[Peetwo]

Update to MH128 bomb scare incident.

6D quote: "...The Office of Transport Security, which I am responsible for will obviously be looking through the security arrangements in terms of screening and that type of thing..."

If 6D was hoping for some good press from this now extremely high profile incident -



Via the Oz:

‘We were like sitting ducks’

12:00amChip Le Grand, Simone Fox Koob, Samantha Hutchinson
Passengers trapped with a suspected bomb describe being forced to call triple-0 and plead with police to storm the plane.

Terrified airline passengers trapped with a suspected bomb on board an international flight were forced to call triple-0 and plead with police to storm the plane, while an elite squad of heavily armed tactical response officers waited on the tarmac below.

Passengers on Malaysia Airlines flight MH128 and the state ­opposition have rounded on police agencies and the government for a slow police ­response to what was ­initially treated as a suspected ­terrorist attack.

It took 100 minutes after the plane returned to Tullamarine airport for Special Operations Group officers to board the plane.

By the time police moved in early yesterday morning, a mentally unstable man who allegedly bran­dished a suspicious ­object and threatened to blow up the plane soon after takeoff had been subdued and restrained by fellow passengers for nearly two hours.

He was later revealed to be 25-year-old Manodh Marks, a Sri Lankan trainee chef in Australia on a student visa, who was ­released from a psychiatric ward on the same day he boarded the busy flight to Kuala Lumpur.

Despite the 100 minutes it took police to board the plane, Victoria Police Chief Commissioner Graham Ashton said: “Looking at the chronology last night, I’m not seeing any time gaps or delays that were problematic.”

Mr Ashton said last night that the delay boarding the jet was because­ police were investigating who was on board, the potential for terrorism and the potential for another device or devices. “These things had to be assessed­ in the interests of the safety of the ­passengers,’’ he told the ABC.

Passengers Scott Lodge, left, and Robert Macdonald helped. Picture: Stuart McEvoy

He rejected outright a Fairfax claim that the response had been delayed because officers had been unable to find guns and armour.

In scenes reminiscent of the Lindt cafe siege, some passengers became so frustrated they called the police to demand action­.

“We rang triple-0 to say ‘Get us out of this flight’,’’ said Melbourne mother Priya Shanmuganathan, who was travelling to London with her husband and two young children. “Is it safe? Is it not a bomb? Is it contained? There was just no ­information whatsoever. We were just sitting there like sitting ducks.’’

Manodh Marks, pictured in a police car on his way to court.

Lawyer Dan Toner jumped out of his business-class seat to intervene when he saw a man holding an electrical device banging on the cockpit door in the first few ­minutes of the flight.

He described the police respons­e as a shambles. “Honestly, if it were a real terrorist we would have been toast,’’ Mr Toner said.

“You see this huge ring of police and firefighters in this perimeter all around the plane, all these flashing lights and personnel just standing around and doing nothing at all, while we’re just sitting there wondering what on earth was going on.’’

Mr Ashton defended the caution exercised by his offic­ers and described the dramatic midnight operation as a success, with all 337 passengers, the flight crew and the alleged would-be bomber taken safely off the plane.

The police response was hindered by conflicting descriptions about the device and incorrect inform­ation about a second offen­d­er and another device on board.

Police in tactical gear board the plane in Melbourne.

Mr Ashton said police had to balance the risk of keeping passengers inside a plane that might have a bomb on board against the risk of police causing a detonation by moving in without due care.

“If we’d had an incident where there were further explosives that were triggered by door mechan­isms or something other had been triggered, we could have had a mass casualty incident,’’ Mr Ashton said. “That was avoided by having a proper approach to getting the passengers off.

“I absolutely understand it is frustrating when you are on the plane. It is scary when you are on the plane in that situation.

“A minute would seem like an hour in that scenario.’’

The police response was backed by Premier Daniel And­rews, who said the ultimate aim of the operation was to get everyone safely off the plane.

“I think people are understanding of the fact that police need to know exactly what they are ­dealing with before they gain entry to the plane and potentially make a bad situation much, much worse,’’ he said.

Opposition Leader Matthew Guy was not convinced. He called for an independent inquiry into why it took so long for police to bring passengers to safety.

“We need to know why did it take so long to get those people off this plane — it’s the obvious question that’s not clearly or properly answered today,” Mr Guy said.

“If there was a bomb on board, 200 people have been left sitting next to it, on a plane full of fuel on Melbourne Airport tarmac for 80 minutes.’’

A flight attendant restrained Marks until police boarded.

By the end of yesterday, a signif­icant discrepancy had emerged in the police timeline of the incid­ent.

All major airports have a permanent Australian Federal Police presence. Under national security protocols, command for all ­counter-terrorism operations is referred to state police.

Mr Ashton initially said it took about 20 minutes for Special Operations Group ­officers to arrive on the scene after Victoria Police took control. According to the latest Victoria Police timeline, it took 44 minutes — more than twice as long.

“If there was a bomb on that plane, we should have been evac­uated straight away, but we sat there for an hour and a half,’’ said passenger Stan Young.

“If security at the airport couldn’t come a bit quicker than that, there’s something wrong.’’

The caution displayed by highly trained police stood in contrast to the actions of quick-thinking passengers who unclipped their seat belts and confronted Mr Marks while the plane was still climbing steeply away from Melbourne Airport.

About eight minutes into the flight, the Tullamarine tower receive­d a call from inside the cockpit of Flight MH128. In measured tones, the pilot explained that there was a passenger on the other side of the door trying to get in and threatening to blow up the plane.

Police take statements from the passengers on the tarmac.

Andrew Leoncelli, a former AFL footballer seated in 4A, saw the man trying to approach the door of the cockpit and, over the roar of the engines, heard screams of help from the cabin crew.

“I said: ‘Mate, what the f..k are you doing?’,’’ he told Radio 3AW. The man allegedly replied: “Mate, I’m going to blow up the f..king plane, I’m going to blow up the f..king plane.’

“I thought: ‘God, he is f..king insane­.’ So I took a step back and said to my friend: ‘Mate, this guy is serious, we’d better f..king do something.’

“I approached him and then he ran down the side and ended up going down the back of the plane, and then two lads ­grabbed him and disarmed him and bashed the crap out of him and then put hog ties on him. We are turning around, full aircraft turning around, full load of fuel, crazy man restrained and, possibly, a device. So everyone is shitting themselves.’’

The device turned out to be a harmless Bluetooth speaker, but amid the chaos, passengers­ reported seeing wires, an antenna, a black box the size of a watermelon and a remote ­control in the alleged would-be bomber’s hand.

British biomedical salesman Scott Lodge and Robert Macdonald, a retired Scot on holiday, were among a group of passengers who overpowered Mr Marks near the back of the plane. Mr Lodge said he reacted to what looked like a physical altercation between Mr Marks and a flight attendant.

“It was really dark so it was hard to see if he hit her but I could see these arms flying and then she just shouted ‘Help!’ and that was it.

“It was headphones-off time. Within a second and a half, there were four people on him. One had a choke hold around him, the other was on his back.’’

Mr Macdonald said he thought the erratic passenger was on drugs and any resistance quickly faded. “He was struggling a bit at first but he had four or five of us, five big guys. He didn’t stand a chance.’’

Once Mr Marks was restrained and pinned to the floor between a row of seats, the plane was cleared to return to Tullamarine for landing. The last of the exhausted passeng­ers were released into the international arrivals hall just befor­e midday, nearly 13 hours after their ordeal began.

[img=558x1237]http://cdn.thinglink.me/api/image/926836004608802819/1024/10/scaletowidth#tl-926836004608802819;1043138249'[/img]

---

&..

MH128 scare: call for in-flight security and better training

MH128 passengers after the flight was turned back to Melbourne Airport. Picture: Dan Toner

• Annabel Hepworth
  
• The Australian
  
• 12:00AM June 2, 2017
  

The mid-air scare aboard a Malaysia Airlines flight has fuelled calls for more plainclothes security officers on flights and reviews of training for airline workers to identify potentially disruptive passengers on the ground.

National manager of the transport law department of Shine Lawyers Thomas Janson said there was a question why it was left to MH128 passengers to confront the unruly passenger. Other airlines had plainclothes security officers on many international flights.

Mr Janson, who has represented some families of victims of the MH17 and MH370 tragedies, said that practice “should be adopted by Malaysia Airlines”.

Malaysia Airlines said in a statement last night their cabin crew was trained, and had acted ­in ­accordance with their safety ­training.

Joseph Wheeler, principal of aerospace law firm IALPG and nat­ional head of aviation law for Maurice Blackburn, said airlines needed to review their staff training for identifying potentially disruptive passengers on the ground.

“Having security officers on board comes down to proper sec­urity risk management by airlines, as it is impractical and unnecessary to have them on every revenue flight,” Mr Wheeler said.

“This is why, in my view, the better approach would be to strengthen training of crews, who are the first line of defence.”

Mr Wheeler is also the International Federation of Airline Pilots Association’s representative on the International Civil Aviation Organisation taskforce looking at updating guidance on unruly passengers and pushing for harsher penalties by countries.

The International Air Transport Association has estimated that in 2015 there was one incident for every 1205 flights, compared with one incident every 1613 flights annually between 2007 and 2015.

Mr Wheeler said having in-flight security officers was an ­“irregular though growing practice among airlines”.

ICAO’s Montreal Protocol 2014 strengthened legal protection for such officers when dealing with an unruly passenger, answering concerns that the earlier Tokyo convention allowed many to escape punishment, but the protocol does not yet have enough signatories to come into force.

Transport Minister Darren Chester said the government had a range of on-board sec­urity measures that included hardened cockpit doors and in-flight security officers.

“This includes cabin crew training for handling suspect passenger behaviour and responding to sec­urity threats, incidents and breaches,” Mr Chester said. Err - no comment

TICK TOCK 6D - that troublesome A-word shit-list continues to grow...


MTF...P2