back to article Cops apologise for leaving EXPLOSIVES in suitcase at airport

Australia's Federal Police force has apologised for leaving explosives in a suitcase at an airport. The force says the explosives – all 230 grams of them – were a “canine training device” inadvertently left in a suitcase used during a training exercise at Sydney Airport. The suitcase was then forgotten but eventually “a woman …

  1. Sampler
    Coat

    Is this why...

    ..they've recently increased the security threat level around here?

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Is this why...

      I was thinking about this recently as I work at a couple of sensitve locations and I've noticed in the last few weeks they've been rotating the guards every day and the same two have not been together.

    2. The Man Who Fell To Earth Silver badge
      Boffin

      This has been going on for a very long time

      For example:

      http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/1995-08-22/news/9508220031_1_explosives-c-4-orlando-international-airport

  2. Will Godfrey Silver badge
    Happy

    dog-gone it

  3. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Department of devolving responsibility

    What, the officer who supplied the explosives had no responsibility for ensuring they had all been recovered? And no-one was in charge of this exercise? Maybe they like the idea of Bring Your Own (Explosive) Device.

    Plus, if the dog handler had to plant the explosives as well as recover them, surely all he's training his dog to do is locate baggage he's handled?

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Department of devolving responsibility

      Plus, if the dog handler had to plant the explosives as well as recover them, surely all he's training his dog to do is locate baggage he's handled?

      This is normally a 2 man exercise, so that the handler doesn't inadvertedly helps the dog (canines are fairly quick at picking up subconscious clues) - this should never be done by one man on his own, especially since it's not exactly the first time explosives have gone astray.

      1. I ain't Spartacus Gold badge

        Re: Department of devolving responsibility

        Wasn't there a case in Japan a few years ago? Where they went even further. Instead of using identified test suitcases, they were inserting explosives into random peoples' cases. I presume this was between check-in and baggage security screening.

        Apparently they didn't take note of which bags, so they could remove it afterwards. At least one bag evded the dogs, and some poor bloke got home with a very naughty suitcase. Imagine explaining that to US police on your return? "Oh no officers, I don't know how that got there. The only time the case left my sight was when I checked it in. Honest. Why don't you believe me? What's that elbow length rubber glove for?"

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: Department of devolving responsibility

          > Wasn't there a case in Japan a few years ago?

          Don't know about Japan, but there was a case in Slovakia relatively recently.

          http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/8441891.stm

        2. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: Department of devolving responsibility

          "Wasn't there a case in Japan a few years ago?"

          http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/05/27/japanese_customs_freebie/

  4. Pete 2 Silver badge

    Bom bom bomb!

    > The force has also defended the fact that it takes explosives to airports, saying the public was never in danger

    Well, no. The chances of there ever being a bomb at an airport is extremely small. The chances of there being two bombs is infinitesimal. Therefore it makes complete sense for the security forces to take bombs to airports as it vastly reduces the chances of another one being there.

    [ 'scuse me while I dig out my copy of Probability for complete idiots ]

    1. Rampant Spaniel

      Re: Bom bom bomb!

      I like your thinking! A promising career in the civil service beckons.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Bom bom bomb!

        I like Benny Hill's thinking - At least when I use an old joke I either post anon or give credit where it's due.

        “The odds against there being a bomb on a plane are a million to one, and against two bombs a million times a million to one. Next time you fly, cut the odds and take a bomb.”

    2. Fred Flintstone Gold badge

      Re: Bom bom bomb!

      Well, no. The chances of there ever being a bomb at an airport is extremely small. The chances of there being two bombs is infinitesimal. Therefore it makes complete sense for the security forces to take bombs to airports as it vastly reduces the chances of another one being there.

      I think we have a winner for QotW, hahaha. Brilliant :).

    3. Trollslayer

      Re: Bom bom bomb!

      That only works if the probabilities are dependant in some way which they weren't.

      1. ravenviz Silver badge
        Facepalm

        Re: Bom bom bomb!

        @Trollslayer see icon

      2. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Bom bom bomb!

        someone missed the joke.

    4. Phil O'Sophical Silver badge
      Coat

      Re: Bom bom bomb!

      it makes complete sense for the security forces to take bombs to airports

      Do you perchance have a bullet with your name written on it in your pocket?

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Joke

        Re: Bom bom bomb!

        Why, Phil? Do you have one with his name on it too?

        -- seriously, this is a JOKE.

        1. Phil O'Sophical Silver badge

          Re: Bom bom bomb!

          Why, Phil? Do you have one with his name on it too?

          You're not a Blackadder IV fan then, I take it?

    5. Trigonoceps occipitalis

      Re: Bom bom bomb!

      Ah, the prosecutor's fallacy.

      Of course in he UK the lady with the new suitecase would be arrested for posessing explosives.

  5. This post has been deleted by its author

    1. Rampant Spaniel

      And how lax is their monitoring of it that the loss went unnoticed until some Sheila decided to scare the police into full trouser biscuit production.

      1. Invidious Aardvark
        Mushroom

        And how lax was security at the airport that they stored and then redistributed an unattended bag to a random member of the public without checking it first? It's almost like all those "unattended bags will be destroyed" warnings are nothing more than security theatre...

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Why do they need more than half a pound of explosives for a scent test?

      The dog's got a cold..

  6. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Replacement suitcase???

    This doesn't ring true. So someone just gave her a suitcase that had been laying about for a while without knowing it had something in it. I've had luggage go missing and found and was told it's standard practice to inspect all lost luggage. You could say the explosives were hidden in the suitcase but she didn't have any difficulty finding them so they can't have been. Besides for a training exercise there is no need to do this.

    Most probably nicked it then did a deal with the police, give back the explosives in return for no charges.

  7. Anonymous Coward
    Mushroom

    Doesn't ring true indeed

    But I suspect that its most likely a story made up by the cops to resolve internal issues. A bit like "the prisoner walked into a door" or "the prisoner cut himself shaving", these are bullshit stories that suit the circumstances whilst minimizing the culpability of those involved. It happens every time officials are caught with their pants down. For example, I would not be shocked to learn that this is a cover story for an actual loss of 230g of high explosive, where they 'find' it by having a friend of a friend 'discover' they have the wrong suitcase.

    1. John H Woods Silver badge
      Joke

      Re: Doesn't ring true indeed

      Good job there aren't any conspiracy theorists around! I bet those crazy idiots would think this was some kind of false-flag black-ops terrorism attempt to justify the increased terror alert, but was just inadvertently foiled by a women taking the wrong bag!

  8. chivo243 Silver badge
    Mushroom

    Only an apology?

    I'd be lobbing a some sue balls e-fuckingmediately

    1. h4rm0ny

      Re: Only an apology?

      She's Australian, not American. No ultimate harm was done (except for the poor sod who's going to get pilloried for this). What is this reflex reaction of some people to go "someone made a mistake - I am entitled to money!"

      1. chivo243 Silver badge
        Flame

        Re: Only an apology?

        Only a mistake that could have killed her... just saying. If the shoe was on the other foot, she would probably be arrested and fined(sued)!

        1. I ain't Spartacus Gold badge

          Re: Only an apology?

          Modern plastic explosive is pretty damned stable. If they were playing around with detonators, that would be another matter entirely. But you can burn plastic explosive safely, and I believe some squaddies have even used it to boil their tea.

          1. Tom 13

            Re: Only an apology?

            The explosives aren't the only bit that need to be stable. Even old fashioned TNT is more stable than some of the plods who are responsible for stopping the bad guys who use the stuff. Granted, it is Australia, so odds for stable go up some, but not enough for my liking.

          2. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: Only an apology?

            "But you can burn plastic explosive safely, and I believe some squaddies have even used it to boil their tea."

            Mythbusters have also shot holes in it with big arse rifles trying to trigger a pressure detonation, no boom :(

        2. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: Only an apology?

          > Only a mistake that could have killed her.

          My wife worked for an oil company at a time and place where bombs really were going off, not just "threat level" possibilities. One security Rambo thought he'd test the level of vigilance of the staff, so put what appeared to be plastic explosive and a detonator into the centre of a cut-out book, leaving it on a table in a reception area. My wife walked past, saw the book, wondered whose it was and opened it. She carried out all the procedures for this type of thing, and the building was duly evacuated, but the shock took days to wear off, and indeed, her boss wouldn't let he come in for quite a while. By the time she got back, Rambo had been fired, mostly for the effect his little pointless stunt had had, but also I suspect because the business effects were as bad as a real bomb.

      2. Gene Cash Silver badge

        Re: Only an apology?

        > What is this reflex reaction of some people to go "someone made a mistake - I am entitled to money!"

        Because that's about the only way to stop the f*ckers from doing it again. Hit them in the wallet and get some people fired.

  9. thomas k.
    Facepalm

    the public was never in danger

    until they gave this lady the suitcase with explosives in it.

    1. Nigel 11

      Re: the public was never in danger

      Professional / Military grade non-detonating explosives are not particularly dangerous, and the greatest risk is probably the toxicity of heavily nitrated hydrocarbons. They need a detonator to make them go bang. If you manage to set them on fire, they do burn well, but probably less well than gasoline (and they're solid, not liquid).

      I do wonder why the police used a significant amount of (presumably well-wrapped) explosive, rather than a minuscule smear, unwrapped. Both would give out the same concentration of vapour so they'd both smell the same to a dog. Maybe they were actually testing a scanner (which failed!), rather than training a dog,

      1. Tony Haines

        Re: the public was never in danger

        I disagree. The greatest risk was that if she hadn't discovered the explosives she would have be arrested as a terrorist on her next flight.

        1. Seanie Ryan

          Re: the public was never in danger

          yeah, because most people take their case home, store it with all the contents and then board a plane a few weeks later, using the same case , contents unchanged !!!

          quite common, i'd say

          WTF???

          1. Yet Another Anonymous coward Silver badge

            Re: the public was never in danger

            I doubt there was a bundle of sticks of dynamite in the suitcase.

            There may have been a few grams of explosive in one pocket of the suitcase.

            Do you check all the pockets of a backpack everytime you fly?

            1. Rich 11

              Re: the public was never in danger

              Do you check all the pockets of a backpack everytime you fly?

              Yes! Always have, always will do. I'd have to be daft not to.

            2. Tom 13

              Re: Do you check all the pockets

              If you're a 'Merkin you do. Because that's part of the questions they ask you at security when you pass through:

              "Did you pack your bag? Has anyone else handled the bag since you packed it?"

              The implication being that you and only you have put things into the bag.

          2. Tom 13

            Re: WTF???

            Depends on how the explosives were put in and where she was headed. If she had a one day/night layover before another flight, yes it could happen.

  10. This post has been deleted by its author

  11. Allan George Dyer
    Coat

    If there is a spike in baggage thefts...

    you'll know the terrorists are trying to source the explosives for their next attack.

    No, I'm sure my coat was lighter.

  12. JimmyPage Silver badge
    Flame

    No one has yet spotted the significance of this story.

    What if they had used a suitcase going out of the country ? How would the poor passenger explain *that* to the security people at the other end.

    And if they are doing it with explosives, you can bet they're doing it with drugs.

    If I was executed by one of the more draconian regimes for a half grain of heroin planted in my luggage by OzCop inc. I'd be very cross when I got to heaven, and wouldn't enjoy it.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: No one has yet spotted the significance of this story.

      Now you've made me fancy a cup of tea, and I'm out of milk!

  13. Simon B

    I see The Australian Federal Police have strict controls on booking out/booking in explosives what with nobody noticing 230 grams of KABOOM! being booked out of a secure.lockup (the drawer on reception) but not booked back in. I wonder how secure the prison keys are (hung on the back of the toilet door) or how secure the drugs are fro the last drugs raid (on the back seat of a police car). Cracking job there ozz police!

  14. Christoph

    Even worse if they'd taken the explosives out

    Suppose they'd removed the explosives, then later gave her the bag.

    Then a long time later the security people somewhere else swab the bag for explosives residue and get a positive.

    How is she going to explain that? People have been convicted on the basis of microscopic amounts of explosive.

    Same problem with that one a few years back where the French planted explosive in a passenger's suitcase and then lost it. Even they didn't know whose the case was. And apparently that's a common tactic. How many people are carrying suitcases with detectable explosive residues and no possible way to explain them?

    1. I ain't Spartacus Gold badge

      Re: Even worse if they'd taken the explosives out

      The French once planted a bomb in the grounds of their London ambassador's official residence. Apparently they were having a hissy-fit at the time, as we wouldn't let them use their own armed security to protect the visit of President Mitterand. So the idea was to catch out UK police. And embarrass them.

      We found it, and there was a huge debate within government as to what to do. Complaining was decided to be too embarrassing, as we'd still have to be nice to the French afterwards. So it was hushed-up instead.

      1. Rich 11

        Re: Even worse if they'd taken the explosives out

        That makes a change from them planting bombs on Greenpeace ships and murdering people.

  15. Spleenmeister

    Really?

    This sounds like total balls to me.

    I'm no conspiracy factualist but how come every large "terror" event in either the US or UK in the last ten years has been either during or right after a "drill", or the security services "knew" about the perpetrators beforehand? Don't believe that? Check the facts. 9/11; 7/7; Boston; Sandy Hook etc etc. All had "drills" running concurrently with the event. Lee Rigby's attackers were "known" to both MI6 and MI5. A mate of the perps went public right afterwards saying he had also been approached to be "recruited" by SIS. He was arrested straight away for "terror offences". Funny that.

    A suspicious person might think they had picked up the wrong bag in another "drill". Also funny the threat level was raised right afterwards. Another suspicious person might speculate the two were supposed to be connected. Not me, obviously.

    Also, when did airports start handing out replacement suitcases?

    Nonsense.

    1. Crazy Operations Guy

      Re: Really?

      "I'm no conspiracy factualist but how come every large "terror" event in either the US or UK in the last ten years has been either during or right after a "drill""

      Drills happen all the time, the chance of a drill occurring within a week of a significant event is near 100%.

      Being 'known' by an intelligence agency is nothing significant, it only means that they got on a list or two for one reason or another (Usually really simple stuff like buying fertilizer with a high nitrogen content; looking up weapons and explosives online; or sometimes just reading middle-eastern news sources).

      As for 'a mate was recruited'; the intelligence agencies will buy lists of people who have taken cryptography or information security classes and send them a generic letter/email/phone call and ask them to apply.

      The threat level was raised due to the anniversary of Sept 11.

      Airports don't give out replacement suitcases, but some airlines do. The suitcase used for the drill was probably given a tag by that airline, but was missing proper passenger info and thus ended up in the airline's 'lost and found'.

  16. TeeCee Gold badge

    formal Professional Standards Investigation

    I guess that this is Oz wankword-spik for "monumental bollocking".

  17. Crazy Operations Guy

    Why no tracking device?

    If I was in charge of any amount of explosives, let alone 230 Grams of the stuff, I would require it be equipped with a GPS+Sat transponder anytime it left my sight. They have devices like that in the goddamn SkyMall catalog FFS...

    There really is no excuse for things like this. Although every time I see something like this, it reinforces my beliefs that government conspiracies are complete malarkey (If they fuck up this badly on a drill, how badly would they be in trying to pull of a major operation)

    1. Tom 13
      Black Helicopters

      Re: Why no tracking device?

      No, no. You still don't get it. All the screw ups are run by the conspiracy rings. That way they fool people like you into thinking the government is so incompetent they could never run a successful conspiracy.

      1. Crazy Operations Guy

        Re: Why no tracking device?

        My thinking is that Governments are run by people; people are idiots; therefore governments are idiots.

    2. ShadowDragon8685

      Re: Why no tracking device?

      @Crazy Operations Guy

      A brick of plastic explosive is frightening.

      A brick of plastic explosive equipped with electronics? The Cessnock Five-Oh might well have had a heart attack, or brought in the bomb squad to detonate the whole kit and kaboodle where it lay.

      1. Omgwtfbbqtime
        Mushroom

        Re: Why no tracking device? @ShadowDragon8685

        And that would be a problem because?

  18. StephenH

    We can be confident that we won't be reading of stuff ups like this in the future - once the laws making reporting such things illegal get through.

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon