In the case of a bomb threat like this, where I am sure the authorities knew with some degree of certainty that it was a hoax ...
This is just one of a string of assumptions made by different posters above, which I have simply quoted by way of an example. Such assumptions are all very jolly, but would take some justifying if they had to be sustained were things to have gone wrong. Those of you who are aircraft commanders (or aspire to be) need to start thinking about how you can end up with responsibility for something (here the safety of the passengers) in a situation where you do not actually feel empowered to take control of the situation.
I do not think that anyone in this particular situation can be properly second guessed so quickly after the event (even though it happens all the time here), but neither do I think that assumptions or deductions such as the one quoted above could possibly be justified after an unfortunate outcome.
Given what we now know can you imagine the following being among the conclusions after an inquiry:
……….
1.5 The established assumption that most bomb warnings are hoaxes contributed to confused lines of communication and decision making responsibility,
1.6 The failure of the commander to determine the basis on which he was obliged to retain the passengers on board contributed to the disaster,
1.7 The lack of clarity as to the responsibilities of those involved was a contributory factor, but the commander was the individual with explicit responsibility for taking appropriate steps to assure the safety of the passengers,
1.8 In the absence of overwhelming grounds or clear justification for retaining the passengers on board the commander should have taken command of the situation,
1.9 It is clear in retrospect that the passengers were held - within seconds of reaching safety - for a sustained period due to the unwillingness of the commander to insist on a resolution of the conflicting information he had received,
2.0 It is not known what the pressures and perceptions of the commander and crew actually were, but the unwillingness to take command of the situation suggest that the commander was not confident that the decision to evacuate the aircraft could be successfully defended or justified,
Etc. etc.
What would everbody be saying if this was the outcome?