Accountability in Aviation Essay Sample free essay sample

1. Introduction On September 11. 2001 the universe watched as about 3. 000 people were killed from a co-ordinated terrorist onslaught affecting four rider jets. Aviation security became a heightened focal point with the Australian Government perpetrating to extensive reappraisal to guarantee safe travel for the Australian populace. This paper will analyze political answerability in relation to aviation security to find what. if any betterments have been made. A instance survey into Australian Airport Security ( Whelan A ; Palmer 2006 ) is used as a mention to back up the statement put frontward. Accountability can be defined as being called to account for 1s actions Merriam-Webster ( 2006 ) . Political answerability is the answerability of the authorities of the twenty-four hours to present the outlooks of the elective people. Accountability where a authorities service is delivered by private industry forms the primary focal point of this paper. Initial treatment will research the likeliness of terrorist activity in Australia. The 2005 Wheeler Report will be used as a model to reexamine the practical application of a figure of facets of air power security answerability. We will write a custom essay sample on Accountability in Aviation Essay Sample or any similar topic specifically for you Do Not WasteYour Time HIRE WRITER Only 13.90 / page These include partnership. forces and procedure. Analysis of these applications will show exposures in air power security when blending authorities and non authorities participants. This leads into treatment whether there are sufficient accounting patterns to back up proper answerability. Evidence provided will reenforce the place that authorities has non to the full and efficaciously implemented Wheeler’s recommendations with purposes driven by political addition non answerability. 2. Is Australia a Terrorist Target? Al-Qaeda and associated groups aim sites of â€Å"Critical Infrastructure† ( ASIO 2003 cited in Whelan A ; Palmer 2006:5 ) to maximize the impact of terrorist activity. While the definition of critical substructure may differ depending on the legal power. a wide definition is: â€Å"a site. web or information concatenation. which if destroyed. would significantly impact on the societal or economic wellbeing of the nation† ( Trusted Information Sharing Network 2004 cited in Whelan A ; Palmer 2006:6 ) . Australia has a big figure of critical substructures such as communicating systems. banking. finance and conveyance. Approximately 90 % of these substructures are in private owned and operated ( National Infrastructure Security Coordination Centre 2006 cited in Whelan A ; Palmer 2006:6 ) . It’s improbable that devastation of any of these installations would significantly impact on the societal or economic wellbeing of Australia due in portion to the geographical nature of Australian substructure and the planetary impact of these industries. Airports conversely are seen as a important signifier of critical substructure as an international gateway for terrorist activity. This is determined by the desolation caused on September 11 ( Poole 2008 ) and the diverse scope of marks that may be at a major airdrome on any given twenty-four hours. Aviation security has become a precedence for authorities where a figure of reappraisals have been undertaken into bing security agreements. In Australia. the most important of these reappraisals has been an Independent Review of Airport Security and Policing conducted by Sir John Wheeler in June 2005. Wheeler was commissioned to reexamine the menace to Australian Airports of organised offense and terrorist activity. Wheeler produced a study which contained 17 recommendations that he believed would present accomplishable betterments. supplying there was a incorporate attack ( Wheeler 2005 ) . A figure of Wheeler’s recommendations related to an improved administration of answerability. execution of a national preparation plan and better usage of information to associate known terrorist entities. Wheeler was really specific that there needed to be a â€Å"changed civilization of cooperation between the key participants in air power security† for his recommendations to be effectual ( Wheeler 2005:88 ) . 3. How is Accountability Measured? The Wheeler Review ( 2005 ) is supported by the National Aviation Policy GreenPaper ( 2008 ) and Aviation White Paper ( 2009 ) . All studies made similar recommendations that the Australian authorities would necessitate to work hand in glove with industry to develop consistent security agreements presenting more effectual accounting patterns. The Aviation White Paper stated that:Government is committed to working in partnership with industry to: – Develop appropriate auditing and monitoring ; and– Provide clear indexs against which security public presentation is measured ( White Paper 2009:148 ) .The White Paper neglects to inform the reader what these clear indexs are. how they will be monitored and who will be responsible. Nonetheless the papers concludes that Australia’s air power security government has protected travelers and the general populace from major incident to day of the month. deducing that sound answerability steps are in topographic point. It is hard to hold with this premise when reexamining the current air power security procedure. 4. Aviation Security Process The air power security procedure consists of a superimposed attack integrating a figure of elements. The National Security Aviation Policy Green Paper ( 2008 ) considers that this model promotes a safe secure environment by using multiple beds of preventive security. The grounds presented in this paper does non back up this position and will reason that there are non sufficient beds of answerability to turn to the beds of air power security. The complexness of this procedure and the relationships between participants doesn’t support consistence and lacks a lead regulating organic structure. To exemplify these spreads requires farther analysis of information. forces. statute law and engineering as these elements all contribute to aviation security. 4. 1InformationThe Counter Terrorism White Paper ( 2010 ) identifies information as a primary arm against terrorist act. For this to be an effectual tool requires unification across Federal. province and private sectors. Whelan A ; Palmer ( 2006 ) discuss that there are organizational. cultural and legal barriers which impede a incorporate attack to effectual information sharing. This is peculiarly apparent across public and private sectors and this slightly confused relationship can be illustrated by analyzing ‘GovDex’ Department of Finance and Deregulation ( 5 July 2010 ) . ‘GovDex’ was a authorities enterprise set up to back up coaction across authorities in placing failings in air power security. It was designed to instil a civilization of active answerability across air power stakeholders by describing breaches and sharing information. The issue with the effectivity of this system is that the forces who conduct all airport security showing are from pri vate industry and ‘GovDex’ can merely be accessed by a authorities community representative. All information has a security categorization of ‘For Official Use Only’ intending the forces who would most profit from the studies are unable to entree them. 4. 2PersonnelThe cardinal authorities adviser for conveyance security is the Office of Transport Security ( OTS ) . OTS operates under the Aviation Transport Security Act 2004 and Regulations 2005 and is straight accountable to the Minister for Infrastructure and Transport ( National Aviation Policy Green Paper 2008 ) . A figure of other authorities bureaus are involved in air power security such as Australian Federal Police. Department of Immigration and Citizenship. Australian Customs and Border Protection. Australian Security Intelligence Organisation and Attorney General’s Department. While these bureaus are non as seeable to the populace. they play an of import function in intelligence assemblage and reappraisal. to keep a heightened security government. Government bureaus besides have internal administration audit plans to pull off and mensurate answerability such as the Australian National Audit Office ( ANAO ) . Non authorities participants have far more open functions in airport security and the general traveling populace would be familiar with private airdrome proprietors. air hose forces and airdrome screeners. who fall within this class. What the general populace may non cognize is that it is the airdromeproprietor. non authorities who manages airport security. This means that airdrome proprietors employ a private security company to implement airport security processs and engineering. moving under the OTS statute law. at both domestic and international airdromes ( Heilbronn 2007 ) . Airport screeners are non pledged officers and are non capable to the same preparation government as authorities jurisprudence enforcement bureaus. They are non straight accountable to authorities which creates a quandary of air power security answerability when blending authorities and non authorities participants. Wheeler recognised this quandary and made recommendation that there be one regulating organic structure to pull off this relationship ( Wheeler 2005 ) . What Wheeler didn’t history for was the diverseness in the scope of participants required to collaborate and the really different dockets each bureau would stand for. The airdrome proprietor has a concern docket to do money whereby authorities participants back up a demand to develop a sound hazard direction procedure able to react rapidly and expeditiously to a terrorist onslaught ( National Aviation Policy Green Paper 2008 ) . 4. 3LegislationPrivate airdrome testing guards have powers authorised under the Commonwealth Aviation Transport Security Act 2004. These powers are similar to those of a jurisprudence enforcement officer yet they are applied without the same grade of preparation or answerability to the populace as that applied to authorities employees. The Aviation Security Act 2004 besides lacks clear definition in a figure of cardinal countries doing it confounding to construe. Two illustrations showing obscure guidelines relate to a ‘frisk search’ and ‘removal of points of clothing’ ( Heilbronn 2007 ) . The Crimes Act is really specific in specifying what. how and under what conditions a frisk hunt must be carried out. due to the sensitive nature of this sort of hunt. The Aviation Security Act states that a frisk hunt should be performed â€Å"to the extent necessary† ( Aviation Security Act 2004:95A ) . This allows picks to be made about the extent of the hunt and chance to overlook certain countries. exposing exposures in the showing system. S95 ( 1 ) ( Aviation Security Act 2004:95 ) authorises testing guards to â€Å"request remotion of any point of a individuals vesture in order to test a rider properly† . There is no definition of how to test a rider decently and the Act doesn’t use the words ‘consider on sensible grounds’ . The determination to bespeak remotion of any point of a individuals vesture is based strictly on whether a peculiar showing guard â€Å"considers it necessary† ( Heilbronn 2007:226 ) . The statute law doesn’t use ‘checks’ and ‘balances’ to cover with uncertainness in single reading and while some may reason that these activities violate peoples rights. Heilbronn ( 2007:224 ) considers that if statute law is applied it should be â€Å"justifiable and based on clear principles† . There is no demand for referral to a supervisor of testing or hunt determinations leting showing guards to exert equivocal powers with small counsel or concern for consistence. While there is answerability within the Aviation Transport Security Act. as this is legislated by authorities. there is no answerability in the manner that it is applied ( Heilbronn 2007 ) . 4. 4TechnologyTechnology is a major constituent in airdrome security nevertheless this does non vouch a robust security civilization which is reliant on operator reading. Wheeler ( 2005 ) identified preparation spreads for testing guards and the National Aviation Security Training Program was developed to turn to air power security preparation demands. It was besides identified in the Wheeler Review and by the ANAO ( National Aviation Policy Green Paper 2008 ) that frequent systems proving should be conducted with an active feedback cringle to move as a agency of ongoing instruction. Reappraisal of the Official List of Aviation Security Incidents at Australian Airports suggests that the purpose of Wheeler’s National Training Program has non been wholly successful. In 2009/2010 there were 184 security breaches reported Sandilands ( 15 July 2010 ) . Whilst Sandilands ( 2010 ) acknowledges that most of these were minor breaches with minimum impact to aviation security if undetected. this figure does non instil public assurance that a robust preparation civilization exists. Despite grounds proposing obvious defects in the usage and monitoring of current engineering in Australian airdromes. we continue to present new more advanced engineering. Australia has late introduced full organic structure scanners at all international airdromes as portion of a $ 28. 5 million dollar Federal Government enterprise to do airdromes safer ( Albanese 2012 ) . There has been much public argument about privateness concerns and possible wellness issues associated with x-ray engineering ( Department of Infrastructure 2010 ) . Yet public sentiment hasn’t demanded a cost benefit analysis ( Stewart A ; Mueller 2008 ) to find the effectivity of full organic structure scanners against terrorist activity. At a cost of about $ 150. 000 ( IPA Review 2010 ) and capacity to test merely a little per centum of riders due to a slower showing procedure. it can be argued that despite authorities puting important sums of money to run into the political answerability ; it has failed in the answerability of public outgo. To oppugn whether full organic structure scanners deliver anything more than what is presently in topographic point is non unreasonable and the instance of Umar Farouk Adbulmultallab suggests they may non. In 2006 Schiphol Airport was the first airdrome to put in full organic structure scanners. Security showing is conducted by a private security company. as in Australia and on 27 December 2009 Umar Farouk Adbulmultallab proceeded through this security testing transporting explosives in his underclothes. Dutch governments confirmed that Umar passed through â€Å"normal showing procedures† and â€Å"security was good performed† CNN ( 27 December 2009 ) . yet these explosives were merely detected when the detonating device malfunctioned after take-off. While the grounds is inconclusive as to whether this was operator or engineering mistake it highlights spreads in the security procedure NBC ( 28 December 2009 ) . In response. Australia will now put in the same engineering at a important public cost with authorities confidence that â€Å"Australian travelers are afforded the highest degree of protection against air power terrorism† ( Albanese 2012:2 ) . The troubles in using practical answerability when there are so many beds of authorities and non authorities participants is farther illustrated in the same instance of Umar Farouk Adbulmultallab CNN ( 27 December 2009 ) . A non authorities company performed the security showing. The Dutch Border Police were responsible to oversee the security showing to guarantee the cheques were performed harmonizing to the regulations and the Government Ministry of Justice made the regulations. US authorities functionaries were made cognizant of Umar’s extremist spiritual activities yet he was still able to board a plane edge for Detroit without any authorized intercession. This instance epitomises air power terrorist act and has been referenced a figure of times in this paper to show how easy the beds of air power security can be exploited when there is no clear authorization about who is responsible for which facets of air power security. While there are no similar illustrations in Australia at nowadays. the possibility exists that this could happen based on the contrasting entities and the forces involved. The similarities between the Dutch airdrome security model and that of Australia besides provide good comparing into mensurating an effectual security procedure. 5. Decision Government responded to community concerns for air power security after the terrorist onslaughts in America in 2001. Wheeler was commissioned to carry on a comprehensive reappraisal into Australian airdrome security and policing in 2005 with extra reappraisals undertaken in 2008 and 2009. These reappraisals outlined a figure of countries for betterments with recommendations that required concerted battle between authorities and industry to be effectual. The complexnesss associated with this relationship have been highlighted in this essay and demonstrate less advancement in Australia’s air power security government than authorities would hold us believe. Clearly the relationship between a authorities regulator and a private showing pattern is non effectual and distorts the lines of answerability. Each participant can rightly fault the other as there are no clearly defined guidelines ordering who is finally responsible. Without proper accounting patterns. answerability can non be. Government continues to guarantee the going public that air travel is safe and much has been done to better air power hazard direction since 2001 nevertheless the issues identified in this paper inquiry the cogency of this statement. Accountability of air power security patterns requires considerable farther analysis and coordination. Public consideration of the effectivity of Wheeler’s recommendations is worthy of reappraisal as it is public sentiment that will act upon greater political answerability. Mentions Albanese. A ( Federal Member for Grayndler Minister for Infrastructure and Transport ) 2012. Aviation Transport Security Amendment ( Screening ) Bill 2012 – Second Reading Speech. viewed 17 December 2012. hypertext transfer protocol: //anthonyalbanese. com. au/aviation-transport-security-amendment-screening-bill-2012-amendment. Australian Government 2010. GovDex. Department of Finance and Deregulation Canberra. viewed 18 January 2013. hypertext transfer protocol: //govdex. gov. gold. Australian National Audit Office 2013. Commonwealth of Australia. viewed 20 January 2013 hypertext transfer protocol: //www. anao. gov. au/Publications. CNN 2009. Al Qaeda nexus investigated as hints emerge in defeated panic onslaught. viewed 1 January 2013. hypertext transfer protocol: //edition. cnn. com/2009/CRIME/12/28/airline. panic. attempt/index. hypertext markup language CNN 2009. Why did security cheques fail to descry explosives? . viewed 1 January 2013. hypertext transfer protocol: //articles. cnn. com/2009-12-27/justice/airline. onslaught. qanda_1_explosives-secondary-searches-metal-detector? _s=PM: Crime. Commonwealth of Australia 2004. Aviation Transport Security Act 2004.Attorney General’s Department. Canberra. Commonwealth of Australia 2005. Aviation Transport Security Regulations 2005. Office of Parliamentary Counsel. Canberra. Commonwealth of Australia 2008. National Aviation Policy Green Paper: Flight Path to the Future. Department of Infrastructure. Transport Regional Development and Local Government. Canberra. Commonwealth of Australia 2009. National Aviation Policy White Paper: Flight Path to the Future. Department of Infrastructure. Transport Regional Development and Local Government. Canberra. Commonwealth of Australia 2009. Review of Aviation Security Screening Report. Department of Infrastructure. Transport Regional Development and Local Government. Canberra. Commonwealth of Australia 2010. Counter Terrorism White Paper. Procuring Australia. Protecting our Community. Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet. David. R A ; Bondy. J 2010. ‘Civil Aviation Security: The political orientations the Australian Government subscribes to when placing terrorists’ . International Journal of Criminal Justice Sciences. vol. 5. no. 2. pp. 251-263. Deane. A 2010. ‘Better Safe’ . Institute of Public Affairs. pp. 21-22. Donaldson. C 2010. ‘Airport Safety. Who’s Protecting Us? ’ . Government News. vol. 30. no. 1. pp 34-36. Heilbronn. G 2007. ‘Screening and Frisk Searches as portion of Airport Security: Matters of Choice? The demand for Checks and Balances in Aviation Security Legislation’ . Queensland University of Technology Law and Justice Journal. vol. 7. no. 2. pp. 209-233. An Encyclopedia Britannica Company. Merriam-Webster On-Line. viewed 17 December 2012. hypertext transfer protocol: //www. merriam-webster. com/dictionary/accountability. NBC 2009. US Security for air travel under new examination. viewed 15 January 2013. hypertext transfer protocol: //www. msnbc. msn. com/id/34592031/ns/us_news-security/t/us-security-air-travel-under-new-scrutiny/ . Airplane Talking 2010. The official list of recent air power security incidents in Australia. viewed 2 January 2013. hypertext transfer protocol: //blogs. crikey. com. au/planetalking/2010/07/15/the-official-list-of-recent-aviation-security-incidents-in-australia/ ? wpmp_switcher=mobile Poole. Roentgen 2008. ‘Toward Risk-Based Aviation Security Policy’ . Joint Transport Research Centre Discussion Paper International Transport Forum. no. 23. pp. 2-3. Stewart. M A ; Mueller J 2008. ‘A Risk and Cost-Benefit Assessment of Australian Aviation Security Measures’ . Security Challenges. vol. 4. no. 3. pp. 45-61. Travel News 2011. Airport security a terrorist catastrophe waiting to go on. viewed 17 December 2012. hypertext transfer protocol: //www. smh. com. au/travel-news/airport-security-a-terrorist-disaster-waiting-to-happen-20110507-1eco4. hypertext markup language. Wheeler. J 2005. ‘An Independent Review of Airport Security and Policing for the Government of Australia’ . Australian Government Airport Security and Policing Review. pp 1-164. Whelan. C A ; Palmer D 2006. ‘Responding to Terrorism through Networks at Sites of Critical Infrastructure: A Case Study of Australian Airport Security Networks’ . Centre for Social Change Research Queensland University of Technology. pp 1-13.