Airfield security

[macconnacher]

The following has been posted on the Air-Britain site.

Another piece of legislation that will ensure that future generations never get involved in aviation.

-------------------------------------------

The consultation is at
http://www.dft.gov.uk/consultations/ope ... nsecurity/

The links from that page include one to the Impact Assessment, which explains how the proposed changes might affect different types of stakeholder.

The UK Government is asking how it should apply new mandatory European aviation security standards from 29 April 2010, which are applicable to airports or parts of airports that are not exclusively used for military purposes. It argues that the UK faces a higher level of terrorism risk than other European Commission countries. However, the cost of security is borne by industry, so the new measures should be proportionate to the perceived risk.

The European Commission allows member states to `derogate' – that is, to apply less than full mandatory security standards – for airports or their designated areas where air traffic is limited to ten types of traffic. These are listed on page 2 of the consultation. Even where `derogation' is applied, there must be a local risk assessment to determine what level of protection would be appropriate.

NOTE: The new European security standard that has prompted this can be downloaded as a pdf document: enter (in quotes) "Regulation (EC) 300/2008" into Google and it should be the first hit. The prescribed `common basic standards' (Article 4) include `general measures' to be taken, which amongst other things will concern `access control, grounds for granting access to airside and security restricted areas' and `conditions under which special security procedures or exemptions from security controls may be applied'. Each affected airport will be required to draw up, apply and maintain an airport security programme', which will be submitted to the `relevant authority, which may take further action if appropriate' (Article 12).

The UK government does not want the new security standard applied to all 3,000 aerodromes in the UK. This is largely on cost grounds. However, it does want it to be applied to 'under 136' locations.

It does not want the standard applied to licensed airstrips where only aircraft under 15,000kg operate – it argues that it would be disproportionate to apply the new standard to these locations, because lighter aircraft pose a proportionately lower threat than larger aircraft.

Neither, under its preferred option (No.3) does it want to impose the new security standard to airfields where helicopters, research and developments, aerial work and postioning flights operate. This is because the more restricted performance of helicopters means they pose a lower risk than fixed-wing aircraft, and the other types of flight within this category generally do not carry passengers.

However, humanitarian aid flights and aircraft of less than 45,500kg MTOW used on company business are judged to be of high risk. Under the Government's preferred option, airports handling such traffic would be subject to the new mandatory standards.

Judging by the cost estimates attached to each option in the impact assessment, the new security standards primarily entail the provision of screening equipment and personnel to operate it, and fencing.

[AsboChav]

Worrying stuff, but there is a fundamental problem with this process.

There is a constant stream of 'consultations' hitting us, not just as pilots but as members of the public. Most of us don't have the time, let alone inclination or literacy skills, to write responses to every one of them.

I am told that the authorities disregard form letters, even where there is a large degree of agreement between the respondents. That is crazy, but there is an alternative.

What is the point of us having organisations like the BMAA, LAA, AOPA etc. if they cannot be taken as proxies for our views? Surely to God, they should be able to put responses together, maybe with simple surveys to back them up. They should be able to speak with the power of saying, "We represent 8000 people and this is what they say . . " or whatever.

If we carry on like this then we are doomed - the authorities outnumber us and have far more resources. By dividing, they are ruling. Representative bodies need to do just that - represent.

[Bill Scott]

What is the point in 'consultation' when our parliament accepts 'directives' from unelected bureaucrats abroad.
No point in whining about the failings of the consultation process. Look at the bigger picture: we are no longer a sovereign nation governed by people whom we elect to act in our best interests, if it ever was truly that way?. Instead, we are ruled in an elected dictatorship.
They pay lip service to democracy and will get what they want eventually. Why? Because people will try to negotiate and compromise instead of having the courage to simply say NO. That is the purpose of consultation, it's a sham.

[macconnacher]

EU directives are written by the EU as a whole so the UK were deeply involved. It is our officials you have to watch. This is a directive thus it has to be transposed into UK law and there are derogations that the UK can make. Thus it is important to get these built into the UK Statutory Instrument that will enact the directive.
Remember that an EU directive is often 10 pages the UK law is often twice that; a system we call gold plating.

We have a sign in my office that says :
EU Directives -
Written in Brussels
Read in Berlin
Laughed at in Rome
Ignored in Paris
Viciously implemented in the UK

My concern is not where the law comes from; if we have to make laws better that we do it once for Europe as we all travel; what I hate is bad laws from wherever they come.


Whilst I write this I am at a European meeting trying to sort out the new Machinery Directive with my European colleagues.