Passengers escorted from plane at Melbourne Airport after 'security lapse'
 

https://www.9news.com.au/national/pa...b-8e03a1537935

More than 200 passengers were escorted off a Qantas plane at Melbourne Airport overnight following a security screening issue.
The incident was triggered after authorities deemed Qantas flight 487 from Sydney to Melbourne an 'unscreened aircraft' because one passenger was not screened properly.
The issue was discovered when the plane was in mid air and when it landed at Melbourne Airport, the aircraft's captain informed passengers.

Re-screening after the fact. Awesome job, disaster averted....

How on earth did that happen? Just strolled past security?

Wow, it must have been a major issue/threat for the reaction as described.
Machine gun toting black dressed "officers" must have been justified by the threat.
Yet the aircraft arrived as advertised and without any problem.
Just shows how much we really need the security pantomime the public are subjected to.

CC

They're just making sure that the disaster that could have happened but didn't, couldn't have happened in the first place.. and if they found something, perhaps their plan was to prevent the offending pax from boarding the flight they just left?!?

Yep, yet another another awesome use of passenger's time and taxpayers resources. These guys could do a great comedy routine, except nobody would believe it! :D

The guy has arrived and left the aircraft!! what is the threat to departing passengers? unbelievable!!What is wrong with this country?

Only logic is that he could possibly pass on something to another pax going somewhere (or secrete it in the terminal). Hence they are escorted to landslide.

Shouldn’t the headline read” airport security lets unscreened passenger through” guess that would not make a headline, the truth I mean.

Makes as much sense as confiscating the pilots nail clippers when he has a 3kg axe in the cockpit.

Sure, but if the passengers were escorted landside, why did they then re-screen everyone? Surely only those passengers transiting to other flights would need to be re-screened and the rest could have been let go.

So the passenger arrived from Bathurst, unscreened and somehow walked around Sydney airport in the screened area before boarding the Melbourne flight, doesn't that mean the whole of Sydney T1 is now un-screened? And since when is it the passengers prerogative to exit and re-enter screened areas, how would they know the requirement, the terminal should be designed that unscreened passengers can not enter a screened area anyway. I see more issues than the fact Melbourne wanted them re-screened... More so how are passengers inbound from unscreened ports handled at that terminal.

I think this might be just adding to QFs woes if they are making mistakes where a whole plane of unscreened pax start walking around a terminal.

Beryllium , I doubt that the majority of people (not morons) believe much of what any government tells them.

The idiots from AMS (formerly OTS) will now be turning their attention to the airport and doing even more sneaky ‘systems tests’, dressed as Surfies, or in suit and tie, or perhaps in orange FIFO outfits. They get off on this stuff. Poor airport, they will have to fill in reports, respond to a non-conformance notice and put up with pesky AMS inspectors who get off on wielding authority. And yeah, big deal, one pax breached security accidentally.. There are so many other ways to act nefariously against an aircraft anyway. The whole screening process is completely overrated crap.

Since the 9/11 incident, has screening detected any person trying to bring aboard items that could be used in a hijack? I recall the person with the flammable stuff in his shoe and the resultant minimal liquids allowed aboard.

I am not talking about nail clippers or the plastic knife from the chinese takeaway in the terminal. Have any REAL attempts been thwarted? Twenty years we have endured worse and worse inconvenience.

Absence of events does not mean that there is no threat. Like it or not Sept 11 rewrote the playbook here.

The issue is trying to put it into legislation, then curve balls come up, and everyone flees to the safest option. What would be the reward for the manager when the rules were grey and old mate was just let go in a fit of common sense? No financial reward, nothing. Not even a pat on the back, or a Rolex. There's only pain if in the 1,000,000 change something went awry. Why would you risk your job making that decision? The only path is do what is the safest. Even if it makes no logical sense.

Blind compliance is the way of the world now.

Until that one time someone blows one out of the sky.

It doesn't say anywhere that all passengers were rescreened. Everyone was escorted off the plane, through airside to landside. It would then indeed have been only those transferring on that would have required rescreening back to airside. Anyone terminating in MEL would have been let leave.

You would be very surprised to see the stuff people try to take on board aircraft that gets picked up at the screening points. If it was called "Safety" screening instead of "Security" it would be more accurate, however, is the guy with a knife disguised as a belt buckle the type of guy you want on your aircraft with a knife disguised as a belt buckle?