RESTRICTED
10. I feel it is worth reiterating a view I repressed during ou: dis ssions: I believe it is the responsibility of an Appropriate Authority to set standards and ensure their implementation, it does not need to implement them or pay for them. You might reasonably say what is required, and tell the aviation industry to get on with it. This is a simplistic interpretation, but there is a natural tendency to become directly involved, and it is not inevitable. I think present arrangements in Hong Kong, where a package of security equipment and qualified personnel are contracted to do what are required is very good. I suggest you may reasonably draft training requirements and check that the contractor fulfils them.
11. The question of inspecting the implementation of security requirements will have to be addressed: it did not appear that you had a readily available mechanism. You should know that following the loss of PA 103 we were questioned closely about the stringency of our inspection programme.
12.
I will be pleased to let you have any documents or information which we hold that might be helpful to you. I propose we should arrange for you to have access to the Research and Development programme and its results, and to the training aids which this Department produces. If at some stage you wish to send someone to London to collaborate on the production of a draft programme we would make the time available - the subject is very important.
13. May I again thank you and your colleagues for arranging my programme and giving me your time. It was for me a successful and enjoyable first visit to Hong Kong. I look forward to hearing your response to my proposals and to your views on the position of Hong Kong based airlines.
Best wishes.
J JACK
Director Overseas Transport Security
↓
RESTRICTED
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.