Village Missing An Idiot

[Stationair8]

Herald- Sun reporting an idiot made a bomb threat at Hobart airport on Friday night.

No doubt the Virgin crew would have loved an hours delay with all the associated weather problems in Melbourne and Sydney that night.

Like the way her lawyer describes his client as bit of “a joker!”

How about more like an oxygen thief!

[Pinky the pilot]

In the SA Paper she was described by her Lawyer as being a bit of a Larrikin!:rolleyes:

You would think that there has been sufficient notification made to the general Public (read; 'the great unwashed/ average bogan/whatever') that even making jokes about bombs in baggage etc will not be viewed lightly. But it still happens!:ugh::mad::*

I really do not know if I am still a bit naïve even at age 64, but I am still occasionally utterly amazed as to the depths of stupidity shown by some of my fellow Australians!:(

Maybe it is time I toddled off to my dream retirement home.:hmm: (Somewhere in the South Pacific:ok: The Chuckling Chimbu is already there.)

[junior.VH-LFA]

I saw this while grabbing a brew waiting for fuel.

Pretty funny to watch it unfold!

[Lead Balloon]

These kinds of hoaxers usually have a significant personality/psychological/psychiatric problem.

[Aussie Bob]

Your all overthinking it, the poor chick probabaly made a light hearted comment and the dullards in the airport wanted for something to do. I see she made the comment at check in, then left, made it through security and onto the aircraft before anyone cared. A major overreaction to a storm in a teacup by brainless security buffoons who wouldn’t know a terrorist from a fox terrier.

[601]

How is she going to get back to the big island?

[Mach E Avelli]

I’m with Aussie Bob on this.
A real terrorist is not likely to announce their presence. She may not be too bright to have joked about bombs, but the over reaction of petty people out to make a point cost a delay as well as court time which could be better spent putting away real baddies.
The threat of a strip search (all orifices) would have made her see the error of her ways. There’ s nothing like the snap of latex gloves to strike fear into silly buggers.

[YPJT]

dullards in the airport wanted for something to do
A shame the people at the forefront of ensuring screened aircraft are just that get referred to in such a way.

[Sunfish]

Better the dullards at check in take action than the pilot and pax when she repeats her little joke in flight.

[Rated De]

With the 'front line' of airport security controlled by private contractors, with at least one company foreign owned then it all remains theatre.

[Mach E Avelli]

Instead of insisting that a prosecution go ahead, the airline needs to ask how long it took for the person at check in to report the 'threat' to how long it took security to respond.
Or maybe the magistrate whose time will be wasted could ask these questions prior to throwing it out on the grounds it is vexatious.
The miscreant has already learned a lesson in that she was offloaded - probably feeling quite humiliated in the process - and no doubt has run up some legal costs plus the cost of alternative transport home.

[megan]

Funny that this should arise now. Telly last night had an item on a chap on board an aircraft in Bangkok preparing to depart for Oz. He sat down next to a lass who was playing the Tom Jones "Sex Bomb"' tune and he commented to her that it may not be a good idea to be playing a tune containing the "bomb" word. He was overheard saying the dreaded word and next thing some sixty (his estimate) security/cops had stormed on board to escort him off. No charges, but up for purchase of a new ticket after embassy help to sort the issue.

[TBM-Legend]

Its all a joke until it isn't...

[YPJT]

With the 'front line' of airport security controlled by private contractors, with at least one company foreign owned then it all remains theatre.
Airport security is overseen and therefore controlled by the Dept of Home Affairs. Those at the coalface do not make up their own procedures to suit their foreign masters.

At a regional airport some time back, another bone headed FIFO worker made a similar comment which was heard by screening staff. Matter was referred to the airline ground staff who reported it to the Captain. His immediate response "Offload him".

[currawong]

Two observations -

1/ Aviation reporting, how accurate do you think this report actually is? Given we all know aviation reporting is, well, a bit dungy.

2/ Given the choice, how many here would pax an individual stupid, psychotic, under the influence or whatever enough to make those comments?

I for one am all for the captain/ crew exercising their right to exclude any pax they feel might be unsafe.

Embarkation is not a right, it is at the discretion of the crew.

[Mach E Avelli]

Currawong I think that was four observations - with which most would agree. But offloading drunken bogans and assorted stupid people is usually enough punishment without resorting to the law courts. At the very least they have to buy another ticket. Fair enough to prosecute if the person is violent or abusive, but the staff must have not thought the threat was real to have taken so long to react.
Let the punishment fit the crime.

[currawong]

"but the staff must have not thought the threat was real to have taken so long to react."

Or how about the company was ok with it but the captain wasn't?

At the end of the day she broke the law. As you say, let the punishment fit the crime. I'm sure the courts will do the right thing...

[Mach E Avelli]

I take your point. On two occasions that I remember I have insisted on offloading drunks. The company agent did not agree with my action because he did not want a fuss, or did not want a delay.
However, as you say, with sufficient cause the Captain may deny travel to a pax. No one is disputing that the offload was justified.
BUT...if it was a case of the company being 'ok with it' then who would press charges? Presumably the security mob or the Feds, even though she passed security and was found to have no device.

[machtuk]

Your all overthinking it, the poor chick probabaly made a light hearted comment and the dullards in the airport wanted for something to do. I see she made the comment at check in, then left, made it through security and onto the aircraft before anyone cared. A major overreaction to a storm in a teacup by brainless security buffoons who wouldn’t know a terrorist from a fox terrier.

I agree AB, the whole thing has gathered momentum to the point that it's out of control!
Terrorists have done their job well over the years, terrorism is to instill terror in the masses, they have the general public sh1t scared, law makers, the goon squad security staff all paranoid at shadows & words that makes everyone jump! The terrorists need never step foot in another plane again the world over, they have succeeded in disrupting what was once considered normal life, they have done their job well as this event shows!

RIP common sense:-(

[Sunfish]

It’s obvious that none of you have ever encountered a real nutter. Yes, they do say “I have a bomb/knife/gun/ poison gas in my bag” and sometimes they actually do have exactly that and are going to use it.

Furthermore, what do you think will happen when they repeat that claim to the pax sitting next to them?

Furthermore, under OH&S rules, the counter staff do not nor should not have to engage with said nutcase. Leave that to the police who are wearing anti stab vests and are armed.

Two young Constables in Melbourne a few weeks ago were tasked with attending a car fire and found themselves in a deadly confrontation with a terrorist seconds after arriving.

So No. Every “little joke” is taken seriously and the clown should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law AND get put on a “no fly” list.

To put that another way​​​​​​; it’s only a prank to armchair strategists who don’t have to deal with it at the time.

[Mach E Avelli]

I have encountered (indirectly) a real nutter. We received a bomb threat en route, but it was such a short sector we elected to continue to destination, as that was as close as anywhere else of use.
Looking at the pax manifest, I saw a foreign sounding name of middle east origin, so asked via radio who he was. Turned out he was a diplomat. Oh great, a credible target?
Anyway, we landed and shut down at the designated area, got everyone off and the experts moved in for a full search. Nada.
The hoaxer was caught and charged. He was an employee from the opposition company who saw our operation as a threat to his job. He was trying to ‘help’ his company, though they did not see it that way.

[Aussie Bob]

Back to the chick in question; if what she said was so serious, why was her bag loaded onto the aircraft and she allowed to board. It was this that caused the considerable delay as the decision was them made to unload her and bag, delaying the flight by an hour. I call that sensible security (not).
This then begs the question, when and what words constitute a crime? Refusal of travel is fine, but when some simple words lead to court, lawyers, fine or worse it is a symptom of an over regulation and a sick society.
None of this of course changes the OP,s opinion, yes, she deserves a Darwin Award.

[Sunfish]

Aussie, I would imagine procedural delay meant that she could only be identified and grabbed after presenting a boarding pass.

As for “words” try yelling fire! in a crowded theatre.

[Traffic_Is_Er_Was]

If a pax makes a dumb comment and is removed from the flight by check in staff or security, then it's a major overreaction to a storm in a teacup by brainless security buffoons but if the matter is referred to the captain and he orders the offload, that's just the captain/ crew exercising their right to exclude any pax they feel might be unsafe.