View Full Version : Emb145 Arson Probe at Glasgow

22nd Jan 2005, 07:09
Reports of an EMB 145 set alight at Glasgow overnight.Anybody got any news ?

Command Material
22nd Jan 2005, 07:11
Just heard on Radio 2 Glasgow shut because of BMI aircraft Fire with no one on board...Anyone hear anymore info?????

22nd Jan 2005, 07:37
bmi embraer 145 stand 31 torched and condition currently under wraps. Airfield currently closed due incident scene set up at end of pier. Security breach necessitating complete airfield and aircraft security search and airfield expecting to open in next hour. Alleged lighter fuel sprayed on ground around aircraft

Airfield now open

22nd Jan 2005, 08:39
Possibly followers of The Society for Safe and Reliable (Not to Mention Comfortable) Aviation? :rolleyes:

22nd Jan 2005, 09:07
bbc (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/4197449.stm) news story

The Greaser
22nd Jan 2005, 09:09
Blaze started at 0410 and the airfield was closed til 0910?? Whats that all about.

22nd Jan 2005, 09:36
Don't know any more than has been reported on the radio and BBC.

I ain't a detective, but it does seem rather conincidental that the airport fire service announced 12 hours before the fire, that it is to strike next week, due to "safety concerns"... :confused:

CarltonBrowne the FO
22nd Jan 2005, 10:02
I have an alibi!

coughing corner
22nd Jan 2005, 11:24
'Blaze started at 0410 and the airfield was closed til 0910?? Whats that all about?'

Its about a criminal investigation, sterile police search investigation zone declared around the incident, included part of runway

22nd Jan 2005, 14:02

This is a serious breach of security. I mean come on, someone has torched an aircraft and lets just say, yeah open back up ASAP.

I bet the insurance company will come up with some way of not paying!

22nd Jan 2005, 15:04
How many flights would that 5 hour shutdown affect?

22nd Jan 2005, 17:42

The BBC story says

"The airfield closure caused delays to four international and three domestic flights. "

Windsheer is right. This was a major breach of security at a BAA airport. If only the airPORTS ensured that the Restricted Zone was more robustly maintained then the stupid and costly restrictions placed on the airLINES could be scaled down.

But that would cost the airports money to employ sufficient manpower - and that ain't going to happen!

Anne :O

22nd Jan 2005, 19:09
There's nowt wrong with the safety, reliablity and frankly the comfort of bmi regional's 145 fleet. In fact, experience tells me that the 145 is at least as comfortable as the 747 I will have to endure 24 hours in, tomorrow. Roll on the A380 and 800 seats!!

Can anyone verify the extent of the damage to the GLA 145? Surely more than a window was cooked?

Blue Boy
22nd Jan 2005, 20:28
Surely, under the 'alleged' circumstances of the incident, the respective BAA Insurance company shold shoulder all costs.

An Airport is supposed to be a sterile zone, espically Airside, therefore, the Airport Authority (and Strathclyde Police), should take responsibility for the serious breach of security.

22nd Jan 2005, 20:33
AN ..... :ok: ... missed that bit :cool:

22nd Jan 2005, 21:42

I don't see the point in your emphASIS:hmm:

That said, this is a VERY (sorry) serious issue for GLA/BAA. It shouldn't be that easy to walk onto an airfield and torch an aircraft. This must be rather embarassing with the looming AFS strike.........ironically coincidental don't you think?

The Moss

22nd Jan 2005, 21:58
Sounds like the SJU Dupont Hotel fire in 1986 where 96 people died. The fire started minutes after a Teamsters contract expired. Three Teamsta's were convicted of setting the blaze...

You gotta problem wit dat?

23rd Jan 2005, 08:21
This incident ,thread has nothing to do with bmiRegional,s Reliability, punctuality, safety policy or training all of which you can take from me as being second to no one.

Runway 31
23rd Jan 2005, 11:03
An account of the incident in one of todays newspapers suggests that someone in an old BMW drove up and parked on the road leading to the terminal building adjacent to the international pier.

They then used a plank to scale the security fence and walked around the full length of the international pier for approximately 500 metres with a petrol can, past the security offices before setting the fire. A picture shows the plank against the fence.

A taxi driver says that he saw the car sitting but did not report it as a policeman was standing just along the road and thought that he would deal with it as cars are not allowed to stop in that area.

One or to people may get a rocket up their backside for this.

By the way there is no such thing as arson under Scots law, the offence being malicious ignition or wilful fireraising.

23rd Jan 2005, 11:47
Bally moss

As the Rwy 31 points out this was a breach of the perimeter of the Restricted Zone which is solely the responsibility of the airport. This was clearly laid down in a document known as Single Direction to Airport Managers.

However, because the airport operators are continually failing to maintain a secure
area, the DfT are requirng the aircraft operators (airlines) to put into place additional measures to protect aircraft. This includes guarding of aircraft when not in use which is a vast expense to the airline - when it should be the responsibility of the airport!

Rant over

Anne :O

23rd Jan 2005, 14:47
Runway 31 90% correct, the guy placed a black bag with some sort of flamable items inside on the inboard side of the LH wing and set fire to it. He was chased by some employees of another airline who saw him from a distance but he managed to escape over the fence using the plank you mention.
The LH inner wing, fuselage etc are all damaged.
Really surprised there is not more news coverage of this.

23rd Jan 2005, 14:56
OK. You've got the how... now the why?:confused:

brain fade
23rd Jan 2005, 17:25
This incident just goes to show that for all the 'security' present these days at airports there's sweet FA in place to deal with a nutter who simply hops over the fence with whatever he chooses to use to inflict damage.
Show up to work however, without yer pass, and your chances of getting through 'security' are nil. Unless that is you never ever held a pass in which case you go straight through! (visiting or GA pilots etc)

The whole thing needs a giant boot up the arse!

Headset starter
23rd Jan 2005, 17:28
Really quite a bizarre incident. What would be nice to know is does this guy have a problem with bmi, or did he walk around the pier to the smallest aircraft which was easily targeted due to its height off the ground.

Will be interesting to see what security issues are raised in the coming weeks.


Final 3 Greens
23rd Jan 2005, 19:35
Makes me feel really good, as a FQTV through BAA airports.

They're red hot on confiscating my nail clippers and I'm sure that this is a great contribution to security.

At least this latest miscreant could only torch the a/c, not slash the FD seats like the 73 at Stansted a while ago .... wonder if the perp used nail clippers for that little wheeze?

Piltdown Man
23rd Jan 2005, 19:50
Because "Security" is now an issue, I bet our anally retentive friends (The Gestapo) on security will give aircrew and extra special search on their way to work. I'd suggest that more rules will be invented like "You can't bring that wooden pallet, matches and petrol can through here Captain" and "You'll have to remove all the staples from your paperwork, don't you know that we've just had a major security incident" etc... Forgetting the fact that they doing a pointless phuqqing job in a miss-guided way supervised by knob-heads of the highest order. I hope BMI sues BAA for negligence and drives them into bankruptcy - but I doubt it

23rd Jan 2005, 20:20

I went through there first thing this morning and the checks appeared no different to normal.

23rd Jan 2005, 21:06

Don't worry my dear, I didn't miss your point, just wondered why
you used the CAPS. Holding down the shift key requires so much more effort. It was just my Saturday night beer fuelled humour!;)

Back to the thread. Doesn't, on the face of it appear to be an opportunist (for that read nutter) attack but, would seem to have a certain amount of 'planning'. Someone with an axe to grind? Have BMI regional sacked anyone up there recently?

I still can't get this proposed AFS strike out of my head though.....too coincidental for my liking.

The Moss

23rd Jan 2005, 23:09
i was led to believe earlier today that it was initially believed to be pax on jetty but now suspected arson.

Bally Heck
24th Jan 2005, 01:23
The worrying thing about this incident is that had he chosen not to light a fire, he probably would have gone unnoticed during his airside sojourn.

He could then have planted a bomb, a gun, or heaven forbid a pair of nail clippers for an accomplice to retrieve and carry out his worst in the manicure department.

In the meantime, TRANSEC continue to fiddle while security burns. Walk through security in Glasgow airport and you may find a cheap polythene sword on display (alongside a selection of manicure and personal hygiene products) in a cheap plastic cabinet confiscated from a distressed 5yr old kid. Oh yes....and police preventing limo drivers from picking up crew at the pickup point because it's a car and not a bus and therefore not entitled to use that bus stop.

I reckon being a terrorist must be one of the easiest jobs in the world right now. :confused:

24th Jan 2005, 07:07
What would be nice to know is does this guy have a problem with bmi.........
Well don't look at me! I think they're really really wonderful, truly truly kind, fantastically considerate, amazingly forward thinking and unbelievably well managed.


:yuk: :mad:

OK, I can't stand it........here's what I really think......

It could well be that the finger of suspicion for the EMB145 torching could point more firmly towards any bmi employee who has :-

--- Been made redundant upon a "crisis management" whim of the moment.

--- Been relocated upon a "crisis management" whim of the moment.

--- Been unfairly sacked

--- Been unfairly disciplined

--- Been unfairly treated

--- Had their terms of employment ignored.

--- Been "turned down" by them (since some posters here seem to think it matters :rolleyes: :} )

--- etc

That could be a lot of angry people!

*Expects predictable and naive responses from certain biased posters with special interests*

*Knock knock*

Hello officers. Hey gerroff! Leggo! I've got an alibi! :}

Little Blue
24th Jan 2005, 08:47
Don't worry AC..I know exactly where you were on Saturday morning !!! ;)
I sure hope that the authorities catch the individual(s)
and soon.

24th Jan 2005, 10:09
As I'm overseas and cannot access the company website, could someone in the know please satisfy my intrigue and tell me which a/c and the state of the damage. Cheers.


Runway 31
24th Jan 2005, 11:59
The aircraft involved is G-RJXD and it ferried to Aberdeen last night and is now in the hanger alongside the BMI F100 which carried out a 0 flap landing yesterday.

brain fade
24th Jan 2005, 14:00
Anyone know if the arsonist was wearing his yellow jacket?:hmm:

24th Jan 2005, 14:31
The majority of the damage caused to the a/c is water damage from the afs, the fire damage was minimal, last i heard they needed to replace a seat, a window and possibly a flap

24th Jan 2005, 15:32
As we discussed at work today, looking for somebody with a grudge against Regional won't dramatically reduce the list of suspects. It might mean the additional a/c at EMA might take a while longer to arrive:mad:


Runway 31
24th Jan 2005, 16:07
Quote "The majority of the damage caused to the a/c is water damage from the afs, the fire damage was minimal, last i heard they needed to replace a seat, a window and possibly a flap"

Must have been some amount of water to damage a window and a flap !!!!.

24th Jan 2005, 17:05
The water/foam nozzle on airport fire trucks are quite capable of denting metal aircraft parts and breaking glass/composites when used to close.
High pressure, high volume! :ugh:

Runway 31
24th Jan 2005, 17:06
From the BBC. Better watch out, any number on here could be referred to as a plank!!!!

Plank appeal after airport fire

Police are treating the fire as suspicious
Police investigating an aircraft fire at Glasgow Airport say a dark coloured car carrying a plank of wood was seen near the terminal.
A plank was found leaning against the airport perimeter fence and is believed to have been used in the incident at 0350 GMT on Saturday.

The window of a parked bmi Embraer aircraft was damaged by the fire.

Police said the plank would have been about three feet longer than the car and therefore "very noticeable".

The car was seen in the vicinity of the airport terminal between 0330 and 0415.

Construction industry

Earlier, it was spotted travelling west on the M8 and left the motorway by the slip road leading to the terminal.

The plank is believed to have been tied to the driver's side of the car.

Detective Superintendent Jim Porteous appealled for scaffolders and people in the construction industry who may have information to come forward.

Strathclyde Police said they were treating the incident as wilful fire-raising, but were looking into all other lines of inquiry.

Flights were halted following the blaze.

:p :p :p

24th Jan 2005, 17:28
acbus 1, no one is naive enough to think that you might fall into any of the aforementioned categories that you list, as I remember the last bmi redundancies were worked out on time served and qualification, its about time you moved on in life,after all there are a lot of companies who are much worse to work for.

Onan the Clumsy
24th Jan 2005, 17:28
Well I think they should look at ex-military types for their suspect. After all it's well know that to get in, you have to pass the exercise where you cross a fence with two oil drums and a plank albeit that the fence is an imaginary one.

oh and if the plank is believed to have been tied to the driver's side of the car (thereby restricting the use of the driver side door) I'd say...go with the Army :}

24th Jan 2005, 17:38
If the car had been seen with two short planks on the driver's side it would have eased the identification of the culprit.

Two short planks = Management (so called).


25th Jan 2005, 10:34
A fire?

Well it was a Barbie jet!:O :O :O

...I'll get my coat.

stalling attitude
25th Jan 2005, 10:51
Much longer and it would have been an ember 145

25th Jan 2005, 12:01
Any truth in the story that the guy was caught by the engineers, but managed to get free and legged it through the baggage hall also that some flowers were left at the scene?

As to security, well a fence is just that, lets face it at any airport if you want to get airside all you need are some wire cutters a foggy night and if you know your way around you'd be very unlucky to get caught.

I would start with anyone who got the boot from BAA or its agents after a BD Scotland security (not bm!!) check, this is almost certainly a grudge attack against either the airport or bmi, lets be honest there are far easier things to set alight at a lot less risk if its the Blues & Two's that turn you on?

Still i bet everyone is paying a bit more attention on the walk round i bet they have also a good look at the rebels in the fire union, it wouldn't be the first time! remember these guys know how to start fires just as well as putting them out! a ERJ on a remote stand is a lot less risky than setting a 76 alight

on balance probably a drug crazed ex airport employee, time will tell, but red faces at BAA security so lets have a look at the security video, er well, er it, er sort of, er waiting to be fixed, but we have some nice flowers inside the terminal and we stopped him being dropped off out side the terminal

Time to wake up and smell the Coffee


CarltonBrowne the FO
25th Jan 2005, 17:07
Stand 31 is not a remote stand, it is on the end of the International Pier, tail toward the runway. It is also in plain sight from the Tower- interestingly enough, the damage is on the side of the aircraft that was toward the Tower at the time.
Owing to the layout of the stairs/airbridges, even though bmi 145s do not use airbridges, stand 31 is probably the most likely at the airport for an aircraft fire to spread to the terminal building.

25th Jan 2005, 18:53
Carlton Browne, I hope your not implying that the tower controller should have actually seen this person committing the offence.

Yes, the fire raising was done on the port side of the a/c which as you say faces the tower, however, stand 31 is hard enough to see well in good daylight and at 0410 you can hardly see it at all, let alone observe someone trying to set light to the E145.
Plus, the controller would have no reason to be looking out at stand 31, unless someone had called for start from around that area at the time.

Security on airfields is not in the remit of ATC, nor should it be.

Security at Glasgow isn't what it should be and there are far easier ways of gaining access to the airfield at night without using planks, ladders, wire cutters or even having to scale a fence.

25th Jan 2005, 19:09
Not being funny or smart here, but surely the intruder would show up on the radar system in the tower? If he came over the fence, surely there would be some sort of ground radar which would pick someone at the fence?? if there is not one, there should be

Ranger 1
25th Jan 2005, 19:44
Jettesen, I doubt ground radar would pick up an individual wandering about on foot, but I am aware of a system which uses I R remote detectors linked to relays to protect farm land which would detect someone.
I have often thought about it for remote parts of Airfields to cover fences.
On an amusing note,I had just started shift when someone called me to advise me of a breech in Security here, when in fact they Got the wrong end of the stick, & we found out just as we completed a full check of the airfield that it was at GLA :ugh:
I do not work in security but as I work out on certain airfield covering many miles every day / night the company are getting an additional pair of eyes for nothing, no additional pay for it as Security is everyones responsibilty :ok:

CarltonBrowne the FO
25th Jan 2005, 20:57
To be absolutely clear: there was little or no chance that a Tower controller could have seen what was happening. There was no requirement for Ground to be manned; even if there had been a Ground controller on duty, the odds would have favoured the perpetrator. I apologise unreservedly for giving the impression that anyone in ATC was in any way culpable, such a suggestion was not my intent.
However, for someone on foot, around a lit apron, the Tower would appear mostly dark, and it would be impossible to tell whether someone inside was watching your movement. To carry out this act implies either a keen calculation of the lighting and observation involved, or complete recklessness about being caught.
The relatively low level of damage raises another question: was this someone who did not know how to severely damage an aeroplane, or someone who knew quite well, but wanted to cause minor damage to make a point?
It may be that the experience of the Northern Ireland troubles (whatever happens, no violent act happens in Scotland) has made us complacent. I include myself in that criticism.

25th Jan 2005, 21:08
This is what I have heard from a BD captain at GLA that morning, apparently the suspect is an asian male who leant a plank of wood against the fence, clambered over and set the fire under the emb. Amongst the ashes was a rose and apparantly an asian gentleman had a heart attack and died on same a/c a week ago. The man was seen and chased by some engineers, they didn't catch him but they did get the reg number of the car.

I don't know how true this is, but no doubt we'll find out eventually.

Blue Boy
25th Jan 2005, 21:09
Captain Browne

Sorry mate, but the last time that I worked at GLA, Stand 31 was a remote stand. The last time time that I travelled through,(December), it was the same.

It may not be a remote stand in the terms that it's at the end of the International Pier, the fact that it isn't connected to a Jetway means that it is 'remote'. And those who have tried to board flights through Gate 31 while also trying to board a flight through Gate 30 will know the issue.

Maybe you should have a closer look at you charts!

Flying Fokker
25th Jan 2005, 21:22
Any truth in the rumour that flowers were scattered around the aircraft and one left outside the crewroom?

CarltonBrowne the FO
25th Jan 2005, 21:37
Stand 31 wasn't a remote stand when I parked the aircraft on it last week.
Yes, that aircraft.
By the definition of "lacking a jetway" most of the stands at GLA are remote stands. I appreciate that in Dubai it is unusual to actually go outside! Rather than checking my charts, maybe I'll just look out the office window...
As I have said, the layout of stand 31 means the aircraft is physically closer to the terminal building than on almost any other stand.
Nobody has died on G-RJXD recently, or at any other time since it was delivered to bmi regional.

25th Jan 2005, 21:54
The uniformed seem to be congregating on this thread...

Stand 31 is NOT a remote stand by any stretch of the imagination... :rolleyes:

Injet... lots of accusations there... just wait until the real detectives do their work... eh? Then an apology? :mad:

26th Jan 2005, 04:28
Sorry mate but not a single accusation, just speculation.

Security is meant to deter all but the determined! this person was clearly very determined.

With out speculation & rumour this site would be pointless and you'd have to rely on the press, which as we all know is very hit but mainly miss! just look at how the easy booze thread unfolded
so i am sorry to say there won't be an apology.

real detective, grow up your living in a dream world! they are far to busy chasing a tart in a Ford Ka eating an apple

Good night


Runway 31
26th Jan 2005, 08:21

"Still i bet everyone is paying a bit more attention on the walk round i bet they have also a good look at the rebels in the fire union, it wouldn't be the first time! remember these guys know how to start fires just as well as putting them out!

Sure looks like an accusation to me. I think an apology is definitely in order here.

26th Jan 2005, 11:01
Nope! i have re read my post and i did not accuse anyone of starting this fire to this aircraft. I would think the police will have an open mind on motive and they will have looked at every posible group that "might" fit.

I understand that there have been further developements within the last 12 hours, and i don't expect it to be an ex employee of bmi or anyone connected to the fire service, i was only pointing out that all these groups will have been looked at. under grudge/motive believe me dafter things have happened.



24th Feb 2005, 20:43
BBC report that an arrest warrant has been issued: