NavCanada Security

[grimey]

While the company is in the middle of being embarassed maybe somebody should make a phone call about the Billion dollar, 20 year, already antiquated CAATS.

at least you guys finally got CAATS, i don't see FIMS ever getting to us

For which, from all I hear...you should be eternally grateful!

Yea, it's great that they took away FWGS, left us with buggy old MIDS, and haven't upgraded yet. There's some awesome what-the-@#$! bugs in NCAMS too, fortunately it's not absolutely required.

An ATS company shouldn't be a software development company.

[justplanecrazy]

They don't need any guards with machine guns, grenades and tanks!!! There are many secure buildings and they all incorperate the same secure access.

You have a camera/intercom on the outside of the building. You press the buzzer the guy on the inside lets you into a man trap. The door behind you shuts and you stand in a short hallway with another door and a bullet proof glass window on the side of the hall, looking into a turret. The guy in the turret, is the guy that operates both doors monitors security cameras, and can check your ID, call someone to meet you, call the police etc. Once he's confirmed that you're an employee, he opens the second door and gives you access to the rest of the building. It wouldn't cost anymore than the $10/hr commisionaire that used to sit in the open hallway and it wouldn't matter that he's 85 years old and couldn't stop a 12 year old overweight cripple from entering.

There are places with billions of dollars sitting behind this sort of controlled access and there aren't any armed guards present. It would stop all but the most elite criminals. What are there, 6 centers open 24 hours? So it would cost under $1500/day or $500,000/yr to provide secure across Canada, minus whatever manpower and fancy equipment that they're using now. The towers really aren't that important, no controllers, no departures and no ground traffic departing. It'd be a mess on the ground and a lot of diversions but it'd be very unlikely anyone would die if a tower blew up.

[squibbler]

The towers really aren't that important, no controllers, no departures and no ground traffic departing. It'd be a mess on the ground and a lot of diversions but it'd be very unlikely anyone would die if a tower blew up.

Gibberish. Hard to work out the point you're trying to make. Care to re-write?

[sigmet77]

Except the people in the tower, they'd blow up real good.

[invertedattitude]

"Except the towers, no controllers..."

Ummmm


And there are Seven centres, not 6

Gander
Moncton
Montreal
Toronto
Winnipeg
Edmonton
Vancouver

A mantrap doesnt work in a building surrounded by glass at ground level, smash a window and you're inside.(Except the ops room of course.)

[justplanecrazy]

Gibberish. Hard to work out the point you're trying to make. Care to re-write?

Pretty easy once you start thinking about the effects. A center blows up they have numerous aircraft that will eventually be on conflicting paths and need control instructions or prepare for a roller coaster TCAS ride. Terminal would have numerous aircraft on conflicting paths needing immediate control instructions etc. All the aircraft on departure have variable speeds and many of them are on the same path and given the same altitude.

A tower, aside from the airports handling mainly little planes, wouldn't put anyone in danger if they stopped talking. Take Toronto tower for instance as that would be perceived as being the best tower target in Canada (no-one's going to blow up Oshawa). You could have 10 lined up on final for both parallels and 20 waiting to go. After the few aircraft with the landing clearance land, the rest start pulling up. The only exception would be a guy in position only and another heavy jet short final unable to go around right at the moment of explosion and even then he'd probably realise that he'd have to go around and do it on his own before it was too late. Even if 3 guys in a row have a landing clearance, the pilots generally have their exit instructions with the clearance. No-one's going to depart without a clearance and the ones airborne have their departure frequency and instructions. Everyone has everyone visual, and there are no conflicts only a mess on the ground. After the second plane never received their landing clearance and went around, the center would stack them in holds start diverting and everyone would be safe until a plan of action could be put into effect. Worse case, those in the hold that can't divert and need to land, land at their discretion, exit on a taxiway and you have a mess of aircraft safely gridlocked on the ground.

Sure the guys in the tower would die but considering the amount of training that went into the 911 operation, I'm sure that they'd realise blowing up a tower would be pointless. And no I'm not an IFR controller trying to say the VFR guys aren't important just looking at it logically.

Sorry 7 centers... but does Gander really count?? I mean they are newfies!!!

[FamilyGuy]

JPC I understand your logic, but sometimes logic is best kept to oneself lest oneself be made to look like an ass.

Speaking of asses, all rationalization aside, I heard what the TV and paper news had to say about this and frankly its appaling.

You'd think after 9/11 and the world we live in today, cutting corners to save $$$ wouldn't happen when SECURITY of the ANS system is involved. Now that its in the news, all kinds of freaks will have all manner of ideas. Thanks to JPC's detailed postings they can focus their energy....

[invertedattitude]

Sorry 7 centers... but does Gander really count?? I mean they are newfies!!!

Gander provides some of the biggest income to NavCanada.

I know you're only joking, but most people don't grasp just how many airplanes traverse the NAT's every day.

For the record as well, its been the topic of discussion more than once about a centre being a terrorist target.

The Americans understand that, and their security is very intense when compared to ours.

Like I said however.

There's only two options IMO. An Open gate, or multiple heavily armed guards, anything in between is pointless.

[justplanecrazy]

Inverted, you're completely clueless. I worked in a very secure business prior to this job and have been inside places like the Canadian mint and the bank holding centers across Canada. Most of these places have no armed gaurds and believe me, they are a far greater target for more intelligent criminals, then the Centers are for terrorist attacks. Places that do have armed guards, usually use it only as a visible deterent and in reality they provide very little extra security at a huge cost. All you need is a secure access and camera monitoring with direct police links. It'd cost next to nothing and keep all but the most elite team out.

Family Guy, you agree that my logic is right but you say it makes me look like an ass??? Its that logic that I don't understand. My detailed post did what, tell the terrorists to not bother bombing Oshawa tower??? I think the center would have been the place they would have focused on to begin with. I find it highly unlikely that Bin Laden is surfing AVcanada reading my posts. This isn't something that they dream up inbetween surfing porn. There would be a lot of research done and whatever I've said could be dug up in minutes.

[kevenv]

You'd think after 9/11 and the world we live in today, cutting corners to save $$$ wouldn't happen when SECURITY of the ANS system is involved.

I would spend whatever it takes and do anything to keep my ANS secure. Remote monitoring just wouldn't cut it. No way any reporters, let alone terrorists, are getting in.

[invertedattitude]

JPC, ease up on the personal attacks man, can't we have a discussion here without dropping to that?


Here's the problem with your logic however JPC.

Places like the Canadian Mint, and financial institutions their goal is to keep people out from stealing items on the inside, they're not under a terrorist threat of any kind.

With regards to the centres safety, all someone has to do is get in the gate... that's it, a Budget rent-a-truck or a U-haul loaded with explosives and just drive it into the side of the ops room wall, and all of a sudden you have aviations biggest catatrophe on your hands.

Is your man-trap, and fancy lasers going to stop that? No.

Someone with an M-4 Carbine taking out the driver 500 feet from the building would or at least have a chance, and or some more sophisticated gate stuff, tire shredders etc.

Look, I'm not saying we need to have tanks and an army around every centre, but let me say this: If one of Canadas Air Traffic control centres came under terrorist attack, at the remaining ones you can be damn sure there would be a sizeable force surrounding the property.

That's the aviation business for you however, reactionairy not precautionairy.

Of course all of this is useless lasers and mantraps or armed forces, if someone just nose dives one through the roof.

I agree with JPC on one thing though, even IF OBL is reading these forums, I'm pretty sure they're more intelligent to think of fancier ways to hit more important targets than we can dream up.

[justplanecrazy]

Inverted, an armed guard isn't going to stop a couple of terrorists. There are water traps etc. at the mint that prevent a vehicle from being able to penetrate the grounds. It's not rocket science and if you had any experience in the industry, you'd realize how silly your machine gun talk is.

It'd cost the company a couple of million to make the alterations and a little over half a million in annual costs, to operate it. With all this media attention, don't be surprised if it happens.

[invertedattitude]

Tell your story to the Americans and the security at their centres.


A visable deterrent is not such a bad thing you know.

I'm not sure which country you're living in, but I have a hard time remembering the last time someone fired an RPG within North America at a sensitive target.

But I can remember the last time someone drove a delivery truck full of explosives and parked it.

(Something with the current security level could easily be done)


The fact is that ANY security system is breachable, but having a visable deterrent to doing so would help don't you think?

I'm not trying to say we SHOULD have a heavily armed protection force at the centres, but some sort of visable deterrent would add some layer of security that just isn't there, and I bet those reporters wouldn't have followed through the gate that day.

What's more expensive? Building and maintaining a laser system at every corner, which would also require doing so inside and outside the building, and building a moat around every centre. (j/k)
Or having a couple of armed guards at the gate?

I will admit however having the threat of forgetting my pass and having an over-zealous security guard taking pot-shots at me doesn't exactly turn my crank.

We at least agree on one thing the security needs to be changed

[renfley]

There is many things they can do to protect against terrorist attacks, has anybody seen the US Embassy in Ottawa? This building is literally car/truck bomb proof!

They can install stuff like Steel re-enforced columns that will stop a car or truck from smashing the Ops room wall, they can install laminate windows which would stop an AK round and will not shatter with the blast of a bomb, and an excellent set of cameras and a good perimeter fence.

They need layers of security!

Sure security guards can't do much in the event of a team of heavily armed gunmen, but he could press the alarm button!

Also, a security guard can stop people from tailgating someone as they enter the building.

The Idea of having a man trap is excellent! Swipe cards, retina scans, finger print scanners and all that biometrics is all nice, it just another way to control access, and make it harder for someone to get in.

So if I'm a would be terrorist, or some sort of spy and I wanted to get in, I'd have to pass through a security checkpoint at the gate, someone would have to lower the barrier for me to get in, then I'd have to enter the building through the man trap, provide a valid ID, have my fingerprints and eyes scanned, then I'd have to say " My voice is my password, verify me" and then the fancy do-hicky thing-a-ma-bob would open the other door to let me in. During all of this time, I'd have to watch out for all the security cameras, and hope I don't get caught!

On the other hand, I could get a couple squads of suicide bombers, attack with RPG's, blow up the fence and the guard station, blow up the man trap and make my way into the building killing everyone as I go.


Moral of the story, if someone really wants in, they're gonna get in!

But having all these layers of security, will deter most criminals or spies.
(why would a spy want in, not too sure, but hey, just trying to make my point!)

[yrp]

So what is the contingency plan if a centre has a fire or fire alarm? Is there a backup ops room?

If not, that would have a similar effect to a terrorist attack, albeit with perhaps a few minutes warning.

[FamilyGuy]

YRP I'm sure they have plans for fires and alarms - not quite the same thing as the building being blown up or commandeered.

JPC...???

[justplanecrazy]

Tell your story to the Americans and the security at their centres.

We all know how americans like thier guns... they really serve no purpose. It's really not a visible deterrent for anyone but the punk planning on stealing a car. It's just that... a show for the public. It doesn't deter it's just a pretend display of security.

I'm not sure which country you're living in, but I have a hard time remembering the last time someone fired an RPG within North America at a sensitive target.

A have a friend who managed to swaggle a shoulder launched missile from the military when he quit. It's not like we've seen many attacks here at all. Most of the ones that have happend have required a huge amount of explosives.

What's more expensive? Building and maintaining a laser system at every corner, which would also require doing so inside and outside the building, and building a moat around every centre. (j/k)
Or having a couple of armed guards at the gate?

Who said anything about a laser system?? I'm talking about a one time expense of $20,000 on some cameras with monitoring screens inside a secure bullet proof turret, a mantrap, and a secure perimeter/ gate, costing a total of maybe $500,000 per center with 500,000/yr annual costs. Look at the US embassy in Ottawa for example. They put up a bunch of cement barriers like they use on the highway, to prevent vehicles from getting close enough to blow it and they're only 20 feet from the building. Add a two gate vehicle trap with camera monitoring from the turret, allowing one vehicle in at a time. One guy can run the whole show and call the police as soon as anything suspicious occurs. By the time someone blasts the gate and starts to remove the secured cement barricade, there will be a lot more firepower then 4 armed guards stopping them.

What is that? $3.5 million in security upgrades and 500,000/yr after that. 4 armed guards times by 7 centers 24hrs at $20/hr costs $4.9 million every year, not including training costs, equipment costs, medical plans, insurance, time off, etc. Hell even if you chop it in half and have 2 armed guards who could be sniped before saying boo and then have no further protection available would still cost us $2.4 million a year plus all those other expenses listed. All armed guards do is make you feel cool as you go to work.

FamilyGuy, sorry for being a bit short, but hearing people talk about security to me is kind of like hearing a news reporter talk about ATC to you. If someone calls me an ass on top of it, I tend to take offence.

[invertedattitude]

You have valid points on most subjects.


With regards to our contingency plans, we're supposed to do our best to inform surrounding centres, transfer control of as many airplanes as they can see/reach by radio, for the remainder it's a

"Centre is being evacuated, turn up your fish finders and eyes out of the newspaper, your next frequency will be xxx.xx"

Well something a little more professional than that I suppose

I haven't had the displeasure of experiencing one yet, but it's happened at my centre before, or so the story goes anyway.

[Alex YCV]

I ahve to ask the obvious question: If you are going to have a gate and tall fence around a building at a safe distance, why would you not have a security guard on hand to patrol and secure it? It seems to me that if this is the level of security at the gate, why bother?

[bucks]

A have a friend who managed to swaggle a shoulder launched missile from the military when he quit.

I'm sorry but I'm going to have to call BS on that one.. unless your talking about some breakaway Russian state or something similar there is no way that someone left the military with anything like that.. unless you saw it yourself in which case you should be calling the police instead of hanging out here... seriously

... and just FYI putting a man at a gate with a gun DOES serve as a deterrent.. it shows that the location he's guarding is not a soft target.. the object is not to defend fortress Europe against the barbarian hord.. it has already been pointed out in this forum that if someone want's to get in they will.. the idea is to present a visable show of force to tell any would be attacker that this will not be a walk in the park.

Not to get on a soap box here but if you look at military bases around North America you'll see exactly the system I'm talking about.. and you can bet if there was a credible threat against ATC there would be an armed police/military force guarding them to some degree.. we practice it all the time...

[justplanecrazy]

Bucks it was used but still accounted for in the same way as the live ones.

I've only visited one base, CFB Moosejaw and we drove on with no MP's in sight. If one guy standing by a doorway is such a great deterrent, why wouldn't bank holding centers with billions of dollars, have them present? The bases have that presence in order to keep kids from breaking in and playing with tanks, fighter jets etc. That's not what the center is worried about. Believe me, the center is not a huge target to begin with. There are far bigger targets across North America and there are far more people after money then are after destruction.

Sure if you bring a military force with a tank, you can get through anything in a matter of minutes but why would they wast all that energy? If NC did everything that I've said, the Center would be considered not worth it and they'd go after a softer target.

Having someone walk around a km of fence leaves lots of room for someone to penetrate on the 3/4 km of fence that he can't see at any one time. The fence is there to slow things down and not be surprised. The cameras are there to monitor it from the turret, the gate is there to not let anyone in that you don't know about, the barricade would be inside the chain link fence, 20' from the building.

[bucks]

I've only visited one base, CFB Moosejaw and we drove on with no MP's in sight. If one guy standing by a doorway is such a great deterrent, why wouldn't bank holding centers with billions of dollars, have them present? The bases have that presence in order to keep kids from breaking in and playing with tanks, fighter jets etc.

I don't know how your one visit to a training base in the middle of the praries has qualified you as an expert on base defence and force protection. Without going into details (which wouldn't be wise on a public forum) there is a little (a lot) more to it that just keeping kids from playing with tanks and fighter jets.. the level of protection is varied depending on the level of threat and the value of the assets at any given location.. i.e. there isn't much other than a fence around a cadet camp.. but you'll be a human sprinkler before you'll ever touch a CF-18.

I didn't sugest that we place all our faith in one lone guard keeping an eye on the entire compound. An armed presence is just one part of a larger secuirty setup. The armed presence is there to show a possible threat that this is a hard target.. the system you described would be effective but a real live person on site cannot be replaced by a video camera.
I can't speak to the secuirty setup at a bank holding centre as I have never been to one.. but I don't really agree that its the same type of security.. at a bank you're trying to prevent a theft but in this case you're just trying to control entry.
Finally, I'm not saying that NavCanada needs to hire armed guard to defend their assets but there are merits to having one or at least a human onsite checking IDs.

Oh.. and a used rocket launcher is useful only as baseball bat.. that's about it.. they're one use only. I think you can buy them as a novelty in the US maybe even here

[justplanecrazy]

bucks, the used ones are accounted for the same as the new ones, even though they're useless. The point being, if someone wants arms, they can easily access them either through a crooked kid in the military or an underground source. I agree that there needs to be a live presence on site, that's why you have a live person inside the turret monitoring the cameras, checking id's, etc with a line to the police. He's locked in his little bullet proof turrett and requires no arms.

[Alex YCV]

bucks, the used ones are accounted for the same as the new ones, even though they're useless. The point being, if someone wants arms, they can easily access them either through a crooked kid in the military or an underground source. I agree that there needs to be a live presence on site, that's why you have a live person inside the turret monitoring the cameras, checking id's, etc with a line to the police. He's locked in his little bullet proof turrett and requires no arms.

The idea of doorlocks isn't to make your house 100% secure, but rather to keep the obvious idiots out. A car alarm or a steering wheel lock does nothing more really than deter everyone except determined thieves.

A single security guard with a 6 shooter isn't exactly strong defence, but a human can do way more than a stationary camera can, that much is clear. While I am sure a navcan employee could easily sneak a mini-MOAB in the door, that really isn't the point. No security can eliminate all risks, but basic stuff can certainly raise the security level a long way.

[justplanecrazy]

You know I've been thinking about what would happen if a center was wiped off the map. Besides the obvious deaths of the staff, there really isn't any certainty that planes will start dropping out of the sky. As soon as it happens planes will start talking to other planes and calling other centers/towers, all the planes would be grounded and divert to the nearest field, most planes have TCAS and although they might get some good looks at their coworkers and have a horrible fuel mileage ride, they'd probably keep their head out their window and in the TCAS to avoid any mid airs. Towers would step in and although their could be lots of technical sep losses and lengthy delays, everyone could very realistically get on the ground with no catastrophe. Makes you think that the center might not even be a target at all. Either way security needs to be improved but it's kind of a crap shoot whether it'd be an effective terrorist target at all. If procedures were improved, that may be the more effective way of eliminating the dangers of losing a center.