink' episode in Britain has lead to the tightening of security at airports everywhere, sometimes to levels that could only be described as hysterical (Dave's link to the family holiday cancelled because the word "bomb" was taken out of context by overzealous - putting it nicely - security officers, is a pretty good example of that.

I get the gist of what Simongr was referring to, ie 35 dead is not as bad as say, 350 dead, but what's repulsive is the notion that someone, somewhere has decided (let's call it "risk assessment") that the lives of 35 people is worth risking in order to not spend money already levied for the very purpose of reducing risk. As Garyjohn951 commented "yeh better the bomb goes off on a Dash 8 than a 747, less people dead
good policy").
For what it is worth I agree entirely with your post.
 

NM

Enthusiast
Moderator
Joined
Aug 27, 2004
Messages
16,547
Points
1,295
Qantas
LT Gold
Virgin
Red
And if teh cost of upgrading Burnie airport with x-ray screening, explosives screening, security staff and sterile area separation infrastructure was then shared amongst the 100 or so daily passengers, I think there would be an outcry of over-zealous imposition of unnecessary costs. The security surcharge would make the fuel surcharges look like vending machine change :shock: .
 

Kiwi Flyer

Senior Member
Joined
Sep 24, 2004
Messages
5,546
Points
0
NM said:
The security surcharge would make the fuel surcharges look like vending machine change :shock: .

Agree. NZ government last year reviewed how border security charges were levied across the airports. Not quite the same but a similar principle. The variation in cost per pax between AKL (with many thousands of pax daily) and ZQN (with a handful of flights each week) was quite staggering.
 

dajop

Enthusiast
Joined
Jul 1, 2002
Messages
12,951
Solutions
3
Points
1,345
Kiwi Flyer said:
Agree. NZ government last year reviewed how border security charges were levied across the airports. Not quite the same but a similar principle. The variation in cost per pax between AKL (with many thousands of pax daily) and ZQN (with a handful of flights each week) was quite staggering.

Important to also remember that security at major airports isn't just about the passengers on the plane. After all, in 9-11 the loss of life from aircraft was bad, but far outweighed by the loss of life on the ground. A prop aircraft probably does not have the same capacity for destruction as a fully fuelled up jet, and hence the prop security would have to be paid for by pax, whereas jet security costs can be justifiably borne by the community.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top