Airport security fails to comply with rules

I WOULD like to convey my condolences to the family of the man who was shot inside the terminal at Jackson Airport.
The question, of course, is why inside the terminal.
The answer lies within the ranks of the security company and the regulatory authority.
Readers can access from the internet, the PNG civil aviation rule (CAR) part 140 aviation security service organisations – certification. 
This document contains mention of certification requirements, operating requirements and in the security operational standards section, amongst other matters, security control, screening point security and equipment, screening of passengers, screening by x-ray, hand search of hand baggage and screening point emergencies (action plans and alarms).
Additionally, there is specific mention of responsibilities and duties of personnel.
There is also specific mention of internal quality assurance and internal audits.
I respectfully suggest that whoever is investigating this event (surely by an external independent auditor) considers asking for the internal and external (if any) audit reports, evidence of renewal of certification of the screening equipment, curriculum for training and retraining of staff, recurrent testing of staff and equipment, authorisations and delegations and the procedure for enforcement of internal operating compliance and CAR rules.
From the report in The National, there is clear evidence of non-compliance of several elements listed in PNG CAR part 140.
The security personnel responsible ought to be charged under the penalties section of the Civil Aviation Act.
Furthermore, the investigator may also care to consider researching and, if appropriate, recommending that the personnel responsible be charged under the criminal code, as accessories before the fact.

Partenavia
Via email