Device found in Virgin Blue plane hold
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Australia
Posts: 63
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
not a threat?
Mor
I reckon you would have seen the schoolyard trick of standing on top of the coke tin and it holding your weight until tapping the side of it, well your little hole that would have burned straight through the skin would have the same effect on the aircraft structure. I say bust this kids ass, even at the most remote airstrips they have posters plastered everywhere on DG awareness
I reckon you would have seen the schoolyard trick of standing on top of the coke tin and it holding your weight until tapping the side of it, well your little hole that would have burned straight through the skin would have the same effect on the aircraft structure. I say bust this kids ass, even at the most remote airstrips they have posters plastered everywhere on DG awareness
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Townsville,Nth Queensland
Posts: 2,717
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sat "Sydney Morning Herald"
Virgin's blue: it was boy's cracker
By John Garnaut
September 25, 2004
The device that sparked a security scare on a Virgin Blue plane was a homemade firecracker belonging to a 13-year-old boy.
Unionists had stood accused of planting it as a hoax to highlight deficiencies in their security training, but now federal police have spoken to the boy - and say the matter is in the hands of his parents. The boy identified the firecracker when officers showed it to him yesterday.
"It was more of a representation of a firecracker," a federal police spokesman said. "Even if you put a cigarette lighter to it, it wouldn't have blown up."
No further action would be taken and no charges laid.
The matter was now in the hands of the boy's parents, the spokesman said.
It appears it fell out of the boy's sports bag during the flight from Maroochydore to Sydney last Monday. The Deputy Prime Minister and Transport Minister, John Anderson, refused to apologise to transport unions for saying he suspected an inside job by airport workers. Of the boy, he said: "I dare say he has learnt the lesson of his life but there will be no action taken against him."
He said no screening equipment, from anywhere in the world, could have detected the device. "Parents . . . have a responsibility to ensure that the contents of their children's luggage does not contravene strict rules," Mr Anderson said.
Virgin Blue's head of commercial operations, David Huttner, who earlier said he believed the device was planted by "an airport worker with an agenda", yesterday said Virgin looked forward to reviewing the report.
Mr Huttner said Virgin was supporting the authorities when it was suggested that an airport worker was to blame.
with AAP
=======================================
Virgin's blue: it was boy's cracker
By John Garnaut
September 25, 2004
The device that sparked a security scare on a Virgin Blue plane was a homemade firecracker belonging to a 13-year-old boy.
Unionists had stood accused of planting it as a hoax to highlight deficiencies in their security training, but now federal police have spoken to the boy - and say the matter is in the hands of his parents. The boy identified the firecracker when officers showed it to him yesterday.
"It was more of a representation of a firecracker," a federal police spokesman said. "Even if you put a cigarette lighter to it, it wouldn't have blown up."
No further action would be taken and no charges laid.
The matter was now in the hands of the boy's parents, the spokesman said.
It appears it fell out of the boy's sports bag during the flight from Maroochydore to Sydney last Monday. The Deputy Prime Minister and Transport Minister, John Anderson, refused to apologise to transport unions for saying he suspected an inside job by airport workers. Of the boy, he said: "I dare say he has learnt the lesson of his life but there will be no action taken against him."
He said no screening equipment, from anywhere in the world, could have detected the device. "Parents . . . have a responsibility to ensure that the contents of their children's luggage does not contravene strict rules," Mr Anderson said.
Virgin Blue's head of commercial operations, David Huttner, who earlier said he believed the device was planted by "an airport worker with an agenda", yesterday said Virgin looked forward to reviewing the report.
Mr Huttner said Virgin was supporting the authorities when it was suggested that an airport worker was to blame.
with AAP
=======================================
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Euroland
Posts: 959
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
lame1
You have no idea at all what you are talking about. How exactly would it have caused the aircraft to crash? It was found sitting on the fuselage skin. Having burned a hole in that, and fallen through it, how does it then cause the aircraft to crash? Aircraft have sustained enormous damage and continued flying - for example the United 747 that lost most of the forward fusleage skin above the cargo door, or the HS125 that got hit by a SAM and had an engine blown off the airframe. If you really were a LAME, you would know about redundancy in an aircraft structure. And you still haven't explained how this "device" was going to ignite itself... oh and by the way, what does a fire need to sustain itself? And how much of that is there at altitude...???
mootyman
What utter crap. Ever seen the Aloha Airlines 737 that lost the top half of the forward fuselage, down as far as the floor? That one kept flying, and landed safely. You will seldom see an aircraft with more damage on it than that.
Here's some pictures for you:
http://www.aloha.net/~icarus/
http://www.airdisaster.com/photos/ua811/photo.shtml
if it had caught on fire,would have caused the a/c to crash.The fact that it was highly flammable would have increased the intensity of the fire in the hold,resulting in ONE LARGE FIRE.
mootyman
well your little hole that would have burned straight through the skin would have the same effect on the aircraft structure.
Here's some pictures for you:
http://www.aloha.net/~icarus/
http://www.airdisaster.com/photos/ua811/photo.shtml
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Brisbane, Queensland
Posts: 618
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No apology
Mr Anderson had denied accusing airport workers of planting a suspect device on the plane earlier this week, and refused to issue an apology.
Before the item was found to be a home-made firecracker, Mr Anderson said he could not rule out the possibility the incident was a union stunt to raise awareness of transport issues.
But now Mr Anderson denies he made that link.
"I didn't say it was the unions, they didn't rule out the possibility either that it might have been an inside job," he said.
Mr Ferguson says the minister has egg on his face.
"John Anderson has sought to cast a slur on the integrity of aviation workers and the unions that represent them but he's proved to be the small man as a result of that incident," he said.
Source: http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems...9/s1206884.htm
Mr Anderson had denied accusing airport workers of planting a suspect device on the plane earlier this week, and refused to issue an apology.
Before the item was found to be a home-made firecracker, Mr Anderson said he could not rule out the possibility the incident was a union stunt to raise awareness of transport issues.
But now Mr Anderson denies he made that link.
"I didn't say it was the unions, they didn't rule out the possibility either that it might have been an inside job," he said.
Mr Ferguson says the minister has egg on his face.
"John Anderson has sought to cast a slur on the integrity of aviation workers and the unions that represent them but he's proved to be the small man as a result of that incident," he said.
Source: http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems...9/s1206884.htm
You are an incompetent. Complete disgrace with the skills to match.
Apologise?! ME !!?
Last edited by Uncommon Sense; 25th Sep 2004 at 02:38.
The Reverend
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Sydney,NSW,Australia
Posts: 2,020
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So the "bomb" was checked in baggage after all, belonging to a silly little boy. The conspiracy theory goes out the window! Seems like Mr Anderson and a lot of people here, put tounge in motion before engaging brain.
Man Bilong Balus long PNG
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Looking forward to returning to Japan soon but in the meantime continuing the never ending search for a bad bottle of Red!
Age: 69
Posts: 2,980
Received 109 Likes
on
62 Posts
I just wonder what the filling in this device was that could possibly be thought to be thermite anyway. Could this be yet another ''we don't know the facts so lets invent a story anyway" effort by the media?
All the facts as I have read/heard was that something was found which turned out to be harmless(?)
You only live twice. Once when
you're born. Once when
you've looked death in the face.
All the facts as I have read/heard was that something was found which turned out to be harmless(?)
You only live twice. Once when
you're born. Once when
you've looked death in the face.
Bottums Up
I can't agree with sentiments expressing a desire to roast the teenager for all time, not too many of us at the ripe old age of thirteen gave any thought to consequences, so I can't see that this thirteen year old would be any different.
I am curious to know though, how does a thirteen year old get hold of thermite to make a "cracker"?
I am curious to know though, how does a thirteen year old get hold of thermite to make a "cracker"?
Guest
Posts: n/a
Thermite or not,highly explosive or not.
These facts are irrelevant.
What is great is that nobody was injured but alot of important of facts have come to light here.
a. Its clear that this whole debacle showed massive deficiencies in VB's lack of training of ground staff in both recognition of suspicious articles and their handling.
b. There was clearly lack of co-ordination between VB staff, airport authorities and the AFP/NSW State Police bomb squad.
c. Certain ground staff (contractors) didnt have ASIC cards but were wearing visitor passes until their credentials could be ascertained.
Perhaps what is needed here is for VB to have its own dedicated security division that would be responsible for not only the ongoing training to all staff,but would be proactive in handling things such as bomb threats,their relevant assessment thereof and co-ordination of procedures when it comes to these incidents.
On a more daily basis they would handle security passes for staff and access to sensitive security areas by contractors etc.
All required now is for the shareholders and management of Virgin Blue to put their hands in their pockets.
These facts are irrelevant.
What is great is that nobody was injured but alot of important of facts have come to light here.
a. Its clear that this whole debacle showed massive deficiencies in VB's lack of training of ground staff in both recognition of suspicious articles and their handling.
b. There was clearly lack of co-ordination between VB staff, airport authorities and the AFP/NSW State Police bomb squad.
c. Certain ground staff (contractors) didnt have ASIC cards but were wearing visitor passes until their credentials could be ascertained.
Perhaps what is needed here is for VB to have its own dedicated security division that would be responsible for not only the ongoing training to all staff,but would be proactive in handling things such as bomb threats,their relevant assessment thereof and co-ordination of procedures when it comes to these incidents.
On a more daily basis they would handle security passes for staff and access to sensitive security areas by contractors etc.
All required now is for the shareholders and management of Virgin Blue to put their hands in their pockets.
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Sydney
Posts: 167
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dambuster
It was the AFP who didn't call the NSW Police. VB followed the Airport porcedure which is call the AFP who call the Police. That argument is between them and nothing to do with VB.
Contractors are allowed to be in Restricted areas with visitor passes as they are issued by the Airport Authority, same as the TWU reps are on the airport with the same passes. You would have to ban them also.
The staff are trained, thats how they realised it was a suspicious item. The trained and documented procedures were not followed.
WorkCover has asked for all staff to be re-trained with the same training course and material which is happenning although it was carried out only 2 months ago. The training is adequate otherwise they would have demanded it be changed. It is exactly the same as Qantas as it was developed by all airlines.
Remember this is the same media who reported it was an airline worker and the AFP said they had names of suspects from the airline then low and behold a confession from a 13 year old boy. All VB ramp staff were under suspicion including management. I think they deserve an apology as does the TWU.
It was the AFP who didn't call the NSW Police. VB followed the Airport porcedure which is call the AFP who call the Police. That argument is between them and nothing to do with VB.
Contractors are allowed to be in Restricted areas with visitor passes as they are issued by the Airport Authority, same as the TWU reps are on the airport with the same passes. You would have to ban them also.
The staff are trained, thats how they realised it was a suspicious item. The trained and documented procedures were not followed.
WorkCover has asked for all staff to be re-trained with the same training course and material which is happenning although it was carried out only 2 months ago. The training is adequate otherwise they would have demanded it be changed. It is exactly the same as Qantas as it was developed by all airlines.
Remember this is the same media who reported it was an airline worker and the AFP said they had names of suspects from the airline then low and behold a confession from a 13 year old boy. All VB ramp staff were under suspicion including management. I think they deserve an apology as does the TWU.
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Wybacrik
Posts: 1,190
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
But, of course, the main issue here is that the A/C departed without being subject to further examination, which also means that the Captain and First officer were obviously not advised of the so called "bomb" that had been found on their aircraft.
That to me is the major concern!
That to me is the major concern!
Join Date: Oct 1999
Posts: 51
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Woomera,
I dont mean to second quess your moderating, but IMHO, I think Timmees post needs to be edited.
Posting the specific procedure of identifying a suspicious article is probably a bad idea. It does nothing to improve security.
Not only that, but the HOT Principle alluded to is probably Security-in-Confidence, possibly Commercial-in-Confidence as well.
At the risk of being an old woman, could you please chop it out.
Cheers.
I dont mean to second quess your moderating, but IMHO, I think Timmees post needs to be edited.
Posting the specific procedure of identifying a suspicious article is probably a bad idea. It does nothing to improve security.
Not only that, but the HOT Principle alluded to is probably Security-in-Confidence, possibly Commercial-in-Confidence as well.
At the risk of being an old woman, could you please chop it out.
Cheers.
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 590
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
HGW, yes there was definitely human error involved but when the ACTU take legal action to ensure that adequate training is provided then even I sit up and take notice.
Carrying a suspect device or suspicious article into a crowded terminal area reeks of that lack of training mentioned.
Brutus, no need to seek Woomera's action as its been done by your request.
As for it being "security in confidence" I could find no reference, especially on the widely circulated reference cards, one of which I found in an aerobridge after it had been walked over by god knows how many punters !!!
This priciple is widely used worldwide by a number of airlines.
Carrying a suspect device or suspicious article into a crowded terminal area reeks of that lack of training mentioned.
Brutus, no need to seek Woomera's action as its been done by your request.
As for it being "security in confidence" I could find no reference, especially on the widely circulated reference cards, one of which I found in an aerobridge after it had been walked over by god knows how many punters !!!
This priciple is widely used worldwide by a number of airlines.
Join Date: Oct 1999
Posts: 51
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Timmee,
The following is a cut and paste.
AIR NAVIGATION ACT 1920 - SECT 22P
Aviation security program
(1)
For the purposes of this Division, an aviation security program of an aircraft operator is a program that describes the equipment to be used, and sets out the procedures to be followed, by the operator for each of the following purposes in relation to aircraft operated by the operator:
(a)
preventing the unlawful carriage on an aircraft of the operator of:
(i)
any weapon; or
(ii)
any other thing that may endanger the safety of the aircraft or of any people or property on board the aircraft;
There is more re communications and grounding of a/c but I won't bore you with it.
VB were in breach of their own program by not following correct suspicious article procedures. (Taking it into the terminal) 200 Penalty units.
They were also in breach of the same program by not communicating to all the required authorities. (Failed to inform SACL) 200 Penalty units.
They were in breach again by taking the a/c for a fly. In these circumstances the a/c can only be released by the Secretary. Unspecified Penalty units - Penalty to be determined by DOTARS.
Timmee, you were in breach by making public part of an operators Aviation Secrutiy Program. The information you published here is not in the public domain. Your operators security program will contain the words Security-in-Confidence at the top and bottom of each page. Penalty - a severe bout of hand wringing and soul searching. ala VB.
The following is a cut and paste.
AIR NAVIGATION ACT 1920 - SECT 22P
Aviation security program
(1)
For the purposes of this Division, an aviation security program of an aircraft operator is a program that describes the equipment to be used, and sets out the procedures to be followed, by the operator for each of the following purposes in relation to aircraft operated by the operator:
(a)
preventing the unlawful carriage on an aircraft of the operator of:
(i)
any weapon; or
(ii)
any other thing that may endanger the safety of the aircraft or of any people or property on board the aircraft;
There is more re communications and grounding of a/c but I won't bore you with it.
VB were in breach of their own program by not following correct suspicious article procedures. (Taking it into the terminal) 200 Penalty units.
They were also in breach of the same program by not communicating to all the required authorities. (Failed to inform SACL) 200 Penalty units.
They were in breach again by taking the a/c for a fly. In these circumstances the a/c can only be released by the Secretary. Unspecified Penalty units - Penalty to be determined by DOTARS.
Timmee, you were in breach by making public part of an operators Aviation Secrutiy Program. The information you published here is not in the public domain. Your operators security program will contain the words Security-in-Confidence at the top and bottom of each page. Penalty - a severe bout of hand wringing and soul searching. ala VB.
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Map of Tassie
Posts: 33
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Brutus, in so far as the information published by 'ol Tim there, it was common sense. Any non infidel worth 'is salt will have figured that stuff out anyway.
As far as VB is concerned? Shut 'em down. They are a mob of incompetant fools.
As far as VB is concerned? Shut 'em down. They are a mob of incompetant fools.