BA Washington flights and security threats (merged)

[wbryce]

Just arrived back from the Edinburgh Hogmanay party and heard this on the radio on the way back, desided to check pprune to see, but nothing posted, found it on bbc's website:



US police search BA aircraft


The 747 had arrived from London
A British Airways plane was held for security searches for three hours, after landing at Washington's Dulles airport on New Year's Eve.
The Boeing 747 arrived on Wednesday evening, with 247 passengers and 17 crew on board, Reuters reported.

US officials boarded the plane to interview passengers and check luggage.

The US has raised its national alert status to orange - the second-highest level - and six Air France flights to Los Angeles were cancelled last week.


US intelligence had warned of a "credible threat" from al-Qaeda operatives due to board a flight from Paris to Los Angeles.

French intelligence questioned several people booked on the suspended flights, but said they had found no links to militants, and flights were restarted.

Long delay

Flight BA 233 from London Heathrow landed at Dulles at 1906EST (0006GMT Thursday).

It was held in an area well away from the main terminal building, while officials from the FBI and the Transportation Security Agency boarded the plane.

It was over three hours before passengers were ferried to the arrivals building.

Officials did not say why the flight had been singled out for checks.

A spokeswoman from the Department for Homeland Security would only say the plane had been "detained... for further screening".




Anyone know why? obviously not a bomb scare of some sort otherwise the pax would be out in a shot.

And how can they detain a plane? will the original flight crew take control of the plane to park it at a designated spot? or just a Tug?

Also i heard it was intercepted by security vehicles on the runway where officials boarded the plane, this was mentioned on the radio.

[NigelOnDraft]

You give away your complete lack of anything to do with Professional Aviation with the title of the thread:
BA 744 Held on Runway for search at Washington?The chance it was held on the Runway are almost nil, since that would grind the airport to a halt. Even the BBC did not make that mistake!

HNY

[Khaosai]

Hey NOD what a bizarre reply. The poor chap is just back from a wee party, obviously supped a few shandies so cut him some slack. Plenty other runways in IAD to be getting on with business, so I think a fair enough Q. Happy New Year.

[wbryce]

As i suspected NOD,

i can't expect a decent reply.

Maybe you should have called me a stupid **** for mis-interpretating information? As i said i heard it on the radio, i didn't phone up and challenge him with the average PPRune attitude that you show. In this world ANYTHING can happen, and YES that includes planes being held on the runways, yes very unlikely in the knowledge of the aviation world, but so was sept 11. I could also turn around to yourself and say the same, last night was New Years EVE, how busy would the airport be? again thanks for the Mister I KNOW IT ALL attitude, but please, dont bring it into any of my threads.

Maybe you can try and attack some of my spelling and grammer in any of my posts as you do seem that low.

It would be nice if people could reply on the subject and not try and flame me for a simple mistake.

[Jim Morehead]

wbryce.....thanks for posting the BA message and I, for one,appreciate it.

You just quoted what you heard and the public does report things like that in their lingo.

It didn't even occur to me that anyone was reading that word by word or letter by letter.

It is like we hear on the near that the pilot must have hit an air pocket or the engine just stalled accoring to qualified observers!!!

Don't let it worry you. I appreciated you taking the time to post!!!!

Happy New Year (I think it is happy new year EVERY PLACE in the world NOW!

[peterbuckstolemymeds]

wbryce, I would like you to know that even if you know nothing about "professional aviation" (:-)) I appreciated your post. Someone's not having a Happy New Year, I think.

That said, local newspapers are reporting that the Edinburgh Hogmanay Party you said you attended was officially cancelled due to the weather! You DID have a good night didn't you!?

Cheers!

[cortilla]

getting back to the original post. Heard on the news that officials interviewed every single passenger separately. The reason behind it was completely random (i.e. the just picked it out of a hat). According to the newsies more longhaul flights will randomly be stopped and searched before departure and after arrival (seems a bit silly once it's back on the ground why not let customs do their job). Come to think about it there probably was another reason for the search and this was just an excuse.

[Airbubba]

January 1, 2004

British Airways Cancels Flight to D.C.

By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

Filed at 1:07 p.m. ET

LONDON (AP) -- British Airways canceled one of its three daily flights from London to Washington on Thursday following security advice from the government, a spokesman for the airline said.

A Department of Transport spokeswoman said she was unable to comment on matters of security or whether the cancellation was a result of a specific threat.

The same flight, BA 223, on Wednesday was kept on the tarmac at Washington Dulles International Airport for several hours shortly after landing. U.S. authorities questioned all passengers and crew on board, the spokesman said, speaking on condition of anonymity.

The spokesman said alternative arrangements had been made for the 180 passengers on Thursday's flight, which had been scheduled to leave London's Heathrow airport at 10:05 a.m.

He added that neither of the two other daily flights to Washington had been canceled.

[spannersatcx]

NigelOnDraft just for your info, the airport I work at has 2 runways, an inbound international flt had received a specific bomb threat, guess what the authorities did?

That's right they held it on the runway and evacuated all the pax, the a/c was kept there for the bomb squad to do their checks and then several hours later once cleared the a/c was towed to the terminal and carried on to it's next destination.

The moral is 'never say never'
:ok:

[wbryce]

peterbuckstolemymeds

I did have a good new years celebration, couldn't have been better, the Edinburgh hogmanay party was cancelled, but it didn't stop the partying! There was no countdown, nor was there fireworks, but a little rain can't spoil a festive spirit.

I may not know as much on professional aviation as you, I dont go about thinking im the dogs bollocks because i know more than someone else, i enjoy flying and i enjoy aviation, i like to use these forums as i enjoy reading and knowing about aviation, Im only 18years of age starting my professional training after a few life obsticals passes, so you will understand i dont have the knowledge base as your average pilot.

I posted this thread at 5am in the morning after a good night of partying, so sue me if i let my guard down for the wolfpack to strike :}

Back to the story,

thank you for the people who did post on the subject :)

And i hope yous continue to have a nice festive season.

[bizflyer]

CNN is now reporting that this same flight was escorted in by two fighters, further BA have today cancelled the same flight number to DC today at the request of 'the government'

[akerosid]

It has now emerged that last night's BA 223 was escorted by fighter aircraft and that today's BA 223 was cancelled. It appears that the names of about 12 people on last night's flight (31/12/) matched those on FBI watchlists.

Not quite as routine as BA suggested, but in fairness, they could not give out any more than the minimum information in circumstances like this.

[cargo boy]

Sure it wasn't becauses of a tip-off that there were armed men on board? Oops, they were the new armed sky marshalls as demanded by the TSA. :rolleyes: I thought they were the answer to all our worries. :hmm:

[Roobarb]

If they knew who these people were, why didn’t they just ask us to offload them in London. If this is how they treat their friends, thank God were not on the ‘Axis of Evil’ list!

Whose side are they on? :rolleyes:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/cult/roobarb/images/100/policeman.jpg

[Charlie Fox]

Is it not getting really stupid now???

News Link (http://uk.news.yahoo.com/040101/325/ei63j.html)

BBC News (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3361837.stm)

[breguet]

It is the level of stupidity that went from yellow to orange.

It seems that everything is done by the morons to keep the american citizens in a kind of paranoia about terrorist attacks.

It is the 5th time they raised the level to orange with nothing happening THANK GOD....

[blueloo]

Havent the terrorists won? They have caused paranoid fear in the US (then again they already were fairly paranoid). They have nearly paralysed the US aviation transport system (and nearly bankrupted it), caused a redneck warmongering illegally elected President to spend billions on a war (which will perpetuate terrorism) and numerous other side-effects............


Glad I dont live in the states!

[Shuttleworth]

blueloo - I agree with you ..

[Skylion]

To hold all passengers on board for 3 hours is clearly ludicrous. There must have been a good number who any elementary screening or profiling would have revealed in seconds, if not minutes, were of zero interest to the authorities. These could have been permitted to go on their way without further ado, leaving security people free to concentrate on those who might have merited more attention.

[nurjio]

Well said Blueloo; but, you offer no solution to the problem. Give us your ideas please?

[AIRWAY]

It seems that everything is done by the morons to keep the american citizens in a kind of paranoia about terrorist attacks.

Just look at their president... And all those :mad: minds in the whitehouse, they should all get lost :rolleyes:

Everything is a terrorist threat, it´s amazing how their secrets services couldn´t stop 9/11. But all of a suddent they are aware of eminent terrorist threats etc...

The right course of action would be has Skylion explained.

[mainfrog2]

I think we know which side their on Rhoobarb. They look after no.1 and thats it.

Why on earth didn't they allow these people to be intercepted at Heathrow. Is this something to do with the fact that they're scared other countries may not extradite these people to the US if they remove them before the flight. They seem to be applying screwed up security thinking.

The sooner we forget this idea that this country has any kind of special relationship with the US government and start looking after our own the better.

[Airbubba]

>>Just look at their president... And all those minds in the whitehouse, they should all get lost <<

Trust me, you wouldn't like it here, tear up your green card application while you still can.

[AIRWAY]

I didn´t know i had a green card application :rolleyes:

[Digitalis]

It would seem that there are some here who feel that security precautions are stupid and unnecessary. While it may be that yesterday's BA flight was not handled particularly well by the TSA, the cancelling of a flight entirely implies some direct intelligence of a threat against that specific flight.

However unlikely that threat is, it must be taken seriously. Or would you rather they'd let if go to see if the threat was real? :rolleyes:

[West Coast]

I'm glad you don't live in the states also. A handful of cancelled flights and the system is paralyzed huh. Are you even a pilot? A muppit would be my guess.
Say what you want about Bush, he can pick up the phone and have your PM do exactly as he wants. Kinda nice.

[411A]

It should be clear to all (but apparently is not) that the USA is serious about stamping out terrorism.

Either get on the bandwagon...or don't travel/fly/operate to America...simple as that.
Foreign air carriers have no other choice, like it or not...and many won't.

Too bad.

[AIRWAY]

It would seem that there are some here who feel that security precautions are stupid and unnecessary


Hello,

Im sure that everyone in here doesn´t think that. It´s just the way they do things...

[Tony_EM]

Maybe US authorities are just trying to 'persuade' their travelling hoades that foreign airlines are more likely to be targetted by terrorists than US carriers?

[Wino]

Mainfrog,
What makes you think BA had the complete names of pax on the aircraft before it was boarded. Suppose after the plane was in the air 30 min or 60 min the final comparisons come back through the computer (complete with how tickets were purchased etc) and whaddya know, a few names pop up? Should they turn back to London?

What if they came up past the point of No return? You don't have enough info on whether or not it was a cockup...

BTW todays flight was canceled at the request of the BRITISH gov't... You don't suppose that maybe your intellegence services suffer from the same limitations as our per chance?

Also, with flights going on the hour or so, its possible they thought the people in question were going to be on a later or earlier flight and they were rolled over further mucking up the issue.

Cheers
Wino

[Wino]

So you hear of a credible threat, or you develop an intellegence network and start watching people and listening for bad people, and then a bad name pops up somewhere.... What do you do? Ignore it and hope nothing happens?

You don't like it? Stay home. But as your government is involved intellegence operations do not assume that the only parnoid out there is the USA...

Cheers
WIno

[mainfrog2]

Wino I haven't got a clue what your talking about.

"Suppose after the plane was in the air 30 min or 60 min the final comparisons come back through the computer"

Why should it be the case that they can only find full information about a passenger after the flight has taken off.

A credit check is done by computer in a store to make sure your credit worthy, while you wait. How come this isn't possible with data relating to terrorism.

The whole basis of flight screening and intelligence information is obviously just a PR exercise and in no way is going to contribute to flight safety if it can only be used after the flight has departed.

[LatviaCalling]

Some of you appear to have been a little carried away by your posts on this subject.

Security officials interviewing passengers have absolutely nothing to do with one poster who mentioned a so-called "illegally elected president." Comments like that should belong on another forums and not one linked with the serious business of aviation.

There is also no animosity between the U.S. and British governments, so therefore, you can scratch that as a political motive.

With all the intelligence information flowing in that the bad guys might make a move over the holidays, you can understand that everyone is skittish. It was the Brits who cancelled the next day's flight to IAD.

Wouldn't you rather be on the safe side than on the sorry side?

[Navy_Adversary]

Anyone know if the 12 people on the watchlist were taken away for 'Special' questioning?
TIA

[LatviaCalling]

Navy,

According to news reports, apparently no one was held after the screening had been conducted.

[Huck]

Without getting into details, changes are being made in how manifests are screened on inbound US flights. The new system probably broke down, resulting in a last-minute warning. Bush's fault, no doubt, but I'm sure perhaps a Brit can make it all better.

Glad I dont live in the states!

Let's keep it that way, shall we?

[blueloo]

I am surprised you Sepos can even find the United Kingdom on the map!

..as for paralysing the aviation transport industry you must have a short memory, i shall remind you, 11 September...or 911 if you like your dates sdrawkcab. I seem to remember a few airports being shut then.

Anyway thats my 2 cents of slandering.


:}

[Hand Solo]

Anyone read 'Stupid White Men' by Michael Moore? Whilst most of the book is rabid rhetoric, it does detail how Bush (allegedly) fiddled the election in Florida by making any criminals inelligible to vote, but in doing so also made anyone innocent but with the same name inelligible. What are the chances that the FBI have have intercepted a number of passengers whose names are the Arabic equivalent of Smith, Jones, Brown etc? There are only so many names to go round, and I reckon that regular mis-identification is going to be a feature of life from now on.

[FTI]

To all and sundry,

I believe that we all would agree that none of us want to see a September 11-style event, or one of a dissimilar nature with similar consequences reoccour.

If this attitude of attacking each other on a site that is supposed to be dedicated to those in this industry being free and able to contact each other in an informal and relaxed environment is going to perpetuate, flourish and undermine, then we, as Pilots and Aircrew alike are going to perish unto the very same disease that we purport to fight and dismiss.

Please don't let this stream and indeed this entire forum become corrupted by those that thrive on this very form of suppression. Lets just talk about it, agree to stand against it, and continue doing the thing it is that we are all so very lucky to be able to do - fly.

That is what is most important.

[FTI]

Wino,

I agree that we should not stand idly by and wait for an occourence of Terrorism to shake us all again, but I would hope that we aren't really of the attitude that it is best to stay home. Yes it would aleviate the need to think about whether or not the aircraft you are on is a target, but if we choose to adopt the attitude that we should stay home and let this threat play itself out, then we are going to let them win, and we are going to see an even greater decline in this industry, and none of us can afford that.

I believe that we can all agree that this sucks, but I also believe that we can all agree that we won't let it beat us! So don't let it.

There will be nowhere that these people can go and find solace, aggreeance or support for their chosed profession. It is our task, and our duty to see that this attitude begins now, without a moment's delay.

[A310driver]

RE:AIRWAY

Why is it that experts like airhead..er Airway....have all the great answers to all problems? I guess his student pilot status does mean something..but what?

As one who has to aviate in US airspace (including NYC and DCA/IAD terminal airspace) frequently enduring the security restrictions is a pain the arse and does seem to be overkill most of the time. However, I guess it is working.

PLease don't opine about that which ye know zilch.

[McIce]

BALPA state they do not want Sky Marshals on board British Aircraft as it is too dangerous. They state British Airlines would be better off not flying if there was a credible threat.

Now we have a flight cancelled it seems that this over the top for some and lets blame the OTT Americans.

I wish they could make their mind up. :confused:

[unmanned transport]

This Sky Marshall program is bound to be hurtful to BA's struggle for longevity.

[MOR]

Oh come on, look on the bright side. At least it is a more interesting reason to cancel than technical problems or weather. :cool:

411A

If the US was serious about stamping out terrorism, they would introduce profiling/screening despite the protestations of some groups.

The current knee-jerk approach is a joke.

[411A]

MOR

Profiling and screening are being done now but IMO not to the extent they need to be.
You will find that the Sky Marshals used now have had a very high degree of training, and quite frankly simply cannot understand just why some foreign aircarriers (or unions) consider the use of armed properly trained folks onboard not suitable.
Suspect it is the 'head in the sand' European outlook with regard to those that would do harm to others.
You have to remember, the terrorists want you
dead, no if, ands or buts about it.
You simply cannot reason with 'em...just eliminate 'em.

[MOR]

411A

Not even close to the extent it needs to be (screening that is).

Guns... Americans love 'em. The sacred right to bear arms. Shoot first, ask questions later. How many gun deaths in the US last year?

Europeans hate them. Rather not fly than have guns on board.

Lots of good arguments on both sides (see the relevant thread), but I am absolutely with you on the subject of eliminating the bad guys. No argument at all. Saves all the expense of a pointless trial as well.

[A310driver]

As a 60 something yank, it is very disturbing to see the rhetoric from what appear to be Brits, or derivatives thereof, which reveals an anti-American sentiment which seems to run deep and to be widespread. I suspect that some of these posters are too young to know the history of the US/UK relationship for the past 90 years. Consider this, you blokes, one of your national epicurean delights is still Yorkshire pudding and not Wienerschnitzle thanks to people like my grandfather and father.

One thing I do know is that you just have to look at their profiles to see that they are not pilots... which begs the question.."what the hell are they doing on the PROFESSIONAL PILOTS Rumor Network besides mucking it up with all this diatrbe.

Some vetting is in order!

[Ignition Override]

A-310: those are reasonable questions and have been debated before on Pprune. Isn't it amazing how little interest most people have in their own recent history?

Last night we landed on runway 12 at Wash. Dulles, about 2200 local. Although we knew nothing about this situation, it looked strange to taxi north on either Zulu or Yankee outer taxiway to later turn east at Bravo, as we passed what looked like a BA widebody on the inner taxiway or a ramp area. This was just east of the beginning or runway 01 Left. The plane had numerous airport shuttles (with those large "fins") parked right next to the fuselage. I call the shuttles landsharks, and they carry pax and crews from the main terminal to at least two other terminals, and vice versa-our gates are in 'B' terminal. Wish we had overheard something about it.

It looked like a strange, remote place to park, even for a chartered aircraft etc. Our nearby hotel has so many excellent tv channels that I never watched any news. This morning we taxied out to depart on runway 01 L at 0920 local time, making sure that all flows plus checklists were done and looking forward to seeing the sunny hills of VA and PA (via JERES on the Westminster 300* radial to JST, HAGUD, DJB...) and never noticed any other planes in the southwest area-and no BA.

[CS-DNA]

First of all, I do know that this is a forum for Professional Pilots, if a
moderator thinks that I should not be posting here, please remove my post.

To A310driver

Dear Sir,

You, quite correctly (at least judging Your's and AIRWAYS' profiles),
state that you have more aviation experience than AIRWAY.

Yet it is my opinion that this thread is not about flying an aircraft,
but rather a discussion on the treatment and handling of security.
This subject, is of interest not only to airline pilots, but also to
passenger and other people worried with the current state of the world.

Your experience as a pilot, might give you a view (and a damn good and
valid one) of security regarding threats to the aircraft, but will not
make you an "Instant-all-around-security-expert (just add water) TM".
This experience does not give you the right to say (in a very rude
manner) that someone else's opinion on an event that is only tangential
to the act of flying an aircraft is invalid.
If you disagree, say so and present your arguments!

To 411A,

I think that properly trained sky-marshal might be one of the few
effective solutions available at present. Nevertheless must Europeans
(me included) are uneasy when around guns and some resistance should
be expected.

Calling the outlook of Europeans towards terrorism as "Head in the Sand"
is rather ignorant.
We have had terrorism since Mr McVeigh was a baby.
Just for a sample:
- The Italians had the red-brigades. Killings and bombings through the 70s
and 80s .
They also had a bloody terrorist attack on an El AL check in counter
in Milan(?).
- The British had to deal with the IRA.
- The Germans had Baader-Meinhoff (spelling).
- The French had to deal with the spill-out of the terrorist actions in
Algeria in the 90s, having a series of bomb attacks on crowded places.
- The Spanish have ETA (since the early 70s), during this Christmas they
where successful in stopping an attempt to bomb one of the main rail
stations in Madrid (which would be crowded).

I am sure I have missed some countries and terrorist organizations.

I guess that some would say that the US is the one that is rather new
on the game, and previously had a "head in the sand" attitude towards
terrorism.


And now, MY opinion on the main issue of the thread (and, for the record,
I am not an ATPL and only fly things that are much lighter than what AIRWAY
flies , nor am I involved with security).

Terrorism should not be taken lightly, therefore security should be very
high. This is obvious.
But if you keep having all these high profile "non events" you will get:

- People getting tired. People will start to look at this "security" as
an ineffective nuisance, and probably start pressing for a relaxation
of security (A very bad thing).

- An important impact on tourism. Some in Europe are postponing their
non essential travel to the US. Some of you might say that those that
don't want to go are not welcome anyway. I guess that the US tourism
industry would disagree.

If these events are mostly with non-US airlines, non-US citizens will
look at it with a great deal of suspicion.
This will further erode the capital of "good will" which the US gained
after 11th of September, and make for more diplomatic friction.

I know that the US had a rather brutal wake-up with what happened on the
11th of September, but some of these "security actions" are quite
excessive, and something might be gained by having a good hard look at
them.


If any green card "joke" arises, I (and probably a great deal of other
non-Americans) will be doing the laughing.

Kind regards
CS-DNA

[Airbubba]

BA reviews US flight amid alert

British Airways is considering whether to ground one of its Washington flights for a second day amid security fears.

On Thursday, the 1505GMT flight BA223 from London Heathrow to the US capital was cancelled in the light of security information.

It came a day after the same flight was held for three hours at Washington while US agents questioned passengers.

The exact nature of the threat is not known but officials said it was "fact-related".

A BA spokesman said the airline was still hoping to operate Friday afternoon's flight to Washington but a firm decision would be taken in the morning...


http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3362043.stm

[zed3]

CS-DNA , very nicely put , that just about sums the situation up , thank you.

[luoto]

Could the sudden cancellation be "leverage" to "justify" the need for sky marshalls?
Out of interest, what power has the UK Govt to cancel a given flight from say BA or another carrier ex UK? I can see they can stop incoming flights (this is more a technical question, as if they can stop flights to the USA, they could stop a flight to somewhere else for other reasons).
Unsure what will happen. Finnish press said Finnair was not going to use skymarshals and implication was including on flights to the U.S.


I know personally I have cancelled all traffic to the U.S since September 11. Not due to a fear of terrorism (Northern Ireland has given a good grounding!) but to the hassles and pain in the ass factor many colleagues have reported. Shame, as I have a craving for Philly Cheeseburgers, Key Lime Pie and Giodiarnos (sp!) pizza from Chicago.

[AIRWAY]

A310driver


Why is it that experts like airhead..er Airway....have all the great answers to all problems? I guess his student pilot status does mean something..but what?

Yes my student pilot status does mean something, it means im a student pilot, i think thats plain English

:rolleyes:

[MichaelJP59]

We don't know what the exact nature of this threat was but it is difficult to see why the flight was cancelled. I am not an expert, but surely the responses should be on an escalating scale.

If the threat was a potential terrorist on board - surely all passengers should have been allowed on, then screened off one by one until the terrorist was found.

If the threat was a potential bomb on board, search the plane and then allow it to leave, albeit delayed.

If it was a threat to down the plane by SAM, I think we'd have seen more activity around the airports concerned.

If the terrorists can get any flight cancelled with a phone call it gives them the power to totally disrupt our lives. Didn't it always used to be the rule that terrorist threats would not be made public as it would wreck the airline industry to be continually disrupted by false alarms?

- Michael

[interestedparty]

Has someone in Washington decided it makes good commercial sense to cancel all non-US registered aircraft flying to the USA?

[McIce]

I think it is fair to say most people on this forum ARE aviators of some sort or at least he a keen interest in it. Therefore what they know about the British or American 'Intelligence' system could be written on the back of a postcard.

If an intelligence expert was to tell you how to fly a plane I am sure you would tell him where to get off. So applying that theory why can pilots not accept that when the experts are in receipt of 'Credible Intelligence' they must be wrong. Everyone to their own.

Mainfrog 2
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A credit check is done by computer in a store to make sure your credit worthy, while you wait. How come this isn't possible with data relating to terrorism
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Statements like this prove my point about the lack of understanding in how intelligence is gathered. Last time I done a credit check on myself I couldn't find the box that said whether Osama Bin Laden had paid of my last three balances (Although that would have been nice)

There is no point in asking how intelligence is gathered as those in the know wont tell you.
Just accept it and remember it is not an exact science.

[newswatcher]

It would be interesting to know how many passengers are going to be left on this flight, by the time that it leaves (if it does).

For those that have a "non-cancelable, non-refundable" cheap ticket, how do they decide that the "risk" to their lives is more than the cost of the cheap ticket?

[InTheAir]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3362043.stm

BA to go ahead with flight. Also it has finally emerged...


In December six Air France flights from Paris to Los Angeles were grounded, at the request of the US.

The French government now believes the FBI had wrongly identified six passengers as potential terrorists, partly because of mistakes translating Arabic names.

FBI investigators don't work for free and are not on temp or contract work. They need bangs and scares to earn a living. This is no conspiracy right? :ok:

[whats_it_doing_now?]

I find it strange that people keep saying that the grounding of the flight was needless, and 'nothing happened anyway'. Isn't that a good thing and surely the whole point? Intercepting and stopping a terrorist act is all about making sure nothing happens and that things go on as normal. As frustrating as the current security procedures are, the fact that so far, nothing has happened since september 11th is an indication that they are yealding results.

We will never know how many would be terrorists have walked away without checking in, when they saw that their chance if success was slight.

[FlyUK]

Interesting how it only seems to be non-US airlines who are having problems with the services being 'bothered' by 'terrorism threats/scares'. Also what gets me is, who fly across the atlantic?....BA, AF and a couple of other european based airlines....Oh and then theres the US carriers.

Well lets see, if we can scare the europeans into not flying with there own countries airliners through 'scare tactics' then they will fly with the american airlines. Wow, instant pickup in the american based airlines sales....

Maybe i've got it all wrong, i'm sure someone will tell me soon. But you have to admit, it is an interesting thought and i certainly wouldn't put it past the US for doing it. And before anyone says its just becasue i am against america, i'm really not, just the government!:)

Expedite. :ok:

[FlyingForFun]

How would you handle this security concern?

You receive credible intelligence that a specific flight is likely to be targetted by terrorists. Do you a) cancel the flight, b) monitor the flight and its pax extremely closely, or c) take some other course of action?

Have you picked an answer?

Now, put yourself into the position of a terrorist. You have planned to hijack a specific flight. American authorities have been made aware of your plan, and cancelled your flight. Do you a) go home and vow never to plan another attack on the US again, b) go home and decide which flight to target next, and how best to avoid this being leaked to the Americans, or c) something else?

Have you picked an answer to this question yet?

If you answered b) to the second question, then go back and look at the first question again. If you cancel the flight, is it true to say that there is now every chance that some future flight will be targeted in the same way, but that there's less chance of you hearing about it? Wouldn't you rather let the flight go ahead, put extra effort into monitoring the flight, the passengers, the baggage and so on, and stand a reasonable chance of actually catching the terrorists in the act so that they can be locked out of harm's way for however long the law allows? Why have BA and the FBI not taken this approach to the Washington flights? Am I missing something here?

(And, if anyone who's actually involved in this type of security issue feels that this question can't be answered publicly without revealing anything which shouldn't be made public, then an answer along the lines of "There is more information which you are not party to, but which I can't tell you - but cancelling the flight really was the best option" would be more than sufficient!)

Thanks!

FFF
----------------

[MichaelJP59]

"whats_it_doing_now", wouldn't it have been better to have had the supposed terrorists check-in, then arrest them?

By announcing the cancellation of a flight, all chance of capturing them is lost - and worst of all, they are free to try again.

- Michael

[Basil]

A310driver
As a youngster I was pro-American (Hollywood propaganda, pleasant & well behaved visiting US forces and, in my 20s, visits to the USA.
As one becomes older one reads and considers history, classified government documents are released and one understands more clearly the political reasons behind decisions made over 60 years ago.
During WW2, the 50 or so old destroyers sold by the USA to the UK were very welcome in their anti-submarine role helping to run the blockade. Getting supplies across the Atlantic was, at that time, the most vital contribution to British freedom. When Germany failed to gain air superiority over Britain followed by reverses in their war with the USSR it was only going to be a matter of time before they would have to sue for peace but unconditional surrender would not have been offered.
The US contributed greatly to the air effort and without US forces an invasion would not have been possible. No-one is unaware of the huge losses incurred by the US in these operations and their sacrifice is remembered and honoured.
Although previous terrorist/nutter events were perhaps viewed by those who believed in American support of the IRA with a slight degree of Schadenfreude, the the events of 9/11 were watched with open-mouthed horror.
Now the negative bit:
The US was somewhat miffed when the Brits returned to Singapore & Hong Kong after WW2.
The US effectively threw the Brits out of Suez using economic pressure.
The US considered invasion of several Middle Eastern countries including Saudi Arabia in 1973 (Who thinks Iraq isn't about oil?)
I believe that the UK is only now making the final payments to the US for debts incurred during WW2 (Sterling should harden on this demonstration of reliability)
An oversimplification? Yes, grossly! - but whilst we admire much about the USA, particularly the freedom of information and speech which permits us to see warts and all, don't expect blind love.
What you interpret as anti-American may be no more than healthy open-eyed debate. Brits sometimes have difficulty seeing the US as a foreign country and therefore can be as forthright in their opinions about your country as you would be yourself.

[Danny]

The next person to answer Basils rhetorical point of view will be diverging way off topic. DON'T!

I'm sorry, but the current hysterical announcements that appear to be coming from the US causing the current media feeding frenzy about the security issues with the BA Washington flights are just another example of how to let the terrorists know that they have succeeded. I have never known any security service deal with the threats they claim are now pending in such a public, "cry wolf", way.

If they had credible information then they should be dealing with it in as low key as possible. I know of no security agency that makes public annoucements about their operations in as much detail as has been coming out of the US in recent weeks. Any intelligence service worth its salt gets on with their job in the background and whilst they often get little credit for any of their successes because there is nothing in the 'news', in this case we appear to have very public announcements in some apparent attempt to justify their lack of 'obvious' success.

What we appear to have is a farce. If they have credible evidence then they should be dealing with it in a quiet and efficient manner. If all they are trying to do is prevent the terrorists from boarding in the first place then they are doing a good job but now they will just move to a different target flight. The intelligence (sic) services only have to cry wolf a few more times and the terrorists job will be made that much easier.

It does smack of 'job justification' with little understanding of the nature of the job at hand. If they are successful then there is no public fanfare. That's the nature of their jobs. If they're unsuccessful then they have failed. This latest farce appears to be an attempt to justify some future failure they are fearful of being blamed for.

Please excuse those if us outside the US who observe what is now going on as a monumental over-reaction. They would probably have much more success if they got on with their jobs without all the pronouncements. I have already made plans for a trip to Canada to avoid having to go through a US airport even though it would have been cheaper. Not a scientific poll but certainly now enters my mind that I will avoid having to transit through the USA. Not because of the fear of insecurity but because of the overreaction and the way they have decided to handle security in the first place. I wonder how many other passengers will be thinking this way? And... before those Americans of a sensitive nature get all angry and gung-ho, I still love their country and will visit again. I just can't stand the hype and apparent over reaction to situations we have been deaing with outside the US for many years.

[whats_it_doing_now?]

Michael

I take your point, but it is very difficult to keep the security covert. I also think that the work of arresting these guys is done in a different arena, the priority at the airport on the day is to make sure no flight is put at risk. Also to arrest these guys after check in you need to know exactly who they are, which I am sure isn't always the case.

I am no expert in security, but I think it is easy to make false assumptions about how things should or shouldn't be done with out really knowing what the exact issues that are faced by those in the know. Kind of like press assumptions on how pilots do their jobs really.

[McIce]

FFF
You have just asked the million and one dollar question with no correct answer.

Depending on what the intelligence actually is/ the source of information / the reliability or credibility of the source/ the corroboration that may or may not be available to the intelligence will make the difference to what action you take in this situation.

Even when you make the correct decision the conspiracy theorists (aka the terrorists best friend) will give you a hard time and jeopardise any similar decision you may have to make in the future.

For what its worth I think that if you have not identified the persons involved you cancel the flight and hope the intelligence improves on the next occasion. Remembering that what ever action you take, will influence the terrorists next move and may also disrupt the flow of intel you have.

The ultimate no win situation with a very big 2nd prize

Cheers
Ice

[Basil]

Merely dialoguing with A310driver, Danny.
p.s. Am I on an immediate alert filter? ;)

[BRISTOLRE]

BBC reporting that todays BA Washington flight is to depart as planned 1505 local from LHR.

[BWBriscoe]

BA FLIGHT 223 LHR-IAD 2ND JANUARY 2004 CANCELLED DUE TO SECURITY CONCERNS

Ben

[VFE]

This latest farce appears to be an attempt to justify some future failure they are fearful of being blamed for.
My thoughts exactly.

Surely they should interrogate suspect(s) and allow the flight to continue? Or is that too easy? I thought the law enforcement bods (especially in the US) had great powers of anti-terrorist arrest now. Guantanamo Bay is full of suspects so why the disruption and fuss with this scenario? http://www.themeninblack.co.uk/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/hmm.gif

VFE.

[Roobarb]

They better have a bloody good reason for this. The more cynical amongst us might suspect a wiff of protectionism.

I can see it now ‘US Airlines only allowed to operate North Atlantic’

http://www.bbc.co.uk/cult/roobarb/images/100/pirate.jpg

[FlyUK]

Well said Roobarb. Not to mention the vast sum of money BA are losing from not only these cancelled flights but from people who are now 'scared to travel'. And all when aviation was just starting to get back on its feet. Not sure who to thank for this anymore. Just seems to be getting a bit out of hand!

Expedite.

p.s how about 'US Airlines only allowed to cross the Atlantic because other carriers are unsafe' Says a US source! :confused:

[iflyhighinthesky]

Apparentyl the 18:40pm flight is going ahead according to Sky News.

Just wondering: Is it at all possible that it is a simple case of the captain not wanting to go? Which is fair enough.

Would the airline overide his decision, or is it not his decision in these kinds of cases, ie BA would find someone else?

cheers ifly. (at least trying to!!)

[FlyUK]

Lol, 18.40 flight....Good old sky news. Where to, the moon? They make me laugh so much.

[BRISTOLRE]

YES IT IS BREAKING NEWS.
Its cancelled again, today 2nd January.
I just checked the BBC again and it confirms that it is off.
Whats going on????

[Grandpa]

The FBI computerised system makes US Administration appear ridiculous:

They are unable to transcript arabic, chinese, far-east names....
They are unable to check alerts with human skill at a level creating a kind of "trust", either negative or positive.

In this flights cancellation affair, they took an old chinese grandma, a young arab baby, and a few other peacefull passengers for dangerous terrorists....

I don't think this blocade was due to the current anti-French or xenophobic feeling in Bush's Administration, just normal stupidity.

Now they created another important problem:

If American paranoia is making a mess of International Air Transport, If world economy has to suffer in other sectors from unresponsible decisions made by officials unable to face the multiple pressures and stress ahead....isn't it by itself a victory for Al Qayda et al. ?

[FlyUK]

I have this sneeky suspicion that there is something more to this whole sharade than BA/gov are leading on. Very strange.

[Doodles]

BBC are saying that this afternoons cancellation was a direct order from the Government (UK), not a BA decision based on advice

[Bzulu]

What is wrong with BA 223? Is it the same a/c each time? This is 3 times now that this flight has been a problem.

[FFFlyer]

'In this flights cancellation affair, they took an old chinese grandma, a young arab baby, and a few other peacefull passengers for dangerous terrorists....'

Actually that was the report in the Wall Street Journal; Reuters said:

'However, a source close to French investigating judges handling terror cases told Reuters the newspaper report could not be true, because U.S. terrorism investigators had never given French authorities passenger names, only flight numbers.'

[Half a Mexican]

There is something not quite right about this.

The same flight has been considered an extreme threat for three days now.

I think it's a fair to assume that the flights were canceled because there was someone, or something, on board that was considered a terrorist threat.

Was this same threat present on all three flights?
If so, surely it would be easy to isolate and neutralize?

Conversely, if they don't know quite what they are looking for why are they being so specific about this particular flight?

Something just doesn't sit right.

[CHIVILCOY]

If I were a terrorist hellbent on carrying out some attrocity I would imagine I would be avoiding Heathrow like the plague and using some other USA route starting from a less obvious airport or do they have some help from the ground???

[JJflyer]

Nuts. Now all visa holders will be required to give fingerprints and have their photos taken by US upon entry, regardless of citizenship. Now that means all flight crews. Such a splendid idea.
At the same time people from visa waiver countries will not be required to participate.

Me thinks it is time other nations follow Brasils example and extend the courtesy to US citizens and have their fingerprints and photos taken.

What a load of s.hit. They have gone absolutely nuts. One more reason to avoid US of A alltogether.
Wonderful country turning into a third world type banana republic, just makes me sad.

JJ

[Iron City]

Maybe there are questions on security on the other end. Story in yesterday's Washington Post of a frozen hitchhiker found during postflight at JFK on a flight from LHR. No real further information on flight origination, etc and doubt we will ever know from the good old media.

[McIce]

We now have had two pages of opinion since Flying For Fun asked what you would do and only 'Danny' has given his thoughts on the subject.
It seems most of you are quick to criticise the authorities but know of no real alternative about what to do.

[Hypoxia]

One of the BA staff at IAD said the delays could be drastically reduced if all the various "authorities" involved actually communicated and co-ordinated with one another more effectively. It seems like a bit of a power-struggle to me!

If these "authorities" are acting on what they call "credible intelligence", we hope they have got it right - (credible intelligence of all those piles of WMD's in Iraq spring to mind!!).

One would think that the US and UK, two countries with the most sophisticated electronic resources in the world, would be able to isolate (or develop a means of isolating) a "credible threat" without the present scorched earth machine-gun-a-rabbit type measures.

:*

[Dewdrop]

Suggestions on the TV and the net this morning were that the "credible threat" contained the number 223. The assumption being placed on this was that it related to the BA flight, but as some sharp eyed viewer pointed out it could just as easily stand for BBC (223). Over reaction I think so.

I wonder how many US passengers flying to Europe have Arab sounding names? perhaps security should be stepped up on this side of the pond !

[hobie]

a different Aircraft from that planned for the flight surely would eliminate any risk in Hardware terms ??? ......

100% inspection of the baggage would eliminate any risk in this area ??? .....

100% physical inspection of all passengers would eliminate any risk in this area ???? ....

add 20 or so undercover armed agents to the passenger list


if the crew are happy with the above .......



" FLY THE FLIGHT" .....

[Changi]

I for one would not want to put my passengers at risk on such a flight. Nor would I think many passengers would want to be on it.

HOw can we say that the threat is not from SAMs, or even the fllight being interecepted mid air?

We just know its a specific threat to that particular flight.

[ghost-rider]

" ... or even the fllight being interecepted mid air? ... "
eh?? :uhoh: Surely you're not suggesting the bad-guys now have fighters ?? :rolleyes:

[Stickies]

As has already been posted the BA223 has been cancelled but,according to Radio 4s 5 o clock news, *the 300 passengers are in the process of being rebooked on other flights*. This could be a standard reporting *tag* to finish the news report but if this is true, what was the point of cancelling the BA flight in the first place?

[wryly smiling]

this was taken from the BBC report
"In December six Air France flights from Paris to Los Angeles were grounded, at the request of the US.
The FBI said on Friday that passengers wrongly identified as potential security threats had led to the cancellation of the flights.
The French Government believes the mix-up was partially down to the mistaken translation of some Arabic names".

has BA suffered from the same "intelligence"

[flybonanza]

I notice that up to now all the flights that have been cancelled or given special treatment on arrival have been of non-US carriers. I wonder how this is possible considering the large number of US carriers flying the Atlantic daily. Are US flights so well screened prior to departure? :confused:

[Wino]

Why oh Why is it that when things finally heat up around here that crew scheduling chooses THAT time to call for a trip. For weeks, nothing happening, something to type about, blam off to the airport... Oh well, home again, time to wade in, 6 shooter blazin' :)

Flybonanza,

It had been happening to US airlines fairly regularly (so much so that it stopped being news) where flights were searched, or escorted for what ever reason... But compared against the volume of traffic it is also so insignificant that you had better odds of winning the lottery than having it happen to your flight... But the US airlines probably have a better hookup with the FBI computers that are scanning the watch lists (and interpol) whereas the EU in particular had been resisting that capability... But interestingly it has been the British government that has been requesting the cancelations, and say what you want about the USA, we would have had nothing to say about the flight to Ryahd that was cancelled....


Wryly smiling

Who says the foulup has to be a government one? Don't forget the low paid person taking the airline reservations over the phone! Or the harried agent at the ticket counter typing as fast as she can to make sure the flight gets out on time... There are so many links that can get fouled up in this sort of thing that it just boggles the mind. Its one of the problems I have with the idea of intelligence. There are just so many wild cards out there...




As to the reactions of canceling the flights. I have been against that as well, because it hands a victory to the terrorists. Remember one of their goals is to destroy our way of life. If they paralyze airtravel they have take a small step in that direction. Hell, they may have simply found a way to make a credible threat when they had no intention of actually carrying it out (figured out that we have bugged something and are speaking for the benefit of the microphone).

I would much prefer that they bump everyone they are not worried about and replace em with a soldier... Just picture it, 10-20 guys stand up with little bittie box cutters (assume its an all up attack) and yell "this is a hijacking" Then 325 Soldiers stand up with KayBar knives and say. "Take your best shot!"

Unfortunately not very practical but it would be fun...


There is an interesting problem here. I am not sure that the government would be able to detain you on the plane BEFORE the flight takes off. I am not sure that without probable cause that they could effectively arrest a plane load of people and then sort it out later. After flying while waiting for customs the government has the right to quarantine you, but what about an out bound flight? FLYING LAWYER? JUMP IN HERE!

CHIVILCOY,

If you really want to use a 747 (and for symbolic reasons they would, and guess what a magnate the 380 will be BTW) You kinda have to go to heathrow. Otherwise you might have to make to with a piddly little 767/777/330/757 and that's already been done.... Isn't it passe to copy someone else's work?

GRANDPA.

AGAIN I agree with you. I think I better go lay down... :)


DANNY,
WRT your travel plans. There will be some killer deals to the USA as a result of this. By the time you would actually have to travel you know darn well they will be on some other flavor of the month... Go for the money...

Cheers
Wino

[Huck]

Now blame this one on W:

From Reuters....


British Airways (BAB) has canceled its Saturday flight from London's Heathrow Airport to Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, over security concerns, airline officials said.

It was the third time this week that the airline has canceled flights from Britain on security grounds; BA's afternoon flights to Washington's Dulles airport on Thursday and Friday also were grounded.

In a statement Friday night, British Airways said Flight BA263 to Riyadh, which had been due to leave Heathrow at 1335 GMT Saturday had been canceled, along with the return flight BA262 from Riyadh, which had been due to leave the Saudi Arabian city on Sunday.

Not from Reuters, but from AP, and here's the link. (http://apnews.myway.com/article/20040102/D7VQT8M80.html)

[InitRef]

But the US airlines probably have a better hookup with the FBI computers that are scanning the watch lists (and interpol) whereas the EU in particular had been resisting that capability

None of the airlines hookup to the FBI computers directly. The major CRS/GDS systems are interfacing with Dep of Homeland Security/TSA screening systems (which BTW do not have any new funding due to the CAPPS II fiasco last summer).

The FBI/CIA/JTTF feed alert-list and other intelligence data to the TSA. This is how all US airlines screen pax, and quite a few non-US too. All non-US airlines feed data via the APIS (advance pax info sys) which goes to TSA and Customs. APIS data has to be sent within (I believe) 30 minutes of departure.

[McIce]

Mike J
Am I missing the point here??
I would suggest you are. As are quite a few. Most here are pilots / passengers who fly planes and are probably very good at it, so why not fly planes/travel quietly and let the security experts do their job.
I do not agree that taking nail files etc off flight crew is the way forward but who am I and they have to be seen to be doing something in the wake of 9/11 within a limited budget.

You all have a view / issue with regards to security (quite rightly so as you stand to suffer a lot if it goes wrong) but none of you are in a position and never will be in a position to assess what we should or should not do with regards to intelligence that is to hand, you will only be told a small bit so that the source of the information is not compromised.

In a perfect world with regard to terrorism every communication between them should be monitored but I think it is prudent to think that this is not possible and the wee bits that the agencies get we should be grateful for and accept their judgement on the limited info they have. It is not always going to be right but they must er on the side of caution, so why not accept what is happening, instead of claiming its political point scoring, poor intelligence or another conspiracy.

The agencies did not react to intelligence received before 9/11 and they got slaughtered for it, so why should they listen to the hypocrites amongst us now.

Safe and happy flying to you all and lets get out of this hole we are digging for ourselves to the delight of the scumbag terrorist

[Shore Guy]

NYTimes is reporting that some of the BA Flights were canceled due to crew refusing to fly with armed marshals onboard.....

B/S or fact?

Also.....

"President Bush had one threshold question for Tom Ridge, his secretary for homeland security, as they met at the White House situation room on Dec. 22. "Would you let your son or daughter fly on that plane?" he asked Mr. Ridge, according to a senior administration official privy to the conversation.

"Absolutely not," the secretary responded. "Well," Mr. Bush said, "neither would I."

[411A]

Hmm, well for the moment let us suppose that it is true that crew specifically refuse to fly with armed marshalls onboard.
Company says...they are properly trained and the CAA says OK, so if a crew member is unwilling to operate accordingly...pick up your pink slip on the way out the door, and oh yes, goodbye pension.

Would any crew member be so inclined...?:ooh: :E

[XL5]

Not up to your usual standard of muddying the waters 411A , perhaps you're all shagged out and a wee bit groggy after the New Year celebrations.

Think it through, bearing in mind that the work force is unionised. If the suits put crosshairs on an individual captain for a safety related action then it rapidly escalates through union retaliation into a job action by the membership. Just one example of why suits hate unions.
Just wondering.....has your airline been effected to the point where flights have been cancelled by these terrorist threats?

Regards,
XL5

[FlyUK]

411A, good point. Although i notice your from the US. Have a look at this another way. Captain and crew refuse to operate flight becasue they are not happy with some armed 'expert' on there aircraft. Beancounter says byebye to crew, don't pass go, don't collect £100. Another crew does exactly the same....suddenly a certain airline is loosing lots of crews which it is struggling to keep together at the best of times...1.Crew/Pilots all refuse to operate flights, and go on strike. Airline looses millions. 2. Company gets rid of all 'unruly' staff. Suddenly company have a big problem!
Balpa says No armed marshals. Airlines agree. Someone is not going to be happy. Oh ofcourse, the US gov. :confused:

Expedite. :ok:

[Mark McG]

Today's Daily Record is reporting that the threat apparantley came from a Female Suicide Bomber who was planning to smuggle the bomb on board inside a certain part of her anatomy.

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/content_objectid=13777202_method=full_siteid=89488_headline=-AL%2DQAEDA%2DIN%2DPLOT%2DTO%2DBLOW%2DUP%2DBA%2DPLANE-name_page.html

If this is true, will we see the introduction of full 3-d x-ray style body scanners in the not too distant future, along with explosive residue detectors.

As to the point about API messages, we have to send them to the TSA as soon as possible within 30 minutes of the aircraft pushingback. With the technology that is around today, it should be possible to verify who a passenger is when they check in for the flight.
Veering slightly off topic, Theme Parks in the USA can print photos of their customers onto their tickets within a matter of minutes. Why is something like this not standard practice for boarding cards.

[Human Factor]

Why is something like this not standard practice for boarding cards.


££££

[El Grifo]

Jeeeezus !!

We had the "Uni- Bomber" the "Shoe-Bomber" now it looks like the next thing is the "Pussy-Bomber".

It amazing how these things evolve. :suspect: :ooh: :yuk:

[Pontious]

Ghost-ryder

They don't need fighters. All they need is a light aeroplane or two, a couple of motivated individuals trained to a basic PPL standard, a target and BINGO!- An airborne suicide bomber.

Take a look at a Baltimore/Washington Sectional Chart or Terminal Chart and you will see that there are hundreds of small and private strips scattered around the area which could be home to a couple or couple of hundred light aircraft, some probably not used very regularly, and within a few minutes flying time of the SID/STAR tracks in and out of Dulles,or even the Final Approach tracks themselves for the various runways.

Personally,I think this smacks of a genuine received 'Carrier-Flight Number specific' threat either from a ground or external airborne source, due to the fact that neither HMG,BA or the US Authorities would allow the aircraft to depart for the return service to LHR.

...........Or...............

A new passenger vetting system with teething problems but why would pax. on this or the AF-LAX services trigger 'Flags' when many other carriers enter the US with more pax. with Arabic/Middle Eastern 'sounding' names?

[FFFlyer]

Torygraph was reporting the flights were cancelled by the British authorities as they were worried about a hijacking/bombing over London - makes more sense - the tanks would be full. Obviously the traditionally anti-US papers like the Grauniad report it differently.
[URL=http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/01/03/nterr03.xml]

[Airbubba]

Here's today's headline:

B.A. Washington flight to go ahead

LONDON, England (CNN) --British Airways Flight 223 is set to leave London's Heathrow Airport Saturday afternoon for Washington's Dulles Airport, after it was cancelled twice due to security concerns.

The flight had been due to depart London at 1505 GMT (10:05 a.m. ET), but a spokesman for British Airways said the flight had been delayed by one hour by extra security checks.

Britain's ministry of transport said the plane had been deemed safe to operate, without going into further detail.

At least 10 international flights have been either canceled or delayed for security reasons since Wednesday, primarily flights involving British Airways.

Flight 223 was canceled Thursday and again Friday. On Wednesday, that same flight received a fighter escort into Washington Dulles International Airport after authorities said about a dozen passenger names seemed to match those on a terrorism watch list.

The plane sat on the runway for hours, but authorities determined there was no threat.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/europe/01/03/flight.cancel/index.html

[Rwy in Sight]

Well maybe in order to make TSA people feel even more important they may be assigned to give flight information, since it seems they run the flght schedule over the atlantic during the last week or so!

Happy and sane new year with plenty of patience.

Rwy in Sight

[Larry in TN]

The link doesn't work because it has two extra spaces, "%20", in the URL. Remove them and the story loads.

I have created this tinyurl which also works: http://tinyurl.com/2ykpw

[Capt.KAOS]

The whole idea that terrorists would be using their real names and clear descriptions of what they were planning to do using unencrypted communications is ridiculous, especially in the wake of the massively increased surveillance after 9-11. If the

American authorities think they are hearing anything suspicious it is either due to an overactive imagination or is a ruse by the terrorists to create panic or create a diversion. Even the 9-11 terrorists did their most delicate planning in face-to-face meetings in Spain and Las Vegas, and aliases and code words are easy to use.

At the other hand this article (http://www.debka.com/article.php?aid=757) might be the cause of all the dismay?

[steamchicken]

So - check the names on the pax list. Good idea. Pity about the US citizen (real name David Francis Bieber) on the run from a murder rap who killed a cop in Leeds the other week whilst using a US passport in the name of Nathan Wayne Coleman. And do they really issue visas/waivers to people who are on the TSA watch lists?

Garbage in, garbage out is one thing - but putting even good information into a dysfunctional processing system does not produce good results. And putting more information in to the machine will not improve the quality of output. There is a serious problem with giving a bureaucracy all it wants..

On a lighter note, I'm beginning to think that The Authorities have gone back to the source of Western civilisation for answers - consulting the auguries. Before setting out on a voyage the Romans would have a priest kill a chicken and examine its guts for clues to predict success or failure. It was a go/no go matter.

[paulo]

BBC; 18:09; 5.1.03

Washington flight delayed again

About 200 passengers have been waiting two hours so far
BA's flight 223 to Washington has been delayed again amid security fears.

The flight, which was cancelled twice last week and delayed on Saturday and Sunday, had been due to take off from Heathrow at 1505 GMT.

But it was not cleared by US officials until almost three hours later, and finally took off just after 1800 GMT.

However, BA flight 263 to Riyadh, which was also cancelled twice last week because of security fears, left more or less as scheduled, at about 1345 GMT.

Flight 223 was delayed for the third day as US officials reportedly went through the names of the 200 or so passengers on board.

The delay came as a row continued about US demands that undercover armed sky marshals be put on some flights.

Foreign Secretary Jack Straw defended the decision to ground some passenger flights, saying safety must come first.

Transport Secretary Alistair Darling said the flights were grounded only as a last resort.

However, neither minister would be drawn on the specific nature of any potential threat.

The pilots' union Balpa claimed the repeated grounding of 223 was a "political decision" linked to BA's reluctance to fly with sky marshals on board.

'Own judgements'

The flight was accompanied by US fighter jets last Wednesday (New Year's Eve), cancelled on Thursday and Friday and subject to delays on Saturday and Sunday.

Speaking on BBC Radio 4's Today programme, Mr Straw said the cancellations had been based on specific intelligence.

He denied that UK air security - including the decision to introduce air marshals on some planes - was being driven by the US.

"We make our own judgements on the basis of expert analysis by our brilliant security and intelligence services," Mr Straw said.

"There have been many hundreds of transatlantic flights taking place without any cancellation or delay, and thousands around the world," he added.

'Marshals row'

On Monday UK holiday company Thomas Cook Airlines joined the row over air marshals, saying it would refuse to operate flights if they were put on board because of safety concerns.

"For the time being, if a sky marshal presents himself, we will cancel the flight," said a spokesman.

"Like Balpa, we want to see captains remain in full control of the aircraft at all times."

A spokesman for BA said that "in principle, where appropriate, with agreed procedures in place, we'd be comfortable" with marshals on its aircraft.

Balpa officials were meeting BA to discuss the issue on Monday, and were due to meet Mr Darling on Tuesday.

The union has already reached agreement with one transatlantic carrier - Virgin Atlantic - on rules for working with the marshals.

It is calling for an "over-arching" agreement with the government, covering the use of marshals across all airlines.

[Airbubba]

British Airways Flight 223 delayed four hours

London-Washington passengers stalled as U.S. reviews information

NBC News and news services

Updated: 2:39 p.m. ET Jan. 05, 2004

LONDON - The frequently interrupted British Airways Flight 223 was delayed again Monday as officials at Heathrow Airport awaited an OK from U.S. authorities before letting the loaded London-to-Washington flight take off.

The plane was stuck on the runway for more than four hours before it finally took off after 7 p.m. (2 p.m. ET). A spokeswoman for British Airways said the plane was put on hold as U.S. authorities reviewed information about the flight, including the passenger manifest.

“Once the aircraft is boarded, British Airways send information to the U.S. authorities and then await a response before the aircraft can take off,” she said.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3827789/

[Donkey Duke]

WEIRD PLOT OF WOMB BOMBER
By BRIAN BLOMQUIST and ANDY GELLER

January 4, 2004 -- A she-bomber planned to blow up British Airways Flight
223 over Washington with plastic explosives hidden inside her body, a
chilling new report says.

U.S. security services told Scotland Yard that the woman - almost certainly
linked to al Qaeda - planned to hide 8 to 12 ounces of the material tucked
inside her reproductive region, London's Mirror newspaper reported.

When the flight was over the nation's capital, the bomber would go to the
bathroom, remove the explosives and detonate a blast that would blow the
aircraft out of the skies.

A Homeland Security official said he was unaware of a specific threat of a
female suicide bomber who would hide explosives in her body.

But he added, "We've had concerns about IEDs" - improvised explosives
devices.

As a result, airport security screeners check for women wearing loose
clothing and other signs the official declined to talk about.

"Smuggling a bomb onto a plane by this method is one of our worst
nightmares," a senior Scotland Yard source told the newspaper. "If you do
not have specific information about the suspect, it would be impossible to
carry out an intimate body search of every female passenger."

Flight 223 to Washington's Dulles Airport was canceled for two days because
of fears that an al Qaeda terror team planned to hijack the plane and crash
it into the nation's capital.

The flight finally took off from London's Heathrow Airport yesterday
afternoon after being delayed for 3 hours and 20 minutes by security checks.

It landed safely at Dulles around 9:20 p.m. last night

All 268 passengers were searched and taken on board one by one as armed cops
and sniffer dogs stood by. Detectives questioned some passengers and U.S.
officials checked the full passenger list before the plane was given
clearance to leave.

British Airways also cancelled a morning flight from Dulles to Heathrow as
well as a flight from London to Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, and its return today.

The Scotland Yard source said intelligence information indicated the
womb-bomb attack was planned for "sometime over the holiday period." A
specific British Airways flight was mentioned.
"Because the intelligence did not identify a passenger by name, it was
decided to disrupt the plot by canceling the flights," the source said.

Britain's transportation minister, Alistair Darling, said "specific
information" led to the grounding of the British Airways flights and warned
that more cancellations might occur to prevent a Sept. 11-style attack.

"The threat that we now face is likely to endure for many years," Darling
told BBC Radio. "There may occasionally from time to time be the need to
ground a particular flight."

Asked if British authorities had information about specific threats, Darling
said, "Yes, we do."

A British Airways spokeswoman the cancellations were based on these threats
and not on pilots' opposition to having armed air marshals on board.

The United States said last week that it will not allow certain suspicious
flights into American airspace without the marshals on board.

Britain's powerful pilots' union opposes the idea and at one point urged its
pilots not to fly with the marshals on board.

But the union now says it won't block the plan.

Meanwhile, a Homeland Security spokesman said authorities have been
discussing security with the NFL and the NCAA during the playoff and college
bowl season.




And the British pilots think we are not helping them. We are protecting ourselves, and your airplanes and passengers. When will you all just wake up? Apology accepted.

[Airbubba]

>>Britain's powerful pilots' union opposes the idea and at one point urged its pilots not to fly with the marshals on board.<<

Yeah but they are already backpedaling, they'll come around as they always do...

[White Knight]

Armed sky marshals on board is NOT the right thing to be doing, so no apology from this Limey.....

Europe has been awake to terrorism for a very long time - just remember that DD.

[Techman]

"We saved BA from a WOMB Bomber"

Just like you saved AF from a 5 year old boy?.:rolleyes:

[Donkey Duke]

White Knight,

Not only do you need Air Marshals, but you also need better security and passenger pre-screening. Read the article again please. You're welcome.

Techman,

Atleast we are looking at the rosters. People at BA need to get into the game also. And, the French government agreed to cancel those flights also. Had they pre-screened the names and actually pulled those passengers aside first, maybe the flight would not have been cancelled, but no--we are the ones checking each roster instead of AF. We always have to clean up and protect you guys over there. Bon Jour!

[Techman]

Well DD, that would have been a good wind-up if it weren't so obvious that you actually believe your own hype.

As it has been said many times, terrorism is nothing new to us over here, so we do have some modest experience of how to deal with it. And we have done quite well, compared to some, even without a huge Department of State Security.

But then again, as you obviously are the new masters of all things security, we might as well just roll over and be trampled on.

[Donkey Duke]

Techman,

I am glad you finally agree and "see the light." I know about your terrorist troubles over there, and you have been a great ally. But, sometimes people in Europe don't react to problems like we do in the States, and that is not good. Tighter security has been needed since 9-11, and now we are getting it. I think this will also send a message to them showing we are ALL watching. Cheers!

[Wino]

Sorry techman,

But the only country with experience fighting Suicide Bombers is Israel. That's a whole different ballgame when you get up in the morning PLANNING to die. We have had our share your kind of terrorists as well, you just never heard of them, but think Black Panthers, Weather Underground, abortion clinic bombings etc... We defeated them. But the suicide bomber is a whole different league playing at a new level.

Not all agree with me, but if you get a chance find a Navy vet from WWII who survived a kamakazi raid and ask him what he thought at that moment when he realized that the Kamakazi pilot woke up PLANNING to die...

That's the part of the problem here in the disconnect between the two sides. What worked for the IRA won't be sufficient here.

Cheers
Wino

[Techman]

As I said, it could have been a good wind-up.....

P.S. It is obviously not only irony that goes straight over your heads....:rolleyes:

[aviator]

And here is a (satirical) American comment:

From the Boyd group... even though he thrives on "amplifying" the issues, there is some truth in this one.


Just Gotta Love This Code Orange Fiasco
Scaring Terrorists Off With High Theater.
And Sloshed FSDs.

It's been quite a holiday season.

The TSA's been in full metal jacket mode, out hunting for terrorists. Just before Christmas, acting on what they say was credible information, the Department of Homeland Security and their ever-eager B-Team, the TSA, announced that terrorists might again use airliners to attack America. (Wow! Gee! Duh!) The target could be LA. Or Las Vegas. Or Washington. The Feds had several Air France flights cancelled, to reduce the threat of terror (over and above that represented by the in-flight service, we assume.) A flight or two from Mexico got cancelled, too. Still, the elusive terrorists apparently got away.

Then on New Year's eve, they hit pay dirt. The TSA determined that Washington Dulles might be a target, and British Airways would be the modality used by the terrorists. The TSA laid in quiet wait at IAD as the BA airliner taxied in after its long flight from London. Then they sprung - diverting the aircraft to a remote site. For the next several hours the TSA conducted a re-screening of all passengers, bags, cargo, and crew. Everyone was questioned by the crack TSA team.

Finally, after completing the SWAT-team like re-screening of the BA flight, the Washington Airport Police took into custody a key player in the war on terror. It was only one arrest, but they got a big fish.

Unfortunately, it was Federal Security Director at IAD.

It seems that while his staff were out on the ramp pawing down hapless passengers, the FSD was apparently discussing the finer points of aviation security with a bottle of Jack Daniels. At 1 AM - when he was supposed to still be on duty, (per instructions from the Department of Homeland Security) the Airport police nailed him on a DUI as he attempted to drive home. He then celebrated the New Year in a jail cell.

With this level of security, no doubt al-Qaeda is celebrating, too.

Meanwhile, In Philadelphia...

The Federal Security Director at Philadelphia International Airport has been removed from his job after nearly a year of shenanigans. Last spring, a news crew (note, not the TSA) discovered that at least one portal to the airport was left unguarded completely, with free access to all. Another report indicated funky hiring practices, including possible nepotism and hiring a former exotic dancer as a screening supervisor.

Meanwhile, In Mexico...

The TSA has confirmed that they have sent agents to Mexico to train local personnel in the finer points of airport security. "The TSA officials check that all security norms are applied," a TSA spokesman declared. Judging by the TSA's "norms" at two of our largest airports (IAD & PHL) - with booze and strippers involved - it may just be party time South of the Border.

[Danny]

WARNING

In an attempt to prevent this debate becoming 'circular' with the very obvious differences between the UK/EU and US cultures, I will again ask posters to refrain from their usual 'willy waving' techniques. Stating the obvious, we have the US government and a cross section of their pilots on here advocating and supporting the edicts that are making our ministers over here 'jump' to their tune of "let's put guns everywhere and solve potential problems". On the other hand we have the reluctance by the UK pilots to what is seen as an ill thought through, knee-jerk reaction that does little to prevent the problem and an extremely limited chance to stop it if it should occur.

The difference in attitudes to guns is very evident in both cultures. However, we have had over a generation to deal with aviation security issues. There are still flaws but, without belittling the tradgedy that happened on 9/11, it was the US reluctance to heed advice on security issues that allowed that tragic event to occur. What we have now is the massive overreaction that some believe is the solution to potential suicide hijacking.

What is happening over here in the UK, and no doubt in other countries too, is a reaction to being told that on flights that are deemed to be at specific risk we are to carry armed sky marshals. There has been no consultation on how all this is to be implemented and how any legal formalities that will affect us are to be handled. BALPA has been asking for over a year for a meeting with the government to discuss this and they have been ignored. Now we have an edict from the US, the UK government make an announcement about the carriage of armed sky marshalls on flights that are at specific risk and some of our US cousins are unable to understand why we are refusing to fly on those flights.

I have no doubt, that if this had been handled properly by this governement, in consultation with the pilots and without all the hype and huge appetite for 'sound bites' from our esteemed ministers this issue wouldn't even be in the news today. We all know that real security is not the cosmetic farce that the travelling public see at the airport but the intelligence agencies in conjunction with the security services getting on with their jobs, out of the limelight. When they have done their jobs properly there is no news and no public thanks. When they haven't, as in 9/11, they again get no thanks.

So, the US pilots believe that an armed pilot and an armed sky marshall is the solution to making pax feel safe and is a last resort to any breach of security. We believe that there is a long way to go before the need for armed sky marshals are needed. Introducing a gun into what is supposedly a gun sterile environment is just a step backward. There are enough opportunities for anyone to introduce a 'weapon' after passing through the current system of induction loops and an x-ray machine. Let's deal with that problem first and there will be even less need to have armed sky marshalls on board.

The first we pilots over here heard about the introduction of armed sky marshals on our flights was an announcement on a radio programme. That's how well thought through this decision was implemented. We were told that they would only be introduced on specific flights at high risk. Do they think we are muppets and are incapable of realising what that means? Does your life insurance policy pay out to your family if anything happens to you because you knowingly operated on a flight with a specific risk known about before departure? There are many similar issues to be dealt with and without consultation why shouldn't we refuse to operate specific flights?

[MichaelJP59]

"We saved BA from a WOMB Bomber"

If you were a "womb-bomber" and your flight had been cancelled, would you really bang your fist on the table and curse the efficiency of the intelligence services?

Instead, you might consider getting on another of the considerable number of flights to the USA. Why would you care which particular aircraft you blew up?

So far, the only reason for flight 223 cancellations that makes any sense is the one that says the US are making trouble until an agreement is reached on sky marshals.

- Michael

[badcredit]

hi i am a pilot from europe, a few years ago i lived in USA when i left i did not pay my credit cards etc...

woudl i have a problem going back to the US if i need training?

my concent is about the PRIA Check / DOT check and / TSA check


Thanksss

Some who regrets his past

[Wino]

No, I don't believe that credit card debt is part of the search, but I could be wrong about that, So why don't you just pay your bill? I am sure you can contact the creditor and arrange a reduced charge off or something just to clear the account... Then you won't have to worry.

Michael,

Quite possibly true, unless there is something else about the flight that makes it a political statement...

Many countries have opted out of the skymarshal program by just agreeing to cancel flights should there be a known threat against them.

I have a suspicion now that the problem was that Tony Blair didn't want to be seen as caving to the terrorists so he wouldn't want to cancel and flights, so in his haste implemented a bad or incomplete program.

This is also a problem with BALPA and their loss of influence. If this has been going on for a year and they have been getting blown off by the ministers, then EVERY pilot in the UK needs to look in the mirror and stop dickin around with the IPA and get on board with BALPA and present ONE UNIFIED LOUD VOICE.

This has been an ongoing process for over a year since skymarshals were first discussed and I am astounded at how little influence BALPA has if what Danny just posted is true and now I see the problem.

Seams to remind me of what I used to tell you guys back on 99-00 about stop messing around with IPA and get on board with BALPA if you wanted to protect your jobs from the likes of me... You must speak with one loud voice, little splinter unions do you know good (and yes I know the irony of that as an APA member and I have been working to bring APA back to ALPA, so far unsuccessfully unfortuneately)

Does this count as an official "I told you so!" (and how's that for willy waving Danny :) )

Cheers
Wino

[Jet II]

I can't help thinking that BALPA and BA are going to shoot themselves in the foot over this.

For the punter sitting down the back in a 777 all the major carriers are the same - the IFE, food, service, comfort, is all much of a muchness now - If BA go down the route of cancelling flights everytime there is a warning the SLF are going to vote with their feet and change to a US (or other countries) carrier who have Air Marshalls and can ensure a reliable, on-time, service.

BA is on its knees now - the last thing it needs is a reputation for unreliability.

[TwoTun]

I have followed this debate with interest, even to the point of following up every tangent that seemed to spring out of nowhere and apparently had nothing to do with the main topic.

However, there is one thing that we must all remember here. We are being told of a 'specific' threat against a non-skymarshal carrying airline by two different governments (yes, I know the leader of one government is so far up the arse of the leader of the other one, but that's irrelevant).

These are the same two governments that went to war, invaded another sovereign state, and killed many people based upon 'evidence' of Weapons of Mass Destruction. Evidence which is, apparently, non-existant.

So why should we now believe that the Intellegence organisations of both countries have now got it right when they have (so far) failed miserably over Iraq?



Just my thoughts.:confused:

[Sonic Cruiser]

Is it just me or has anyone else noticed that other BA flights ,apart from 223 ,and other carriers flights to IAD seem to be going more or less on time. Someone correct me if I am wrong.

[Jim Morehead]

I posted a message about the BA/Other country security on another thread. I will find out what response (good or bad) it got.

But I have to say that Danny did put things in a different perspective after reading his post. At least he explained why there are many view points on this subject.

But I still don't think the solution for someone else to decide IF they will operate from their country to the US with air mashalls is to scream/piut and cancel the flight. DIfferent countries view things sifferent and even throughout Europe there are different view points.

Around the world differnt countries require differnet things that I can either accept or don't enter that country or get fired.

Some of these countries (I've been to 6 continents) go nuts over RSVM or non RSVM airplace whether there are 1 or 2 airplanes for 1,000 miles. Many countries and many controllers are more purists than others just like pilots.

South America has many one way airways and many restrictive altitudes that test the airplane you are flying. I can't remember exactly where it is other than the middle of South America,but somewhere you have to either get FL310 or FL390. NOTHING IN THE MIDDLE IS ACCEPTABLE. Do I think this is right?

I remember in CDG where everybody taxis counterclockwise. Why? It's their way.

LHR only clears one to land almost in the flare. Why? That's what works for them.

Some countries tell you to line up behind landing aircraft. They let the pilot make his own call as to when that is. SOme people feel this is dangerous. Well, other countries have controllers tell YOU when to get on the runway. Better?

Some countries X-ray bags inbound. I can think of Snatiago and Seoul in the old airport. India sometimes also. Do I think this is stupid for flight crews and do I resist? Yes. Can I do anything about it.

The US is simply saying, you'll do it our way or you won't come here. Your choice. Do I think every bright idea is that? Bright?

The truth is that there are countries more safe than others. Perhaps terrorist have no grudges against XXX country. But I hope that some are not so naive to believe that if a terrorist groups is going to find the path of least resistance. They will.

I also find it quite amusing of those that say, "we live with terroism and we are experienced at it,so its no big deal". It is if you or your country is the site of the terrorism.

Anyway, thank you Danny for at least 'splaining another view point.

[BWBriscoe]

I'm not usually one to stoop to this level, but im going to anyway!

The only two direct attacks on American soil have been Pearl Harbour and 9-11. Both of the attacks were caused by American arrogance and their belief that they are indestructable.

Britain (and the rest of Europe) has been dealing with terrorism for a very long time, and our security sevices are much better prepared to deal with this threat. Security at LHR (although there have been some publicised lapses) is generally of a very high standard, much better than that of the security of most US airports even now. In the past month I have flown in and out of JFK, IAD and SFO, and I can tell you that security at LHR is a hell of a lot better than at these US airports.

What really annoys me is the way the US are now trying to dictate security matters to us, when in comparison Britain and Europe are experts compared to them in this matter.

Britain and London especially has been dealing with terrorism for a long time, most notably with IRA. The Americans sent funding to the IRA, and now they want us to turn round and take orders from them on security issues?!

I am a strong believer that prevention is better than cure, and therefore I believe the best way to stop an attack is to stop the terrorists or whoever getting near the aircraft in the first place. If a terroist manages to get on board an aircraft, we have failed.

Ben

p.s. I'm not a great lover of our prime minister, but I do not think he is the lap dog that the yanks like us to think! I think he has a hell of a lot of control over bush, and actually restrains him quite a bit!

[mac_scott]

Sort of (sadly) sums up the current level of percieved threat in the US right now.

Basically an enquiry at a branch of Staples about an instrument based flight sim caused a visit by a state trooper.

Excerpt below:

Question about flight simulator brings visit from police

By VIRGINIA RAY
Recorder Staff

[Excerpt]

COLRAIN -- An innocent inquiry to a Staples store clerk about a computer
software program that teaches how to fly an airplane by instrumentation
brought a surprise visit this holiday season to a local family from the
state police.

"At first, I felt a little angry and violated" about someone telling
authorities about her inquiry, said Julie Olearcek, a 15-year Air Force
Reserve pilot. "But now that time has gone by, I realize it may take
someone like that, who's a little nervous, who may save the day."
Olearcek's husband, Henry, is also a flier, currently on active duty,
and frequently away from home these days.

About a week before Christmas, Olearcek said the couple's 10-year-old
son, who has flight simulation software and is keenly interested in
learning to fly like his parents, commented that he'd have to wait until
his dad retired to learn to fly by instruments. She went to Staples soon
after and took her son to the office supply store, where he looked
through the available software.

"He was disappointed because there was military stuff, but it was all
fighting stuff, so I asked the clerk, and he was alarmed by us asking
how to fly airplanes and said that was against the law," Olearcek said.
"I said I couldn't imagine that, but, because (the clerk) was a little
on edge ... I left." But "what saves us, is people are paying
attention," she said.
:ooh:

[paulo]

Breaking news:

AP Story c/o USA Today (http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2004-01-09-alert-level_x.htm)

[Globaliser]

Ah, miss, in that case can I go to the loo now please? (http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=114686)

[Final 3 Greens]

15 year reserve airforce pilot???????

Two nations separated by a common language.

[Avman]

I reckon the terrorists are deliberately providing misleading info on the aviation front whilst all the time they're planning something spectacular totally unconnected to aviation!!!