US Airways B767 from CDG to CLT, 188 souls aboard, diverted to BGR with F-15 escort this afternoon. Allegedly, a female passenger claimed to have an explosive device implanted inside her body. Currently being evaluated for mental problems...


Plane diverted after crazed woman claims to have BOMB surgically implanted inside her body | Mail Online (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2148238/Plane-diverted-crazed-woman-claims-BOMB-surgically-implanted-inside-body.html)

According to this US Airways flight diverted after passenger claims to have device surgically implanted inside her | The Lookout - Yahoo! News (http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/us-airways-flight-diverted-because-security-issue-163233786.html) she was traveling alone with no baggage. Wasn't necessarily a false alarm, but who knows?

This might be a tactic referred to as probing.

Might also be a nut job.

So what exactly was the job of the F15's? To shoot it down if she failed? Witness a human catastrophe? Put pressure on the crew? Answers on a postcard please.

PM

Like short range surface to air missiles in the middle of a city during the Olympics - it just seems it's part of the posture these days; no one knows what they are for.

Well, she could have been a decoy whilst others hijacked the aircraft and tried to fly it into a tall building?

In case she took command of the aircraft I suppose.

Rather the 188 PoB being taken out than another few hundred on the ground as well I guess?

Yeah - got it - might not crash on a big tall building. Otherwise perfectly OK to be shot down certainly killing everyone on the 'plane and the wreckage falling into a less publicity valuable area of housing or such.

Rubbish.

Piltdown:

So what exactly was the job of the F15's? To shoot it down if she failed? Witness a human catastrophe? Put pressure on the crew? Answers on a postcard please.

Twofold:

1. To provide some measure of reassurance to the passengers that the diversion is being supported.

2. Once the captain and the F-15s are on the same page as to where the fight is diverting to, if the flight instead goes to some other plan, then the F-15 commander will be communicating as to "why are you doing that?" If there are no answers then the commander goes up the chain of command for instructions, possibly including shooting the airliner down.

Yeah - cos nothing reassures passengers quite like seeing the 'plane that will be tasked with shooting them down and nothing quite dissuades a suicide bomber...

Rubbish.

I thought heat seeking air to air missiles were only meant to destroy an engine. Of course, in a military type aircraft, the resultant engine separation is bad, but for a wing mounted engine, survivable? With the result of forcing a landing/ditching?
And carefully placed cannon rounds could also achieve a similar, less catastrophic result?
Maybe fighter escort has a useful role after all?

ONE:...very glad that BGR had portable stairs. Some guys would pull the slide trick.

Two...you guys and the F15's...imagine this: you are a bad guy hijacking a plane, you see one F15 pull up abeam the cockpit...you know you can't get away with flying into a building like 911. Two...for those of you in the know, the OTHER F15 is sitting on your tail just in case you try something funny.

Three...we have to face facts...it is better to lose 200 people on a plane than to lose 2000 in a "crash into a building" scenario...after all you will lose the 200 anyway!

Interesting ethical call that. Kill 200 of your citizens (& those of other countries) for certain with the wreckage falling god knows where (given by the time it is obvious it is going to hit a Very Important Building it'll be over a densely populated area anyway) or letting the 'plane carry on because you can't be certain there will be a happier eventuality.

Still Rubbish.

Not one convincing argument so far.

Do you happen to have any better ideas other than whining like a 12 year old? Geez... A valid argument is one thing ... Hope your just in a bad mood

The only possible reason to have a fighter jet hanging around is so the pilot can observe the manner the 'plane is flying in and possibly visually communicate with those on board.

The whole 'shoot down the hijacked airliner' idea it total BS. The idea that we would ever shoot down a 'plane load of innocent people because of what might happen is manifestly perverse and unethical.

There - that good enough?

It's been done before, ask Air India and others.

btw the ASRAAM I worked on in development starts off in infra red then reverts to 'flightdeck mode' if it becomes visual prior to impact, thus killing the pilots not just a shot into an engine. The database included civilian aircraft too!

OK load toad

what do you do? let thousands die or just hundreds? there really isn't another choice in the scenario you are thinking about.

how about the F15's fly directly in front of the engines of the 767 and then go to full afterburner, sucking the oxygen out of the air and causinga dual engine flameout on the 767? and then the 767 glides down and lands in a lovely park where hot dogs are being sold for twenty five cents.

they must be "Kosher hot dogs" though...:}

Maybe she had been b o o b y trapped...

what do you do? let thousands die or just hundreds? there really isn't another choice in the scenario you are thinking about.
Another act of psychological war/disinformation - for instance.

I can imagine the following possibility: after the "successful" shooting down some foreign TV broadcasts the terrorists' talk (recorder prior to the hijack): "We will hijack the plane. We want to exchange the passengers with the Guantanamo prisoners", ended with an obvious propaganda remark: "America killed its own citizens".

Next time they hijack the plane, a USAF guy in charge will have - supposedly - a much tougher decision to make...

Twas a decoy. The real bomb has already entered US jurisdiction in a sub chartered from the Cali cartell....:ooh:

U guys missing the point here. Every time one of these nut jobs come up with a new bomb solution it makes traveling that much more of a nightmare. Lets look at it in stages

1) 911 -- Any and every sharp object disappears, 1 hour additional security check and a no fly list

2) Shoe bomber: We now need to walk bare foot, un belted thru security

3) Liquid bomber: Little plastic bags with under 100 ml and god help you if you traveling with a kid you will be sucking from a bottle with a nipple at security to make sure it is milk

4) Undie bomber: Body scanners and last week I got a veggie at Amsterdam as the security guy yanked my undies as it seemed there was some metal in it.

5) So now with the implanted bombs what can we expect: A full colonoscopy?

I say bring back the Titanic much easier to sail.

The whole 'shoot down the hijacked airliner' idea it total BS. The idea that we would ever shoot down a 'plane load of innocent people because of what might happen is manifestly perverse and unethical.


Rubbish.

As far back as September 2001 the order was issued to USAF to shoot down any airliner that didn't respond to instructions, they would have done it then and they would do it today.

Airline security will no doubt be very tight, I suspect they are much more worried about the threat from light aircraft.

As far back as September 2001 the order was issued to USAF to shoot down any airliner that didn't respond to instructions, they would have done it then and they would do it today.

So when the terrorists have clearly communicated they are in complete control & are going to crash on a Very Important Building where do you shoot the airliner down & where does it fall? Having been travelling at 300 - 400 odd miles an hour & hit with one or more high explosive AA missiles travelling at supersonic speeds does it just fall in one piece in a convenient empty field?

If it's that far away from the VIB how does the govt decide the threat is going to be carried out successfully anyway.

Utter nonsense.

Let's just replay 9-11 for a second - at what point & where would the jets that hit the buildings have been shot down?

Don't know why they bother with airliners at all.
4 well placed homemade suitcase bombs in a large metropolitan hotel,
can bring down a massive building and kill thousands. No security, no hassles.

I'd do it that way.

The whole 'shoot down the hijacked airliner' idea it total BS. The idea that we would ever shoot down a 'plane load of innocent people because of what might happen is manifestly perverse and unethical.

Unfortunately politicians are often unethical and perverse, and the "we would never shoot down a plane load of innocent people" idea is BS.

As far back as September 2001 the order was issued to USAF to shoot down any airliner that didn't respond to instructions, they would have done it then and they would do it today.

The 'funny' thing is, that the USAF had four opportunities to shot down a legitimate threat on 9 11, and we all saw the result. I agree with Load Toad, the 'shoot down civilian jet' policy is a bunch of BS that won't stop any terrorists (as seen on 9 11) but it does pose a very real threat of an overly confident politician/general ordering the shooting down of a jet, whose pilots switched the frequency a bit to early. It's simply an Orwellian method to remind people that we're at war.

Did she have a bomb?

At this point she appears to just be a nut job.

"At this time, there is no indication the plane or its passengers were ever in any actual danger."

Except, perhaps, from the F-15s.

"It doesn't appear to be any terrorist nexus at this point."

If this were probing, what would be gained by exposing herself?

Why do you all assume that the F15's "showed" themselves to the aircraft? More likely to sit behind/above/below unnoticed.

Why go and have a look?

I guess the person in charge at North American Air Defense would appreciate a check that Captain X and FO Y look familiar from their passport photos as the aircraft nears his or her jurisdiction.

Should X & Y hear any loud bangs from the cabin and experience unusual handling, they might benefit from some outside eyes to explain what's going on.

And should the flight not arrive as agreed at Bangor, then the F15s will be able to ensure that it doesn't get as far as downtown Boston.

I had a girl with two huge "bombs" on my aircraft the other day...

we invited her over to the cockpit...=)

Rubbish.

As far back as September 2001 the order was issued to USAF to
shoot down any airliner that didn't respond to instructions, they would have
done it then and they would do it today.


Actually that is the rubbish. Or at least a great distortion. There may now be a "principle" that the USAF has authority to shoot upon a civilian aircraft in a terrorist situation. Even in America this is a very long way from a standing order that non-responsive aircraft will be shot down!

It is a sad sign of the times, and an example of complete failure to understand and balance risks, that there is now a higher chance of a civilain aircraft being downed due to military screw-up than due to terrorism.

Remember, the US military have downed an innocent airliner before. Don't say it could never happen again. And the UK attitude towards protecting the Olympics is equally worrying and misguided posturing which increases rather than decreases risks.

There is an interesting medical parable for this. You would never create a vaccine to prevent a disease that kills one in a million. Why? Because the risk from the vaccine will invariably be higher than the risk from the disease.

Balance risks or posturing. Unfortunately governments will always chose posturing. They have to be seen to "have done everything possible".

bahrd

it is the stated position that the USA won't negotiate with terrorists , so trading the gitmo boys wouldn't fly

Wannabe FlyerMissing the point
U guys missing the point here. Every time one of these nut jobs come up with a new bomb solution it makes traveling that much more of a nightmare. Lets look at it in stages

1) 911 -- Any and every sharp object disappears, 1 hour additional security check and a no fly list

2) Shoe bomber: We now need to walk bare foot, un belted thru security

3) Liquid bomber: Little plastic bags with under 100 ml and god help you if you traveling with a kid you will be sucking from a bottle with a nipple at security to make sure it is milk

4) Undie bomber: Body scanners and last week I got a veggie at Amsterdam as the security guy yanked my undies as it seemed there was some metal in it.

5) So now with the implanted bombs what can we expect: A full colonoscopy?This is correct. Unfortunately, our respective governments, in their (misguided) mandates to ensure 100% of the population is 100% safe 100% of the time, are dancing to the "terrorists'" tune.

It comes down to the difference between tactics and strategy. Violence and/or the threat of violence is a tactic. The strategy is to disrupt and encumber our way of life, our freedoms and our economy. In that they are succeeding.

How would a surgically implanted bomb be detonated... GSM or manual detonation? If its a remotely detonated using GSM then retraining the passenger and sending fighter jets up will do nothing.

If its manual detonation, does the bomb carrier have a cable coming out of their body attached to a trigger?

All very confusing.

Load Toad:

So when the terrorists have clearly communicated they are in complete control & are going to crash on a Very Important Building where do you shoot the airliner down & where does it fall? Having been travelling at 300 - 400 odd miles an hour & hit with one or more high explosive AA missiles travelling at supersonic speeds does it just fall in one piece in a convenient empty field?

Keep in mind this is America, the former home of the free and the brave. Since 911, that has been replaced by the Patriot Act.

The "government" whatever that is these days, doesn't want a plane flying into the government buildings in DC or any other place some four star general on duty deems important. They could not care less where the wreckage falls as long as it doesn't do what they don't want it to do.

But, as the country rapidly gets poorer this will all come to pass.

So if an airline was hijacked or there was a suspected terrorist threat onboard over British airspace the RAF wouldn't be sent up? The RAF would just sit back and let whatever was going to happen, happen? Get real. What the yanks did was no different to what the British, French, Germans, Italians, Spanish etc would do if there was a suspected threat.

Don't you all remember what happen a month ago? The RAF sent a Typhoon to intercept a bloody helicopter that squawked the wrong code. :ugh:

bahrd
it is the stated position that the USA won't negotiate with terrorists , so trading the gitmo boys wouldn't fly
You're right. "I stand corrected" (too much B-movies).
Thanks.

How would a surgically implanted bomb be detonated... GSM or manual detonation? If its a remotely detonated using GSM then retraining the passenger and sending fighter jets up will do nothing.

As a precaution it would probably be wise to remove the passenger from the flight asap. Is it possible to open the doors on an airliner whilst it is in flight? Do passenger jets carry a parachute for such events? Should they not be made mandatory? Imagine the psychological stress a crew would face if forced to disembark someone en-route without a parachute.

"Imagine the psychological stress a crew would face if forced to disembark someone en-route without a parachute."


That pales into insignificance compared to the stress I am suffering from reading posts like the above, and to be frank, most of the rest of this thread:rolleyes:

How would a surgically implanted bomb be detonated... GSM or manual detonation?

Cell phone operation is prohibited in flight. Plot foiled.

Seriously; any trigger would have to involve some external actuation. If its a contact placed under the skin, the individual could actuate it themselves. I don't know how easy it would be for the cabin crew/passengers to immobilize someone to prevent such action. How would they know exactly where the trigger was placed? If its by GSM (or other short range radio), the trigger signal could be provided by an accomplice on the aircraft. Or perhaps on the ground. But the attenuation of a subcutaneous receiver could render that somewhat problematic.

Its probably on a level with an underpants bomb. Not well researched by the perpetrators, so its probability of success is about as high as lighting a sweaty pair of BVDs.

What's up with all the fuss over the fighter escort?

This has occurred numerous time in recent years, both in or approaching US airspace and in Europe - In Europe I recall a flight that lost radio contact that ended up with a couple of Dutch (I think) F-16's on it's arse - simply because the crew mis-dialed a comm frequency.

Hopefully we will never need to find out if someone has/hasn't got the balls to perform a shoot down, but I suspect if it did occur it would involve cannon fire initially as a warning, and then some holes in something less populated than the main cabin.

Now turning to the concept of implant 'bombs' there is a massive temptation on my part to head toward Jet Blast territory with this... must.... resist.... :mad:

The 'funny' thing is, that the USAF had four opportunities to shot down a legitimate threat on 9 11, and we all saw the result.
False statement. Try learning a few facts before you make such baseless assertions.

To the case at hand: were the b o o b i e s red herrings?

This cross species referencing must stop at once, as we might end up with mad cowpoke disease! :eek:

To the case at hand: were the b o o b i e s red herrings?

No, it turns out they were just *falsies*.... :}

A surgically planted bomb? That would take some skill and a fair degree of bravery from the surgeon. Also its inaccessible, and the trigger mechanisms may be very difficult.

Surgically implanted bombs arent impossible but are more likely to be the product of a paranoid schizophrenic's thought mechanisms.

Body packing, however, is a completely different thing and is entirely possible and feasible for concealing a bomb and gaining access during flight.

Yeah, and did they shoot it down?

And no one will squawk 75 anymore. Only one more thing to worry about, being shot down.

Very obvious that several people making strong and assertive statements in this thread are not and never have been commercial pilots, a few more know little or nothing about explosives and how to detonate them.

There are and have been for a very long time a clear set of rules for an intercept, not going into details here but commercial pilots all know what to expect and then what to do if they discover they have a fighter aircraft formating on their left hand side and endeavoring to communicate with them. There are certain visual signals and maneuvers that will leave the civilian aircraft in no doubt as to what is to happen next, these are all internationally agreed and (should) be well known to all commercial pilots regardless of their nationality. There are major and obvious differences between an aircraft following it's flight plan but has simply lost comms. and one that has deviated without clearance and is maneuvering in an unusual or suspicious way.

It is only after all recognised attempts to communicate have failed and the aircrafts intentions remain threatening that any action would be taken. As I thought I made clear at the beginning, these rules have all been revisited since September 2001.

If were to design an implanted bomb, I would probably use a reed relay in the detonator circuit, held in the 'off' position by an external magnet.

That way, any interference with the magnet would destroy all the evidence.

No need for mobile phones, hand-held transmitters, etc.

Nowadays, with secure cockpit doors and all the procedures, the possibilty of another 9/11 is almost zero.

Before, it was "fly to Cuba", then hostages and then 9/11.

Next time it will be something totally different. Not IF, but WHEN. But they will not use methods that we have prepared for. They are not as stupid as some think.

They seem to have won. They make terror and make our lives miserable.

Breast implant filled with 10cl of liquid, explosive, with a tilt switch would work.

Where is Jordan when she is needed...just research honest...

BBC News - No charges for woman who caused US jet 'implant' alert (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-18185013)

I suppose there is no point in prosecuting and jailing a nutter.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/24/us/maine-no-charges-against-woman-who-caused-flight-to-be-diverted.html?ref=todayspaper

She said that she had been wronged by a group of doctors and that she had something inside her that was “out of control”
Oh boy. The nutters on PPRuNe have gone nuts for nothing.

A while back I had a First Officer who exploded on departure from Bombay - apparently something internal which went out of control.

A while back I had a First Officer who exploded on departure from Bombay - apparently something internal which went out of control.

Delhi Belly?

Well, the 'shoot down a passenger jet policy' has been here for ages.
Evidently the system that the military has in such cases failed on the 9 11 and
no one can guarantee that it will not fail again, given the same circumstances.
The scenario was as straight forward as they get: comm contact with four jets
was lost. But interestingly, the policy did not fail with Korean Air 007 and
Iran Air 665. Plus,


cowhorse - You are being both mischievous and deliberately ingenuous!

Cell phone operation is prohibited in flight. Plot foiled.
I can only assume you are being sarcastic.
Since when has being informed that electronic devices, including mobile phones, must be switched off, been any deterrent? We have all seen people who continue to use them even after a personal request has been made and just how long does it take to switch one back on again even when it has been switched off as required? :rolleyes: :ugh:

svhar - selecting A7500 would be safer, its the quiet ones that cause concern......

Evidently the system that the military has in such cases failed on the 9 11 and no one can guarantee that it will not fail again, given the same circumstances. The scenario was as straight forward as they get: comm contact with four jets was lost.
The decision matrix is not "comm contact lost, shoot jet."
You realize that, right?

For example, there was no cueing that a particular comms contact lost was out of the ordinary until the first jet hit a building. At that point, during a time in which the presumption of that tactic was not on the table, the timeline to get whatever alerts (and perhaps tankers?) were at hand up, and then within the vicinity of an unknown number of jets of interst (which of the hundreds in the air, and where are they?) across an entire continent does not lead to your posited FOUR opportunities.

Maybe 1, maybe 2, depending on how you reconstruct the time and space problems. As I suspect you are aware, while it is all going down, figuring out which flights are potential hazards takes time.

Maybe 1, maybe 2, depending on how you reconstruct the time and space problems. As I suspect you are aware, while it is all going down, figuring out which flights are potential hazards takes time.

What I wanted to stress was that in a real life scenario you will never get a black and white situation ie. terrorists kidnapping an airplane and 'phoning' to the authorities: we have kidnapped this acft and we will crash in the WTC. In the RL you will have chaos and confusion. So it is far more likely that this sort of policy will cause you to shoot down a wrong jet, as has happened before, and contribute nothing to safety when the real threat occurs (due to the simple fact that during the confusion, you will not be able to positively identify a kidnapped acft).

Exactly.

And the PR for a government - whether shooting down the 'right jet' filled with innocent hostages or the 'wrong' jet that was mis-identified as a threat is disastrous, possibly terminal and wonderful for the terrorists.

The idea that we would shoot down a civilian airliner, taken hostage or not is ridiculous and it should be stated with no reservation that we don't do it & any loss of lives from a terrorist act is only the responsibility of the terrorists & not our reaction to their act.

Allegedly, a female passenger claimed to have an explosive device implanted inside her body

i only can imagine she exploded hard last night and was still under impression ? ;)

the costs of this thing the airline will bill her for surely cool her down...

I agree with Load Toad. The idea of shooting down a plane is totally absurd.

Then the terrorists have won big time. Hysteria everywhere. One wrong word uttered, hysteria. We have taken the course of action that they hoped for.

In my opinion, there are only two ways. Let them live their way or eliminate them. Teaching others a lesson does not work. Read some history books.

To really bugger us up, is to add a little something to the Chinese/Indian take- aways on a Friday night. Army, Air force and Navy will be on the loo.

Sorted!!!!


Ps. I'm awaiting first reports of the tampon bomber:E Built in fuse, if you know what I mean:E

the terrorists have won big time. Hysteria everywhere. One wrong word uttered, hysteria.

Absolutely correct although I wouldn't say everywhere. The Americans are the undisputed masters of hysterical OTT reactions. Seen it personally more than once. To be honest, the sheer hysterical reactions of some Americans frightens me more than the terrorists do!

Found on another site:
It was later announced that she will not face any criminal charges, and was being refused entry to the US and would be returned to France.
That is yet another problem with so-called "security": When people make obvious threats, they are let off, often without even a hand-slap.

What was the "obvious" threat exactly INTRUDER? My interpretation is that something said innocently by a French national struggling with the English language was (wrongly) perceived to be a threat by an American crew.

For this, said person is now (rightly) released and yet (wrongly) refused entry into the USA. That tells you a lot about the hysteria and absurd logic which now prevails with the American authorities. The loonies are in charge of the asylum!

I work daily with a multitude of nationalities. Even though most have a reasonably good to fair command of the English language it is not unusual to find them sometimes lacking clarity when expressing themselves in non standard situations. American hysteria has programmed the public, airline crews, and officials to consider anything which they don't understand as a threat.

Is it not possable to have a helicopter hover above the plane and some SAS members climb onboard and cut a hole in the fuz and then go in and kill the baddies or to drain the fuels from the tanks etc limiting the range it could fly ???????

now what was that movie called...

now what was that movie called...glf Airport 1975 (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0071110/). Although in the movie they didn't have to cut any hole in the fuselage seeing as there was already a big gaping hole in the pointy end nor were there any "baddies" to kill.
Possibly one of the worst "disaster movies" ever made by man... :ugh:

What was the "obvious" threat exactly INTRUDER? My interpretation is that something said innocently by a French national struggling with the English language was (wrongly) perceived to be a threat by an American crew.
Presenting a prepared note of that type to the flight attendant is NOT typical of "innocently... struggling with the English language." It is more typical of, as others have pointed out, "probing" or other reconnaissance.

I tend to believe the threat was real, even if not immediate.

now what was that movie called...glf There was a scenario not unlike that in "Executive Decision (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0116253/)." Now that was a truly awful movie!