Jetstar seeks to have passenger charged
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: East of Runway 21
Posts: 1,157
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There's comments about this incident on this thread.
Pasted (n part) some of what I said from check-in viewpoint,
(On the other thread I've posted the CASA DG poster)
as well as a post by MIssBehaviour:
I think in this case it's shared blame - but the majority must go to the pax, and the airline & security should review their procedures.
I just can't believe he was allowed to fly again the same night -AND THEY DIDN'T CHECK THE BAG!!!!
Pasted (n part) some of what I said from check-in viewpoint,
As for check-in staff asking questions, I myself without fail ask every passenger of mine the two required questions: sharp objects and DG's. I regularly use butane cylinders and bleach as examples.
It's not the check-in staffs' job to make sure pax aren't stupid. That's up to them!! Not reading the conditions isn't a defence. That's like saying you didn't read the warranty conditions or exclusions on your insurance. House burns down "oh but I didn't know that wasn't included." Too bad, you still wont get a payout if it isn't included...
Plus, you can see quite clearly that examples are given, both in the cabinets and on the posters littered throughout the airport
It's not the check-in staffs' job to make sure pax aren't stupid. That's up to them!! Not reading the conditions isn't a defence. That's like saying you didn't read the warranty conditions or exclusions on your insurance. House burns down "oh but I didn't know that wasn't included." Too bad, you still wont get a payout if it isn't included...
Plus, you can see quite clearly that examples are given, both in the cabinets and on the posters littered throughout the airport
I've heard it wasn't you usual small cylinder, but a 30cm monster...! Who in their right mind wouldn't think "hmmm... maybe a cylinder of a flammable gas IS dangerous, especially in an aircraft?"
As for security not picking it up, that's another story... but is it possible the shape could have been thought to be just a glass bottle? I don't know anything about the colours used to indicate density etc, and don't want to be too specific, but given the way pax rush through security it's quite likely that it got missed, and not surprising. Yes the over-focus on scissors etc is not necessarily a good thing imho.....
As for security not picking it up, that's another story... but is it possible the shape could have been thought to be just a glass bottle? I don't know anything about the colours used to indicate density etc, and don't want to be too specific, but given the way pax rush through security it's quite likely that it got missed, and not surprising. Yes the over-focus on scissors etc is not necessarily a good thing imho.....
Sometimes you really need to do a 'Spanish Inquisition' to find out what people are carrying:
Q. (To a Belgian backpacker) Are you carrying any thing dangerous or flammable in your backpack?
A. No.
Q. Nothing used for cooking or camping?
A. "No, only ze cooking tablets". These innocent sounding things were actually solid fuel tablets. Pax were quite indignant about them being confiscated as they had travelled with them on several other flights on their trip without question so obviously hadn't been quizzed too much about DG stuff.
Q. (To British Soldier travelling back to Brunei) Are you carrying any dangerous or flammable items in your luggage?
A. No
Q. Nothing explosive?
A. Ahhh, I've got these flares but they're only mini-flares! Mate, you may as well be a little bit pregnant.
Q. (To an average punter) What's in the (Arnott's biscuits) cardboard box?
A. A motorbike head.
Q. Has it had fuel in it?
A. Yes but it's been cleaned out. Another no-go situation so he phones a friend to come & retrieve it.
Many times the response will be "but they let me take them on the way over" which should translate to "I never declared them on the way over"
Q. (To a Belgian backpacker) Are you carrying any thing dangerous or flammable in your backpack?
A. No.
Q. Nothing used for cooking or camping?
A. "No, only ze cooking tablets". These innocent sounding things were actually solid fuel tablets. Pax were quite indignant about them being confiscated as they had travelled with them on several other flights on their trip without question so obviously hadn't been quizzed too much about DG stuff.
Q. (To British Soldier travelling back to Brunei) Are you carrying any dangerous or flammable items in your luggage?
A. No
Q. Nothing explosive?
A. Ahhh, I've got these flares but they're only mini-flares! Mate, you may as well be a little bit pregnant.
Q. (To an average punter) What's in the (Arnott's biscuits) cardboard box?
A. A motorbike head.
Q. Has it had fuel in it?
A. Yes but it's been cleaned out. Another no-go situation so he phones a friend to come & retrieve it.
Many times the response will be "but they let me take them on the way over" which should translate to "I never declared them on the way over"
I just can't believe he was allowed to fly again the same night -AND THEY DIDN'T CHECK THE BAG!!!!
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Dunedin, NZ
Posts: 280
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RAAF has turned away Army personnel who were wanting to travel with hex cubes ( used to start stoves - really annoying to get started, and really annoying to extinguish once they are lit)
Hurry through security? You go through security as fast as they let you go. through, after they make you take off your shoes, and they look at your carry on bag, one by one in the scanning machine, and do random searches of those carry on bags.
I have operated X-Ray scanning machines ( in a non-airport environment), and it is easy to lose concentration when you are looking at lots of items. This is a Human Factors issue to study how the operators will give 100% attention - perhaps shorter periods looking at the screen.
Yes it is the passenger's responsibility to know what things are dangerous items, but that is why the scanners are there. You are just as likely to have a plane lost because of an idiot as by a terrorist.
Hurry through security? You go through security as fast as they let you go. through, after they make you take off your shoes, and they look at your carry on bag, one by one in the scanning machine, and do random searches of those carry on bags.
I have operated X-Ray scanning machines ( in a non-airport environment), and it is easy to lose concentration when you are looking at lots of items. This is a Human Factors issue to study how the operators will give 100% attention - perhaps shorter periods looking at the screen.
Yes it is the passenger's responsibility to know what things are dangerous items, but that is why the scanners are there. You are just as likely to have a plane lost because of an idiot as by a terrorist.
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Stuck in the middle...
Posts: 1,638
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Actually, Don Esson has a bit of a point, but it's not in isolation.
Posts below would indicate that the punter breached his contract with the carrier (per the T&Cs being part of the contract) and if there is a statutory sanction against carriage in the cabin of certain materials and he carried one into the cabin, then he'll potentially be up for whatever that sanction is - but that's really out of the carrier's hands and will be a matter for PC Plod.
However the authorities might indeed want to ask the carrier about the robustness of their security procedures; even where contracted out, the carrier still has a responsibility (duty of care) to ensure that terminal security is robust. In the first instance, it would have to be the airline which is called upon to satisfy the regulator that its procedures are up to scratch.
Posts below would indicate that the punter breached his contract with the carrier (per the T&Cs being part of the contract) and if there is a statutory sanction against carriage in the cabin of certain materials and he carried one into the cabin, then he'll potentially be up for whatever that sanction is - but that's really out of the carrier's hands and will be a matter for PC Plod.
However the authorities might indeed want to ask the carrier about the robustness of their security procedures; even where contracted out, the carrier still has a responsibility (duty of care) to ensure that terminal security is robust. In the first instance, it would have to be the airline which is called upon to satisfy the regulator that its procedures are up to scratch.
Last edited by Taildragger67; 13th Dec 2005 at 12:56.
Guest
Posts: n/a
sinala1
It's been a few years since my last DG course in Australia but I seem to recall limited quantities of hairspray and one butane cylinder (as used in hair curlers) being allowed in hand luggage.
When did this change?
my understanding is that gas cylinders of any form (excluding the small ones in the lifejackets) are not allowed in the cabin?
It's been a few years since my last DG course in Australia but I seem to recall limited quantities of hairspray and one butane cylinder (as used in hair curlers) being allowed in hand luggage.
When did this change?
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: East of Runway 21
Posts: 1,157
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hurry through security? You go through security as fast as they let you go. through
It's surprising what's in the T&Cs should people actually read them... and Ifully agree with the point someone made earlier about e-check-in/booths etc not being as good as real live people when it comes to asking about DG's. As MIssBehaviour's quote shows, sometimes you've really got to question them further (as I have had to do on many occasions also), and a kiosk just isn't going to cut it. Language barrier can also be a problem, what they think you are asking about may be totally different to what you think you're asking about!!!!
Pays for all of us to regularly think about why we ask what we ask, and how, eh???
Join Date: May 2004
Location: all over the shop
Posts: 986
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sorry flintstone thats what I get for posting when I am tired... You are quite right in saying limited quantities of hairspray and deodorant etc are allowed, the butane cylinders one I would have to look up but if I recall correctly certain types are allowed. All this obviously excludes medical oxygen and other required safety items...
Anyway is anyone able to shed any light on the circumstances re the offending cylinder not being removed before the 2nd flight? Surely there is more to the story here?
Anyway is anyone able to shed any light on the circumstances re the offending cylinder not being removed before the 2nd flight? Surely there is more to the story here?
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Sydney
Posts: 817
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jetstar T&C's
and
This is straight from the JQ website.
from the IATA DGR's (2004 edition).
(Blue pages), BUTANE: UN1011, class 2.1, nil sub risk, hazard label "Flamm. Gas", FORBIDDEN on PAX AND CARGO AIRCRAFT, max 150kg on Cargo Aircraft Only
HOWEVER, it also refers it to "Receptacles, small containing flammable gas"... but only "without a release device".
I presume that the Butane carried would have had a release device ?
Checking table 2.3.a (provisions for Dangerous Goods carried by passengers or crew), then reading through it......refer para 2.3.5.7 (saftey matches or lighter).... then "lighter fuel and lighter refills are not permitted on one's person nor in checked or carry-on baggage"
you want HAIR CURLERS too ? refer para 2.3.5.9 .... "gas refills for such curlers are not permitted in checked or carry-on baggage".
seems pretty clear to me!
and table 2.3.a is the one that ALL airlines tend to use, esp at check in where the questions re asked.
7.2 Prohibited items
We will not carry, and you must not try to bring on board the following prohibited items:
items prohibited by any applicable national or international law, regulation or order
weapons of any type (except see 7.3 )
items which are likely to endanger the aircraft or persons or property on board the aircraft, or items that may become or are dangerous, such as those items specified in the International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO) Technical Instructions for the Safe Transport of Dangerous Goods by Air, and the International Air Transport Association (IATA) Dangerous Goods Regulations. Further information is available from us on request
knives, sharp objects or cutting implements of any kind and any length, whether or metal or other material, and any other items we reasonably determine are unsuitable for carriage because they are dangerous, unsafe or because of their weight, size, shape or character, or which are fragile or perishable
brief cases and attache cases incorporating dangerous goods such as lithium batteries or pyrotechnic devices, disabling devices such as mace, pepper spray, etc containing an irritant or incapacitating substance are totally forbidden.
If we discover that you are carrying prohibited items, we may do whatever we consider appropriate and what is reasonable in the circumstances, including disposing of the item without notifying you.
We will not be responsible for any loss or damage caused to any prohibited items if they are brought on board despite being prohibited items.
We will not carry, and you must not try to bring on board the following prohibited items:
items prohibited by any applicable national or international law, regulation or order
weapons of any type (except see 7.3 )
items which are likely to endanger the aircraft or persons or property on board the aircraft, or items that may become or are dangerous, such as those items specified in the International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO) Technical Instructions for the Safe Transport of Dangerous Goods by Air, and the International Air Transport Association (IATA) Dangerous Goods Regulations. Further information is available from us on request
knives, sharp objects or cutting implements of any kind and any length, whether or metal or other material, and any other items we reasonably determine are unsuitable for carriage because they are dangerous, unsafe or because of their weight, size, shape or character, or which are fragile or perishable
brief cases and attache cases incorporating dangerous goods such as lithium batteries or pyrotechnic devices, disabling devices such as mace, pepper spray, etc containing an irritant or incapacitating substance are totally forbidden.
If we discover that you are carrying prohibited items, we may do whatever we consider appropriate and what is reasonable in the circumstances, including disposing of the item without notifying you.
We will not be responsible for any loss or damage caused to any prohibited items if they are brought on board despite being prohibited items.
11.3 Diversion costs caused by unacceptable behaviour
If as a result of your behaviour we divert the aircraft to an unscheduled destination and make you leave the aircraft, you must pay us the reasonable and proper costs of the diversion.
If as a result of your behaviour we divert the aircraft to an unscheduled destination and make you leave the aircraft, you must pay us the reasonable and proper costs of the diversion.
This is straight from the JQ website.
from the IATA DGR's (2004 edition).
(Blue pages), BUTANE: UN1011, class 2.1, nil sub risk, hazard label "Flamm. Gas", FORBIDDEN on PAX AND CARGO AIRCRAFT, max 150kg on Cargo Aircraft Only
HOWEVER, it also refers it to "Receptacles, small containing flammable gas"... but only "without a release device".
I presume that the Butane carried would have had a release device ?
Checking table 2.3.a (provisions for Dangerous Goods carried by passengers or crew), then reading through it......refer para 2.3.5.7 (saftey matches or lighter).... then "lighter fuel and lighter refills are not permitted on one's person nor in checked or carry-on baggage"
you want HAIR CURLERS too ? refer para 2.3.5.9 .... "gas refills for such curlers are not permitted in checked or carry-on baggage".
seems pretty clear to me!
and table 2.3.a is the one that ALL airlines tend to use, esp at check in where the questions re asked.
Maybe a technicality the bogon may exploit...
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Aust.
Posts: 70
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It hasn't yet been said but well done to the crew involved. The result? 1 jet safely landed.
I have heard, one crew member had to administer oxygen to a 5 month old baby. Enough said!
I have absolutely no sympathy for the IDIOT that concealed the 'hairspray size' camp stove - butane gas cyclinder in his/her checked luggage.
Whether security or check in did their job or not, one thing is for sure, this pax had ample opportunity to notify staff that he/she was carrying the item. They could have alerted someone whilst on board the aircraft and on the ground again when they landed back in Brisbane.
And from what I have heard it wasn't till they were back in Cairns after getting off the 717 that a little boy dobbed this passenger in after he overheard him/her talking about the gas cylinder in their bag. The boy told his parents who then notified Cairns staff.
I'm sorry but this foolish pax deserves the full punishment of the law. I hope it has been a lesson learnt!
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Sydney
Posts: 39
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The dangerous goods authorities around the world (especially the USA) have a lot to answer for effectively deregulating what they euphemistically call 'limited/excepted quantities' and 'consumer' dangerous goods. Whole truckloads of aerosols are moved around the US and Europe in unmarked vehicles and unlabelled packages because they are 'consumer' items or in 'small' quantities (small meaning in small packages but can be up to several tons total in a truck). These end up in the mail and in our air cargo.
This lack of regulation in road and rail transport means that ordinary punters use and send dangerous goods in their daily lives and are not aware of the dangers for air transport. This also goes for pathology specimens, like body parts/blood samples in preservatives. Doctors and scientists are the worst at breaking the rules ( or not knowing them) and travelling with chemicals in their top pocket. So we are hard done in aviation changing the views that these sort of items are normally safe but are not for aviation.
I think its about time CASA and other aviation regulators did an education blitz on the transport supply chain and also passengers to overturn the ignorance about 'consumer' dangerous goods. It should be put into passenger briefings too like the mobile phone warning.
This lack of regulation in road and rail transport means that ordinary punters use and send dangerous goods in their daily lives and are not aware of the dangers for air transport. This also goes for pathology specimens, like body parts/blood samples in preservatives. Doctors and scientists are the worst at breaking the rules ( or not knowing them) and travelling with chemicals in their top pocket. So we are hard done in aviation changing the views that these sort of items are normally safe but are not for aviation.
I think its about time CASA and other aviation regulators did an education blitz on the transport supply chain and also passengers to overturn the ignorance about 'consumer' dangerous goods. It should be put into passenger briefings too like the mobile phone warning.
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Oz
Posts: 23
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thank you to those who have acknowleged the crew in this situation. I was an operating member of the cabin crew during the incident.
The thing I find most shocking is that this passenger actually boarded a second flight carrying the same dangerous goods. Surely he wouldve realised that maybe, just maybe it was his container of gas which poisoned at least 5 passengers and all of the cabin crew and he would think not to carry it again. Even if he didnt come forward and say 'opps' he certainly couldve disposed of it somewhere. He was lucky that the replacement service was operated by the 717 and the 100% fresh air ventilation prevented him from further harming his fellow passengers. Even if he wasnt concerned about that, he mustnt have taken into consideration that his actions may have caused a second diversion and further delays and inconveniences to the 153 passengers trying to get to CNS that night, including himself.
Obviously not a real bright spark.
The thing I find most shocking is that this passenger actually boarded a second flight carrying the same dangerous goods. Surely he wouldve realised that maybe, just maybe it was his container of gas which poisoned at least 5 passengers and all of the cabin crew and he would think not to carry it again. Even if he didnt come forward and say 'opps' he certainly couldve disposed of it somewhere. He was lucky that the replacement service was operated by the 717 and the 100% fresh air ventilation prevented him from further harming his fellow passengers. Even if he wasnt concerned about that, he mustnt have taken into consideration that his actions may have caused a second diversion and further delays and inconveniences to the 153 passengers trying to get to CNS that night, including himself.
Obviously not a real bright spark.
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: East of Runway 21
Posts: 1,157
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
JQchick, as you say the crew acted in accordance with their training and it was a good outcome as possible given the situation.
I take it from your comments, that the nature/cause of the leak was not known until the 2nd flight, when the cylinder was discovered??
I can't quite get my head around the possibility that no-one checked the guy's bag prior to boarding the subsequent flight if indeed it was known who and what had been carried on, after the first one....
I take it from your comments, that the nature/cause of the leak was not known until the 2nd flight, when the cylinder was discovered??
I can't quite get my head around the possibility that no-one checked the guy's bag prior to boarding the subsequent flight if indeed it was known who and what had been carried on, after the first one....
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Oz
Posts: 23
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nor can I SkySista. I was actually sent home after receiving medical attention from the ambo's along with the rest of the cabin crew so we have only heard what has been spread along the grapevine. I know initially it was thought to be coming from the cargo hold, either from a passengers checked luggage or from cargo. All these items were x-rayed and nothing was found. Then they started checking the actual aircraft and in the mean time gotten a replacement aircraft from Newcastle. Im not sure what was done whilst the passengers were in the terminal in regards to checking their carry on luggage. I remember at one stage we were opening overhead lockers to see if the smell was coming from there but it didnt get any stronger. I think the passenger mustve had the bag under the seat in front of him, which would explain why it was concentrated to one part of the aircraft and why it didnt get stronger when the lockers where opened. Im hoping that someone will at least let us who were operating know the full story, I think I will follow it up with our base manager next time I see her.
too true alangirvan, Im sure glad there wasnt any sparks around
too true alangirvan, Im sure glad there wasnt any sparks around
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Australia
Posts: 15
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
JQchick, your Flight Safety Manager, and the airline Flight Safety Committee should as a matter of course fully debrief you (that didn't sound good did it) after the incident. They then should keep you and for that matter, anybody ever involved in any incident fully informed as to the progress and ultimately, the findings of their investigations.
I say this as that is how a mature organisation would conduct itself.
Have JQ appointed a Flight Safety Manager as yet and do they actually have a Flight Safety Committee ?
the Sunshine Coaster
I say this as that is how a mature organisation would conduct itself.
Have JQ appointed a Flight Safety Manager as yet and do they actually have a Flight Safety Committee ?
the Sunshine Coaster
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: East of Runway 21
Posts: 1,157
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
JQchick, glad to hear you are okay and seems to be no lasting effects.
You are right to want to be involved in any investigation/improvements, I believe any good crewmember is committed to improving safety... it is how we all learn from the mistakes both ours and others' to stop things from recurring.
Now that you have gone through this experience you will recognise the signs if ever it happens again. Follow it up and learn from it (as it sounds you have)... I am sure many crew now will be keeping an eye on carry on as a result of this...
I myself have had many pax mention the incident and ask questions, so I guess if it has educated some people then it didn't happen for nothing... a lot of people have also offered up items they are unsure about.
I think the important thing is for check-in staff to praise pax for declaring items, i always stress they are not in trouble and we are glad they have told us about an item, etc etc... this way they feel we are approachable and they can tell us what they have without fear of getting in trouble. As i say, better for us to know now than when the a/c is in the air as you guys found out!!!
Do let us know how things go and what improvements they make as a result, it will be interesting to see!!!
You are right to want to be involved in any investigation/improvements, I believe any good crewmember is committed to improving safety... it is how we all learn from the mistakes both ours and others' to stop things from recurring.
Now that you have gone through this experience you will recognise the signs if ever it happens again. Follow it up and learn from it (as it sounds you have)... I am sure many crew now will be keeping an eye on carry on as a result of this...
I myself have had many pax mention the incident and ask questions, so I guess if it has educated some people then it didn't happen for nothing... a lot of people have also offered up items they are unsure about.
I think the important thing is for check-in staff to praise pax for declaring items, i always stress they are not in trouble and we are glad they have told us about an item, etc etc... this way they feel we are approachable and they can tell us what they have without fear of getting in trouble. As i say, better for us to know now than when the a/c is in the air as you guys found out!!!
Do let us know how things go and what improvements they make as a result, it will be interesting to see!!!
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Oz
Posts: 23
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well I followed it up and found out the goods were in the hold, and somehow escaped being detected when x-rayed. Apparently the passenger was found out after discussing his bottle with his travel companion and being overheard by other passengers who then reported the matter to staff during the 2nd flight. Once in the CNS terminal his bag was searched and the bottle was discovered. So apparently this wasnt a case of being unaware that he caused the problem, he was fully aware yet despite having already grounded a jet and displaced around 160 passengers he was still willing to continue carrying the dangerous goods.
