Virgin Blue pilot tested postive for explosive, then flew

[Greg McDonald]

From news.com.au

A VIRGIN Blue pilot who tested positive for traces of explosives and then avoided security guards was allowed to continue unchecked and fly a passenger aircraft.

The security breach at Sydney's domestic airport was sparked when the pilot, who has not been identified, was selected for the random explosives testing but left the security screening area while guards were waiting for the results of the sample.

But instead of calling in the Australian Federal Police and grounding all the outbound Virgin Blue flights until the pilot was found, the guards covered up the security breach.

An investigation by The Australian into the incident has exposed a widespread problem with the testing of pilots that could be exploited by terrorists.

Security sources say pilots are often not selected for the explosives testing because of their aggressive attitude towards it.

It is understood that there have been several incidents in Australian airports in which pilots have refused the random explosives test, leading to reprimands from the airlines.

Aviation security experts warned of the risks involved in pilots refusing to undergo the tests.

"If it became known that pilots were immune to screening it would be tempting to train as a pilot and get a job or target them and steal their passes," said Nick O'Brien, an associate professor in counter terrorism at Charles Sturt University.

A Virgin Blue spokeswoman said the company was investigating the allegations.

[Robert Zweck]

Seemingly harmless traces of common garden fertilizers and superphosphate on your clothes will probably cause you to test positive.

Green thumbs beware!

So the moral of this story is......Don't go to the airport in your gardening clothes

[Will T]

Parts of this article (or at least the sources consulted therein) don't stack up.

Flight crew are subject to the same screening process and requirements as passengers, and have absolutely no discretion to 'refuse' to undergo any normal screening, including random explosives tests.

A 'positive' test isn't overly uncommon, and - as Zwecky points out - can result from handling fertilisers, working with legal explosives (eg. mining industry), and a number of other lawful activities. I believe there are additional screening requirements whenenver a positive result is returned.

[Nigel C]

Originally Posted by Will Tidmarsh

A 'positive' test isn't overly uncommon, and - as Zwecky points out - can result from handling fertilisers, working with legal explosives (eg. mining industry), and a number of other lawful activities. I believe there are additional screening requirements whenenver a positive result is returned.

I handle and regularly discharge firearms as part of my work requirements and sometimes go into the terminal. So far I haven't tested positive, although if they tested my ID card it would probably have traces all over it!

I'm interested to see what the next step is for someone like me who has entered from airside after using firearms, tests positive, and then later goes back airside. Would they initially try to stop me?

[Robert Zweck]

Originally Posted by Will Tidmarsh

Parts of this article (or at least the sources consulted therein) don't stack up.

.

Will,

I was thinking the same thing.....all Tech Crew obviously have to go through the same process.

I've seen plenty of Tech Crew set the buzzer off , nothing untoward, maybe they forgot they forgot to take off their watch, steel reinforcing in their shoes, etc. Just like any other pax.

[Bernie P]

Originally Posted by Robert Zweck

Seemingly harmless traces of common garden fertilizers and superphosphate on your clothes will probably cause you to test positive.

Green thumbs beware!

So the moral of this story is......Don't go to the airport in your gardening clothes

GOD help me... As a greenkeeper and handling fertilisers ALL the time, I had better watch out!!!

And as in my sig, I am off to a Turf conference next year in Santiago!!!

[Ash W]

Originally Posted by Nigel C

I handle and regularly discharge firearms as part of my work requirements and sometimes go into the terminal. So far I haven't tested positive, although if they tested my ID card it would probably have traces all over it!

I'm interested to see what the next step is for someone like me who has entered from airside after using firearms, tests positive, and then later goes back airside. Would they initially try to stop me?

I tested positive to explosvies at Kona airport back in 2003. All they did was take everything out of my bag and inspect it and gave me a hand search. I didn't have any checked baggage so cannot say what they would do to that if someone tested positive.

PS to this day I don't know why it came up positive, all I can guess is it was something from the volcano I was walking all over. In which case it must be a regular thing in Kona.

[Kelvin R]

It would be pretty easy to wander off while waiting for the test results. The screener makes no effort to hold you while waiting for the test and even though the test is meant to be performed the same way each time I have never had that and I seem to be selected one in three times. So you have no way of knowing when you are free to go.

It seems the problem is each airport is responsible for how they implement security so no two airports (or screeners) are the same. A bit like how in HBA and CBR deodorant must be screened on its own like a laptop but this happens on occasion in Melbourne and never in Sydney.

[Nathan S]

Trace detection technology isn't entirely accurate either

[Gareth U]

Originally Posted by Kelvin R

It seems the problem is each airport is responsible for how they implement security so no two airports (or screeners) are the same.

The above is a pet peeve of mine.

Brisbane is over the top with crew, in my opinion. Once our Captain was stopped as they wanted to check inside the ring binder of one of his folders. He asked why they had an interest. The response - "You might try to take control of the aircraft." We all stared in total disbelief.