New Zealand Aviation Security

[victor_alpha_charlie]

QUOTE (ZK-Brock @ Feb 26 2008, 05:08 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

That may be true, but the potential is there for lots of people to die from a hijacking of an aeroplane.

Someone could just as easily hijack a bus and drive it down Lambton Quay running people down and kill more than if a 1900 was hijacked and flown into the Skytower..

[Anthony]

I doubt a hijacking in New Zealand would really cause a lot of damage or death.

Sure, there's the potential for it to kill some people, hurt some others and damage some property, but the effect just wouldn't be as great as something like September 11.

Still pilot and passenger safety is a very important issue, so increased security is probably worth it. But like others have said, just as much, or more, or slightly less damage, death, injury, etc. could be caused by something like a bus on Lambton Quay or a massive smash on a busy motorway.

If we do get more security, I will understand why, but it will annoy me a little bit.
Especially if airfares go up.

Oh and no toliet on ZK-EAQ? is right.

Cheers
Anthony Harris

[BAT22]

QUOTE (SUBS17 @ Feb 26 2008, 05:06 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

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.

Maybe you should read again what was written and get a grip on a situation you have little knowledge or experiance with. The COF inspection is Bi-Annual as I pointed out some buses can cover over 100,000km or more in that time. Maintainance by some operators is less than ideal all highlighted thanks to purges by LTNZ and CVIU stopping these vehicles. Yes I can give you a bloody good example that I witnessed one that actually shocked me to consider the driver had little knowledge of the potential for Brake Failure. Overall the COF inspections are far from ideal and as I said lax compared to European standards of course driver error has a part to play.

That aside security kneejerk reactions which we all saw coming as soon as the incident occured at Christchurch are just that kneejerk. Maybe a bit consideration should go into the circumstances of the incident. It was not a terrorist act and could just as easily have happened on the intercity coach with potential to have killed more than could be carried by that small plane. A copcat incident you say? ok next you will be suggesting that because someone gets mugged on a street that CCTV should be installed to stop it happening again. Meantime the real causes get avoided because its inconvieniant to accept them and the drama is not so severe.

[pois0n]

I like how both polls are split exactly the same

[Ian Warren]

I"M NO TREE HUGGER HERE SIMPLE ! .. ARM the aircrew in all light aircraft WITH A STUN GUN ! ...... not hand held , A door wrap ... fired from cockpit , If it kills , SO BE IT ! .
COST NOTHING - , designed properly , a cross-web affect - If you don't understand concept , an Electric CLAYMORE ! .. between cockpit / cabin ....... DONE

[SUBS17]

QUOTE (BAT22 @ Mar 2 2008, 06:51 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Maybe you should read again what was written and get a grip on a situation you have little knowledge or experiance with. The COF inspection is Bi-Annual as I pointed out some buses can cover over 100,000km or more in that time. Maintainance by some operators is less than ideal all highlighted thanks to purges by LTNZ and CVIU stopping these vehicles. Yes I can give you a bloody good example that I witnessed one that actually shocked me to consider the driver had little knowledge of the potential for Brake Failure. Overall the COF inspections are far from ideal and as I said lax compared to European standards of course driver error has a part to play.

That aside security kneejerk reactions which we all saw coming as soon as the incident occured at Christchurch are just that kneejerk. Maybe a bit consideration should go into the circumstances of the incident. It was not a terrorist act and could just as easily have happened on the intercity coach with potential to have killed more than could be carried by that small plane. A copcat incident you say? ok next you will be suggesting that because someone gets mugged on a street that CCTV should be installed to stop it happening again. Meantime the real causes get avoided because its inconvieniant to accept them and the drama is not so severe.

Fact is 99% of bus accidents are caused by bus drivers speeding and driver distraction don't take it personally either way its the statistics deal with the reality. Its quite rare as I mentioned already that a bus will crash due to a mechanical failure I see you mentioned brakes well perhaps the person involved lacked experience in looking after their brakes whilst driving and they overheated or the person failed to notice the wear indication. Such problems are easily fixed with education and better trainning. Overall trucks and cars are higher in the statistics than buses but as I mentioned speed/distraction not maintenance are 99% of the problem(for buses that is). LMAO as for the comment on my knowledge and experience in this area my comments and the statistics speak for themselves. Security is not something to get emotional about in the areas where airtransport is involved its always been an area of vulnerability for countrys worldwide and there are always a few bad apples who spoil it for the rest. People shouldn't beable to carry knives on any civilian airline maybe you disagree but I think it should be safe for everyone what can 1 min of passing through a metal detector inconveience people. And also one thing to consider a aircraft the size of the one in the incident has the potential in the right hands to produce upto a 1000 casualties or more used the right way. Don't just think of the small group of people on the aircraft also consider the people on the ground. (compared to a 44 seater bus might get upto 100 if ya got lucky in comparison)

[SUBS17]

QUOTE (Ian Warren @ Mar 2 2008, 09:55 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I"M NO TREE HUGGER HERE SIMPLE ! .. ARM the aircrew in all light aircraft WITH A STUN GUN ! ...... not hand held , A door wrap ... fired from cockpit , If it kills , SO BE IT ! .
COST NOTHING - , designed properly , a cross-web affect - If you don't understand concept , an Electric CLAYMORE ! .. between cockpit / cabin ....... DONE

Stun gun would work claymore would just kill everyone including the pilots thats a real Sledge Hammer idea that one



Trust Ian he knows what hes doing.

[HardCorePawn]

QUOTE (ZK-Brock @ Feb 26 2008, 05:08 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

That may be true, but the potential is there for lots of people to die from a hijacking of an aeroplane.

There is also potential for lots of people to die from a suicide bomber walking into a crowded movie theatre/concert hall and blowing himself up... you don't seem them strip searching people and doing explosives tests thought do you?

TBH, this whole 'we need security for air travel' thing is getting a little out of control... back in the 70's and 80's when there was a hijacking every other week over in europe/middle-east/africa... did they do anything here? No...

But apparently now we must blindly follow the US and declare everyone to be criminals and implement all sorts of pointless restrictions... it takes almost as long to get to see the Statue of Liberty as board an international flight now... they have implemented metal detectors and xrays to visit Liberty Island... WTH!?!?!

[BAT22]

QUOTE (HardCorePawn @ Feb 27 2008, 09:59 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

There is also potential for lots of people to die from a suicide bomber walking into a crowded movie theatre/concert hall and blowing himself up... you don't seem them strip searching people and doing explosives tests thought do you?

TBH, this whole 'we need security for air travel' thing is getting a little out of control... back in the 70's and 80's when there was a hijacking every other week over in europe/middle-east/africa... did they do anything here? No...

But apparently now we must blindly follow the US and declare everyone to be criminals and implement all sorts of pointless restrictions... it takes almost as long to get to see the Statue of Liberty as board an international flight now... they have implemented metal detectors and xrays to visit Liberty Island... WTH!?!?!

Time for the American constitution to rename the USA to the PSA, will let you guess what PSA stands for

[Anthony]

Hey I was thinking about this again today and it got me wondering how far theyd take the security thing if we were to get increased security.

I expect it would be a metal detector for sure and maybe some kind of bag check (x-ray?).

Cheers
Anthony Harris

[chickenman]

QUOTE (brotonee @ Feb 29 2008, 08:04 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Hey I was thinking about this again today and it got me wondering how far theyd take the security thing if we were to get increased security.

I expect it would be a metal detector for sure and maybe some kind of bag check (x-ray?).

Cheers
Anthony Harris

The day I turn up at an airport to find someone standing there with rubber gloves and a tub of vaseline we'll know they've gone too far.

Seriously, what are the practical limitations of increased security? Hand held xray scanners on regionals would be cheap and effective, 'magic wanding' 20-30 people wouldn''t take long. I doubt x-ray of baggage would really be able to be done in additional regional airports. We'll be down to transparent plastic bags on domestic flights at worst.

Who knows.

Jamie

[SUBS17]

QUOTE (brotonee @ Mar 5 2008, 08:04 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Hey I was thinking about this again today and it got me wondering how far theyd take the security thing if we were to get increased security.

I expect it would be a metal detector for sure and maybe some kind of bag check (x-ray?).

Cheers
Anthony Harris

I'd expect a metal detector at the least x-rays are quite expensive but they are very accurate and the most efficient way to check the contents of a bag if the tension were stepped up to the next level(increased threat) then I'd expect the clear plastic bags or zero carry on luggage. From there the next level up is using armed airline marshals. Its such a short flight that 99% of people shouldn't need carry on luggage anyway aside women with young children which is quicker and more practical approach and cheaper since all that would be required is a metal detector.

[BAT22]

QUOTE (SUBS17 @ Mar 1 2008, 06:05 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Its such a short flight that 99% of people shouldn't need carry on luggage anyway

I normally do overnight stays to where ever I go and carry a small backpack. Dont weigh more than 5kgs and is small enough to go under the seat of a Beech 1900. So I never have anything more than "carry on luggage" if it starts becoming more hassle for me to go to the airport check in earlier just to have that put in the cargo hold chances are I will catch a bus or drive to where ever I am going. That said if I have a lot of luggage its easier to use the car anyways. Catch 22 for the airports because they will lose domestic customers if it goes over the top.

[greaneyr]

Heh.. You know what's always cracked me up. How many martial arts there are out there that use no weapons but can do a lot of harm.

Metal Detector? Clear. Baggage Inspection? Clear. X-Ray screen? Clear. Transparent carry-on baggage? Clear. Limits on what you can carry in bottles? Clear. Cavity Search? Clear

But you've still got a potentially lethal weapon on board your aircraft so what are you gonna do about that? As HardcorePawn says, the potential exists for suicide bombers to target any place where a number of people gather and I often think security is just over-reactive feel-good propaganda.

[Anthony]

QUOTE (chickenman @ Feb 29 2008, 10:33 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The day I turn up at an airport to find someone standing there with rubber gloves and a tub of vaseline we'll know they've gone too far.

thats the day I might just stop domestic air travel.

QUOTE (SUBS17 @ Mar 1 2008, 06:05 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I'd expect a metal detector at the least x-rays are quite expensive but they are very accurate and the most efficient way to check the contents of a bag if the tension were stepped up to the next level(increased threat) then I'd expect the clear plastic bags or zero carry on luggage. From there the next level up is using armed airline marshals. Its such a short flight that 99% of people shouldn't need carry on luggage anyway aside women with young children which is quicker and more practical approach and cheaper since all that would be required is a metal detector.

I hope it wouldn't need to go as far as armed airline marshals, and I doubt it would. Given that I already doubt a real need for more security, I think that metal detectors or wanding are enough, if we must have more security.

QUOTE (BAT22 @ Mar 1 2008, 09:59 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Catch 22 for the airports because they will lose domestic customers if it goes over the top.

Catch 22 for commercial aviation in general - if 77% of people are going to be bugged by having more security and/or don't feel it's necessary, then maybe some customers will be lost.
Without customers, there's no money, and without money no pay, and without pay no employees...

QUOTE (greaneyr @ Mar 1 2008, 03:06 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Heh.. You know what's always cracked me up. How many martial arts there are out there that use no weapons but can do a lot of harm.

Metal Detector? Clear. Baggage Inspection? Clear. X-Ray screen? Clear. Transparent carry-on baggage? Clear. Limits on what you can carry in bottles? Clear. Cavity Search? Clear

But you've still got a potentially lethal weapon on board your aircraft so what are you gonna do about that? As HardcorePawn says, the potential exists for suicide bombers to target any place where a number of people gather and I often think security is just over-reactive feel-good propaganda.

Oh very true. Martial arts and even a general punch-up or brawl can take a pilot out as much as say a gun or a knife can.
I also agree with you on security being over-reactive feel-good propaganda.

Hopefully things don't go over the top with regards to security - like I've already said, I'm quite happy with things as they are now.

Cheers
Anthony Harris

[SUBS17]

QUOTE (greaneyr @ Mar 6 2008, 02:06 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Heh.. You know what's always cracked me up. How many martial arts there are out there that use no weapons but can do a lot of harm.

Generally most martial artists are trainned in self discipline and self control and are quite unlikely to cause such problems they generally are taught to use it only in self defence. An unarmed person also poses less of a risk than a person with a knife which is considered more dangerous than a gun since the knife is always live and thats the reality of this security debate its not a case of terrorist threats but more a case of should we let people carry knives on commercial aircraft. It also raises the question of whether people with mental health problems should also be screened a worst case scenario would be a person boarding a commercial aircraft high on methanphetamine armed with a knife.

QUOTE

I hope it wouldn't need to go as far as armed airline marshals, and I doubt it would. Given that I already doubt a real need for more security, I think that metal detectors or wanding are enough, if we must have more security.[/quote]

QUOTE

Cockpit Break-In

Five minutes prior to takeoff from Hopkins Airport in Cleveland, Ohio, a huge white male burst into the flight cabin of an American Airlines jetliner captained by William F. Bonnell. Weighing some 280 lbs., looking even larger in a leather jacket, the intruder wielded a revolver. "Fly to Mexico or be shot," he commanded the pilot.

Bonnell's first thought was, this is some kind of a joke. He turned to his copilot and flight engineer and asked, "Do you know who this fellow is?" But their stunned expressions gave him a silent answer, and the man with the gun said, "It's none of your damn business."

In addition to his crew and himself, Bonnell knew that there were 58 passengers aboard. Looking into the stubby barrel of the revolver--it appeared to him to be sawed off--the Cleveland native understood that he was dealing with a psycho armed with a lethal weapon. He was the captain of an airship, responsible for the lives of all on board. He knew he had to take action.

Bonnell's hand dropped down beside his leg, discreetly, to his flight bag. And his hand closed on his revolver inside it.

The flight engineer distracted the gunman's attention. He needed to turn on a certain switch high in the cockpit, he told the big man in the leather jacket, and he was too scared to reach for it. Could the man with the gun flick the switch for him?

As the intruder reached up, his gun was still on the flight crew, but his eyes were up and away from the captain, who sensed it was now or never. Later that day, Bonnell succinctly explained what happened next.

"I shot him in the hip. He still had the gun. He sagged a bit. I let him have it again, a little higher," the pilot said.

The second bullet had found the gunman's chest. He fell, dropping the revolver. The hijacking was over. The date was July 6, 1954. The plane was a Douglas DC6 on a flight that had originated in New York City with stops in Cleveland, St. Louis, and Fort Worth en route to its final destination, Mexico City. The hijacker, Raymond A. Kuchenmeister, Jr., died an hour later at a local hospital.[/quote]

From here

Free Gun Training For Commercial Pilots

Last edited by SUBS17 on Sat Mar 01, 2008 3:53 pm, edited 1 time in total.

SUBS17

Senior Member

 

Joined: Mon Jun 05, 2006 11:16 am

Posts: 1745

Top

[chopper_nut]

Great story there. Also an interesting perspective in the link. One that I personally agree with. It would be nice not to need to take these sort of steps but I think in todays world, its not such a stupid idea.

[Anthony]

Wow that's a great story. I suppose having armed flight crew with training would be an effective solution that doesn't present much hassle to the flying public (ie. pax) but still helps to keep things safe.

Good point about martial arts and discipline too.

Cheers
Anthony Harris

[SUBS17]

I not long after 911 I got an email from someone with a story about how the pilots of a commercial flight not long after 911 briefed the passengers prior to taxiing words to the effect of the pilot carrying a Desert Eagle and the copilot was carrying a 357 magnum. It was quite funny story but I seem to have deleted it. And I can't find it anywhere on the net.

[deaneb]

QUOTE (SUBS17 @ Mar 3 2008, 10:38 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I not long after 911 I got an email from someone with a story about how the pilots of a commercial flight not long after 911 briefed the passengers prior to taxiing words to the effect of the pilot carrying a Desert Eagle and the copilot was carrying a 357 magnum. It was quite funny story but I seem to have deleted it. And I can't find it anywhere on the net.

Something like this - Captain speaking
Make sure your speakers are on

Deane