Regional security screening

Forums › Travel (planes, train, cruise) › Regional security screening

1 | 2 | 3 | 4

18435 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#2201444 19-Mar-2019 11:06

A hand gun is a suppression weapon that makes a loud noise. They are very inaccurate despite what the movies show. A pistol is more likely to injure bystanders than it is the assailant, the officer has to be very close for it to be effective. The Bushmaster rifle is accurate, and will bring down an assailant with much less risk of collateral damage.

amiga500

1484 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

#2201683 19-Mar-2019 14:10

larknz: But what is the point of just targeting outgoing passengers at Christchurch.
Is it that that authorities are happy to let crazy into Christchurch, but not let them out.
I'm pretty sure that the horrifying event last Friday is not a result of lax airport security. Is this a sign of things to come at all airports. I don't have a problem with going through airport security, I just don't see the point of only singling out Christchurch.

There are so many ambiguities with aviation security in NZ, it's ludicrous. (Jerry Brownlee was very naughty talking his way through a door at CHC instead of going through security, but if he had spent a day travelling on regional planes he might have done it out of frustration with the mickey mouse.)

1.) Liquids are now o.k. to take through security. Why? Do we have some magic new scanners that will detect explosive mixtures?

2.) Only screening jets while ATRs carry 68 passengers and 4 crew.

3.) A total lack of security at regional airports.

And then there is the issue of baggage and freight is any of this screened for domestic flights?

The increased security around Christchurch and the airport is to make people feel safe. That is all it does. NZ could have acted in 2001 to put in place proper security but as usual we opted for a cheap and ineffective compromise. Anyone surprised?

sbiddle

30853 posts

Uber Geek

Retired Mod

Trusted

Biddle Corp

Lifetime subscriber

#2201729 19-Mar-2019 14:47

amiga500:

There are so many ambiguities with aviation security in NZ, it's ludicrous. (Jerry Brownlee was very naughty talking his way through a door at CHC instead of going through security, but if he had spent a day travelling on regional planes he might have done it out of frustration with the mickey mouse.)

1.) Liquids are now o.k. to take through security. Why? Do we have some magic new scanners that will detect explosive mixtures?

2.) Only screening jets while ATRs carry 68 passengers and 4 crew.

3.) A total lack of security at regional airports.

And then there is the issue of baggage and freight is any of this screened for domestic flights?

The increased security around Christchurch and the airport is to make people feel safe. That is all it does. NZ could have acted in 2001 to put in place proper security but as usual we opted for a cheap and ineffective compromise. Anyone surprised?

Security is a risk based process. The only thing I I don't understand is why are surprised and say we have a cheap and ineffective compromise. What proof do you have to back that allegation?

As for your claims above

There have *never* been LAG restrictions on domestic flights. These have always been OK. And while Avsec don't have CT 3D scanners which negate the need to remove LAGS from bags for international services, my understand is they plan to trial the technology this year. It is currently being rolled out to a large number of airports globally.

Screening is not required on flights under 90 seats. This is the current law so I don't know how you can say it's "cheap and ineffective". It's all about risk, and it's very clear you don't understand the decision making process being this. There is plenty of information online about this. If screening moved to under 90 seats it's likely many regional airports would see the end of scheduled commercial services due to cost.

And yes bags and freight for domestic flights is screened and has been for a number of years.

I would trust Avsec security any day over TSA screening in the US and believe NZ does a far better job at screening passengers.

larknz

1689 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Lifetime subscriber

#2201734 19-Mar-2019 14:51

I think that you will find that all domestic luggage is screened. I have opened my suitcase a number of times to find a slip of paper saying that it had been opened by Aviation Security. This has happened while I have been travelling on regional flights.

amiga500

1484 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

#2201793 19-Mar-2019 15:45

sbiddle:

amiga500:

There are so many ambiguities with aviation security in NZ, it's ludicrous. (Jerry Brownlee was very naughty talking his way through a door at CHC instead of going through security, but if he had spent a day travelling on regional planes he might have done it out of frustration with the mickey mouse.)

1.) Liquids are now o.k. to take through security. Why? Do we have some magic new scanners that will detect explosive mixtures?

2.) Only screening jets while ATRs carry 68 passengers and 4 crew.

3.) A total lack of security at regional airports.

And then there is the issue of baggage and freight is any of this screened for domestic flights?

The increased security around Christchurch and the airport is to make people feel safe. That is all it does. NZ could have acted in 2001 to put in place proper security but as usual we opted for a cheap and ineffective compromise. Anyone surprised?

Security is a risk based process. The only thing I I don't understand is why are surprised and say we have a cheap and ineffective compromise. What proof do you have to back that allegation?

As for your claims above

There have *never* been LAG restrictions on domestic flights. These have always been OK. And while Avsec don't have CT 3D scanners which negate the need to remove LAGS from bags for international services, my understand is they plan to trial the technology this year. It is currently being rolled out to a large number of airports globally.

Screening is not required on flights under 90 seats. This is the current law so I don't know how you can say it's "cheap and ineffective". It's all about risk, and it's very clear you don't understand the decision making process being this. There is plenty of information online about this. If screening moved to under 90 seats it's likely many regional airports would see the end of scheduled commercial services due to cost.

And yes bags and freight for domestic flights is screened and has been for a number of years.

I would trust Avsec security any day over TSA screening in the US and believe NZ does a far better job at screening passengers.

I am far from being a frequent domestic flyer, but in the years immediately after 911 did we not have to put all liquids into one zip lock clear plastic bag & have that bag separate from our carry-on as we went through security? And by requiring all liquids to be put into one small bag that was in effect a ban on large containers. Maybe I am wrong but I have memories of doing this and seeing other people do the same for domestic flights.

I accept that security is risk based but to have a system that puts in place security for domestic jets but not for ATRs carrying up to 68 passengers and four crew is a huge compromise regardless of whether it's the law of the land. It is much of a farce as the un-enforced cycle helmets law. What would the Government have done if Air NZ had still been flying jets to Napier and Invercargill and many other smaller centres. Put in place a jet ban and force them to use smaller aircraft?

sbiddle

30853 posts

Uber Geek

Retired Mod

Trusted

Biddle Corp

Lifetime subscriber

#2201845 19-Mar-2019 16:22

amiga500:

I am far from being a frequent domestic flyer, but in the years immediately after 911 did we not have to put all liquids into one zip lock clear plastic bag & have that bag separate from our carry-on as we went through security? And by requiring all liquids to be put into one small bag that was in effect a ban on large containers. Maybe I am wrong but I have memories of doing this and seeing other people do the same for domestic flights.

I accept that security is risk based but to have a system that puts in place security for domestic jets but not for ATRs carrying up to 68 passengers and four crew is a huge compromise regardless of whether it's the law of the land. It is much of a farce as the un-enforced cycle helmets law. What would the Government have done if Air NZ had still been flying jets to Napier and Invercargill and many other smaller centres. Put in place a jet ban and force them to use smaller aircraft?

LAG restrictions for international flights only came into play on 31st March 2007 following the new ICAO security rules announced in December 2006 following the attempts to bomb aircraft in the UK. Prior to that there were no LAG rules on international flights, let alone domestic flights, so I'm not sure sure what you saw or whether you're simply remembering a time after 2007.

Air NZ are flying jets incl IVC from August this year again. Doing so requires reinstatement of Avsec security screening at the airport and baggage screening equipment for all luggage. If Air NZ flew jets into Napier there would be security there also.

amiga500

1484 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

#2201860 19-Mar-2019 16:41

sbiddle:

amiga500:

I am far from being a frequent domestic flyer, but in the years immediately after 911 did we not have to put all liquids into one zip lock clear plastic bag & have that bag separate from our carry-on as we went through security? And by requiring all liquids to be put into one small bag that was in effect a ban on large containers. Maybe I am wrong but I have memories of doing this and seeing other people do the same for domestic flights.

I accept that security is risk based but to have a system that puts in place security for domestic jets but not for ATRs carrying up to 68 passengers and four crew is a huge compromise regardless of whether it's the law of the land. It is much of a farce as the un-enforced cycle helmets law. What would the Government have done if Air NZ had still been flying jets to Napier and Invercargill and many other smaller centres. Put in place a jet ban and force them to use smaller aircraft?

LAG restrictions for international flights only came into play on 31st March 2007 following the new ICAO security rules announced in December 2006 following the attempts to bomb aircraft in the UK. Prior to that there were no LAG rules on international flights, let alone domestic flights, so I'm not sure sure what you saw or whether you're simply remembering a time after 2007.

Air NZ are flying jets incl IVC from August this year again. Doing so requires reinstatement of Avsec security screening at the airport and baggage screening equipment for all luggage. If Air NZ flew jets into Napier there would be security there also.

Oops, yes, around 2007 2008 I prob. only did trans Tasman flights so my memory might be at fault!

Oops, yes, around 2007 2008 I prob. only did trans Tasman flights so my memory might be at fault!

Equinox IT

Cloud spending continues to surge globally, but most organisations haven’t made the changes necessary to maximise the value and cost-efficiency benefits of their cloud investments. Download the whitepaper From Overspend to Advantage now.

empacher48

368 posts

Ultimate Geek

#2201865 19-Mar-2019 16:46

Travelling domestically in NZ, the Avsec screening is a feel good factor for passengers.

As mentioned here, the costs of Avsec screening are high vs the low risk. There are other measures in place that I won’t go into which happen in the background which have more benefit for security than screening.

amiga500

1484 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

#2202382 20-Mar-2019 13:08

http://www.traveller.com.au/airport-security-in-australia-why-are-the-rules-different-between-domestic-and-international-flights-gxnouj

This is an interesting article which discusses the state of aviation security in Australia. While Australia and New Zealand are not unique in having less stringent practices re. liquids there seems to be no doubt that Britain, USA, and all of the EU are much stricter. This is the conclusion after reading pages on websites belonging to Air France, British Airways, TSA, and others.

In fact a person travelling to Australia and New Zealand departing from France might be fairly confused by the time they got to say, Nelson or Napier. All through the EU, and Britain it seems that liquids are subject to international protocols whether the flight is domestic, within the EU, or further afield. According to the Australian website the strict rule applies to all flights from an international airport regardless of whether it is domestic or international. If the airport is not international the rule is similar to NZ.

So with all these little differences it might be easier for the person from the EU to assume that the strict EU standard for liquids apply everywhere.

I wonder how many tourists from the USA and Europe find it amazing that the visible security measures in NZ and Australia are so lax, especially if they are flying on the regional turbo props? I am totally sure that this is something they talk about.

Technofreak

6530 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#2202417 20-Mar-2019 13:55

amiga500:
http://www.traveller.com.au/airport-security-in-australia-why-are-the-rules-different-between-domestic-and-international-flights-gxnouj

This is an interesting article which discusses the state of aviation security in Australia.   While Australia and New Zealand are not unique in having less stringent practices re. liquids there seems to be no doubt that Britain, USA, and all of the EU are much stricter.   This is the conclusion after reading pages on websites belonging to Air France, British Airways, TSA, and others.

In fact a person travelling to Australia and New Zealand departing from France might be fairly confused by the time they got to say, Nelson or Napier. All through the EU, and Britain it seems that liquids are subject to international protocols whether the flight is domestic, within the EU, or further afield.   According to the Australian website the strict rule applies to all flights from an international airport regardless of whether it is domestic or international.   If the airport is not international the rule is similar to NZ.

So with all these little differences it might be easier for the person from the EU to assume that the strict EU standard for liquids apply everywhere.

I wonder how many tourists from the USA and Europe find it amazing that the visible security measures in NZ and Australia are so lax, especially if they are flying on the regional turbo props?   I am totally sure that this is something they talk about.

What is your point exacty? Why are you focussing on fluids?

At a lot of the airports in Europe it makes sense to have a uniform procedure. The spilt of domestic and international passengers will be very different to that in New Zealand or Australia. In Europe most airports will have international flights and I'm guessing the international passengers would make up at least 50% of the total passengers. We don't have anywhere the same number of international airports.

Because of our location and population we do a lot of things differently in New Zealand.

For example you may have noticed we drive on the opposite side of the road to manland Europe.

I don't agree there is a problem with the way we do our regional security here. In fact I'd go as far to say the requirement to screen domestic jet passengers is also over the top.

Screening of domestic turbo prop passengers isn't practical at any of the regoinal airports. If they aren't done at these airports it is a waste of time doing them at the main centres as screened passengers need to be segregated from non screened. Also domestic passengers from a non screened airport would not be able to be disembarked into the same area as domestic screened passengers. It gets very complicated.

Screening domestic turbo prop passengers isn't worth the cost for the very low risk involved. Thee are much better ways to protect the travelling public and the general population from those who may try to wreak havoc.

Sony Xperia XA2 running Sailfish OS. https://sailfishos.org The true independent open source mobile OS
Samsung Galaxy Tab S6
Dell Inspiron 14z i5

larknz

1689 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Lifetime subscriber

#2202419 20-Mar-2019 14:03

They are certainly screening domestic passengers in Christchurch with arriving and departing passengers segregated.

MikeB4

18435 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#2202434 20-Mar-2019 14:32

I am a very regular flyer and I would have no issue with screening were to be extended to regional flights.

empacher48

368 posts

Ultimate Geek

#2202435 20-Mar-2019 14:33

They will be separating arriving and departing passengers, as you can’t mix screened and unscreened passengers.

Those arriving will not have had screening at the departure airport, so will not be allowed into a sterile area until they have been screened.

PolicyGuy

1726 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Lifetime subscriber

#2202445 20-Mar-2019 15:09

If your local airport has two or four or even six daily departures, all in aircraft like a Saab340 (e.g. Air Chathams) or a Q300 (Air NZ) with less than fifty seats even if they ar fully loaded, then if you want to have "security" you will need :

building alterations to provide a separate "clean" area;
X-ray machines and walk-though metal detectors, bag checking benches etc;
[more extensive] CCTV coverage;
Periodic inspection, maintenance and calibration of all the machinery; and
at least half a dozen AVSEC staff plus a tea room / briefing space

All in an airport where there may be very, very few staff at the moment, adding probably between half a million and a million dollars per annum to the fixed costs of operating the airport.
My guess is you'd add costs of close to fifty dollars per passenger

Yeah, nah!

BlinkyBill

1443 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

#2202511 20-Mar-2019 17:47

I travel a lot, they didn’t catch the shoe bomber, the lady with the knife, airport security hasn’t saved a single life. If you think it calms the travelling public, you are wrong. If you are reassured by airport security, you are simple-minded.

All it does is add cost and inconvenience. We wouldn’t do what we do if the US hadn’t over-reacted.

Also, NZ legislation allows for screening for any passenger aircraft, discretion to <90 is allowed, but legally they can apply screening at a change of policy.

1 | 2 | 3 | 4