Region of Waterloo International Airport - YKF

[ijmorlan]

That being said, it’s not hard to come up with a scenario: the bus driver could be compromised. Now of course anybody anywhere could be compromised, but having a person drive an entire bus into and out of the secure area with little supervision (drivers normally work alone) is obviously imprudent.

I’m not sure you realize the vehicles that move into and out of the secure area every day.  People are driving their work trucks with tools into and out of the area with nothing other than a trivial ID check. 

Adding a bus in this situation makes absolutely no difference to the level of security we have.

That’s basically my point. There should be a lot less of random vehicles driving in and out. It’s ridiculous to screen pilots through the screening checkpoints when there is all this maintenance activity happening with minimal checks.

[ijmorlan]

And there are also multiple links in the security chain here...lets say the bus driver is paid off to stop and pickup someone who hasn't gone through security...they still need a valid boarding pass to get on the plane, and they won't have that if they haven't gone through security.

A better plan would be for the driver to load an unauthorized object onto the bus while it’s empty, then pick up perfectly legitimate passengers, including one who happens to be first in line and an accomplice, who sits down where the object is and later takes it onto the plane.

As for banks...I worked for one...their physical security is decent, but all they are doing is following best practices...limited cash on hand, time locks on safes, etc. None of this is new. In fact, things which ARE new...they're actually quite bad at...their IT security is not great...and the reason for this is conservatism. At the very top of every investment statement it says "past performance is not a guarantee of future results" but in every single conversation I had high up people at the bank, the prevailing opinion was "what we did yesterday worked, changing it is therefore a grave risk".

The main reason bank heists are uncommon is it isn't actually that good a value. Policing treats it very seriously (something something, police, something something protecting capital), so you're going to have a high chance of facing consequences, but your payout is low, because physically (or even technologically) compromising a single persons account or even a single branch isn't going to net you all that much cash.

Yes, when I speak favourably of bank security I’m talking about physical security in the branches, not the many obviously idiotic things they do around cheque and credit card handling. Even funds wiring has some unbelievably stupid practices.

I understand that it actually used to be possible to net quite a substantial haul by holding up a bank branch. Mostly invisible or at least subtle changes in procedures changed that, not a lot of impressive-looking guards. Now it’s easy to get a little bit of money, but that isn’t repeatable indefinitely. Of course it doesn’t hurt that a lot less cash is used these days.

Upon consideration, I’m not entirely convinced but I think you and other commenters have made a good case that the bus idea is no worse for security than many of the other things that already happen at the airport. I still think if we wanted/needed real airport security it would be best not to have cleared vehicles driving around outside the cleared zone.

[SammyOES]

That’s basically my point. There should be a lot less of random vehicles driving in and out. It’s ridiculous to screen pilots through the screening checkpoints when there is all this maintenance activity happening with minimal checks.

Why should there be less random vehicles? Our security seems to work pretty darn well. I don’t understand the argument for why we should make it stricter.

I agree that how pilots are screened and treated is silly. That’s an argument that we’re doing too much unnecessary stuff. Not that we need more unnecessary stuff.

[danbrotherston]

And there are also multiple links in the security chain here...lets say the bus driver is paid off to stop and pickup someone who hasn't gone through security...they still need a valid boarding pass to get on the plane, and they won't have that if they haven't gone through security.

A better plan would be for the driver to load an unauthorized object onto the bus while it’s empty, then pick up perfectly legitimate passengers, including one who happens to be first in line and an accomplice, who sits down where the object is and later takes it onto the plane.

As for banks...I worked for one...their physical security is decent, but all they are doing is following best practices...limited cash on hand, time locks on safes, etc. None of this is new. In fact, things which ARE new...they're actually quite bad at...their IT security is not great...and the reason for this is conservatism. At the very top of every investment statement it says "past performance is not a guarantee of future results" but in every single conversation I had high up people at the bank, the prevailing opinion was "what we did yesterday worked, changing it is therefore a grave risk".

The main reason bank heists are uncommon is it isn't actually that good a value. Policing treats it very seriously (something something, police, something something protecting capital), so you're going to have a high chance of facing consequences, but your payout is low, because physically (or even technologically) compromising a single persons account or even a single branch isn't going to net you all that much cash.

Yes, when I speak favourably of bank security I’m talking about physical security in the branches, not the many obviously idiotic things they do around cheque and credit card handling. Even funds wiring has some unbelievably stupid practices.

I understand that it actually used to be possible to net quite a substantial haul by holding up a bank branch. Mostly invisible or at least subtle changes in procedures changed that, not a lot of impressive-looking guards. Now it’s easy to get a little bit of money, but that isn’t repeatable indefinitely. Of course it doesn’t hurt that a lot less cash is used these days.

Upon consideration, I’m not entirely convinced but I think you and other commenters have made a good case that the bus idea is no worse for security than many of the other things that already happen at the airport. I still think if we wanted/needed real airport security it would be best not to have cleared vehicles driving around outside the cleared zone.

I wouldn't say "easy"....but the biggest change that has happened that has limited the amount of cash you can get is the massive reduction in cash on hand that has resulted from our digital society. Tellers no longer even have a cash drawer....

As for the airport, that's a fair point, there should be more consistency...but again, I think the real key is actually the background checks (which I assume are done also on the random trades people who are allowed past security checkpoints--both inside and out). This actually comes back to the banks...another thing they are good at...and this is because banks are establishment and follow the law is that they practice KYC--know your customer...they try to know what their customers are doing to prevent being a party to their customers crimes.

Again, the best thing that can be done for security at the airport is to identify and background check the people who are there. I also think it's a shame that such security is needed at all. I can freely travel on a train (at least a domestic) with no identifying information no records of my travel, and no travelling through any security...yet airplanes suffer this enormous security apparatus.

[KevinT]

This is my favourite explanation of security theatre:

I Cringely, To a Man With a Hammer

I read this back when it was first posted, and it still rings just as true 23 years later.

[ijmorlan]

This is my favourite explanation of security theatre:

I Cringely, To a Man With a Hammer

I read this back when it was first posted, and it still rings just as true 23 years later.

Very good article.

Strange case in that the author is a known liar, but the article is nevertheless very interesting and insightful. Humans be weird.

The real resolution of what I said is that we should stop doing all that other security theatre and target the security efforts more effectively. I’m not sure what the right pre-flight screening is (people very seriously do not need guns on planes), but worrying about nail clippers sure isn’t it.

[danbrotherston]

This is my favourite explanation of security theatre:

I Cringely, To a Man With a Hammer

I read this back when it was first posted, and it still rings just as true 23 years later.

Very good article.

Strange case in that the author is a known liar, but the article is nevertheless very interesting and insightful. Humans be weird.

The real resolution of what I said is that we should stop doing all that other security theatre and target the security efforts more effectively. I’m not sure what the right pre-flight screening is (people very seriously do not need guns on planes), but worrying about nail clippers sure isn’t it.

I mean, the "real" resolution is a more egalitarian society where we don't need such security measures because there is no value for anyone to take these actions...you know...the same way I don't need to go through such security measures to board a train. Alas, on a good day that seems utopian, and on a bad day, it seems we're heading in the wrong direction.

Realistically, I think the most effective security apparatus is simply identifying and understanding the people who are boarding the flight, which I think we already do to some degree.

[panamaniac]

So, Pivot Airlines is moving its HQ to YKF, effective 01June. Will it make any practical difference? I've long since given up hope that they'd start a YKF-YOW run.

[Coke6pk]

YKF is not exactly easily reachable from many places in KW, including by bicycle, but it's sort of easier than YYZ. Trains are more reliable but it's hard for AC to do that.

How so? When I worked at YKF, I biked daily...

Coke

[Coke6pk]

In this scenario, wouldn't it make more sense to run the bus from DTK (or even Sportsworld) to YYZ? Or maybe that will be the route it takes from YKF?

Need staff/equipment to issue boarding cards and luggage tags. Those are in place at the airport, but not at DTK or Sportsworld.

Coke

[Bytor]

YKF is not exactly easily reachable from many places in KW, including by bicycle, but it's sort of easier than YYZ. Trains are more reliable but it's hard for AC to do that.

How so?  When I worked at YKF, I biked daily...

Coke

From where I live in DTK, the Cycling Guide app suggests 3 routes, and the one with the least amount of distance classed as for 'confident' or 'strong' cyclists (based on how much traffic you'll be in) is still 43% of the trip, or 5.2 km out of 12 km.

That's not an average person "easily reachable" cycling task.

[ac3r]

This is my favourite explanation of security theatre:

I Cringely, To a Man With a Hammer

I read this back when it was first posted, and it still rings just as true 23 years later.

Don't forget this guy...

[Square]

Like we were thinking the delay had to do with the airport runways. From the NAVCAN report it says that during construction Runway 26 will be affected "Runway 26 departure climb gradient, must be increased to 270 FT/NM, After the crane is removed the climb gradient will remain and lowered to 220 FT/NM to clear the building". There are also very specific coordinates on where the tower crane can be located on the site due to this. Before the tower crane goes up and comes down VanMar has to submit more documentation for review by NAVCAN.

Maximum tower crane height: 235.135m
Tower crane coordinates: 43 27 8.1036, -80 29 49.9848

Regional Comments
NAVCAN Comments

In the NAV comments, they said "publishing the revised instrument flight procedures on July 11, 2024."  do we know if this happened?