Another security breach at AKL airport

Forums › Travel (planes, train, cruise) › Another security breach at AKL airport

MikeAqua

8031 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3820

#237991 28-Jun-2018 09:46

https://www.stuff.co.nz/auckland/105070083/security-breach-at-auckland-airport-delays-flghts

Usual story, someone evaded security, passengers sent back from boarding gates to be re-screened, planes de-boarded, so passengers could be re-screened. And with the hubbing model airlines use any delays will ripple out through the wider air transport system.

This has happened 3 or 4 times that I can remember. I wonder how many such breaches are undetected?

Might be time to beef up the security to prevent breaches?

Mike

1 | 2

6028 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 461

Trusted

Geekzone

Lifetime subscriber

#2045178 28-Jun-2018 09:46

Allow me to introduce you folks to our new travel community: TravelTalk NZ.

We hope to see you there!

I am the Geekzone Robot and I am here to help. I am from the Internet. I do not interact. Do not expect other replies from me.

Referral links: Quic Broadband (free setup code: R587125ERQ6VE) | Samsung | AliExpress | Wise | Sharesies

Support Geekzone by subscribing (browse ads-free), or making a one-off or recurring donation through PressPatron.

amiga500

1484 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 422
Inactive user

#2045302 28-Jun-2018 11:24

The arrivals door area is badly designed and placed - assuming that the people are sneaking through as the auto doors are open to let people out. It's just asking for trouble where it's positioned for an impulsive late idiot to try this. At CHC the exit area is sensibly placed & I'd wager they have far fewer issues.

The airport company could improve the situation in 30 minutes with some temporary barriers, & by having two security guards there all the time.

empacher48

376 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 283

#2045333 28-Jun-2018 11:47

About time to start actually giving people the 3 months in prison or $5000 fine that the Civil Aviation Act 1990 states for illegal access to a security area.

Auckland Airport Limited don't want to spend any money on a domestic terminal that won't be used in 5 years time (maybe, depends if they want to spend the money for their integrated terminal in that time...).

sbiddle

30853 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9996

Retired Mod

Trusted

Biddle Corp

Lifetime subscriber

#2045357 28-Jun-2018 11:56

Apparently somebody who had exited the gate at the Jetstar end then tried to return back in. This is probably about the 5th or 6th similar incident at Auckland this year, and it's certainly happened plenty more times over the years.

It really makes you wonder how many they haven't detected.

sbiddle

30853 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9996

Retired Mod

Trusted

Biddle Corp

Lifetime subscriber

#2045360 28-Jun-2018 11:58

empacher48:

About time to start actually giving people the 3 months in prison or $5000 fine that the Civil Aviation Act 1990 states for illegal access to a security area.

Auckland Airport Limited don't want to spend any money on a domestic terminal that won't be used in 5 years time (maybe, depends if they want to spend the money for their integrated terminal in that time...).

It's not illegal access if you have a boarding pass for a flight on that day.

There is a fine line between Avsec and AIAL - Avsec are responsible for all security and screening. Some of the equipment for this is supplied by AIAL. Ultimately this is an Avsec failure, not an AIAL one.

frankv

5705 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3666

Lifetime subscriber

#2045368 28-Jun-2018 12:17

MikeAqua:

This has happened 3 or 4 times that I can remember. I wonder how many such breaches are undetected?

Might be time to beef up the security to prevent breaches?

OTOH, there have been no actual terrorist incidents either. I think it might be time to remove some of the excessive (but ineffective) security measures that are now in place.

HP

Shop now for HP laptops and other devices (affiliate link).

ObidiahSlope

260 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 66

#2045523 28-Jun-2018 14:02

C'mon why shouldn't the jobsworths in charge of confiscating water bottles treat adults like a headmaster punishing a class because one them has been naughty.

Obsequious hypocrite

sbiddle

30853 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9996

Retired Mod

Trusted

Biddle Corp

Lifetime subscriber

#2045563 28-Jun-2018 14:46

ObidiahSlope:

C'mon why shouldn't the jobsworths in charge of confiscating water bottles treat adults like a headmaster punishing a class because one them has been naughty.

There are no restrictions on taking water bottles (or any LAG restrictions for that matter) on domestic flights.

amiga500

1484 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 422
Inactive user

#2045605 28-Jun-2018 15:29

sbiddle:

ObidiahSlope:

C'mon why shouldn't the jobsworths in charge of confiscating water bottles treat adults like a headmaster punishing a class because one them has been naughty.

There are no restrictions on taking water bottles (or any LAG restrictions for that matter) on domestic flights.

And if travelling on an ATR 72-600 from CHC Regional, & the small airports, no security screening at all. It makes what happened at Auckland today seem incredibly annoying and stupid to anyone who regularly travels on a plane which carries up to 68 passengers.

Dingbatt

6804 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3694

Lifetime subscriber

#2045631 28-Jun-2018 16:16

Interestingly, the exit doors down the Air New Zealand end of the domestic terminal have only recently been replaced with new glass sensor doors. These seem much less secure than the old herringbone barriers that used to be there. Even the AIAL provided signage in the domestic terminal is pathetic.

“We’ve arranged a society based on science and technology, in which nobody understands anything about science technology. Carl Sagan 1996

Geektastic

18009 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 8465

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2045640 28-Jun-2018 16:33

Why would it be necessary to remove passengers already seated on the plane? If they were seated at the time of the breach, they cannot logically have committed the breach and would therefore be secure? Or did I miss something?

The dumbest one of these is the re-screening of transit passengers in Australia. You get screened, board a secure plane, fly at 35,000 feet for 3 hours and then get screened again immediately you get off. Exactly where do they think you would have got hold of something you shouldn't in that flight?!

Quic Broadband

Move to New Zealand's best fibre broadband service (affiliate link). Free setup code: R587125ERQ6VE. Note that to use Quic Broadband you must be comfortable with configuring your own router.

sbiddle

30853 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9996

Retired Mod

Trusted

Biddle Corp

Lifetime subscriber

#2045642 28-Jun-2018 16:40

Dingbatt: Interestingly, the exit doors down the Air New Zealand end of the domestic terminal have only recently been replaced with new glass sensor doors. These seem much less secure than the old herringbone barriers that used to be there. Even the AIAL provided signage in the domestic terminal is pathetic.

The doors have been replaced ironically because of the people walking back through the old doors!

I actually haven't seen then (have walked out the Jetstar end the last few trips). There are apparently also barriers in place now around unused xray machines.

Kyanar

4089 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1684

ID Verified

Trusted

#2045643 28-Jun-2018 16:44

Geektastic:

Why would it be necessary to remove passengers already seated on the plane? If they were seated at the time of the breach, they cannot logically have committed the breach and would therefore be secure? Or did I miss something?

Because if they came into contact with the person who returned back into the sterile area, they may have been passed items which are not permitted on aircraft. It makes perfect sense, even if it's hideous inconvenient.

Geektastic:

The dumbest one of these is the re-screening of transit passengers in Australia. You get screened, board a secure plane, fly at 35,000 feet for 3 hours and then get screened again immediately you get off. Exactly where do they think you would have got hold of something you shouldn't in that flight?!

Because you mix with passengers from any other international destination, including those who have lower security standards. In theory, you could have come into contact with someone who originated from a country with lax security standards and been given contraband. At security screening, they also don't know where you're from.

New Zealand, incidentally, also re-screens transit passengers. Your beloved United Kingdom even does.

sbiddle

30853 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9996

Retired Mod

Trusted

Biddle Corp

Lifetime subscriber

#2045646 28-Jun-2018 16:49

Geektastic:

Why would it be necessary to remove passengers already seated on the plane? If they were seated at the time of the breach, they cannot logically have committed the breach and would therefore be secure? Or did I miss something?

The dumbest one of these is the re-screening of transit passengers in Australia. You get screened, board a secure plane, fly at 35,000 feet for 3 hours and then get screened again immediately you get off. Exactly where do they think you would have got hold of something you shouldn't in that flight?!

The minute a breach is detected all passengers are removed who are airside as it's deemed non sterile. This is standard policy pretty much everywhere in the world when an incident like this occurs.

The stupid part of this is that while they evacuate everybody and re-screen them to get back in, anybody who had gone through and wanted to plant a weapon could do that as it's impossible to completely search everywhere airside for any restricted items.

Screening transit passengers is also common place everywhere in the world. When you leave Australia they need to be satisfied you meet their security requirements, which depending on where you're going can differ. You could have easily carried something from a plane that could have been planted there.

Once screening started in NZ after 9/11 the stupid scenario existed at Christchurch airport for probably 7-8 years until their rebuild started where inbound ATR passengers who had not been screened leaving their destination got to mingle airside with passengers leaving Christchurch who had been screened.

amiga500

1484 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 422
Inactive user

#2045647 28-Jun-2018 16:50

Nothing will make it 100% secure but a few screens about 2 metres high, the sort you can put up posters on, arranged around the exit points, plus security guards would reduce the number of incidents. I'm sure Auckland Airport has plenty of screens like this stashed away somewhere. I seem to remember that at the International Terminal they had screens like this when flights to the USA had to have a last security check at the Gate Lounge - around 2003 ish.

1 | 2