Plane returns in security scare

[Wirraway]

AAP

Plane returns in security scare
July 1, 2004

A SECURITY scare caused the return of a Korean Airlines flight to Sydney Airport overnight four hours after its departure.

The plane was on its way to Seoul when it was ordered back to Sydney because of a security issue with a passenger and his baggage, a spokesman for Transport Minister John Anderson said.

The Korean Airlines flight had taken off about 8pm (AEST) and was back at Sydney Airport by midnight.

"There was a security issue involving one passenger and his bags and we were of the view that the plane shouldn't have taken off," the spokesman said.

"The plane was ordered to return to Sydney by our department's office of transport security."

The passenger's baggage was removed from the plane on the flight's return to Sydney, but the passenger in question remained on board, the spokesman said.

"I don't believe anybody left the plane on its return to Sydney except for one woman who did leave but for unrelated reasons."

It was allowed to take off early this morning with "everything considered to be fine", the spokesman said.

The incident was being investigated by the Office of Transport Security, he said.

"Obviously we take any issues involving aviation security very, very seriously and there were further checks done at Sydney."

AAP

======================================
repost from "Sydney Airport Message board

James Rockford
Member

Joined: 27 Dec 1999
Posts: 123
Location: Sydney NSW
Age: 45
Posted: Thu Jul 01, 2004 11:38 am Post subject:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

As far as I was aware, it had nothing to do with the passenger themselves only that they had tested positive to the Explosives analysis when screened by SNP.

For one reason or another, their hold bags were not checked as per procedure. Either SNP didn't do it, or KE didn't do it to get the aircraft out on time.

I believe it was SNP who informed DOTARS about the breach. That, and the fact that they ordered the aircraft back from north of Cairns, makes me think it was KE's fault. Perhaps it was almost 'punishment'.

Two passengers disembarked on returning to Sydney, for unrelated reasons. As did the aircrew who were happily replaced by another weary overnighting crew.

Presume the landing was exempted as they were ordered back and given dispensation.

Word was that even Little Johnny was awoken especially. I'm sure my sleep is more important than his

==========================================

[RampDog]

I was involved in the 2nd turnaround on the B744 / KE812, which originally departed on time at 1930 local. I got a call at 2315, from a rather upset Korean Airlines rep, to advise that it doing an air return, and was back on Bay 51 at 0135.
The pax weren't disembarked (poor devils), while the official bag scrutiny was performed (some dudes just checking out several bags), and the airline reps organised a new crew, fuel and extra catering.
I do believe from my conversation with the Korean rep, that it was made to return as "punishment" for breaching the security protocols, but I guess they stoically had to accept the decision, as it was their stuff up.
It has cost them a fortune, as I believe they are up for $A150000 curfew penalty/dispensation fee + 82000 litres of extra fuel + new crew + catering + etc, etc.
I left the a/c at 0335 and I think it departed at approx 0400.

Confucious say "Bugger!!"

[Yorik Hunt]

Just doing the math there, the aircraft departed at 1930 and was RTB at 0135. That means there was an elapsed time of over six hours. That means that the guy was close to three hours up the track. Surely that would have placed him closer to BNE, CNS or DRW?

Think if there was some sort of security issue I'd be going to the nearest suitable, not all the way back to SYD.

[RampDog]

Yorik
Your calcs are right, I was told that it had reached north of CNS when told to return. With a security breach such as had occurred, you'd think that they would waste no time getting back on terra firma.
How serious was this breach deemed to be, if they could just cruise back to SYD. in their own good time. As I said in the previous post, I think this was done to show them "who's boss" and as a "punishment" for failing to follow the process.

Keeping in mind that the authorities probably weren't sh***ing, themselves about a possible bomb, then they could really teach the Airline in question a lesson. Seems vindictive but its their call.
Personally I feel sorry for everyone inconvenienced just to prove a point, but as they say "Life's a beach" (it's really annoying when you get sand in your cossie)

[Yorik Hunt]

Think you are probably right in what you say Ramp. Sad indictment of our security system if its true. Its black and white as far as I'm concerned. Either you have completed your security requirements, or you haven't. If you haven't, then you do whatever you can to make it right. Now. Not three hours later.

[No Further Requirements]

Perhaps the reason for the return to YSSY was that if they landed at CS/DN/BN and the delay was longer than XXhrs they would have been out of crew duty time without a replacement crew? Just a thought. Cheers,

NFR.

[NOSIGN]

:confused:
Can anyone answer why the acft was ordered to return to Sydney? I mean why Sydney?

If an acft did have a bomb on it, would you want it to land at Sydney, as opposed to an AP with fewer movements, a city with a smaller population, shorter buildings, etc?

NOSIGN

[Lurk R]

Perhaps the reason for the return to YSSY was that if they landed at CS/DN/BN and the delay was longer than XXhrs they would have been out of crew duty time without a replacement crew?

I know where you're coming from but just say something did go pear-shaped bomb-related between CNS and SYD but the airlines response was - well, we're sorry the a/c was blown up but it would have been hard getting a crew to CNS.

[7gcbc]

Well as an Irishman living in OZ, I never thought i'd find a more vindictive and "jobsworth" crowd of public servants than the irish government anywhere on the planet.

I guess I'll have to eat my hat ?

OZ just has too many levels of government, plain and simple, you actualy have too many boring civil servants trying to find some reason to their existance, thus c**p like this happens.

a/c returned to SYD because some public servant wanted to flex his tiny testicles.......

rubbish

[Wirraway]

Fri "The Australian"

Airline threat over explosives test
By Steve Creedy, Aviation writer
July 02, 2004

TRANSPORT security officials had to threaten to withdraw Korean Air's right to fly to Australia to convince one of its aircraft to return to Sydney with a passenger who had tested positive for explosives, it was revealed yesterday.

Flight KE812 left Sydney as scheduled at 7.45pm on Wednesday and was north of Cairns about 10pm when told by Transport Department officials to turn back. Australian officials said the aircraft was initially reluctant to obey and a tough line was taken to convince the airline to comply.

"We did threaten them with the suspension of their right to fly into Australia if they didn't return," a source said.

Security officials wanted the Seoul-bound plane and its 288 passengers back after the airline bundled a late passenger who tested positive in a trace explosion test on to the plane and took off without rescreening her five pieces of checked baggage.

False positives are not unusual but the procedural breach was considered serious enough to take the unusual step of ordering back the aircraft, believed to be a first for Australia and among a handful of examples worldwide since September 11.

The embarrassing security lapse yesterday prompted a high-level federal government inquiry and escalated into a round of finger-pointing as the airline and Sydney Airport blamed each other for the bungle. Angry aviation security officials also warned other international airlines that they faced similar treatment if they failed to follow correct procedures.

"This serves as a warning that if this sort of situation occurs, aircraft are not to take off and we must be notified and appropriate procedures and protocols followed," Office of Transport Security first assistant secretary Andrew Tongue said yesterday. Procedure says the bags of anybody who returns a positive result must be offloaded and rescreened even if there is no further evidence of problems at the security check point.

According to government and airport sources, Korean Air's airport station manager was aware the passenger had tested positive but insisted the plane should leave on time.

The woman passenger was the last traveller to board the flight and Korean ground staff had been combing the airport trying to find her.

One source said the station manager was escorting the passenger through the security screening when she was pulled over for random explosive trace test.

The test is understood to have given mixed results, with one negative and two positive traces, but a search produced no further results.

Trace detection equipment sometimes gives false positive if it detects aftershave or recently dry-cleaned clothes.

An airport source said the Korean manager had been keen for the aircraft to leave on time and became "quite animated" at suggestions of a delay. Australian Protective Services officers were called by contract security staff but discovered on arrival the woman had been boarded and the plane had left. It was not clear why it then took airport or airline officials more than an hour to alert the Office of Transport Security to the breach or why another hour passed before the plane was turned back.

After the aircraft arrived back early yesterday morning, the woman's bags were offloaded, checked, cleared and the plane took off about 4am.

=========================================

[DomeAir]

Assuming the above account is correct, then congrats to the relevant agencies for chasing this one down. Obviously a very frustrating and expensive exercise for all involved, however, if some airline station manager simply wants to avoid a late departure by circumventing security requirements, then be prepared for the consequences.

And apart from the on time issue, if I was the station manager and had a last to board/hard to find pax who then returned a positive explosive result, I wouldn't want that aircraft leaving until their bags were screened anyway!

Haven't seen the paper yet but I wonder if KAL made the deadline for the aviation jobs section this week...

:uhoh:

[Yorik Hunt]

From what has been said so far - and there is always another side to the story - there is zero justification for the aircraft not landing at CNS or BNE - getting the check completed and then proceeding. The nearest suitable airport.

I think NFR is right - they were after another crew. But that really is irrelevant until the safety of the aircraft is certain. They SHOULD NOT have returned to SYD.

The fact that they did is almost worse than the original security breach

[amos2]

Most of you seem unaware of who would have made the final decision as to where to land if there were a genuine concern for the safety of the A/C.

If there was a genuine concern then SYD doesn't quite fit the bill as "nearest suitable"!

Last time I looked at the ANRs, Station managers and other assorted ground staff were not classified as "Pilot in Command"!

Might be a few people losing their balls and jobs over this one!

[Yorik Hunt]

Think you have repeated exactly what I already said, amos.

But there is another element here. That is 'saving face'. We all know that the PIC is the man who should make the D, and certainly would on a western airline. But I wonder who really is in charge with KAL?