Part 140 - Consultation

Note: This statement does not form part of the rules contained in Part 140. It provides details of the consultation undertaken in making the rules.

Background to the Civil Aviation Rules

In April 1988 the Swedavia-McGregor Report on civil aviation regulation in New Zealand was completed. Following the recommendations contained in that report, the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) (formerly the Air Transport Division of the Ministry of Transport) commenced a complete review of all existing civil aviation legislation. The existing legislation that is still appropriate has been rewritten into the new rules format. New legislation is being generated where necessary for the areas not presently covered.

Considerable research was carried out to determine the format for the new legislation. It was decided that the legislative framework should incorporate the advantages of the regulatory system of the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) of United States of America and the system being developed by the European Joint Aviation Authorities and published as Joint Aviation Requirements (JAR).

The new rules are structured in a manner similar to the Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR) of the FAA, and aim to achieve maximum harmonisation whilst allowing for national variations. Close co-operation is also being maintained with the Civil Aviation Safety Authority of Australia to ensure maximum harmonisation with their regulatory code.

New Zealand’s revised legislation is published as Civil Aviation Rules (CAR) which is divided into Parts. Each Part contains a series of individual rules which relate to a particular aviation activity.

Accompanying most Parts will be at least one associated Advisory Circular (AC) which will expand, in an informative way, specific requirements of the Part and acceptable means of compliance. For instance an AC may contain examples of acceptable practices or procedures which would meet the requirements of a particular rule.

The CAR numbering system is based on the FAR system. As a general principle the subject matter of a rule Part will be the same or similar to the FAR although the title may differ to suit New Zealand terminology. Where a CAR Part does not readily equate with a FAR number code, a number has been selected that does not conflict with any existing FAR Part.

The objective of the new rules system is to strike a balance of responsibility between the State authority and those who provide services and exercise privileges in the civil aviation system. This balance must enable the State authority to set standards for, and monitor performance of, aviation participants whilst providing the maximum flexibility for the participants to develop their own means of compliance.

Section 12 of the Civil Aviation Act 1990 requires participants in the aviation system to carry out their activities safely and in accordance with the relevant prescribed safety standards and practices. Section 28 of the Act allows the Minister to make ordinary rules.

Notice of Proposed Rule Making

To provide public notice of, and opportunity for comment on the proposed new rules, the Authority issued Notice of Proposed Rule Making 97-4 under Docket Number 1012 on 9 May 1997. This Notice proposed the introduction of Civil Aviation Rules Part 140 to provide a regulatory safety boundary for Aviation Security Service Organisations

Supplementary Information

All comments made on the Notice of Proposed Rule Making are available in the rules docket for examination by interested persons. A report summarising each substantive contact with the Civil Aviation Authority contact person concerning this rule making has been filed in the docket.

Availability of the Document

Any person may view a copy of these rules at the Civil Aviation Authority, Level 15 Asteron Centre, 55 Featherston St, Wellington 6140. Copies may be obtained from the Civil Aviation Authority of New Zealand, PO Box 3555, Wellington 6140.

Summary of Comments on Docket Number 1012 NPRM

1. General comments on the NPRM

From the 10 submissions received the following comments were made:

1.1 Christchurch International Airport Limited submitted that the document assumes all aviation security duties at an aerodrome will be provided by a single service provider, the Aviation Security Service (Avsec) or the Aerodrome operator. There is the possibility that at some time other aviation security duties could be performed by the aerodrome operator (eg perimeter patrols) at the same time. This would require the Director to issue two aviation security service certificates specifying the responsibilities of the two organisations. Part 140 should allow for this.

They suggested a new clause entitled "Limitations" should be included where the Director has the right to specify which aviation security services the certificate holder must provide and/or not provide. This would also apply to ACNZ where they are authorised to be the aviation security service provider for all or some of their off airport navigation facilities.

CAA response: The Civil Aviation Authority disagrees. This would not reflect the intent of the Act. Part 140 does not provide for the possibility of an aviation security service provider and the Aviation Security Service sharing the responsibility for the provision of security services at any one aerodrome. However section 79A(3) of the Civil Aviation Act 1990 does provide, at the discretion of the Minister, for such a situation in the event of emergencies arising at any aerodrome.

1.2 Christchurch International Airport Limited further submitted that they were concerned at the detail included in this rule. Some of the material, particularly Appendix A, would be more suited to an advisory circular. There may be other ways of meeting the rule requirements than with those specified in the NPRM. The rule should allow the applicant for a certificate to specify how they propose to operate in compliance with the rules.

CAA response: The Civil Aviation Authority agrees. Much of the material alluded to has been taken out of Part 140 and will be included in the Advisory Circular as a possible means of compliance.

1.3 Christchurch International Airport Limited further submitted that there should be a reference in Part 140 to the precedence of Part 139 over Part 140 in the event of a conflicting requirement or interpretation. As the operator of the aerodrome, they have an overriding responsibility to ensure the safety and security of the facilities and all operations on the aerodrome.

CAA response: The Civil Aviation Authority disagrees. The aerodrome operators have specific security requirements in Part 139, but this does not give the operator an overriding responsibility for all aviation security responsibilities.

1.4 Auckland International Airport Limited repeated their earlier comment that as AIAL is ISO 9000 qualified, AIAL should be able to audit the services of the aviation security service provider. Part 140 should provide for this auditing process.

CAA response: The Civil Aviation Authority disagrees. If audit responsibilities are required to be delegated by the Director then this would be done by way of a formal delegation in accordance with the Civil Aviation Act, and not through the Civil Aviation Rules.

1.5 Mr Milton T Y Cassidy commented that there is nothing in this Part that specifically relates to dangerous goods, and in his opinion it should have. Dangerous goods already forms large part of their (AVSEC) duties, for example at the screening point, and this needs to be expanded to include Cargo and Courier cargo and mail. This Part also needs to include reference to Part 92.

CAA response: The Civil Aviation Authority agrees that this matter requires further consideration. However this issue involves principally Part 92, and if any changes are required to Part 140 as a consequence of reviewing Part 92, they will effected through the normal rule amendment process. Refer also 2.1.`

2. Specific comments on the NPRM

Specific comments received from the 10 submissions are discussed as follows:

2.1 140.3—Definitions

Mr R J Crooks suggested that in respect of the definition "screening" the insertion of the words "or other means" after the word "technical". This would bring it into line with the ICAO definition. As the definition in the rule stands, screening can only be carried out by technical means precluding such means as hand search. For example in A.6 Standards are set for "screening". He questions whether it can only be done by technical means. This applies also to section 140.11(a)(1)(i) dealing with passenger screening.

The Aviation Security Service suggested that the definition of "screening" should be amended to read "technical or other means that are". The current definition doesn’t allow for hand screening in the absence of X-rays, etc.

CAA response: The Civil Aviation Authority agrees. The definition of screening has been removed from this Part and reliance will be placed on the definition in Part 1, which reflects the total ICAO definition.

The Aviation Security Service suggested that dangerous goods should be removed from the definition of "unauthorised articles" as they are covered in Part 92. What is then required is that the power previously contained in Reg. 31(7) be reinstated. Part 92 allows the retention of dangerous goods only after an accident or incident has occurred. The question was also raised as to whether the Service should be bothering with dangerous goods. It has no power or obligation under Part 92 (all such powers being with the airline operator) even though it is the only organisation in a position to detect most of the goods.

CAA response: The Civil Aviation Authority agrees. The definition of unauthorised article has been amended and no longer refers to dangerous goods. Refer also 1.5. With respect to the power previously contained in regulation 31(7) of the Civil Aviation Regulations 1953, the appropriate Civil Aviation Rules dealing with dangerous goods is Part 92 and that is the appropriate place to deal with this dangerous goods issue. Part 140 focuses upon unauthorised articles, which does not include dangerous goods.

2.2 140.9—Issue of certificates

Wellington International Airport Limited stated that this rule allows only the existing Aviation Security Service, an aerodrome operator or navigation installation operator (ACNZ Radiola) to become aviation security service certificate holders. If aerodrome operators choose not to provide their own security service, then they are limited to contracting one of two other operators, one of whom has no current specialist security capability. Private security firms should have the opportunity to contract for work in this industry sector, if they choose. WIAL considers that any organisation that is able to meet the requirement of this Rule to the Director’s satisfaction should be granted an aviation security service certificate.

Although current legislation does not allow other private contractors to provide this service, WIAL requests that the Civil Aviation Authority note this comment for inclusion in any future legislative review.

CAA response: The Civil Aviation Authority has noted this comment and has referred it on to the appropriate division within the Civil Aviation Authority for further consideration.

Mr R J Crooks asked in his submission on 140.9(1) whether the word "natural" is intended or is it a typing error.

CAA response: The word natural in this sense means a person and not a body corporate.

 

2.3 140.11—Functions and duties of certificate holders

Auckland International Airport Limited stated that this section outlines the functions and duties of the certificate holder where the certificate holder is the designated aerodrome operator, and separately lists the functions and duties of the Aviation Security Service. They submitted that the functions and duties of the certificate holder should be the same, and that to limit the aerodrome operator’s functions in the manner indicated is unnecessarily restrictive.

CAA response: The Civil Aviation Authority disagrees. The functions and duties of the Aviation Security Service are specifically provided for in the Civil Aviation Act. Other security service providers are given functions and duties that are considered necessary to perform those tasks that are permitted to be performed under the Act.

Auckland International Airport Limited also asked whether the reference to the Police and government departments refers to Police and government departments of other countries as well as the Police and government departments of New Zealand.

CAA response: This will be the case in certain circumstances, namely where they are an appropriate international organisation, in terms of section 80(e) the Act.

Wellington International Airport Limited suggested that the rule should be re-worded to read: "passenger and baggage screening ... judged advisable by the Director; and where necessary, to undertake searches of baggage, cargo, aircraft, aerodromes and navigation installations."

CAA response: The Civil Aviation Authority agrees and 140.11 has been amended accordingly.

The Aviation Security Service submitted that this section sets out the duties of an aviation security provider but doesn’t include aircraft search. However Appendix A.3 specifies that this function will be performed.

CAA response: The Civil Aviation Authority agrees and 140.11 has been amended accordingly.

 

2.4 140.59—Internal quality assurance

Rural Aviation (1963) Ltd in their submission on 140.59(b)(6) questioned the statement "which shall include the use of statistical analysis". The requirement for management review procedures and continuous assessment and improvement of the QA system is supported but the use of the word "shall" in this context is not. The operator should have to have appropriate management review procedures that do not have to use statistical analysis.

CAA response: The Civil Aviation Authority agrees and 140.59 has been amended accordingly.

 

2.5 140.61—Organisation exposition

Auckland International Airport Limited in their submission on 140.61(b) suggested that the words "in the context of this rule" should be added at the end of this section.

CAA response: The Civil Aviation Authority agrees with the substance of the comment but considers that the Director is, regardless of whether the suggested amendment was included in the rule, obliged to make the acceptability determination based solely upon relevant factors.

 

2.6 140.103—Changes to the exposition

Auckland International Airport Limited in their submission on 140.103(a) suggested reference in the first line to a "a design organisation" should perhaps be a reference to "an aviation security service".

Rural Aviation (1963) Ltd in their submission on 140.103(a) commented that the sentence "Each holder of a design organisation certificate..." should probably read "Each holder of an aviation security service certificate...".

CAA response: The Civil Aviation Authority agrees and 140.103 has been amended accordingly.

Appendix A

2.7 A.1—Sterile area search

The Aviation Security Service submitted that the requirement to test every 28 days means that at least one test will be carried out during each 28 day period. This requirement will be met during the course of recurrent testing of officers.

CAA response: Comments noted.

 

2.8 A.2—Security control of security areas

The Aviation Security Service stated that Part 139 also places responsibilities on the aerodrome operator. Duty free goods arriving in the security area from a bonded warehouse are considered to have been screened.

CAA response: Comments noted.

 

2.9 A.3–Aircraft search

Wellington International Airport Limited stated that unless the rule is expanded to cover the other security activities described in the Act, then aerodrome operators holding aviation security service certificates will not be able to carry out this function.

CAA response: The Civil Aviation Authority agrees and A.3 has been amended so as to not make an aircraft search a requirement. However it does impose standards when a search is being undertaken. The right to undertake this search will be obtained from the aircraft operator.

The Aviation Security Service in their submission on App A.3(a)(2)(ii) suggested that the flight deck be deleted from this paragraph as they are checked by crew and passengers don’t normally have access.

CAA response: The Civil Aviation Authority agrees and A.3 has been amended accordingly.

The Aviation Security Service suggested that the requirement to carry out aircraft searches would affect the ability of the provider to recover costs in cases of specific requests from airlines or overseas authorities.

CAA response: The Civil Aviation Authority agrees and A.3 has been amended accordingly.

 

2.10 A.4—Screening point security and equipment

Mr R J Crooks in his submission on A.4(d) asked that there be an explanation of the word "standard". Perhaps the word "manufacturers" could be used or another description adopted.

The Aviation Security Service suggested that the description of "test piece" as "standard" or "manufacturer’s standard" should be amended to "approved" with the actual test piece to be defined in the provider’s exposition and thereby approved by the Director. This recognises the difficulty in obtaining test pieces from manufacturers and the use of those approved by the manufacturers or by overseas authorities.

CAA response: The test pieces that will be used by an organisation and that are considered by the Director to be suitable will be that organisation’s standard test pieces and will be included in the accepted exposition. It is considered appropriate to refer to these test pieces as standard test pieces to reflect the fact that they are the standard for that organisation. A.26(f) of the NPRM prescribed the test pieces which may be used, however that has been removed to provide each organisation with the flexibility to propose its own test pieces. Approved under the Act means that each standard test piece would have to be approved in writing by the Director; in these circumstances the requirement to have a written approval is considered unnecessary.

The Aviation Security Service suggested deleting the words "on the operator’s body" in A.4(c). There is no guarantee that the operator will be wearing suitable metal.

CAA response: The Civil Aviation Authority agrees and A.4 has been amended accordingly.

 

2.12 A.7—Baggage screening by x-ray (now A.6)

The Aviation Security Service in their submission on App A.7(b) suggested replacing "shall with "should" or "may". The trained officer must have the discretion to decide on the action to be taken.

CAA response: The Civil Aviation Authority disagrees. If an officer is not sure whether a bag contains an unauthorised article it shall, subject to section 12 of the Aviation Crimes Act 1972, be opened and inspected accordingly.

 

2.13 A.8—Hand search of carry-on baggage (now A.7)

The Aviation Security Service in their submission on App A.8(b) suggested that this section should be re-examined. The Service’s equipment has been tested and there is no way that it can affect such articles. Although it is not perfect, X-ray is still the best chance officers have of detecting any anomalies.

CAA response: The Civil Aviation Authority disagrees. The comments have been noted, but until screening equipment is further refined and the travelling public better educated, occasions for such searches to be adopted will occur.

 

2.14 A.12—Screening point emergencies-action plans and alarms (now A.11)

Wellington International Airport Limited submitted that emergency evacuation plans are the responsibility of the building owner under the Building Act, and as such, evacuation procedures will not necessarily be included in the aerodrome’s emergency plan. WIAL suggest the following wording, "the certificate holder shall include in its plan the evacuation procedures for the building(s) where it performs security related procedures; and...", in A.12(b)(1).

CAA response: The Civil Aviation Authority agrees, and A.12 has been amended accordingly.

New Zealand Customs Service believed it appropriate that the Customs Service should be added to paragraphs A.12(b)(3) and A.12(b)(5).

CAA response: The Civil Aviation Authority disagrees as all relevant Government Departments are included under "other parties" referred to in A.12(b)(5).

 

2.15 A.13—Mobile patrol (now A.12)

Christchurch International Airport Limited submitted that A.13 includes overlap and duplication with the requirements of part 139. They submitted that "clauses A.13(c) (7) and (8) particularly come under part 139. We are certainly audited on this aspect by Civil Aviation Authority".

CAA response: Comments noted. The Civil Aviation Authority agrees in principle, but considers that the aviation security service providers have the primary responsibility for the prevention of crime against international civil aviation.

Auckland International Airport Limited suggested that the word "emergency" should be amended to read "security incident".

CAA response: A.13 has been amended to "security related emergency".

Wellington International Airport Limited submitted that the statement in paragraph (b) "where the Aviation Security Service is providing aviation security services at an aerodrome...", is a typographical error and should read "where an aviation security service certificate holder is providing aviation security services at an aerodrome...". If it is not an error then, WIAL submitted, this rule compels aerodrome operators to continue using the Aviation Security Service, even if they hold their own aviation security service certificate. WIAL referred to the comments made with regard to 140.11.

CAA response: Part 140 does not provide for the possibility of an aviation security service provider and the Aviation Security Service sharing the responsibility for the provision of security services at any one aerodrome. However section 79A(3) of the Civil Aviation Act 1990 does provide, at the discretion of the Minister, for such a situation in the event of emergencies arising at any aerodrome.

Wellington International Airport Limited made a further submission on A.13(c)(4) which requires that aviation security officers on patrol must be able to respond to the scene of an emergency within 3 minutes of being requested to attend. While the intent of this clause is accepted, in some circumstances at Wellington airport, this standard would not be physically possible to achieve. For example, Wellington does not have a perimeter road inside the security fence and security officers patrolling outside the perimeter fence during night fenceline inspections would not be able to respond within three minutes.

CAA response: The Civil Aviation Authority agrees, and A.13 has been amended to 5 minutes.

Mr R J Crooks asked whether the aerodrome operator should be the holder of an aviation security services certificate or if not, comply with the provisions of A.13. Otherwise the patrol would go from an approved system to one not meeting the standard.

CAA response: Comments noted. The Civil Aviation Authority considers that as the Aviation Security Service will be present during international departures the standards will be met at those times.

 

2.16 A.14—Security escorts (now A.16)

Christchurch International Airport Limited submitted that A.14 is restrictive, and does not represent current practice. It is not essential for the aviation security service provider to provide escorts. At Christchurch CIAL and ACNZ undertake such activities in addition to Avsec.
Providing an escort is not essentially a security activity. This clause should be prefaced by the words "Where the aviation security service provider provides an escort service...".
The responsibility for escorts should come under Part 139. The aerodrome operator must have the right to determine who has airside access to that aerodrome.

Auckland International Airport Limited submitted that this rule suggests that the aviation security service certificate holder should not have the exclusive right to escort vehicles and personnel. This does not reflect the current practice. This should be amended to provide that an aviation security service provider could carry out these functions if authorised and required to do so by the aerodrome operator.

Wellington International Airport Limited submitted that this rule allows only aviation security certificate holders to escort vehicles and people into security areas, specifically excluding other airport operating staff from providing escorts to their own contractors and visitors. It also does not require security officers to check with operating staff that there is a valid reason for the person or vehicle to enter the security area, or whether it is safe to do so.

CAA response: The Civil Aviation Authority agrees and A.14 has been amended accordingly.

Mr R J Crooks recommended that the word "unauthorised" be deleted and the word "approved" (or similar) be inserted in lieu. He stated "This sub-section refers to those persons or vehicles who are approved access in A.14(a). I feel unauthorised persons should not be admitted. It would not be appropriate to substitute the word "authorised" because of its use in sub-section (d)(2)".

CAA response: A.14 has been amended by deleting the word "unauthorised".

 

2.17 A.16—Aircraft security (now A.18)

Wellington International Airport Limited agreed with the intent of A.16(a)(2)(ii) to visit all unattended international aircraft every two hours during the night, however it seems to contradict A.13(b)(2) which states that mobile patrols are required at least 90 minutes prior to departure and 15 minutes after departure. Aviation security service providers could argue under A.16 that they are required to be at the airport 24 hours per day to check international aircraft parked at the airport overnight due to curfew restrictions, while aerodrome operators would argue that security officers are required only 90 minutes before the plane departs. WIAL requests that this apparent contradiction be considered and a decision made to determine which clause takes precedence over the other.

CAA response: The Civil Aviation Authority agrees there was a conflict and A.16 has been amended to include a new paragraph that provides for the situation where the Aviation Security Service patrol for less than 24 hours a day at aerodromes serving international civil aviation other than Auckland, Wellington or Christchurch International Airports.

 

2.18 A.17—Patrol vehicle equipment (now A.19)

Auckland International Airport Limited suggested the words "and apron control frequencies" should be added at the end of A.17(a)(2)(i).

Wellington International Airport Limited requested that A.17(a)(2)(i) be amended to read: "VHF radio communications with the aerodrome ground frequency and aerodrome apron management frequency".

Wellington International Airport Limited further submitted that A.17(2)(v) seems to be overly prescriptive and considers it would be sufficient to require vehicles to carry a hand-held spotlight. The method of operating the spotlight is irrelevant as long as it is reliable.

Rural Aviation (1963) Ltd submitted that "A.17(a)(2)(i) should read "radio communications equipment for communication with the aerodrome ground controller" It may not always be appropriate for VHF equipment to be used and it is our belief that the selection of the appropriate equipment and systems for each location should be left to the operator and airport concerned, without any unnecessary restrictions from the rules. By way of an example, if a given airport is such that UHF frequencies offer better communications coverage around the facility then the security provider should be able to reach an agreement with the ground control provider (e.g. Airways Corp.) that mobile patrol vehicles will communicate with the ground controller on a UHF link. To do this under the rule as written would require an exemption or a rule change. I guess what we are trying to say is that by specifying VHF no added safety benefit is accrued, and both individual circumstances and future changes in technology are not provided for".

The Aviation Security Service suggested that the requirement for this type of equipment should be more general in definition. The rule should specify the purpose for equipment to be provided but, as with other sections of the rules, leave the actual provision up to the security provider.

CAA response: The Civil Aviation Authority agrees and A.17 has been amended to make it less prescriptive and allow each certificate holder more flexibility.

 

2.19 A.19—Check point security (now A.13)

Auckland International Airport Limited submitted that the aviation security service certificate holder should not have the exclusive right to provide this service. Again, the aviation security service holder should only provide these services if authorised to do so by the aerodrome operator.

CAA response: The Civil Aviation Authority agrees that the aviation security service certificate holder should not have the exclusive right to provide this service and A.13 has been amended accordingly. This rule does not require a certificate holder to have a check point. However if the holder considers it appropriate to do so, the rule sets the standards by which the holder operates the checkpoint.

 

2.20 A.20—Random security spot checks (now A.14)

Mr R J Crooks asked whether the origin of 19.357 is explained.

CAA response: This matter refers to a specific rule already in existence in Part 19.

 

2.21 A.21—Verification - data base - ID cards and licences (now A.15)

Wellington International Airport Limited suggested that it is overly prescriptive to tell the aviation security service provider that they must have a data base as the mechanism for monitoring the validity of ID cards and pilot licences. It is up to the security service provider to choose the method they will use to monitor identification used to gain access to security areas. The heading should read "A.21 Verification - ID cards and licences".

CAA response: The Civil Aviation Authority agrees, and A.21 has been amended accordingly.

 

2.22 A.23—Liaison with other agencies and operators (now A.21)

Wellington International Airport Limited supported the intent of this clause, particularly contingency planning for screening hold stowed baggage and cargo for airline operators that have been targeted by activist or terrorist groups.

CAA response: Comments noted.

 

2.23 A.25—Training (now A.23)

Wellington International Airport Limited suggested an amendment to aviation security officers training so that A.25(c)(1)(iii) includes a reference to CAR Part 12, as aviation security certificate holders are required to notify the Civil Aviation Authority of any security incidents as soon as practicable.

CAA response: The Civil Aviation Authority agrees and A.23 has been amended accordingly.

WIAL further submitted for A.25(c)(4) that aviation security officers be trained to Grade 4 to be able to detect and deal with improvised explosive devices.

CAA response: The Civil Aviation Authority disagrees. Officers are not expected to be explosive experts.

WIAL further submitted for A.25(c)(6) that aviation security officers be trained to Grade 3 to be able to apply practical knowledge to a hijack situation.

CAA response: The Civil Aviation Authority disagrees. This is a Police responsibility.

Mr R J Crooks in his submission on A.25(c)(1) suggested adding Crimes Act 1961 to examine section 157 dealing with duty to avoid omissions dangerous to life.

CAA response: The Civil Aviation Authority agrees and A.23 has been amended accordingly.

The Aviation Security Service suggested that knowledge of the Bill of Rights and Aviation Crimes Acts should be to grade 5.

CAA response: The Civil Aviation Authority disagrees, but there is no objection to an applicant applying a higher standard. The required level for the Aviation Crimes Act has been increased to grade 4.

The Aviation Security Service further suggested that the Trespass Act should no longer be necessary as section 51 of the Civil Aviation Act provides the necessary power.

CAA response: The Civil Aviation Authority agrees and A.23 has been amended accordingly.

 

2.24 A.26—Recurrent testing (now A.24)

Auckland International Airport Limited submitted for A.26(g) that for a public document this provision contains too much detail regarding testing procedures.

CAA response: The Civil Aviation Authority agrees, and A.24 has been amended accordingly.

Wellington International Airport Limited submitted that the testing of aviation security officers should mimic as closely as possible all likely scenarios. Therefore, they considered that it is unacceptable for test pieces to be "reasonably easy to detect, locate and identify". An offender is not going to make their weapon or device reasonably east to detect, locate and identify.
WIAL suggested amending the wording to: "Standard test pieces shall be detectable and identifiable." This then allows the person doing the testing to set the degree of difficulty, depending upon actual or likely security risks to be encountered at their aerodrome.

CAA response: The Civil Aviation Authority agrees and A.24 has been amended accordingly.

The Aviation Security Service in their submission on A.26(d)(3) stated that this would be virtually impossible at Auckland due to volume of traffic. They suggested that this paragraph be amended to read "assess the risk arising from the failure". Once the risk has been determined, action can be decided.

CAA response: The Civil Aviation Authority agrees and this requirement has been removed.

 

Conclusion

The Authority concludes from this consultation that the aviation industry participants favour the direction of the new rules. The rules also meet New Zealand’s international obligations under the applicable ICAO Annex. The comments and all background material used in developing the rules are held on the Docket File and are available for public scrutiny. Persons wishing to view the docket file should call at the Civil Aviation Authority, Level 15 Asteron Centre, 55 Featherston St, Wellington 6140, and ask for Docket File 1012.