NZFF

I read on Airliners.Net today (in the NZ Aviation Thread) about supposed security increases since the CHC hijacking, and someone posted a Stuff link that suggested security would be made a lot tighter following the incident.

They linked to this article from Stuff which suggests mandatory security screening for all passengers on aircraft over 19 seats, a major difference compared to today's 90+ rule.

Unfortunately this is a bit of a double edged sword so to speak - on the one hand, we want our pilots to be safe, don't we? And we want us (i.e the passengers) to be safe when we're flying. Then again, we don't want the added costs that will likely come with upgraded security, and I can't imagine anyone wanting the extra hassle involved in screening pre-flight.

The cost issue is the one that preoccupies me most, I think. Who exactly is going to foot the bill for extra staff, new equipment, equipment upkeep, publicising the new rules and procedures?

I actually don't mind the 'lax' security we have in NZ right now - I've flown quite a few flights within New Zealand and it has never bugged me that there was no screening, and as far as I could tell, it never bugged any of the people I flew with either.

I can understand the want (or need) for higher security, especially since the CHC incident and security is paramount, regardless of any added costs or inconvenience.

Cheers
Anthony Harris

It's just going to be a waste of money and time. They'd be better off spending it on making Ardmore/Wanaka/Paraparaumu etc controlled.

What's next? Xrays to get on buses driving around the city? Xrays to get into cabs? Xrays to get on the interislander ferry?
Sheesh

victor_alpha_charlie wrote:

QUOTE (victor_alpha_charlie @ Feb 25 2008, 05:30 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

It's just going to be a waste of money and time. They'd be better off spending it on making Ardmore/Wanaka/Paraparaumu etc controlled.

Absolutely. I don't know any figures or anything, but I would say that this would be higher risk than not screening a few pax. I can recall a few people who died in NZ from this in the last month or so, but none who died from a hijacking. Sure, there's a pilot safety risk in unsecure aircraft, but there's a higher pilot safety risk (I'd bet) in uncontrolled airspace. All it would take is one distraction for a few moments...

I don't honestly think the current situation really presents that much of a bad situation. I'm certainly not troubled by it - I can't help but wonder if security screening would have caught the particular nutjob involved in Christchurch anyway.

Albatross wrote:

QUOTE (Albatross @ Feb 25 2008, 05:46 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

What's next? Xrays to get on buses driving around the city? Xrays to get into cabs? Xrays to get on the interislander ferry?
Sheesh

very true. In America (groan) they've been security screening students entering schools.

I also think that this security issue has been and we will be blown ridiculously out of proportion by the media and such.

Cheers,
Anthony Harris

Aircraft over 19 seats - so this rules out the 1900D's from security checks does it not. That means huge cost at many airports like Woodbourne, just for the occasional 19 plus seater. Most of the flights in/out of NZWB are 1900D with occasional Dash 8 and Jetstream

Deane

deaneb wrote:

QUOTE (deaneb @ Feb 25 2008, 07:22 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Aircraft over 19 seats - so this rules out the 1900D's from security checks does it not. That means huge cost at many airports like Woodbourne, just for the occasional 19 plus seater. Most of the flights in/out of NZWB are 1900D with occasional Dash 8 and Jetstream

Deane

I'm not sure. It could go either way - Wikipedia says the Beech is a 19 passenger aircraft, but I'm not sure if EAG operate them with 19 seats, though I imagine they do.
This should make them eligible for the screening, as I gather it's a 19 and above rule.
Or at least the Sunday Star-Times believes it effects 19 seater ACs too.

Either way, it still means lots of added cost at places like Woodbourne.

Cheers,
Anthony Harris

brotonee wrote:

QUOTE (brotonee @ Feb 25 2008, 07:30 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I'm not sure. It could go either way - Wikipedia says the Beech is a 19 passenger aircraft, but I'm not sure if EAG operate them with 19 seats, though I imagine they do.
This should make them eligible for the screening, as I gather it's a 19 and above rule.
Or at least the Sunday Star-Times believes it effects 19 seater ACs too.

Either way, it still means lots of added cost at places like Woodbourne.

Cheers,
Anthony Harris

Yeah, I think EAG have taken out/removed the back middle seat?

Other
http://www.airliners.net/open.file?id=0878...=&photo_nr=

Eagle
http://www.airliners.net/open.file?id=1256...=&photo_nr=

brotonee wrote:

QUOTE (brotonee @ Feb 25 2008, 07:30 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I'm not sure. It could go either way - Wikipedia says the Beech is a 19 passenger aircraft, but I'm not sure if EAG operate them with 19 seats, though I imagine they do.

Eagle Airways Beech 1900s used by Air New Zealand "Are" 19 seats. Row 1 is a single seat opposite the door and the rear is two seats and a door to the Toilet.

I know as I flew to Wellington Last week on ZK-EAN and ZK-EAO both times sat in seat 9A behind me was the final two seats. Check the Air New Zealand website for seat mapping as well if you still doubt that.

Since the majority of Aircraft flying in to the provincial areas use the 1900 would make sense to include them, although to be honest I do believe it to be a over reaction to one incident. Just a shame they dont think about the same security for Buses which carry more people and can cause just as much damage if hijacked. As matter of fact more people get attacked or injured on buses than you actually hear.

NZ255 wrote:

QUOTE (NZ255 @ Feb 25 2008, 08:12 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yeah, I think EAG have taken out/removed the back middle seat?

Other
http://www.airliners.net/open.file?id=0878...=&photo_nr=

Eagle
http://www.airliners.net/open.file?id=1256...=&photo_nr=

Good point and it certainly looks like it.
Actually when I was in the Beech at TRG the other weekend it didn't look like 19 seats, so they must have.

This brings it back to the point of all the added expense for majority Beech-serviced airports that have to add all this security in case they get something bigger (or when they do get something bigger, like Woodbourne with the odd jetstream and/or dash).

BAT22 wrote:

QUOTE (BAT22 @ Feb 25 2008, 08:24 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Eagle Airways Beech 1900s used by Air New Zealand "Are" 19 seats. Row 1 is a single seat opposite the door and the rear is two seats and a door to the Toilet.

I know as I flew to Wellington Last week on ZK-EAN and ZK-EAO both times sat in seat 9A behind me was the final two seats. Check the Air New Zealand website for seat mapping as well if you still doubt that.

Since the majority of Aircraft flying in to the provincial areas use the 1900 would make sense to include them, although to be honest I do believe it to be a over reaction to one incident. Just a shame they dont think about the same security for Buses which carry more people and can cause just as much damage if hijacked. As matter of fact more people get attacked or injured on buses than you actually hear.

I stand corrected (kind of).

I agree about the buses and such.

Edit: Oh we have that thing merges two posts put in close proximity to each other!

Cheers
Anthony Harris

I think all Eagle Beechcrafts are 19 seats except ZK EAQ which has 20 (another seat in the middle of the back row, but this means no toilet )

Screening passengers, whilst very effective, is not foolproof. A sharpened piece of plastic or wood can pierce flesh as easily as metal...

I suppose I don't feel extremely strongly about it, but I don't think the system needs to be changed. If anything it's an excellent example of how things can be run. A small incident involving injury every 5 years or so (whilst sounding particularly cold and uncaring to the pilots - which is not my intention at all let it be known) is probably an acceptable cost for a transport system that works very, very well.

Alex

Perhaps they should have security screening at farms? (More people are killed yearly by Donkeys than plane crashes on average)

Alex wrote:

QUOTE (Alex @ Feb 25 2008, 09:07 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Screening passengers, whilst very effective, is not foolproof. A sharpened piece of plastic or wood can pierce flesh as easily as metal...

I suppose I don't feel extremely strongly about it, but I don't think the system needs to be changed. If anything it's an excellent example of how things can be run. A small incident involving injury every 5 years or so (whilst sounding particularly cold and uncaring to the pilots - which is not my intention at all let it be known) is probably an acceptable cost for a transport system that works very, very well.

Alex

I agree fully with Alex.

You can not make plane travel safe. You can make it safer, but not safe. If you can't take a weapon on board make one from any part of the aircraft cabin. You will never get a foolproof, viable or economic solution to aviation security. All we are seeing is a government that can't afford to be seen sitting on it's hands.

Jamie

brotonee wrote:

QUOTE (brotonee @ Mar 1 2008, 05:02 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Absolutely. I don't know any figures or anything, but I would say that this would be higher risk than not screening a few pax. I can recall a few people who died in NZ from this in the last month or so, but none who died from a hijacking. Sure, there's a pilot safety risk in unsecure aircraft, but there's a higher pilot safety risk (I'd bet) in uncontrolled airspace. All it would take is one distraction for a few moments...

I don't honestly think the current situation really presents that much of a bad situation. I'm certainly not troubled by it - I can't help but wonder if security screening would have caught the particular nutjob involved in Christchurch anyway.



very true. In America (groan) they've been security screening students entering schools.

I also think that this security issue has been and we will be blown ridiculously out of proportion by the media and such.

Cheers,
Anthony Harris

Its better to be safe than sorry since as used the right way an aircraft can pose a greater risk to the public than any other means of transport even light aircraft can be capable of causing alot of casulties on the ground. Student screening should be a world wide thing there have been in NZ one case so far where the students intentions were most likely to harm inocent people its good to screen those who have mental problems to prevent such problems from happening. I think trainning pilots properly to deal with the situation is also something that should be considered. In the Blenhiem incident neither pilot appeared to have secured the aircraft enough prior to landing they should really have left one guy continue flying whilst the other secure the offender to ensure a safe landing. The passengers on that aircraft were very lucky to walk away from that flight as it doesn't take much to turn the aircraft into a smoking hole in field if the woman involved had of hit a critical body part on the pilots or interfered enough with the controls to cause a stall spin or nose dive into the deck the outcome would have been far worse not only for the passengers but also for those on the ground. I think a simple metal detector prior to boarding the aircraft, better trainning for the pilots in CnR for dealing with passengers who do cause problems and a ban on knives on carryon luggage should improve things for everyone involved and would be much cheaper than having armed guards on board aircraft. BTW it wouldn't cost as much as the media is saying on TV them and the Government have blown its cost way out of proportion.

I'm with you Alex. Bus drivers and taxi drivers are assaulted far more regularly in New Zealand..

Albatross wrote:

QUOTE (Albatross @ Feb 26 2008, 06:58 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I'm with you Alex. Bus drivers and taxi drivers are assaulted far more regularly in New Zealand..

More people die on our roads than from hijacking a plane! Potentially many more are at risk from the low safety standards we have on a vhiecle fleet in the bi annual warrent of fitness, even worse the Commercial WOF. Which is for public transport. Not unheard of for a Bus/coach to travel over 50,000 Kms or more between tests. In which time serious mechanical faults could develop compared to the average car, and we know the results of Bus Crashes are all to common.

Back to safety in the plane, why dont we just fly Naked! Still need to scan a orifice or two. Ridicoulous it sounds you can make a weapon out of a credit crad. Have you not seen Mcgyver?

Its not maintenance that causes bus accidents(thats actually quite rare) its speeding and driver error 99% of the time. And considering quite a few speed on the road beyond the 90km limit thats the cause of the majority of accidents also stupid things like driving off the road due to trying to use cell phones.

SUBS17 wrote:

QUOTE (SUBS17 @ Feb 26 2008, 09:03 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Its not maintenance that causes bus accidents(thats actually quite rare) its speeding and driver error 99% of the time. And considering quite a few speed on the road beyond the 90km limit thats the cause of the majority of accidents also stupid things like driving off the road due to trying to use cell phones.

Disagree with you subs, the general standard of the Bus fleet in New Zealand is pretty low outside the large commercial operators and even they have the faults under the glossy paintwork you see. Only have to look at the school buses bleching along with a huge plume of Black smoke to see the issues, you can blame driver error but a lot of the time it is because there is a problem which did not picked up or is classed as minor compared to other country standards. When you have a more universal experiance and understanding of the problem get back to me. I case your wondering I drive a Bus part time and have done so for several years including a stint around Europe, Additionally I am a mechanic have been since leaving school. As for the speeding issue well heck is that not part of the Kiwi pschology of must go faster and complain if the person in front is holding you up at 90kph?

Diverts the issue a bit by raising these points when the issue was Airport Security and the need for compared to the security of normal day to day travel.

Give me examples of bus crashes involving poor maintenance, 99% of bus crashes involve either speeding or driver distraction its as simple as that its very rare for a bus to crash due to maintenance very rare. In fact although it may appear that they are a risk due to maintenance the COF inspection cover the areas which would be a problem in the near future such as brake wear etc. The colour of smoke from the exhaust has very little to do with the safety factor of the vehicle mind you in the near future the government will probably introduce limits on exhaust emissions for heavy vehicles to remove that problem.(which again has zero effect on the safe performance of the vehicle) To compare a bus to an aircraft the aircraft has greater possibility of causing more carnage than a bus even a light aircraft particularly if someone is intentionally going to crash it. Its quite unheard of in NZ for such things although since there has been one incident then there is the potential for copycat incidents which is a possiblilty which is also why I think increasing security slightly can prevent that.