PDA

View Full Version : Hijack attempt on Malaysia Airlines


A320 Flyer
31st May 2017, 15:10
https://m.malaysiakini.com/news/384154

Metro man
31st May 2017, 15:14
**********BREAKING NEWS***********

Suspected hijacking attempt on MH128 Melbourne Kuala Lumpur and returned shortly after departure with passenger attempting to enter cockpit claiming to have explosives.

Melbourne airport in lockdown. Some flights being diverted to Avalon. All roads are blocked off around the airport

MORE TO COME

1a sound asleep
31st May 2017, 15:39
Malaysian cant get a break. Sounds like all are safe

Moneymoneymoneymoney
31st May 2017, 19:33
Would you look at that... Aussie cops first thing they do ask to stop filming them. Again.

Malaysia Airlines flight grounded in Melbourne after man threatens to blow up plane (http://www.news.com.au/travel/travel-updates/incidents/disruptive-passenger-grounds-flight-after-storming-cockpit/news-story/5949c1e9542df41fb89e6cdcdc16b615)

TWT
31st May 2017, 22:06
Money recurring,I suggest that your criticism be directed toward the instigator of this incident rather than the guys who have to go in and sort out his mess.

After the 2 major events of the last few years,the last thing Malaysian needs is a wannabee hijacker stirring up trouble !

Sunfish
31st May 2017, 22:28
The AFP guys are a counter terror outfit. Similar to SAS - you don't want them filmed.

KRviator
31st May 2017, 23:14
The AFP guys are a counter terror outfit. Similar to SAS - you don't want them filmed.You're got that wrong, Sunfish. they don't want to be filmed. They don't want any evidence of ol' mate falling down the stairs. 6 times....

Minimbah
31st May 2017, 23:17
Even the Australian media respect the fact that CT/Special Foeces personnel are not to be filmed, or, at a minimum, their faces blurred. It is to protect the personal safety of those personnel and also so that their operational tactics are not disclosed to possible adversaries. That would be why they asked passengers to stop filming.

logansi
31st May 2017, 23:18
I was under the impression that it was get down and put your phones down because if your holding a phone up then your not getting down.

compressor stall
31st May 2017, 23:29
From the news, quoting some footy player...
"Staff grabbed the object, which we're not sure what it was, he was claiming to blow the plane up with, and walked it back to the front of the plane."


If true where is the LRBL on that aircraft? It would surprise me if it was towards the front?

CurtainTwitcher
1st Jun 2017, 00:22
Wouldn't transferring passengers onto buses seperate them from any neferious contents of hand baggage and so further reduce the risk?
Decision making in a dynamic, constantly evolving environment with incomplete information, where have I heard that before?

I'm sure they did the best they could with what they had. We can always criticise & question in hindsight, with the facts available to us, and an analysis at our leisure.

logansi
1st Jun 2017, 01:27
Couple of updates:

Herald Sun says:

LATEST: A MAN who claimed to have a bomb on a Malaysia Airlines flight from Melbourne had been released from a psychiatric facility yesterday, police say.

And police confirm:
device onboard #MH128 was a music player about the size of a shoe

wheels_down
1st Jun 2017, 02:50
90min wait.

I assume these Special Forces were all called out of bed at the odd hour? Or are these guys on standby 24/7?

Bit odd considering the AFP Facility is 500m away. The media didn't buy the Chief Commissioners excuses this morning for the wait either, got nailed.

TWT
1st Jun 2017, 04:01
Report: Police cock-up delayed MH128 evacuation for over an hour (VIDEO) | Malaysia | Malay Mail Online (http://www.themalaymailonline.com/malaysia/article/report-police-cock-up-delayed-mh128-evacuation-for-over-an-hour)

Confused communications didn't help.

Icarus2001
1st Jun 2017, 04:19
The "alleged" perpetrator was bound up like a suckling pig, better point my semi automatic at him just in case.

The crew and passengers appear to have done a good job in "neutralising" the threat, hand him to the baggage handlers for special care.

neville_nobody
1st Jun 2017, 04:54
Not sure I would be sitting on my hands for 1.5 hours if a guy had threatened the aircraft with a bomb. Possibly they figured out he wasn't the real deal, or he conceded once he was tied up but who's going to take that risk?

Maybe someone should ask why passengers are funding the AFP if they are not there when actually needed?

Sure someone can sleep in, miss the phone etc, but just send a squad car round there and haul him out of bed and whisk him to the airport. Doesn't take 90 minutes to do that.

I'm getting the impression this is another installment of that early 21st century work called 'Security Theater'

mrdeux
1st Jun 2017, 04:57
Not sure I really see the logic....suspected/possible explosive device on board. So keep the passengers on the aircraft with it.

Lookleft
1st Jun 2017, 05:10
Aviation management consultant Trevor Jensen said the delay in the police response seemed to be excessive, and may have caused more stress to passengers.

Didn't Trevor go ballistic at people when he didn't get his way?

mrdeux
1st Jun 2017, 05:32
Just how certain are you that the perpetrator was acting alone?

Until absolutely certain everyone on the aircraft is who they say they are and are not involved in the incident the threat still exists. But of course, you know better.

Yes, but why are you keeping the passengers, the supposed device, and an aircraft full of fuel, in close proximity? If the device had been real, this would seem to overwhelm any potential issue from a possible other perp.

Icarus2001
1st Jun 2017, 05:51
Your ignorant diatribe further demonstrates you have absolutely no idea.

Why the personal attack? Further demonstrates? Is there a pattern?

Just how certain are you that the perpetrator was acting alone?

I didn't mention he was acting alone. The aircraft was on the ground. Mute point.

Until absolutely certain everyone on the aircraft is who they say they are and are not involved in the incident the threat still exists.

What threat? If an accomplice had the ability to detonate another (?) device they would have done so in the air, not wait until the aircraft was parked in a remote spot on the ground. Ergo, no bomb threat, only a possible accomplice to track down.

The second line was a joke, lighten up.

Buster Hyman
1st Jun 2017, 06:49
They don't want any evidence of ol' mate falling down the stairs. 6 times....
And your evidence to support this outrageous libel is precisely what?
Have personally seen & heard a belligerent, drunken pax be thrown into the lift in the arrivals hall at Tulla. VicPol on that occasion as the AFP were...'unable to assist' us. No cameras, no reports...maybe a slight headache when he woke up at Broady but a good job all round.

Icarus2001
1st Jun 2017, 07:11
Don't worry, there will be another enquiry (a la Lindt cafe) from which we will discover that "procedures were not followed" and that "better co-ordination is required between agencies".

Yes, minister.

Angle of Attack
1st Jun 2017, 08:15
I have seen a lot of bollocks on pprune in the years and I can confidently say this thread has most of it. Deer with no eyes?.....No idea...and no I don't post much.

AerialPerspective
1st Jun 2017, 08:39
The "alleged" perpetrator was bound up like a suckling pig, better point my semi automatic at him just in case.

The crew and passengers appear to have done a good job in "neutralising" the threat, hand him to the baggage handlers for special care.
Yes, the crew and pax did a good job sorting him out... which does raise the question in this time of Australia leaning more and more toward militarisation of Police whether it was indeed necessary for what looked like a dozen heavily armed and adorned SAS people to come on board for one mentally disturbed man tied to a chair who couldn't move... am I the only one that thinks this was someone over the top.

Also, considering the fact he was restrained, why the hour before they 'stormed' the aircraft (stormed being the media word for 'walked on board casually') - were they waiting until sufficient media to be there for the 'storming'.

Just a bit cynical in these days of post-Abbott and Dutton penchant for adding 'Force' the end of every Commonwealth agency. What's next, 'CentreLink Force' and Centrelink clerks carrying weapons???

logansi
1st Jun 2017, 10:08
Yes, the crew and pax did a good job sorting him out... which does raise the question in this time of Australia leaning more and more toward militarisation of Police whether it was indeed necessary for what looked like a dozen heavily armed and adorned SAS people to come on board for one mentally disturbed man tied to a chair who couldn't move... am I the only one that thinks this was someone over the top.

Also, considering the fact he was restrained, why the hour before they 'stormed' the aircraft (stormed being the media word for 'walked on board casually') - were they waiting until sufficient media to be there for the 'storming'.

Just a bit cynical in these days of post-Abbott and Dutton penchant for adding 'Force' the end of every Commonwealth agency. What's next, 'CentreLink Force' and Centrelink clerks carrying weapons???

Sadly that's the world we live in now, even the UK is starting to arm most officers. There was talk last week about arming some foot police in Melbourne with automatic weapons.

Pinky the pilot
1st Jun 2017, 10:48
There was talk last week about arming some foot police in Melbourne with automatic weapons.

Perish the thought! Given the average beat Copper`s proficiency with their standard issue pistols, most of them are;

`A danger to themselves and the general public when it comes to the use of their sidearms!`:eek:

(And that quote comes from an acquaintance who once served as a firearms Instructor for the South Australian Police Force.):hmm:

hoss
1st Jun 2017, 11:47
Relax guys, this was just a trial run. They just wanted to confirm 'Australia' isn't ready for some real terrorism. The result speaks for itself.

cattletruck
1st Jun 2017, 12:38
Perhaps the shrink who released him out into the wild should bare some responsibility for this disruption, but how would they know this person would then go buy an airline ticket and have an neurotic episode in flight.

Are travel agents allowed to ask about your medical history, is it a compulsory question when booking online? No.

Perhaps the shrinks should arrange some adjustment time for these ill people before they are allowed near heavy machinery, particularly if there is no support.

Mental health issues are the new scourge of the modern world and their is no one size fits all answer to the problem. This situation is also not helped by the many inexperienced psychologists seeking to make a nice quick buck out of this profession.

Ida down
1st Jun 2017, 12:44
The way the public are looking at this is; the stated police logic is the best way of keeping 300 folk safe is for them to remain locked in a fuelled jet, with a known suspect device onboard, because there could be a second bomb and accomplice on board!

Public won't buy that.

They also won't buy the concept that a swat team will neutralise the accomplice without further risk to passengers, either by friendly fire or the accomplice preemptively detonating his device.

What risk was there in quickly removing the suspect device and the nutter? Or disembarking passengers, without hand luggage into busses?

Don't need to wait for a swat team to achieve any of that.

What certainty was there that there wasn't a real device with a timer onboard?

There is no outcry that the guys who tackled the suspect in the air put lives at risk.



MickjoebillProbably checking the legal rights of the nutter. PC and all that.

faheel
1st Jun 2017, 21:59
mrdeux, I totally agree with you.

I just watched the Victorian police commissioner,(at least I think that's who he was ) defending the 90 min delay in allowing pax off the flight.
His logic is so flawed he needs to at the very least go back for retraining,at worst demoted.

Statements like possibly another "terrorist" on board ,an explosive device, or maybe even the aircraft being booby trapped are all valid concerns.
What is absolutely not acceptable is keeping 300 people locked up in a tin tube surrounded by 70 tonnes of kero.

There is no excuse for getting those passengers out of harms way in the shortest possible time,15 mins would the maximum time I would be prepared to leave my pax on board and only after assessing that the perpetrator was restrained and I was satisfied that there was no bomb on board.
And there's the rub, if he said that the item that he had was a bomb I am not in a position to confirm or deny that, in that case you must evacuate immediately.

Leaving it up to anyone on the ground to make that assessment is not an option.

Rodney Rotorslap
1st Jun 2017, 22:20
It's hard to be critical of the police but could it be that they got bogged down in checklists, risk assessments and rehearsals for fear that by making a split second decision they could be second-guessed by a leisurely two year inquiry? Did they consult with the captain? I can't imagine he would not want his pax off the aeroplane immediately.

CaptainMidnight
1st Jun 2017, 22:33
Well said, faheel & mrdeux.

If the same incident scenario happened in the U.S. or indeed the U.K., France or Germany I can't imagine it taking up to an hour and a half for the authorities to enter the aircraft.

spinex
1st Jun 2017, 22:41
I think you probably nailed it Rodney R and that is absolutely no reflection on the boots on ground people who stand the risk of not making it home to their families, management seem to be hellbent on disciplining out any trace of initiative or common sense.

I have got to say that I would be extremely unhappy if I or loved ones were left cooped up in a threatening environment for 90mins whilst someone extracted his/her head from their digestive tract; either you take the threat seriously, in which case you get pax out asap or you don't in which case 2 officers could have waltzed onboard and bounced shitbags down as many stairs as they deemed necessary. FFS, even the most backward of airports seems to have no difficulty in keeping pax coralled in one area and isolating them from outside contact.

Rabbitwear
1st Jun 2017, 23:24
I think the Captain was in charge while waiting for the Police so would certainly have been within his rights to pop the slides and take all passengers off out of harms way , the threat was not yet 100% confirmed either way .
Good information learned from this rely on your instincts and not the external Police /Swat teams .

Band a Lot
1st Jun 2017, 23:34
I have been told by many and often- The Pilot In Command is in charge and has ultimate responsibility, when he is on the aircraft at times like this.

So why did he not evacuate the aircraft?


Not one of you have mentioned this ultimate person of responsibility - but now want to blame police for not taking control when apparently it is the captain who did not follow the regs.

Capn Bloggs
1st Jun 2017, 23:52
but now want to blame police for not taking control when apparently it is the captain who did not follow the regs.
What regs?

faheel
1st Jun 2017, 23:58
Cpt Bloggs
you know, the "regs" :)

Dora-9
2nd Jun 2017, 00:00
Didn't Trevor go ballistic at people when he didn't get his way? Lookleft - all the time! But I thought he talked a lot of sense about this episode.

Band a Lot
2nd Jun 2017, 00:02
They are all listed in the thread a month or so back - with lots of cheat beating.

But those "captains" seem quiet on this!

Around the United Doctor removal time.

itsnotthatbloodyhard
2nd Jun 2017, 00:34
You've really got a bee in your bonnet about this, don't you, Bandalot?

Band a Lot
2nd Jun 2017, 00:44
Well I am of the opinion that there would be a standard procedure for this type of threat. I am of the opinion that once this aircraft landed the Captain should follow instructions given from the ground.

I seems this Captain followed the regulations and followed instructions given.

One that did not and ordered an evacuation after being told to wait for further instructions could be accountable for personal injury's that would follow. These are of the type that should not be blaming the police for taking too long - but they are!

LostProperty
2nd Jun 2017, 00:53
Perhaps the shrinks should arrange some adjustment time for these ill people before they are allowed near heavy machinery, particularly if there is no support.

Mental health issues are the new scourge of the modern world and their is no one size fits all answer to the problem. This situation is also not helped by the many inexperienced psychologists seeking to make a nice quick buck out of this profession.

One of the reasons there are so many disturbed souls walking the streets is that governments have ruthlessly reduced the places available in mental institutions. It's not that long ago that someone who had just been cast out of a mental institution would not have been able to buy an airline ticket because he would not have had control of his own finances - that would have been the job of a guardian.

nose,cabin
2nd Jun 2017, 01:17
Bomb or attempted hijack.
The hijack was well controlled but not the bomb identified as not real.

There is no such thing as half emergency.

land as soon as possible.
Require and expect full ground support.
If no air stairs to disembark passengers then use the slides. This would be mentioned on the declaration of emergency , ie, require full services after landing and expect immediate aircraft evacuation .
Otherwise continue to destination airport without
emergency declaration.

There was a similar thread was on prune re SIA b777 wing fire, in Singapore when the ground staff fire services, convinced the cockpit crew only half an emergency existed. The passengers were held onboard against their will. they saw and knew a fire was raging outside in the entire right wing.

When the crew decided to return to departure airport immediately, ie land as soon as possible, to save time exposed to the threat, , they declare emergency Pan Pan call, and request high speed arrival without delay.
If there is no threat to the aircraft or passengers, then continue to destination.

No police presence is needed.
an emergency specific bomb threat, is promulgated in the regs.

Evacuate immediately after landing use air stairs if possible otherwise use emergency escape slides.

If a" specific bomb threat" is declared
the bomb was visible , take all precautions to protect passengers from an explosion.

The Bomb,s trigger could be time- clock switched, sensor movement, pressure sensor, remote trigger.all these must be taken as a serious threat to the passengers and aircraft.
No half emergency , to be considered.

The decision should be standard operating procedure.

( at any time)
If a passenger makes a " threat to the aircraft or crew " see your FAM procedures,
They MUST be removed from the aircraft, immediately .
no withdrawal of the "threat" is permitted at a later time saying "only a joke I was not serious."

PoppaJo
2nd Jun 2017, 01:25
This pilot had the right idea.

316L_Hp9TKs

Capn Bloggs
2nd Jun 2017, 01:33
I thought he was gunna DO IT...

Ida down
2nd Jun 2017, 03:05
Commentstors say the 90 minute delay to disembarkation was so police could check the passenger list and maybe raid the guys house, to investigate the possibility of an accomplice.
Fine, but it is nonsense that the suspect device couldn't have been removed from the plane to reduce the threat, be it real or imagined both are damaging to passengers.

No doubt it's easier for the good guys to take out the bad guy when they know where he is seated so keeping passengers onboard and in their assigned seat has merit, up to the point where the accomplice detonates his bomb or a gunfight starts in a densely populated environment.

Wouldn't transferring passengers onto buses seperate them from any neferious contents of hand baggage and so further reduce the risk?

MickjoebillHow times have changed. In my day, the Skipper would have grabbed the bloke and frog marched him down the isle and dropkicked him into the waiting arms of Constable Plod, who would have rammed his head into the closest wall, then thrown him into the Paddywagon, and he would have spent some uncomfortable nights as a guest of His/Her Majesty, then brought before a Magistrate who had no political leanings, and was not remotely interested in The Rights of the felon. But then again we were mainly spared these idiots, for some unknown reason.

ACMS
2nd Jun 2017, 04:10
I give a big thumbs up to the AA34 Captain, told them in clear terms.

Can't say I'd be too chuffed to sit in there for 90 mins while the Cops walked around at a safe distance with their fingers up their......

Hopefully we can all learn from AA34 and MH128 so we know what should happen in future because this won't be the last ********.

Band a Lot
2nd Jun 2017, 06:32
Simply by seeing emergency vehicles surrounding his aircraft is reason to evacuate!

What if the reason was some loony running around shooting people was hiding under his aircraft.

He should do as he is told and hold, if he is not happy with that discuss it - not just not follow instructions.

I find his demand to have info given over the radio very foolish - that could be heard by a person with the detonator and then they may have pulled the trigger.

We don't know the background of this bomb threat (well I don't) but if I were asked to call that number and clearly knowing something was up, I would have clicked this is private sensitive info that they can not say over radio.

BOMBS PART 1. THREATS! WHAT TO DO? - Aviation Above (http://www.aviationabove.com/bombs-part-1-threats-what-to-do/)

Band a Lot
2nd Jun 2017, 06:43
Or - There is a bomb on one those 2 aircraft that just taxied out.

* Do not tell them or I will blow it up.
* If any attempt is made for people to get off I will blow it up.
* Make what ever demand they want.

So if the Captain refuses to follow an instruction and just to get an answer over radio decides to evacuate - BANG!

There was no know reason for him to know of any possible danger that would require an evacuation - they would have had food water and air conditioning.

If you don't have all the information it is foolish to make a non standard decision - and an aircraft evacuation often leads to injury's.

ACMS
2nd Jun 2017, 06:53
Ha ha, funny. You stay onboard an Aircraft with a possible explosive device for 90 mins and then tell me how you feel during then after. :ugh:

Quite a detailed procedure contained in the QRH, maybe you should actually read it and then follow it. That's if you even have a QRH, if not then I could tell you but......

ACMS
2nd Jun 2017, 07:03
There is a lot of info about what to do if a device is found. It appears this checklist was not followed, why?

Rabbitwear
2nd Jun 2017, 08:29
Please send the cockhead back to Malaysia for the death Penalty, there'll be no justice in Australia!

PeterTG
2nd Jun 2017, 08:35
Did not the security people learn anything from the coroner's report into the Lindt Chocolat siege?

From the time the passengers and cabin crew overpowered and secured the mentally ill man, took away his 'bomb,' and the aircraft landed, the situation altered in a subtle way. The passengers on the aircraft actually then became hostages. They were hostages locked in an aluminium tube, surrounded by 70 tonnes of jet fuel (apologies to a previous poster), not to mention being kept in proximity to what was thought could be a bomb, and fed no information, as far as can be ascertained, but could see the their aircraft surrounded by armed police.
This over a 90 minute period
I leave it to others to determine who then the hostage takers were.

The question should be not 'why did it take so long to 'storm' the aircraft.' but rather 'why did they not release the hostages immediately after landing via air stairs and opening one or more of the doors.'

Band a Lot
2nd Jun 2017, 09:16
But Police chief said that passengers would still be on the aircraft if the incident occurred in USA!

Mjb


Seems that may be true! that AA24 of audio supplied is reported to be 1.5 hours with a total of a 2 hour delay - last I checked JFK was still in USA.

Band a Lot
2nd Jun 2017, 09:33
Can I ask how much bomb threat training is given for a ATPL and/or a type rating?

Is any training ever given?


Serious question if any I expect less than an hour with zero recurrent training.


I actually expect it is only transponder code selection and a call for a sterile cabin inspection.

ACMS
2nd Jun 2017, 10:32
You know what happens when you ASSUME don't you :=

Rest assured we get sufficient training on these matters.

Band a Lot
2nd Jun 2017, 10:41
Seems not ACMS. Seems not!

So don't lie. You don't even know the exact point you do or do not have legal responsibility.

But a bomb course from behind a locked door - You are a Super Hero!

After way over 30 years in the industry - I would have heard some of this type of training - but no never!

Deaf
2nd Jun 2017, 12:52
Police officer has said something like

Immeadiste offender is tied up by crew/passingers. After plane has landed and sitting there we think there might be someone else with a real bomb (source you peasants can't know) Our solution with a bomb threat (real or imagined) is hold 350 people on to of 70 tons of fuel until fancy boys can get there and the press are there to film our heroics

Idea of one stair at the rear immeadiatly, 2 cops go on and pull people out few at a time, no baggage other cops quick search and onto transport (or left right). That wouldn't allow the ego trip

Legal types tonight suggested that the OIC (given above) was nudging Attempted Murder

feueraxt
2nd Jun 2017, 16:57
Commentstors say the 90 minute delay to disembarkation was so police could check the passenger list and maybe raid the guys house, to investigate the possibility of an accomplice.

Mickjoebill

The cops better have a damn good reason for suspecting there was an accomplice. The publicly available facts at the moment don't give any reason to support that presumption.

KRviator
2nd Jun 2017, 21:55
Be interesting to see if any ambulance-chasing lawyers now try a "mental anguish" claim against Victoria Police for their decision to hold the passengers on board...Unfortunately I wouldn't put it past 'em.

Band a Lot
3rd Jun 2017, 03:16
"sufficient training on these matters" would certainly be if possible identify the offender.

Pass that information onto ATC!

The offenders ID would be checked against data bases, any red flags you would "assume" would be followed up.

I expect that would include but not be limited to.

Police
Mental institution
Doctor treating this person
Department of Immigration and Boarder Protection (Student Visa)
Education Provider
Teachers from Education Provider
Malaysian Airlines
Travel agent if used.

Not a five minute job.

Also all on-board need to be detained until cleared - this alone can be difficult, directing a large crowd to a secure holding area that would be quite excited after the event.

AerialPerspective
3rd Jun 2017, 03:36
Sadly that's the world we live in now, even the UK is starting to arm most officers. There was talk last week about arming some foot police in Melbourne with automatic weapons.
Technically, they already have automatic weapons... the Glock automatic pistol they carry as opposed to the old .38 Smith and Wesson revolvers but I know what you mean, military style long arm weapons.

wheels_down
3rd Jun 2017, 03:42
Meanwhile do the same in Indonesian Airspace and you can guarantee a swift exit...
http://resources1.news.com.au/images/2014/04/25/1226896/379789-1761e350-cc6f-11e3-9484-00a97bf135c7.jpg

Flying Binghi
3rd Jun 2017, 04:15
Poor ol Oz Police. Damned if they do and damned if they don't. Oz has been relativly quiet re Terrorism type events so i'd say most police still be a bit inexperienced re how to handle any given situation.





.

Capn Bloggs
3rd Jun 2017, 04:26
The offenders ID would be checked against data bases, any red flags you would "assume" would be followed up.
That'd be the bloke flat on his guts, tied up. What "flags" would need following up? Text all his facebook friends and ask for their location and terrorist leanings?

Damned if they do and damned if they don't.
Can't think of a recent instance where they have been damned for "do"ing something...

LeadSled
3rd Jun 2017, 04:54
Can I ask how much bomb threat training is given for a ATPL and/or a type rating?Band a lot,
I do know what training is given at one particular airline, and it is detailed and quite comprehensive --- using real world expeience.

It would be silly to try and put that in license training, as it would, perforce, be so general as to be useless. Nor is type rating training the place, for the same reason.

The place where it should be (and in my experience in two countries and their systems) is with the operators emergency procedures initial and recurrent, along with frequent updates to those who "need to know".

Sadly, in my opinion, it looks like the Melbourne incident revealed the same kind of amateur hour Keystone Kops as revealed in the Sydney siege Coroners Report. For the police services, not a one off, but a systemic problem, and if my experience is anything to go by, the result of petty internal bureaucratic political priorities ( as well, probably, politicians' political "priorities") nonsense taking precedents over "real world" issues.

Tootle pip!!

PS: Having had some experience with Thunder-flashes, (flash bangs) I can well imagine, in Sydney, what resulted in the foyer group. I "shakes m' head" in wonder. As for the police "shooter" firing 17 rounds at one target ???

Band a Lot
3rd Jun 2017, 05:16
I can think of many terrorist events that have been carried out by numerous persons with both a single device and multiple devices.

Flags that would be raised from outside aircraft that is still flying could be.

His name
Nationality
Age
Sex
Religion

Can match a radicalized person with terrorist intentions - was he a lone wolf or an accomplice. Would the accomplice be the real hiding cell waiting to blow up some special forces persons (killing cops is a favourite) and this person just a decoy?

Once his mental record came to light and investigated the likely hood of knowing if it was actually a bomb or if he would be involved would give a better understanding of the gravity of the situation.

So to immediately have a squad of police meet the aircraft on its arrival and either remove the bomb and Bluetooth speaker or offload pax could be the trap and key for the sleeper to detonate.

They would decide when to have maximum effect by the announcement of Captain or Cabin Crew to either stay seated or exit the aircraft.

Interviewing pax is different from clearing them as possible suspects.

* They use to give young kids a bit of a clip under the ear to straighten them up - they get damned for doing that now!

Band a Lot
3rd Jun 2017, 05:30
LeadSled - I am familiar with some of the live aircraft training these Special Force Cops use to get in Perth. I got detailed info from one such event on an Australian Airlines aircraft. Airline staff are on board during this.

The boys are fairly brutal and zero consideration is given to the aircraft during training (nor should it be).

Over the years I have had many mates join many of the big airlines, while emergencies are certainly part of company training. Not one of them has ever mentioned detailed live bomb threat or hijack training.

The training they have mentioned is as above, where they are part of the Special Forces Training - while they experience the event and thunder bombs, they are merely props in the raid and certainly do not receive a participation certificate.

TBM-Legend
3rd Jun 2017, 07:32
Why didn't the media and Police mention that this guy is a Muslim??

AerialPerspective
3rd Jun 2017, 07:55
Why didn't the media and Police mention that this guy is a Muslim??
Amazing they didn't considering their propensity for jumping straight to this when a person is a Muslim and never when they aren't.

But, in this case, please, the national airline of a predominantly Muslim nation operating a flight to it's home base in that predominantly Muslim nation, what a surprise there would be Muslims on board... probably most of the pax, but strangely only one of them threatened anything.

I think the fact he was mentally ill was the key, the religious affiliation obviously a coincidence and nothing more. Pleased to see the media didn't plaster his alleged religious affiliation all of the news for once.

Warragul
3rd Jun 2017, 08:09
Please send the cockhead back to Malaysia for the death Penalty, there'll be no justice in Australia!

That assumes he came via Malaysia when he arrived. Why would they carry him out now? Presumably his booking out of Australia has now been cancelled.

Band a Lot
3rd Jun 2017, 08:28
I don't know this guys religion but it would be reasonable without evidence to the contrary to assume he was Muslim for reasons stated above.

Like it or not that creates an extra flag in this type of incident.

Minister Dutton is having trouble deporting people from Australia, often when he does it is overturned by the AAT. It has far more to do with politics than if someone should have a visa.

My opinion this guy has now gained an extended period in Australia while his treatment is provided until he is fit and well to stand before the AAT to appeal his visa rejection. The AAT has a far back log these days.

feueraxt
3rd Jun 2017, 09:13
I don't know this guys religion but it would be reasonable without evidence to the contrary to assume he was Muslim for reasons stated above.

Like it or not that creates an extra flag in this type of incident.

Minister Dutton is having trouble deporting people from Australia, often when he does it is overturned by the AAT. It has far more to do with politics than if someone should have a visa.

My opinion this guy has now gained an extended period in Australia while his treatment is provided until he is fit and well to stand before the AAT to appeal his visa rejection. The AAT has a far back log these days.

The suspects name is Manodh Marks. That doesn't sound particularly Muslim. I would suspect the surname is descended from the Burghers, and on balance of probabilities the firstname is probably Sinhalese. So, I would expect him to be either Buddhist or Catholic.

That being said, Sri Lanka is a massive melting pot, and 10% of the population is at least notionally Muslim, so who knows.

The guy clearly has mental health issues, and the police appear to be largely dismissive of any terrorist angle, so I would take it at face value that he's just a nutcase. If that is the case, the best thing is probably to stabilize him and then deported him before he becomes a further drain on either our corrective services or health systems.

The ongoing police investigation will likely get to the bottom of it.

le Pingouin
3rd Jun 2017, 12:29
Please send the cockhead back to Malaysia for the death Penalty, there'll be no justice in Australia!

With an attitude like that perhaps we should pray your loved ones never suffer mental illness. Please crawl back under the rock from whence you came.

le Pingouin
3rd Jun 2017, 12:35
He's Sri Lankan, so quite a good chance he's not a Muslim. Does it really matter?

Band a Lot
3rd Jun 2017, 12:56
He's Sri Lankan, so quite a good chance he's not a Muslim. Does it really matter?



After 9/11 it seems to have a small impact on a few things.


Your statement to answer correctly is yes.


Sorry that is a fact in these days.

AerialPerspective
3rd Jun 2017, 13:01
After 9/11 it seems to have a small impact on a few things.


Your statement to answer correctly is yes.


Sorry that is a fact in these days.
Yep... it is a fact but overly sensationalized by the media... so how does this sit with the white supremacist that brutally shot and murdered innocent Muslims during prayer in Canada... people need to wake up that more persons are killed by toddlers with guns or refrigerators falling on them in the USA each year... why don't we hear constantly about radical gun-toting toddlers more often???

A: Because it doesn't fit the narrative necessary to militarize the civilian police forces and remove people's freedoms one by one.

le Pingouin
3rd Jun 2017, 13:07
But in the circumstance why does it matter? His religion is unlikely to be a contributing factor to his actions, whereas his mental illness surely was. Mental illness certainly doesn't give a toss about what religion you are.

Band a Lot
3rd Jun 2017, 13:32
What is the terrorist profile as of today?


A mental illness often makes for some "extreme" statements - it does not need to be expected these will be carried out.

These are often voices in the head only.


No doubt the Captain has sufficient training to identify and control the situation, all part of the secret training program given in the mental sickness awarwness section of the company manual.

TBM-Legend
3rd Jun 2017, 22:38
..for the record another attack today in London with people hit by a van and stabbed. Stop theses cretins now.

I refer you all to the late Enoch Powell's "Rivers of Blood" speech to the UK House of Commons on 20th April 1968 which foretold of these events. Of Course no-one listened to him and thought he was nuts!

le Pingouin
4th Jun 2017, 01:49
"Rivers of blood"? Yeah right. Compare London to Kabul.

www.abc.net.au/news/2017-06-01/kabul-labels-truck-bomb-attack-crime-against-humanity/8578088 (http://www.pprune.org/www.abc.net.au/news/2017-06-01/kabul-labels-truck-bomb-attack-crime-against-humanity/8578088)

Metro man
4th Jun 2017, 02:00
The UK threw its borders open and is now paying the price for not knowing who is in the country, where they are and what they are up to.

The inability to deport foreigners in the country illegally, even if they have committed crimes, doesn't help either.

sierra5913
4th Jun 2017, 02:11
..refer you all to the late Enoch Powell's "Rivers of Blood" speech to the UK House of Commons on 20th April 1968 which foretold of these events. Of Course no-one listened to him and thought he was nuts!

This one?

NNhjPFZoHYg

mickjoebill
4th Jun 2017, 02:18
Met police, remarkably have tweeted bold advice to public in the event of a terror incident.

Run
Hide
Tell

Running away from the novice terrorist and the bomb on the fuelled jet seems logical.

In the age of novice terrorist RUN is the priority.
Remove the public from the threat.
Such is the chaos that exposing yourself by running is deemed a better option than sitting tight.
Reaction time skill and training of the debutant terrorist works in your favour. The Lynt incident Monis did not prevent the majority of his hostages escaping.

The leverage that 70 tonnes of fuel gives a home made bomb is immense, in a confined locked space.....

These guys are suicide bombers, monis aside, they are not going to negotiate, in all cases they are not masked and don't want to be taken alive.

Mickjoebill

Band a Lot
4th Jun 2017, 04:27
What exactly would need to be a bomb's specs inside a aircraft cabin and it's placement to set off the 70 tonnes of fuel (on ground)?

Not saying it never will, but there have been a number of explosions even near wings and fuel has not been an issue.

Bombs are basically a pressure blast - in a cabin the above floor structure of the cabin will rupture at the weakest point.

Think you are over playing the fuel issue a tad.

A point to ask is at what point was mental illness known? and to what extent was his illness?

The answer to these 2 questions would determine to an extent the risk of leaving them on-board vs an expedited exit of passengers.

Flying Binghi
4th Jun 2017, 06:41
Via mickjoebill:
Met police, remarkably have tweeted bold advice to public in the event of a terror incident.

Run
Hide
Tell


Sounds like something yer'd tell a bunch of primary school kids.

If people put up with being treated like immature idiots then they deserve the islamic terror they is going to get even more of..:hmm:






.

Obie
4th Jun 2017, 06:55
What interests me about this incident is that having instigated SOPs for bomb warning/hoax as the crew would have done i.e pan call, descent, sq code, land asap and evacuate, is who countermanded that decision and on what authority and how?

Band a Lot
4th Jun 2017, 07:08
Evacuate seems a bit over the top as a SOP. But if it is the SOP it does not have asap attached.

Or that would been all bomb warning/hoax would need to evacuate on the runway after landing.

In one SOP I did read that was actually the option the Captain had and had to take (evacuate on runway), if that was deemed by him/her as not necessary it was to follow instructions via ATC- if not happy with an instruction he could discuss it.

Now that SOP seems fair and reasonable to me.

cattletruck
4th Jun 2017, 08:24
Thursday was pay day and everyone was probably at the pub. Let's face it, the handlers and intel are already doing a sterling job from preventing bombs getting on board in the first place. So all this being in readiness state for nothing is... well... looking-forward-to-a-drink-after-work kind of thing.

I reckon when the alarm went off they first went looking at the recording of the X-rays of those that boarded to figure out how one got through. It didn't.

Stressful for pax and crew, but if it proved the system run by the handlers and intel is working then it was well worth it.

Band a Lot
4th Jun 2017, 08:50
I reckon when the alarm went off they first went looking at the recording of the X-rays of those that boarded to figure out how one got through. It didn't.
.

I hope the Captain gave that order to check the X rays and gets a bag by bag report.

If not he will evacuate the aircraft! no dame way in the World can anyone do their job/s with the Captains say so and immediate reporting back to him!

At a minor guess by the time this aircraft touched down - more than 100 persons would be actioned or ready for further instructions and be on the ready.

The person/s most likely with the least information would be 2 folk sitting up front behind locked door.

Unlike cabin crew, they will not have seen said device with own eyes or the offender or heard the offenders voice.

On the ground information will be slow if at all getting back to ATC to inform the pilots of what numerous agencies are doing, have done or found.

As I posted before, the first can be a decoy for a different target.

- any pilot that will call an evacuation on any and every bomb threat/hoax is one I would rather not fly with.

And if that is an airline SOP tell me I wont fly with you.

Chris2303
4th Jun 2017, 09:06
Sounds like something yer'd tell a bunch of primary school kids.

If people put up with being treated like immature idiots then they deserve the islamic terror they is going to get even more of..:hmm:






.

In a situation like this a simple three word instruction is best. Humans when frightened cannot assimilate a lot of information so "Run, Hide, Tell" is perfectly appropriate.

Why do crew tell passengers "Brace, Brace, Brace" or "Evacuate, Evacuate, Evacuate"? Because probably only the last word is going to get into their heads.

Square Bear
4th Jun 2017, 09:55
Chris2303 I agree...

But perhaps Flying Binghi, could explain the difference between:

"Brace
Brace
Brace" etc...

and
"Run
Hide
Tell"

I still remember from decades ago;
Stop,
Drop,
Roll,
....if ever on fire.

To my way off thinking, simplifying to 3 rudimentary and easily remembered words is pretty damm smart.....considering every one in the real world does not walk around with, nor are required to follow, a QRH.

Unfortunately running in situations such as this thread refers to may not such a good idea ala the terrible death in 2005 of Mr de Menezes.

Troo believer
4th Jun 2017, 11:16
Once an event that endangers the aircraft is reported several government agencies become involved. They will probably include the AFP, ASIO ,ATC and the Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development. There are strict powers of incident and control compliance which empower the secretary to direct an aircraft both in the air and on the ground as they deem necesssary. On the ground the police would be running the show. Unlawful interference is a criminal act. The police and various bodies are now in control. In the air it's up to the good souls on board to stop the threat. No one else can help unless you have the good fortune of having an ASO on board.

nose,cabin
4th Jun 2017, 12:08
When to call an evacuation is only the captain,s decision SOP is for advice only..
ie consider immediate evacuation If a specific threat still exists

Consideration includes the threat and consequences for a delay in disembarking for minutes and possibly hours.

The decision to return to departure airport and fuel jettison
is not made lightly. Only done for a very serious threat.

The bomb was visible and the threat to "blow up this plane". ,was not a hoax but made by an attempted hijacker.

I would be very wrong and dangerous to assume the bomb was not real and possibly filled with high explosives packed with ball bearings etc.
* I don't think it wise to assume zero damage threat

The police and various bodies are now in control.

This is not correct.
The captain is total control until the engines are shut down.

Band a Lot
4th Jun 2017, 12:13
When to call an evacuation is only the captain,s decision SOP is for advice only..
ie consider immediate evacuation If a specific threat still exists

Consideration includes the threat and consequences for a delay in disembarking for minutes and possibly hours.

The decision to return to departure airport and fuel jettison
is not made lightly. Only done for a very serious threat.

The bomb was visible and the threat to "blow up this plane". ,was not a hoax but made by an attempted hijacker.

I would be very wrong and dangerous to assume the bomb was not real and possibly filled with high explosives packed with ball bearings etc.
* I don't think it wise to assume zero damage threat

The police and various bodies are now in control.

This is not correct.
The captain is total control until the engines are shut down.



To quote the above they said evacuate was a SOP and who cancelled that Pan Pan Sop.

And Rubbish - show me the regulation for the "control until engines are shut down"


Absolute crap - now just direct me to that regulation PLEASE

Capn Rex Havoc
4th Jun 2017, 15:43
BAND-A-LOT -
And Rubbish - show me the regulation for the "control until engines are shut down"


Absolute crap - now just direct me to that regulation PLEASE

How about the Tokyo Convention ARTICLE 5"

and in EK OMA 1.5.3 c "Be responsible for the operation and safety if the aircraft from the moment the aircraft is .... until .... the end of the flight.. AND THE ENGINES ARE SHUT DOWN"

:)

Troo believer
4th Jun 2017, 18:43
You arguing over a moot point. If you as the Captain received advice to evacuate the aircraft by the AFP, are you going to ignore it? These are joint decisions based on a layered responsibility. Read some more. Read about control compliance. The aircraft is a crime scene.

C441
4th Jun 2017, 23:26
Some years ago I had a similar incident resulting in a diversion and landing at a conveniently close en-route alternate. The person in question made some threats to the safety of the flight and in short, at the request of the cabin crew, a couple of our suitably qualified passengers 'subdued' the person in question.

After landing the person was moved to the rear door and offloaded as soon as possible via some mobile stairs by some of North Queensland's finest.

In the 20 to 30-odd minutes from the threat initiation until offloading, a substantial amount of information was obtained about the person, some of which proved to be quite worrying, however didn't alter the decision making process - in fact neither I, nor the arresting Police Officers at the scene were aware of it until some time later.

It's possible that the protective services had far more information about the MH128 assailant than they are making public and it was that information that led to the delay in entering the aircraft.

My event was pre September '11 and rated about 3 column paragraphs in the Queensland papers and little else. How things (media) have changed.

neville_nobody
5th Jun 2017, 03:13
Once an event that endangers the aircraft is reported several government agencies become involved. They will probably include the AFP, ASIO ,ATC and the Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development. There are strict powers of incident and control compliance which empower the secretary to direct an aircraft both in the air and on the ground as they deem necesssary. On the ground the police would be running the show. Unlawful interference is a criminal act. The police and various bodies are now in control.

None of that overrides CAR 224 though. They can pull out all the authority they want to tell you to divert to XYZ airfield but if there is forecast fog or some other issue, you are quite entitled to refuse.

Same applies on the ground with engines running. The Police can say what they like but if the PIC wants to shut down and evacuate and that's what's going to happen.

The pilot in command shall have final authority as to the disposition of the aircraft while he or she is in command and for the maintenance of discipline by all persons on board

The 'Powers at Be' absolutely hate this little piece of legislation, as was evident during the whole 'who can sit in the jumpseat' saga at the 'Senate Inquiry' however the law is the law.

Troo believer
5th Jun 2017, 07:49
FFS of course you would liaise with the control authority as required. The operational decisions still remain but having said that, are you going to jeopardise the safety of the aircraft in order to massage your ego. I don't think so. I bet you still haven't read what a control compliance directive is?

Obie
5th Jun 2017, 08:24
"any pilot that will call an evacuation on any and every bomb threat/hoax is one I would rather not fly with.

And if that is an airline SOP tell me I wont fly with you."

So said Mr B a L

Trust he likes travelling by train!

Troo believer
5th Jun 2017, 09:20
Have you heard of "duty of care". If you don't act in the best interests of all on board using all the available information at hand and safety is jeopardised especially if injuries or loss of life occur, look out.

Band a Lot
5th Jun 2017, 10:00
BAND-A-LOT -


How about the Tokyo Convention ARTICLE 5"

and in EK OMA 1.5.3 c "Be responsible for the operation and safety if the aircraft from the moment the aircraft is .... until .... the end of the flight.. AND THE ENGINES ARE SHUT DOWN"

:)

Well yes that Tokyo convention thing again!

Since this happened in Australia and yes we sign all sorts of ICAO and other convention things - we have applied and got our own independence on things within and approved by these Conventions and they are overriding !

Sorry to say - that is not part of Australia's regulation - we modified it.

Here and from my memory at this time a flight and PIC ends way before the engines are shut down - I will let you look it up.

P.S. while you are at it look up what CASA determines as flight or a flight.

Band a Lot
5th Jun 2017, 10:05
Some years ago I had a similar incident resulting in a diversion and landing at a conveniently close en-route alternate. The person in question made some threats to the safety of the flight and in short, at the request of the cabin crew, a couple of our suitably qualified passengers 'subdued' the person in question.

After landing the person was moved to the rear door and offloaded as soon as possible via some mobile stairs by some of North Queensland's finest.

In the 20 to 30-odd minutes from the threat initiation until offloading, a substantial amount of information was obtained about the person, some of which proved to be quite worrying, however didn't alter the decision making process - in fact neither I, nor the arresting Police Officers at the scene were aware of it until some time later.

It's possible that the protective services had far more information about the MH128 assailant than they are making public and it was that information that led to the delay in entering the aircraft.

My event was pre September '11 and rated about 3 column paragraphs in the Queensland papers and little else. How things (media) have changed.



Very good point/s 441 - was it an operation issue to you were not immediately informed of such a disturbing person on your aircraft?

Band a Lot
5th Jun 2017, 10:07
"any pilot that will call an evacuation on any and every bomb threat/hoax is one I would rather not fly with.

And if that is an airline SOP tell me I wont fly with you."

So said Mr B a L

Trust he likes travelling by train!

I just don't see lots of aeroplanes with deployed slides around to match the number of bomb threats - or do most pilots not follow the SOP's?

Band a Lot
5th Jun 2017, 10:13
Have you heard of "duty of care". If you don't act in the best interests of all on board using all the available information at hand and safety is jeopardised especially if injuries or loss of life occur, look out.



It seems no it is a limited duty of care, that only to one aircraft and no consideration to anyone or thing else. The AA pilot was not interested in information, only to exercise power by demands - he only had to call the number provided but threatened an evacuation.

Funny part he seemed a bit happy to have conflicting information - not to evacuate. Sort of shows how professional he actually is/was.

Obie
5th Jun 2017, 10:27
This is the most fun I've had in years on Prune!
Keep it up Bal...we love your stuff!

Capn Rex Havoc
5th Jun 2017, 16:41
Bandaidalot-
Well yes that Tokyo convention thing again!

Since this happened in Australia and yes we sign all sorts of ICAO and other convention things - we have applied and got our own independence on things within and approved by these Conventions and they are overriding !

Sorry to say - that is not part of Australia's regulation - we modified it.

It was a Malaysian state registered carrier not a VH carrier. Malaysia has ratified the Tokyo Convention. I find it amusing that you just pooh pooh it with the "yes that Tokyo convention thing again"

Classic, if you were in a POW camp and wanting to torture prisoners - I can see you saying "oh yes that Geneva convention thing again":ugh:

If it was a UAE rego'd jet, they definitely are signatories to the Tokyo Convention, and as I pointed out - the EK OMA also gives you the reference you so ignorantly claimed didn't exist.

Band a Lot
6th Jun 2017, 07:22
Meanwhile do the same in Indonesian Airspace and you can guarantee a swift exit...
http://resources1.news.com.au/images/2014/04/25/1226896/379789-1761e350-cc6f-11e3-9484-00a97bf135c7.jpg


So is it airspace? rego, country of origin or PIC

No wonder thongs and boogie boards go hand in hand on Charter flights to Bali.

Obie
6th Jun 2017, 09:10
Oh! Good!...he's back...I've missed his sharp wit!?

Band a Lot
6th Jun 2017, 09:41
Very little info on today's but if on runway or just off, seems a very good call.

Every case is different, in this count the PIC had full control and I assume requested the evacuation when he still did.

I assume again before chocks and engines stopped this decision was made.

itsnotthatbloodyhard
6th Jun 2017, 10:27
Here and from my memory at this time a flight and PIC ends way before the engines are shut down - I will let you look it up.


I assume again before chocks and engines stopped this decision was made.

Mate, what is this extraordinary obsession you have with when the authority of the PIC starts and ends? The word 'monomaniac' comes to mind.

Are you suggesting in the first quote (and it's not altogether obvious) that the captain's authority ceases long before the engines are shut down? Who else is in charge while you're sitting there with the engines running, then? The airport manager? The engineer over in his hut?

I'm sorry if the odd bumptious pilot's got your nose out of joint over the years, but I can't really see what you're achieving with this obsession.

Band a Lot
6th Jun 2017, 12:47
Are you suggesting in the first quote (and it's not altogether obvious) that the captain's authority ceases long before the engines are shut down.




Yes I am stating the captains legal and overall authority ends well prior to engines shut down.

That is easy to prove, just never acknowledged by most on here.

Go back to that AA24 flight and find a legal reason for that captain to call a evacuation.

He could not prove that any danger existed and had no proof it existed!


So how on Earth can he justify an evacuation? because he saw a fire truck and he was on hold in a area that he had not been held before?

Icarus2001
6th Jun 2017, 13:33
He could not prove that any danger existed and had no proof it existed!

The PIC does not need "proof", in the two jet operators I have worked for the OM has words such "if the PIC believes..." "take any action that he deems necessary"...

So after the event he may have been "wrong" but this does not mean that if he BELIEVED THAT to be the case at the time then he cannot order an evacuation.

find a legal reason for that captain to call a evacuation. Safety does not always need a legal reason if the person acts with a view to a prudent duty of care.

Bandy are you a pilot?

Yes I am stating the captains legal and overall authority ends well prior to engines shut down. Well when is that then?

That is easy to prove, just never acknowledged by most on here.

Since it easy please prove it, to educate me.

Obie
7th Jun 2017, 09:32
Keep it up bandy, you're still amusing us!
Ps: wanna tell us wot sort of licence you hold? Drivers, back hoe, truck, skateboard perhaps?

framer
7th Jun 2017, 10:32
Bandy has claimed in the past that he is a LAME. There is a strong track record of commenting on (and calling into question) the authority of the PinC.
This thread is actually quite lite on it compared to others he has contributed to.
His persistence is noteworthy and something quite special. The motivation is unknown. Previous posts have displayed enough technical knowledge to suggest that Bandy has in fact worked in aviation.
Enjoy the show :)

Flying Binghi
11th Jun 2017, 23:43
New ipad, back to it...

via Square Bear: Chris2303 I agree...

But perhaps Flying Binghi, could explain the difference between:

"Brace
Brace
Brace" etc...

and
"Run
Hide
Tell"

I still remember from decades ago;
Stop,
Drop,
Roll,
....if ever on fire.

To my way off thinking, simplifying to 3 rudimentary and easily remembered words is pretty damm smart.....considering every one in the real world does not walk around with, nor are required to follow, a QRH.

Unfortunately running in situations such as this thread refers to may not such a good idea ala the terrible death in 2005 of Mr de Menezes.

Heh, yep. Everybody running to the back of an aircraft and hiding under the seats whilst turning on their mobile phones is probably not the best idea.


"...the difference..."

The "Brace" and "stop, drop, roll" mnemonics (? If that's the right word for it) are for fairly well defined situations. The Brace instruction is for somebody in an aircraft seat with no other options (unless wearing a parachute) and Stop-Drop-Roll is for somebody on fire. These unthinking reaction aids are for an unforeseen well defined accident situation.

The pathetic Run-Hide-Tell instruction on the other hand is being given out by our so-called leaders in response to random method islamic terrorism attacks. Attacks that are happening because the reason for the attacks is not being removed.

For an example of where Run-Hide-Tell don't work just look to the YouTube vids on the recent concert bomb attack where the person doing the post explosion public address system instructions is clearly telling people to not panic and walk to the exits.

At the end of the day, when faced with a nutter running around bomb-threatening/stabbing/shooting/running over/what-ever, those that run from things will run, and those that stand and fight will fight. No clue-less politician issue avoidance word games are needed.






.

Capn Bloggs
12th Jun 2017, 00:13
I think there's a problem with your new ipad...

mickjoebill
12th Jun 2017, 00:18
For an example of where Run-Hide-Tell don't work just look to the YouTube vids on the recent concert bomb attack where the person doing the post explosion public address system instructions is clearly telling people to not panic and walk to the exits.
It seems to me that the PA announcement was very very poor form from the modern emergency management perspective
The management would not have had a clear idea of the threat. If at the very least they knew there was an explosion (a loud bang was heard) it makes sense to ask patrons to sit tight because
1/ in such an open auditorium the effects of a bomb are far less than in the packed corridors.

2/ risk of injury due to a stampede are real.

Man with a gun is a different scenario.
In a very large venue with police present there is a case for patrons to "duck" so police or have a go heros can quickly run toward the perp.

Asking entire auditorium to exit does nothing to neutralise the shooter quickly nor does it deprive him of targets.
But in a smaller venue without police an evacuation is probably best of the crappy choices.


mickjoebill

Flying Binghi
12th Jun 2017, 05:03
I think there's a problem with your new ipad...

Yeah, there is. Since i got me new ipad I caint get into the Jetblast forum. I've asked the moderators about it so await enquires..:)





.

Flying Binghi
12th Jun 2017, 05:26
Via mickjoebill: It seems to me that the PA announcement was very very poor form from the modern emergency management perspective
The management would not have had a clear idea of the threat. If at the very least they knew there was an explosion (a loud bang was heard) it makes sense to ask patrons to sit tight because
1/ in such an open auditorium the effects of a bomb are far less than in the packed corridors.

2/ risk of injury due to a stampede are real.

Man with a gun is a different scenario.
In a very large venue with police present there is a case for patrons to "duck" so police or have a go heros can quickly run toward the perp.

Asking entire auditorium to exit does nothing to neutralise the shooter quickly nor does it deprive him of targets.
But in a smaller venue without police an evacuation is probably best of the crappy choices.

mickjoebill, if yer take what you just wrote and used it to work out a response to a terrorist incident you'll probably see why it took the police an hour to respond to the thread starter incident.

The trouble with modern terrorism is whilst the reasons for it are clearly defined, i.e. islam, the terrorist 'tools' and participants of the act itself can be entirely random. As far as i see it the police will be forever playing catch up because the terrorist methods and tools will just keep morphing.

Until the reason for terrorism is confronted head on people will be living and dying like frightened little sheep.





.

mickjoebill
13th Jun 2017, 00:05
mickjoebill, if yer take what you just wrote and used it to work out a response to a terrorist incident you'll probably see why it took the police an hour to respond to the thread starter incident.

That's my point, policy that centralises command in chaotic fast moving situations does not always work.
Not only that, the plan was inept as it made assumptions that certain people and facilities would be available when at past midnight, they were not.



The trouble with modern terrorism is whilst the reasons for it are clearly defined, i.e. islam, the terrorist 'tools' and participants of the act itself can be entirely random. As far as i see it the police will be forever playing catch up because the terrorist methods and tools will just keep morphing.

Until the reason for terrorism is confronted head on people will be living and dying like frightened little sheep.

Perhaps you agree with me then, that in many circumstances decisions that are potentially life and death can be left in the hands of those who are on scene and responsible, in this case, pilots. If it were in the terminal it is the public themselves.
It was passengers who overpowered the "bomber", after the hostess called for help.

The takeaway from the Bushfire Royal Commision was that local emergency management teams and public need to be self motivated and not controlled from a distant HQ.

It can be done, 95000 fans attended a soccer game at MCG last week.
As has been the case for a few years, they were advised by PA that the likely impact of an attack would only affect a small section of the arena and if so, don't evacauate. This is good info as it educates the public. It doesn't say you should only move if instructed.

I understand several things did not go according to plan at Melbourne. I'm not talking of chaos as there wasn't anything happening on the ground that could not have been foreseen. I'm talking cockups. Not only was the planned response unusual and dubious in principle, they couldn't even enact some of it.
As if a bomb threat on a plane is unexpected.

Story in yesterday's press was that 40% of FED police moonlight to pay their mortgage.
Also yesterday and curiously coincidental, was a report that suggested state and Fed police need a new dedicated Billion dollar Comms system. (Which I agree is needed)

After each incident, the response from both Premiers and Prime Minister is a script that we have the best Forces in the world.
In press conference following Lindt the NSW commissioner said same thing and added that police had saved lives and that they had the best negotiators in the world! The coroner didn't share the police commissioner's view.

I wonder if the lazy, arrogant, self serving, blinkered, ignorant management by fire authorities and unquestioned by press and politicians, that failed to educate and protect the public, over the years from bushfires, is also present in our security services?

The common denominators are the political system and powerful unions and at times a self serving complicit mainstream media.


By the way, over egged media stories that Melbourne police "rescued" the female from the deranged gunmen last week, implies police were professional and proactive, when in fact the gunman ran out of the building without his hostage and opened fire, injuring 3 police.

At the commencement of the seige, police HQ had tweeted explicitly it was a domestic incident and not terror related, perhaps this wrong intelligence was the reason the three police were not better protected?

With sincere respect to police at the sharp end.


Mjb

Derfred
13th Jun 2017, 02:03
Too true, MJB.

You can't fix a problem unless you admit you have one.

mickjoebill
13th Jun 2017, 07:36
Too true, MJB.

You can't fix a problem unless you admit you have one.

Well said.

Career journalists are being sacked by the 100s so factual based investigations into performance of government and authorities will be missed.

Also, its fascinating that the performance (response times) of Victorian ambulance service was fair game for newspapers, but CFA is off limits.

Royal commision aside, you'll find it very hard to find local or Capitol city newspaper report detailing performance of local CFA or MFB crews.

But without the public understanding the true performance of emergency services how can they lobby for better training or funding?

The penny has dropped with Victorian government that security services can't be expected to thwart every potential nutter, so temporary bollards have been installed in Melbourne this week.

Better late than never.

Mjb

Moneymoneymoneymoney
25th Jun 2017, 23:20
Even the Australian media respect the fact that CT/Special Foeces personnel are not to be filmed, or, at a minimum, their faces blurred. It is to protect the personal safety of those personnel and also so that their operational tactics are not disclosed to possible adversaries. That would be why they asked passengers to stop filming.



Learn your rights. It is not illegal to film the Australian Police state or federal under any circumstances

tomcat264
8th Jul 2017, 11:03
You're got that wrong, Sunfish. they don't want to be filmed. They don't want any evidence of ol' mate falling down the stairs. 6 times....
AFP first response is more like keep the area clear and call TRG

tomcat264
8th Jul 2017, 11:15
90min wait.

I assume these Special Forces were all called out of bed at the odd hour? Or are these guys on standby 24/7?

Bit odd considering the AFP Facility is 500m away. The media didn't buy the Chief Commissioners excuses this morning for the wait either, got nailed.
You think AFP are TRG?