Passenger attempts to enter coughpit on MH128

[Melburnian1]

Passengers or people on board? Don't forget the crew in this number and any lap infants not needing a seat (not that I know how many people were on board this flight).

mannej, I haven't forgotten them, but 283 seats fully occupied (not that we know this, as it is unstated) plus c. 18 or so crew members plus a few infants on laps does not get us anywhere close to 337. For all we know there could have been some seats vacant (which even on 'full' flights can occur because there can be more no-shows than any overbookings who front.)

There may also have been some seats blocked off for additional crew rest positions or other reasons, reducing the seat capacity on the night in question.

It would be lovely if MH would confirm the number on board (passengers plus crew plus infants) but it is not exactly a corporation known for transparency. Look at how in court MH has treated the relatives of MH370 victims.

 

[kevrosmith]

I read the ABC news story, which mentioned a lady sitting looking at the device once they were on the ground. As others have suggested, I'm not sure if I was in this situation I wouldn't push the eject button to get myself out of the situation regardless what the instructions were. 90 minutes is a long time to be waiting to see if something is going to explode or not.

Additionally, the plane was in the air 1 hour and 6 minutes. So clearly there must've been plenty of time for the Swat team to get their stuff together.

 

[Hvr]

MH128: why did it take so long for police to storm the plane?

It is understood the delay was partly caused by the failure of an on-call officer to respond to an emergency message.


But it is has also emerged that the Australian Federal Police did not tell Victoria Police the incident had occurred until six minutes after the plane had landed.

The failure of the on-call officer to respond should be a sackable offence. Failure to notify VicPol until after the plane has landed clearly demonstrates that the AFP is not fit to police a supermarket car park let alone an airport.

 

[Skyring]

Sorry, but despite what the police are stating, what they are saying simply does not add up.

They were actively speaking with the passengers and so knew that all was under control, even if there was the possibility of a second bomb, or even other possible "terrorists" who were dormant and waiting to act.
I can only assume that they were also actively speaking with the crew via normal comms.

So I cannot imagine a scenario where it would not make sense to put at least one policeman, or a small team, on board to assess the situation.

Surely the possible extra risk to one policeman would not outweigh the possible immediate risk to a plane full of people.

This is not how the police view things. As we saw from the Lindt cafe thing, they put the safety of police first.

 

[Quickstatus]

I read the ABC news story, which mentioned a lady sitting looking at the device once they were on the ground. As others have suggested, I'm not sure if I was in this situation I wouldn't push the eject button to get myself out of the situation regardless what the instructions were

Where is the eject button on an A330.

 

[Pushka]

This is not how the police view things. As we saw from the Lindt cafe thing, they put the safety of police first.

That's where I heard that statement then. I wonder sometimes where we've gone with that.

 

[fairbasa]

Obviously in hindsight this event didn't warrant it, but after the Lindt siege you wonder under what circumstances the call would ever go out to TAG who we spend so much time and money training. Apparently during routine CT drills it took 7hrs to follow through the various procedures and protocols necessary to get them involved!

They seem to have some nice training props: https://theaviationist.com/2012/05/10/boeing-747-mock-up/

 

[Quickstatus]

I can see why the police think that:
No respect for police from either the community or especially the judiciary
Police are increasingly being hauled up for public scrutiny
Police actions are expected to be perfect and flawless everytime
They are spat upon, assaulted, and risk their lives everyday for what?.

 

[juddles]

Just two points:

1.- This thread now is into its 7th page and gathering more and more momentum. This incident involves a lunatic that managed to get released from a mental facility and stroll onto a plane and cause a massive amount of disruption and, to some people, personal trauma. But not a single post relates to the causes of this incident, the responsibility of the mental health authorities, or the bloke himself. This is typical, IMHO, of modern society, where it is the norm to attack the people who we leave to deal with these crazy situations.

2.- The responding police had minutes (sure - 90 of them) to try to make life and death type calls on the situation, but as usual their actions will be leisurely dissected by armchair experts who can quickly just vanish out of the thread if something they say is at any point shown to be wrong. That is the cowardly thing about internet discussions - there is absolutely no fall out to those involved. Exactly the opposite situation to policing. It is obvious, in my opinion, that post-incident enquiries and examination of responses are a very very necessary thing, in the constant strive to improve policies and procedures. But that needs to be done by people who have the knowledge to do so. Armchair critics are not the ones.

I love a lively discussion on topics - it is FUN. That is why I indulge here. But I restrict myself to participating in a way that is based on recognition of that reality. Mud-slinging does actually harm real people. And they don't get to forget about that hurt by just dropping offline and making a cuppa....

P.S. Why can't the thread title be changed to "posse needed to hang police for a time period we have no clue about, but still are sure must be wrong". Then at least the title would be accurate.

 

[moa999]

I don't think anyone has shied away from the fact that a single passenger caused this.

But very little is known about him. Not an Australian citizen, and in a regular hospital, possibly a mental illness ward beforehand.
But very difficult to know what sent him off. It could have been premeditated, it could have been the perfume or clothing of the passenger seated next to him.

I'm sure much like Lindt police will follow procedure, and after this incident there might also be 40+ recommendations on how that procedure should change.

 

[Skyring]

I can see why the police think that:
No respect for police from either the community or especially the judiciary
Police are increasingly being hauled up for public scrutiny
Police actions are expected to be perfect and flawless everytime
They are spat upon, assaulted, and risk their lives everyday for what?.

Risk their lives? They will do everything they can to avoid injury or embarrassment at the expense of the general public.

Looking at the photographs coming out today, I see a cop striding down the aisle in full body armour with an assault rifle and various technodevices to do something about a guy who has already been subdued and poses no threat to anybody.

And if the thing might be a bomb, then why the hell are the passengers and crew still aboard? They aren't in any protective gear.

Whatever happened to common sense?

 

[Skyring]

2.- The responding police had minutes (sure - 90 of them) to try to make life and death type calls on the situation, but as usual their actions will be leisurely dissected by armchair experts who can quickly just vanish out of the thread if something they say is at any point shown to be wrong. That is the cowardly thing about internet discussions - there is absolutely no fall out to those involved. Exactly the opposite situation to policing. It is obvious, in my opinion, that post-incident enquiries and examination of responses are a very very necessary thing, in the constant strive to improve policies and procedures. But that needs to be done by people who have the knowledge to do so. Armchair critics are not the ones.

Neither are police the ones. EVERY incident sees the cops take longer and longer to respond and they are covered in more and more layers of protection.

And what of the passengers, the customers, the public? No protective gear, no assault rifles and stun grenades. They are kept in the dark, given no information, and expected to be targets.

 

[opusman]

The cops are useless.

 

[mannej]

The cops are useless.

The armchair critics are out in force.

 

[RooFlyer]

<snip for space>

P.S. Why can't the thread title be changed to "posse needed to hang police for a time period we have no clue about, but still are sure must be wrong". Then at least the title would be accurate.

I understand the gist of your post juddles; I am usually very much supportive of police/security actions, even when they are not 'popular' and I loath the legal and social restraints on them from doing their job to protect us all.

But I think this case was so ludicrously handled that I can't help but be on the side of the stone-throwers, if you like. But my target is police management, not the guys in the camo.

"Assessing the risks" of a second device (coughy trapped door was mentioned) and/or a second perp which seems to be the main reasons for the delay in boarding and ending the situation was done to a plain silly extent. Those dangers were on board and I can't see how thinking them over outside for 60+ mins did any more good than talking to the captain for 10 mins or so and getting vision from inside the plane. Those risks could NOT be eliminated, even if they took 3 hours to consider them.

And why on earth would they come on board with those assault rifles, or whatever they were? How, in the 60+ mins of thinking time, were they proposed to be used on board a plane with 300-odd passengers, I wonder? After 60+ mins the police must have concluded that there was little danger; what if some angry passenger stood up yelling and tried to get out?



And then we come to the risible performance of the Vic Police Commissioner on TV last night; everything was done just right according to him - no stuff ups, no wrong strategy. I think there was the main problem, sitting in front of the microphone.

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.”

 

[Skyring]

The armchair critics are out in force.

Well, think about it. We know the facts, and they are pretty much what the captain of the plane would have communicated to the ground.

1. One attempted coughpit intruder subdued and restrained.
2. An object that possibly contains a bomb.

Response to 1. Send in a security guard to escort the intruder off the plane.
Response to 2. Evacuate the passengers. Send in an explosives expert to have a look at it.

What other reasoned response is there?

 

[Melburnian1]

...this case was so ludicrously handled that I can't help but be on the side of the stone-throwers, if you like. But my target is police management, not the guys in the camo.
...
And then we come to the risible performance of the Vic Police Commissioner on TV last night; everything was done just right according to him - no stuff ups, no wrong strategy. I think there was the main problem, sitting in front of the microphone.

RooFlyer, excellent analysis.

It's not the fault of the police who boarded the aircraft. I bet many of them would have wanted to enter earlier, or even, knowing the situation, just send two AFP officers on board to escort the man away.

 

[whatmeworry]

So basically no cops were sent in, because of the risk to them despite the potential risk of a bomb going off and killing 200 odd passengers and destroying a plane?

This equation does not compute.

 

[jb747]

Presumably the new official procedure for bomb threats at the office is for you to remain at your desk and keep working....

 

[mannej]

Well, think about it. We know the facts, and they are pretty much what the captain of the plane would have communicated to the ground.

1. One attempted coughpit intruder subdued and restrained.
2. An object that possibly contains a bomb.

Response to 1. Send in a security guard to escort the intruder off the plane.
Response to 2. Evacuate the passengers. Send in an explosives expert to have a look at it.

What other reasoned response is there?

You don't know all of the facts though. Whilst I don't have issue with the posts that contain reasoned debate, the post above mine was overly simplistic IMHO.

I get a bit agro in these types of threads because I know many police and the opinions expressed are against all of them. Maybe if people, in this sort of incident, started to criticize "senior police" instead of police in general then I would not feel so hostile.

In this incident there were dozens of police, trained / enthusiastic / idealistic, who would not hesitate to put their lives on the line to protect any member of society. And there was one or two higher level commanders who have been in office environments for years (decades?) now who have just been polished in how to take no risks.

But somehow the criticism I perceive in this thread is for "police" in general. That is not just unfair on those mainly good police, it is obscene.

There has to be a way to differentiate the majority of the police force from the handful that stuff up.....