Jump to content
fly_tornado

Councils cannot afford regional security upgrades, say experts

Recommended Posts

Councils cannot afford regional security upgrades, say experts

By Kate Cowling

Updated Thu at 11:20am

Aviation security experts say regional airports are vulnerable to crime, but local councils do not have the money to make them safer and promised counter-terrorism funding is yet to be released.

The Federal Government announced in last year's budget that $50.1 million over four years would be made available to upgrade screening equipment at regional airports.

The bulk of that money would be dispersed to "pre-identified eligible regional airports," who applied to the Department of Home Affairs.

Eligibility is based on departing passenger data, the capacity of the planes operating at the airports and existing screening equipment, according to the department.

"Upgrading airport screening technology is one of the most effective changes we can make to address the increasing sophistication of explosives and other threats," a spokesperson for the Department of Home Affairs said.

 

"In recognition of the cost impacts of new technology upgrades on critical regional aviation services, the Government will provide funding of $50.1 million to eligible airports to help implement the new arrangements."

The spokesperson said the list of airports invited to apply could not be released for security reasons.

Security concerns

But Roger Henning, the founder of crisis management consultancy Homeland Security Asia/Pacific, said there were more pressing problems.

He said regional airports were essential, but "three strands of wire fence" was not enough protection and inconsistent identification requirements needed to change.

"Try getting into a local, licensed venue without ID," Mr Henning said.

"When it comes to aviation, it's a different story."

 

Mr Henning said uniform standards around identification and staff training should be priority areas.

Mike Carmody, the former chief of security for the Federal Airports Corporation at Sydney Airport, agreed there were some basics — like staff capability to respond to threats — that should be on the agenda, but it was a difficult ask for airport operators.

"We carry on about full body scanning and passenger profiling and it's all well and good, but when you start looking at regional ports that have no money and regional communities absolutely rely on, they don't even have fencing or lighting," he said.

"In regional ports where the airport operator is a very, very small council … they simply don't have the resources to apply the sort of level of security that's required now in regional airports.

"You could say it's a cop out, but it's a reality."

A matter of cost

In 2017, Kempsey Shire Council was ordered to pay $186,000 to a pilot after a landing plane was damaged when it hit a kangaroo.

 

The District Court found the council, as the responsible operator of the Kempsey Aerodrome, had failed to build a kangaroo-proof fence and was therefore liable for the cost of the damage incurred, plus interest.

The verdict was recently overturned on appeal, after the court found the council did not have the funds to upgrade fencing and the risk of kangaroos was apparent.

But Mr Henning said councils should be in no doubt about their responsibilities.

He said they are ultimately liable for what happens at an airport they own and control.

"The government has no liability … [councils] have no idea they are at risk," he said.

"They have to ensure they have enough public liability to save themselves."

 

Mr Carmody agreed, but said a high level of cover is often too expensive for small councils.

"[Councils], as the airport operator, they have responsibility for the performance and application of security measures at that airport, no different to the owners of Sydney airport or Brisbane airport," he said.

He said there is some government involvement and airline involvement in maintaining standards and uniformity, but ultimately the council would bear the cost of a breach.

"You would find although [regional councils] have insurance, it would be the absolute minimum cover of public liability. Why? Because they can't afford it," Mr Carmody said.

"It's pointless throwing these regulations and policies and requirements at regional airports knowing full well that the local council or whoever owns these ports are not within cooee of ever being able to fund this."

How safe are you?

However, John Coyne, a senior analyst of the border security program at Australian Strategic Policy Institute, said he does not think regional airports are more vulnerable than their larger city counterparts.

With fewer flights and smaller communities that are aware of anything that is not as it should be, Mr Coyne said it could be argued the risk is lower in regional areas.

"You're more likely to pick strange behaviour [in a regional airport]," he said.

Mr Coyne's view is security upgrades should only be linked to specific threat and said it is difficult to make anywhere completely secure.

"Can you ever secure an airport? Yes. Don't let anyone go there or any packages be sent there," he said.

"Everything else is a compromise."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It has been a disaster since the Federal government gave away regional airfields, GA has been on a downward spiral (with CASA help) since. 

User pays and privatisation has made us as a nation poorer.

Seems the only thing the Government wants to spend money on is a constant barage of self promotion for the 3 year (or whenever they feel like it) election cycle.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

John Coyne, a senior analyst of the border security program at Australian Strategic Policy Institute, said "Can you ever secure an airport? Yes. Don't let anyone go there or any packages be sent there,"

 

Not wishing to denigrate this man, but his realistic assessment of airport security would bode him well to be a member of the CASA board, as long as he would agree with CASA's belief that keeping aircraft from using airports would also enhance security.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They need to grade the regional airports and have affordable standards accordingly. Councils should buck up too. Av data going around selling their skimming equipment to the councils doesn’t help councils or us. The whole regional airport regs is killing them and making them unavailable to us.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Perimeter fencing is a really weak point in regional airport security. Not much use in having 3m high 'Stalag' grade fencing near the terminal, but 1m ringlok for the next 2kms.

 

Another really weak point is in the coming & going of a range of small aircraft, often piloted by non-ASIC ID pilots, often with passengers. They could be anyone, or from anywhere even less secure than the regional airport. Then these aircraft park next to the RPT bays, and often have to walk through them, to access a personnel gate. And, guess what, the code for the gate is under an inside flap. But for many regionals - it's, (big surprise!!), the CTAF frequency.  A lot of tightening up needed here before they even think about scanners etc.

 

I did mention 'non-ASIC' pilots above, but I should qualify this - especially after so many suspect people have been busted on capital city airports. How in hell did they get an ASIC?   Just having an ASIC isn't any proof that a pilot or person isn't a some level of threat.

 

Once the paranoia spreads beyond Canberra, we are bound to see everyone having to go through security just to get out to an aircraft. And, it will be for each and every aircraft, regardless of tonnage, pax numbers, category, destination or time of day. 

 

One of the reasons that REX won the local contract here was that the SAAB weighs less than 20T, so doesn't need full security. All the expensive scanning gear, purchased to service SKYWESTs' 20T+ F50 is corroding away in a storeroom. The City of Albany lost of the equipment, but saved many thousands in operatings with this instant lessening of risk to passengers.... (only a bureaucrat could dream this BS up).

 

What affects us most is the accessibility on these RPT airports.  The landing charges we can generally live with, though it's galling to know that they are applied for reason of 'equity' rather than to cover a proven element of 'wear & tear' on the airport.  If access becomes too difficult, then it's time to leave and find a new home.

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, poteroo said:

Perimeter fencing is a really weak point in regional airport security. Not much use in having 3m high 'Stalag' grade fencing near the terminal, but 1m ringlok for the next 2kms.

A prime example is at one particular regional airport when being delivered by taxi in the morning the driver commenced driving past the terminal when I said in here my plane is out the front.  His reply was everyone normally goes down here about 500m and goes through a plain wire two strand fence. The effect on security ZERO.

At another location the refueler wanted to see an ASIC card before refueling after landing and parking in front of the bowser.

 

Quite clearly the only people interested in the stupid ripe off card are those people gaining income from their use -  nothing to do with security.  There “may” be arguments made about their use at international terminals but in reality a red card being displayed is never checked so in effect serves no real purpose there either.  

  • Agree 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Register for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×