Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 37

Thread: ANTI TERRORIST AND SECURITY RULES ARE BECOMING COMPLETELY REDICULOUS.......

  1. #11
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Bunbury, WA
    Posts
    1,893
    Quote Originally Posted by Arapiles View Post
    I would've thought that they could use the orange, water filled traffic bollards - why are they talking about putting in place concrete bollards?

    BTW, my kids were on Bourke Street when that idiot decided to drive down the footpath, and he ended up just outside my building, so don't think that it's that far-fetched, and it doesn't have to be ISIS.
    I don't think the water filled barricades are compliant as traffic barriers anymore. Someone did a risk assessment that they could leak and therefore become ineffective, so their use was banned. If used empty they become lethal projectiles if hit with any speed. That is why the compliant barriers have steel cables running along them to tie them all together. Concrete barricades remove this risk.
    Chris


    2014 D4 TDV6
    1954 86" (I'll finish it one day.....)
    1980 Stage 1 v8

  2. #12
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    PNG
    Posts
    3,148
    Quote Originally Posted by DiscoMick View Post
    Did you see that some rural airports may have to close down because the federal government is insisting on scanners and other gear, but refusing to pay for them and making broke local councils foot the bill?
    It's a hard call, i would have thought a quick rummage through the carry on would suffice , but ... Mike i see your often critical of subsidies, should not it be on the basis of user pays, rather than yet another Federal subsidy.

    But seriously if you were that way inclined, there are so many options in a modern mechanised society, like, first hire a gravel truck .......................
    By all means get a Defender. If you get a good one, you'll be happy. If you get a bad one, you'll become a philosopher.
    apologies to Socrates

    Clancy MY15 110 Defender

    Clancy's gone to Queensland Rovering, and we don't know where he are

  3. #13
    Join Date
    Mar 2018
    Location
    Perth
    Posts
    328
    Quote Originally Posted by DiscoMick View Post
    Did you see that some rural airports may have to close down because the federal government is insisting on scanners and other gear, but refusing to pay for them and making broke local councils foot the bill?
    That's not entirely correct.

    The federal government is going to provide a grant to supply and install the required equipment. What they are *not* going to do is pay the ongoing staffing required to operate said equipment, nor pay for the ongoing maintenance (which with both X-ray and ETD is non-trivial).

    So the airport will have to stump up the ongoing operating costs. This *will* drive some airports under as the only way to finance it on a stand-alone basis will be to increase landing fees which will make it less viable for the airlines as the knock-on will drive tickets up and passenger counts down. End result airline declares route unsustainable and pulls out.

    We've already lost a few useful regional routes in WA due to them being unsustainable for the airline. There really are two options. A : We subsidise the routes or B : they get shut down.

    (A) is going to require some good negotiation with the airline and serious independent oversight as we've seen time and time again any subsidy has serious potential for rort.

  4. #14
    Join Date
    Jan 1970
    Location
    Central West NSW
    Posts
    23,115
    Perhaps needs to be pointed out that the security requirement is primarily to protect travellers from the capital city airports, not the regional airports. There has been no credible data to suggest that there is a risk to regional flights.
    John

    JDNSW
    1986 110 County 3.9 diesel
    1970 2a 109 2.25 petrol

  5. #15
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Armstrong Creek, Qld
    Posts
    3,270
    Lets see now. 20,000 AULRO members @ $1,000 ea. = $20 million.
    We could purchase a couple of old Dash 8s and revive the old ANA emblem but, to overcome the security costs, it would be signifying

    "AUSTRALIAN NUDE AIRLINES"


    Incisor could then possibly be known as "Branson of the Outback".

  6. #16
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Brisbane West
    Posts
    19,801
    Quote Originally Posted by Saitch View Post
    Lets see now. 20,000 AULRO members @ $1,000 ea. = $20 million.
    We could purchase a couple of old Dash 8s and revive the old ANA emblem but, to overcome the security costs, it would be signifying

    "AUSTRALIAN NUDE AIRLINES"


    Incisor could then possibly be known as "Branson of the Outback".
    Add a bit for driptrays. 20,001 AULROians?
    If you don't like trucks, stop buying stuff.
    http://www.aulro.com/afvb/signaturepics/sigpic20865_1.gif

  7. #17
    Homestar's Avatar
    Homestar is offline Super Moderator & CA manager Gold Subscriber
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Sunbury, VIC
    Posts
    16,722
    Quote Originally Posted by cjc_td5 View Post
    I don't think the water filled barricades are compliant as traffic barriers anymore. Someone did a risk assessment that they could leak and therefore become ineffective, so their use was banned. If used empty they become lethal projectiles if hit with any speed. That is why the compliant barriers have steel cables running along them to tie them all together. Concrete barricades remove this risk.
    Water filled plastic barriers of the appropriate type can be used in zones rated up to 70KPH for TL2 rated units and 100KPH for TL3 rated units, or as end treatments for steel or concrete barriers. We have literally thousands of them out at the moment doing their thing. They are pinned together so one leak in a chain makes no difference. Deflection distance is greater than pinned steel or concrete but they are still quite legal. They are also approved and suitable as terrorist mitigation if installed to standards (filled with water and pinned together with supplied collars).

    You may be thinking of the older style TL1 water filled units, these are no longer suitable for traffic use.

    We have found for small installations that need to be in and out quickly that concrete is a easier, but as you can get much less on a truck, about the same price as deploying water filled units and filling/draining them. Our installation team do terrorist mitigation on an almost weekly basis.


    1977 101 FC - 'Chucky'
    1986 Classic RR - 'Thing'
    1976 Series III Tray
    1997 Honda CBR1000F
    2003 L322 - Gone to a new home.

    'Love with your heart - use your head for everything else.' - CaptainDisillusion

  8. #18
    Join Date
    Jan 1970
    Location
    Logan
    Posts
    20,425
    Quote Originally Posted by BradC View Post
    That's not entirely correct.

    The federal government is going to provide a grant to supply and install the required equipment. What they are *not* going to do is pay the ongoing staffing required to operate said equipment, nor pay for the ongoing maintenance (which with both X-ray and ETD is non-trivial).

    So the airport will have to stump up the ongoing operating costs. This *will* drive some airports under as the only way to finance it on a stand-alone basis will be to increase landing fees which will make it less viable for the airlines as the knock-on will drive tickets up and passenger counts down. End result airline declares route unsustainable and pulls out.

    We've already lost a few useful regional routes in WA due to them being unsustainable for the airline. There really are two options. A : We subsidise the routes or B : they get shut down.

    (A) is going to require some good negotiation with the airline and serious independent oversight as we've seen time and time again any subsidy has serious potential for rort.
    Yes, I guess regional airports can't make much income from other sources, such as parking. Coffs airport has a fully automated building which provides secure parking, but that probably wouldn't work at smaller airports.
    2009 Defender 110 2.4. ARB bulbar, Ironman winch, Safari snorkel, Steinbauer chip, AP HD clutch, Lightforce spots, larger tank, Off Road Systems drawer, Traxide 160 controller, Tekonsha brakes, Mulgo seat runners, Uniden UHF, Nuggetstuff seat corners, breathers, Polaris GPS.

  9. #19
    Join Date
    Jan 1970
    Location
    Central West NSW
    Posts
    23,115
    Yes. There are currently air services to a lot of places that only drop off/pick up a few passengers each flight. These sorts of requirements effectively mean the airlines will simply not be able to service these towns.
    John

    JDNSW
    1986 110 County 3.9 diesel
    1970 2a 109 2.25 petrol

  10. #20
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    4,600
    Quote Originally Posted by JDNSW View Post
    Perhaps needs to be pointed out that the security requirement is primarily to protect travellers from the capital city airports, not the regional airports. There has been no credible data to suggest that there is a risk to regional flights.
    "Not Regional Airports"?.....Not yet.
    The Scum that plan & do attempt, & sometimes succeed, to action their plan, could turn up anywhere, and IMHO could decide to target any sort of "Regional Area", not just airports, because they may see easier opportunities in these locations.
    I have no solutions at all, other than to keep a very positive watch on ANY potential perpetrators, who if found guilty of any offences at all, should immediately face a very long prison sentence, &, if appropriate, immediate deportation.
    I believe there are risks everywhere now.
    All only IMHO of course, Pickles.

Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Search AULRO.com ONLY!
Search All the Web!