Ryanair & Air Arran Bomb Threat Diversions to PIK (merged)

[eagle21]

Flight Diversion to Glasgow Prestwick - FR25 Paris Beauvais to Dublin
Flight FR25 from Paris Beauvais to Dublin (today 12th April) was diverted to Glasgow Prestwick on the instruction of the UK Department for Transport, where it landed safely at 14:22. A note was passed to the cabin crew onboard claiming that there was a bomb onboard the aircraft. The Captain immediately reported this to the UK ATC and was instructed to divert to Glasgow Prestwick Airport.

Upon landing all 172 passengers disembarked the aircraft normally. Passengers have been taken to a separate room in the terminal, where they together with Ryanair are co-operating fully with the police and local safety authorities. The aircraft will now be subject to a detailed search, following which we expect it will be cleared to travel onwards to Dublin.

Ryanair apologises sincerely for any inconvenience caused to these passengers, however the safety of our passengers and aircraft will always be our number one priority. Further updates will be posted on www.ryanair.com as they come to hand.

[sam dilly]

Why would this flight divert to PIK,surely DUB would have been a lot nearer,
if not any one of a dozen airports en route. BIZARRE !
Thank God all are safe.

[Strepsils]

PIK, along with STN, are the designated airports for use in the event of bomb scare and/or hijack. They both have all required facilities and prevent the disruption that would be caused by landing at busier fields i.e. LHR or DUB.:ok:

[howflytrg]

Assuming that this is a false alarm and that the person who wrote the message is on this flight, I hope the full weight of the law is dropped on them like a pile of bricks! Thankfully it seems all onboard are safe!

[sam dilly]

Yes I agree that STN + PIK are designated diversion airports,
but we are Talking about an Irish reg aircraft going from
France to Ireland. Why go to Scotland?

[VectorLine]

Sam Dilly

but we are Talking about an Irish reg aircraft going from
France to Ireland. Why go to Scotland?

Because Beauvais to Dublin flight enters UK airspace a few minutes after departure (RATUK L613). So, UK dealing with the incident put the aircraft where they want and as you already know that is probably going to be EGSS or EGPK.

Regards

VL

[bacardi walla]

What happened to the person who handed over the note ??

Be interesting to see if the a/c and original crew carry on to DUB or would they mysteriously be out of hours :confused:

[harrogate]

Anyone know if the RAF scrambled QRA F3s from Leuchars to escort?

[akerosid]

Harrogate, one of the channels (can't remember which) reported Tornados were indeed escorting, but from Coningsby (?).

[smith]

FR flights being diverted to EDI or cancelled and Transavia flight diverted to GLA http://www.gpia.co.uk/FlightInfo/arrivals.asp

[Rainboe]

Sam Dilly, why do you have to make your opinion known (BIZARRE!) when you really don't know anything about airline or security procedures? A simple question would do without personal opinion attached.

Bacardi Walla- it is very unlikely some idiot 'handed over a note'. It is likely it was 'found'. Often written on the restroom mirror or discovered in a seat back. I hardly think anybody is going to say 'excuse me, but I've written a note- can you deliver it to the Captain?'

[Kinetic]

.
From BBC

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/4904124.stm

[Runway 31]

From the Ryanair website

Flight Diversion to Glasgow Prestwick - FR25 Paris Beauvais to Dublin
Flight FR25 from Paris Beauvais to Dublin (today 12th April) was diverted to Glasgow Prestwick on the instruction of the UK Department for Transport, where it landed safely at 14:22. A note was passed to the cabin crew onboard claiming that there was a bomb onboard the aircraft. The Captain immediately reported this to the UK ATC and was instructed to divert to Glasgow Prestwick Airport.

All passengers together with Ryanair are co-operating fully with the police and local safety authorities. The aircraft will now be subject to a detailed search, following which we expect it will be cleared to travel onwards to Dublin.

Update at 16:25 hrs; Prestwick airport re-opened.

Update at 16:45 hrs; Strathclyde police authorities have now authorised passengers to disembark from the aircraft. All passengers will be taken to a segregated room in the terminal building where they will be met by ryanair staff and provided with refreshments and other facilities. Ryanair is awaiting further instructions from the Strathclyde police as to when the passengers and the aircraft may be cleared to safely return to Dublin.

Update at 17:15 hrs; Strathclyde police authorities are now interviewing all passengers individually. In addition the aircraft and bags are being inspected by security services. Once this has been completed and the aircraft released for service, Ryanair have arranged for a stand by crew at Prestwick to bring the aircraft and all passengers safely to Dublin. As in all such cases Ryanair is co-operating fully with all directions made by the Strathclyde police authorities.

Update at 19:00 hrs; Strathclyde police are continuing to interview the passengers, and the detailed inspection of the aircraft is expected to be concluded shortly. Subject to the plane and passengers being permitted to travel onwards by the Strathclyde police, Ryanair is preparing for an onward departure to Dublin at approximately 22:00 hrs this evening.

Ryanair apologises sincerely for any inconvenience caused to these passengers, however the safety of our passengers and aircraft will always be our number one priority. Further updates will be posted on www.ryanair.com as they come to hand.

[Strepsils]

discovered in a seat back.

Not on a RYR flight!;) :} :} :=

[Rainboe]

Do seat backs come extra on Ryanair? I know they don't recline since the TV program! No pockets? Where do they put the inflight magazine? What inflight magazine? They do have toilets? Coin operated?

[eyeinthesky]

Paris to Dublin would spend quite a lot of time in UK airspace between RATUK and exit to Irish airspace depending upon route. If it took the LIFFY exit, it would have flown almost next to EGXC so that would make it a better place from which to launch F3s, given their speed and height limitations!

[rab-k]

I believe the F3s were already in the air prior to this event, doing other things. Not sure if they were XC or QL though.

Confirmed hoax. Latest:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/4904124.stm

[dustybin]

I'am just glad it was handled as serious as it had been, who cares if it was serious or not just as long as everyone is ok. I know diversions piss everyone off, but when your safty is at stake, i don't care wear i end up as long as safe:ok:

[epreye]

RTE Radio report this morning had passengers complaining about being held on the aircraft for 2.5 to 3 hrs. after landing. It seems FC appealed to have pax allowed off, but authorities refused.

In the event of a bomb threat, I would think it was prudent to get the pax off to a secure location rather than leave them in harm's way.

FR crew got a lot of praise, but no so with the authorities.

[HEATHROW DIRECTOR]

I found some of the stuff in the daily rags somewhat disturbing. One suggested that Tony Blair was in direct contact with the lead Tornado pilot and might have been within seconds of having the passenger jet shot down, which raises a number of questions:
1. Was it thought that the aircraft has been hijacked? If not, why was there any consideration to shoot it down? I don't know the current statistics for bomb scares but they used to be not uncommon.
2. Is it really wise to have the PM running the show? Personally I would prefer the final decision to rest with a senior military officer rather than a politician.
3. Given the above, how will Captains react in future to a similar episode? Might they simply ask for a diversion and only reveal the true reason when close to landing?
4. I take the point about Prestwick being a designated diversion for security matters but if the thing is about to blow up it is surely prudent to get on the ground, like fast?
4. Lastly, one report said that the pilot reported the bomb scare to ATC who promptly handed control to the RAF.... Hmmmmm....

[Maude Charlee]

Sam Dilly, why do you have to make your opinion known (BIZARRE!) when you really don't know anything about airline or security procedures? A simple question would do without personal opinion attached.
Bacardi Walla- it is very unlikely some idiot 'handed over a note'. It is likely it was 'found'. Often written on the restroom mirror or discovered in a seat back. I hardly think anybody is going to say 'excuse me, but I've written a note- can you deliver it to the Captain?'

Rainboe, you would be utterly dumbfounded to know that there are indeed fruitloops out there who will tell you first hand that they have bombs aboard. I have had the misfortune to meet one. :ooh:

[aeroBits]

I found some of the stuff in the daily rags somewhat disturbing. One suggested that Tony Blair was in direct contact with the lead Tornado pilot and might have been within seconds of having the passenger jet shot down, which raises a number of questions:
1. Was it thought that the aircraft has been hijacked? If not, why was there any consideration to shoot it down? I don't know the current statistics for bomb scares but they used to be not uncommon.
2. Is it really wise to have the PM running the show? Personally I would prefer the final decision to rest with a senior military officer rather than a politician.
3. Given the above, how will Captains react in future to a similar episode? Might they simply ask for a diversion and only reveal the true reason when close to landing?
4. I take the point about Prestwick being a designated diversion for security matters but if the thing is about to blow up it is surely prudent to get on the ground, like fast?
4. Lastly, one report said that the pilot reported the bomb scare to ATC who promptly handed control to the RAF.... Hmmmmm....

I'd add another point to this, probably as number 1 - do you really believe the daily rags? I am not an expert and don't claim to be, but being close to order a shoot down would not make any sense in a scenario where the Flight Crew reported the incident, so I personally find this very unbelievable without concrete evidence. Once I put this into the category balloney, then most of the other questions go away as sensationalist reporting. Need to do some reading up on these claims now.
Oh, on point 2 - is Tony Blair not the supreme commander of the UK forces?

[bacardi walla]

Bacardi Walla- it is very unlikely some idiot 'handed over a note'. It is likely it was 'found'. Often written on the restroom mirror or discovered in a seat back. I hardly think anybody is going to say 'excuse me, but I've written a note- can you deliver it to the Captain?'

I am fully aware that whoever wrote the note wouldn't hand it over, I merely asked what happened to that person. I am also aware that everyone gets interviewed afterwards so it could actually be revealed during that process that the same person wrote it :confused:

[Maude Charlee]

I'd add another point to this, probably as number 1 - do you really believe the daily rags? I am not an expert and don't claim to be, but being close to order a shoot down would not make any sense in a scenario where the Flight Crew reported the incident, so I personally find this very unbelievable without concrete evidence. Once I put this into the category balloney, then most of the other questions go away as sensationalist reporting. Need to do some reading up on these claims now.
Oh, on point 2 - is Tony Blair not the supreme commander of the UK forces?

Not unless Blair has apointed himself Queen.

[dawn raider]

Aerobits,

unless I'm a thousand miles off I think it's actually the queen who owns the forces. so thats okay then, an 80yr old with comparatively little graps of these things (or anything outwith corgi or horse droppings )is the boss (although it'd never come to that would it ????:uhoh: )

reminds me of that nutter general on blackadder goes forth.

corgi says yes corgi says no. one is not amused, off with their heads.:ok:

[runawayedge]

A national radio show in Ireland this morning carried an interview with the mother of a teenage girl who was on the flight, as part of a school tour accompanied by schoolteachers. She was incensed at her inability to get any information regarding the status of the situation from Ryanair or Prestwick Airport, and the indifference of the Ryanair 'customer service' person. Her daughter then came on-air to say that it was one of her group who found the note written on the Ryanair magazine in the seat pocket in front. (thought they didn't have in-flight mag rag or seat pockets). The teenager informed teachers who informed cabin crew. Apparently there was 'panic' in the cabin as word spread. Another pax then came on to say that another FR flight (no time or date or departing airport) diverted into Santiago en route to DUB and was equally appalled at FRs total indifference. This case was also a note on inflight material. I just wonder if the free for all bull run for seats, with no allocation is a contributory factor. After all if the inflight menu is in a seat pocket in front of your 'allocated seat' surely there would be some traceability from previous flights.

[daedalus]

As a reasonably frequent Ryanair flyer I can say that the latest and possibly all Ryanair aircraft have non-reclinable seats with no pockets on the seat back.
The in-flight magazine is offered to passengers by the hosties as is the inflight menu. They are collected back by the hosties before landing and therefore re-used.
Likewise the hosties pass at least twice during a short flight to collect any rubbish like used cups, teabags, newspapers etc.
I personally think this a very good idea from the viewpoint of "green-ness" and tidyness. Whatever else one may think of Ryanair, I can honestly say that the interior of their planes is always impeccably clean and tidy - of course this contributes to the short turn-around time.
If someone had written a daft message in an in-flight mag and this was found, there's no saying when it was written or indeed on which flight - could have been days before and no-one had seen it previously.
:hmm:

[1985]

[quote=HEATHROW DIRECTOR]1. Was it thought that the aircraft has been hijacked? If not, why was there any consideration to shoot it down? I don't know the current statistics for bomb scares but they used to be not uncommon.
Since 9/11 everything is treated as a hijack. On my truce it was suggested that it should be one of your first thoughts on any number of scenarios from radio fail to bomb warnings. Unfortunately its the world we live in. I don't like the idea but people alot higher than me in the world have decided that this is the case.

[Rupert369]

"As a reasonably frequent Ryanair flyer I can say that the latest and possibly all Ryanair aircraft have non-reclinable seats with no pockets on the seat back." - daedalus
Quite right - I think I'm right in saying that the newer aircraft with larger ryanair titles on the outside (as the plane featured on the BBC coverage had) and lurid yellow / faux leather interior have no pockets, where as the aircraft with older titles have a (much more comfortable) cloth interior including seat back pockets.
I hope they do manage to trace the bell-end who wrote the note, but as previous posts have said, with no seat allocation and the fact that the message could have been written many flights ago, this could be impossible
ps. could someone tell me how to do quotes properly please?

[Ghostie31]

Quotes.







---------------------------------------------------------------------->

[Rupert369]

Fair enough - I only saw that button after posting. Thanks

[DX Wombat]

First of all I should like to say that I have no idea of the procedures followed by the RAF in these circumstances but I was wondering if the RAF aircraft are visible to the passengers when escorting such an aircraft or are they positioned out of their line of sight? If they are visible then a very worrying thought occurs to me that maybe we are seeing the onset of a newer version of the arsonist who starts a fire just to see all the resultant activity. I sincerely hope not. As for complaints from the passengers, whilst it may seem to be ungrateful of them it may just be the need to express relief from a traumatic experience. We don't all express our relief in the same way, some cry, some shout and yell, others just retreat quietly into themselves. I am delighted that all turned out well in the end.

[Rigga]

"Do seat backs come extra on Ryanair? I know they don't recline since the TV program! No pockets? Where do they put the inflight magazine? What inflight magazine? They do have toilets? Coin operated?"

No Recline,
No Tables,
No Seat Pockets,
No Sick Bags,
No Safety Cards (Glued to the back of head-rests),
No In-flight Mags (issued on request and have to be returned),
No Window Blinds.
Correct Change prefrerred.
Don't argue mit ze Staff.

Just think of all that weight they don't carry! Clever-Eh?
Didn't dare check for Life Jackets!

If no-one is charged for doing this Scare - it was an excercise
(RYA didn't/wouldn't PAY for food and drinks! - so it must have been the Government?)

[Speed of Sound]

3. Given the above, how will Captains react in future to a similar episode? Might they simply ask for a diversion and only reveal the true reason when close to landing?

I know I would! In the extremely unlikely event that there was actually a bomb on board, what exactly can be gained by reporting it to ATC?

The SAS are not going to abseil down from another aircraft, find the bomb and disable it with their teeth and some string, so the best thing that could be done would be to get down ASAP. There are a number of 'emergencies' that could be declared to get immediate priority to do that, without revealing the true reason.

SoS

[ELondonPax]

Picking up on the point made by HD, the reported involvement of Tony Blair.
Fewer words are probably better than more on this one, so excuse me if I sound a touch vague.
A couple of years ago I toured an RAF base in Lincolnshire, where a number of aircraft / crew are on 24 hour standby for exactly the sort of eventuality that occurred on this FR flight yesterday. The RAF chaps were keen to emphasise that, though these particular planes are armed and ready to go at all times, the permission to shoot down a civilian plane would not be taken by a military commander alone, it would have to be approved by Blair.
(This visit took place a couple of years ago, and procedures / rules of engagement may have changed.)

[smith]

FR do have seat tables, on which to place your purchased drinks and food.

[jettesen]

what concerns me is why it took so long to get the pax off the A/C after it landed. it took 2.5 hours to get em off

[FullWings]

This seems to have been a rather odd response to a "Bomb threat" :confused:

Firstly, why all this supposed "shoot-it-down" malarkey? It's not going to help a aeroplane with a bomb on board.

Second, there are reports of passengers being kept on board the jet for several hours - hardly the sort of action to take if there was even the remotest possibility of an explosive device being present. I mean, come on, we evacuate aircraft even if a little fuel has been spilt nearby.

All I can come up with at the moment is that the note/whatever was not about an IED but probably closer to hijacking...

[Speed of Sound]

the permission to shoot down a civilian plane would not be taken by a military commander alone, it would have to be approved by Blair.

Of course it would!

To shoot down a planeload of your own citizens is pretty much the ultimate political decision!

That kind of call will always be made by a politician.

SoS

[britanniaboy]

I have to say that, as crew, any pilot who says that he wouldn't inform ATC of a bomb threat and simply ask for a diversion concerns me deeply. At the end of the day, does that pilot know if the device is on a trip where it would explode when cabin altitude starts to increase on decent? Correct me if I'm wrong, but under certain circumstances and on advice from explosive technicians it is the CC who search the cabin, the CC who have to move it if advised to, the CC who have to build the LRBL and the CC who have to deal with the PAX.

If a threat turned out to be real and the device was in the cabin (unlikely, I know) I would much rather have it packed in the LRBL so that if it did go off on landing, more of us would be likely to get out than if it did it's thing in a OHC or under a seat.

[tocamak]

To shoot down a planeload of your own citizens is pretty much the ultimate political decision!

To shoot down a planeload of someone else's citizens is pretty tricky as well.

[Speed of Sound]

At the end of the day, does that pilot know if the device is on a trip where it would explode when cabin altitude starts to increase on decent?

No! And neither does anyone else. If a suspect bomb claim is called in, the aircraft will be diverted to the nearest suitable landing and it will be dealt with there.

The idea that cabin crew will be expected to search and possibly de-fuse a device is nonsense.

SoS

[britanniaboy]

Sorry speed of sound, but where exactly did I say CC were expected to defuse any device? Um... nowhere.

And as for CC not searching for a device; think you'll find our training says different and that under CERTAIN circumstances we are expected to build an LRBL and place a device in that area.

As far as I'm aware it has never happened, but then I'm also unaware of a modern jetliner ditching and the crew getting passengers into the liferafts. But hey, we're also trained for that.

[Dani]

:ugh: noone says the C/C has to defuse the bomb, if found. You seem to have no big knowledge of security in aviation. It's the job of someone (most of the time a C/Cs) to search for the bomb and then put it on the "least dangerous place", which is often in a hatrack or a toilet (depending on aircraft type). The reason behind is that if it really goes off, the least structural damage happens.

There is another misconception in some postings: During a bomb-on-board incident you do not land as soon as possible, but as soon as practicable. Aircraft builder have therefore issued long checklists, where you try to fly with a reasonable low speed and with a rather slow descent angle to land, by fiddeling around with the cabin pressure, so if the bomb would explode, you would do as few harm as possible.

Dani

[LB1985]

build an LRBL and place a device in that area.

Excuse my ignorance, but what is an LRBL? :confused:

[Speed of Sound]

And as for CC not searching for a device; think you'll find our training says different

Training is one thing. Reality is another. Did the Ryanair CC conduct a search of the aircraft yesterday, or was it left to professionals on the ground?

SoS

[Speed of Sound]

Excuse my ignorance, but what is an LRBL? :confused:

Least Risk Bomb Location

SoS

[britanniaboy]

Yes, I'm aware of that. My point was that you didn't read what I'd initially written; you read what you thought I'd written by reading between the lines. I used to do that when i was sitting exams at school. Learned not to the hard way.

And had the jet been out over the mid Atlantic, would you still maintain that the crew would not conduct a search? Or would you rather leave that decision to the experts?

[Speed of Sound]

Yes, I'm aware of that. My point was that you didn't read what I'd initially written............
And had the jet been out over the mid Atlantic, would you still maintain that the crew would not conduct a search? Or would you rather leave that decision to the experts?
I did read your post. And understood it.

And yes, the crew probably would carry out a search over the Atlantic but my original question is still unanswered. What help would alerting ATC to the situation be, other than to put your passengers in jeopardy of being shot down? (Even more likely over the Atlantic)

SoS

[britanniaboy]

First off, thanks Dani! :-D Didn't see your post until just now!

OK you did read my post, but I still can't see where I said that crew would defuse a device.

Asking what good it would do to infrom ATC that you had a bomb threat on board? Isn't that arrogant presumption on the part of the pilot who makes that decision; that he's better trained to deal with it than the professionals on the ground? And why would you be shot out of the sky for having an expliosve device on board? Surely if there was still a pilot in command then there is no threat of a suicide attack on a ground target?

And what of the consequences on the ground? You get a nice devert to LHR and on to stand them BAM! Of course, if ATC knew of the situation and you'd been divereted to STN and put on remote then perhaps the people in the terminal, on the ground and on neighbouring AC wouldn't have died?

And there lies my point.

[shortfinals]

The real issue here is why the pax were kept on the aircraft so long. I cannot see the reason for it.

This was not a hijack – it was a bomb threat.

I have spoken to one of the pax. He said the captain told them several times during the 2.5 hours they were stuck on the aircraft - in a remote corner of Prestwick airfield - that he was asking for permission to disembark them, but was not being given clearance. Prestwick says the police were making the decisions.

Did the captain need clearance? ICAO security SARPs say that, in the event of an aircraft being illegally threatened, “the paramount objective is safe release of the passengers and crew which should override considerations [of apprehending those responsible]”. I say again, this was a bomb threat, not an armed hijack.

I have a creeping feeling that there are procedures for hijacks, and there are procedures in the air for bomb threats, but there are no well thought-out procedures on the ground for a bomb-threat that – as in this case - has not been made by a suicide merchant with his hand on the detonator. In the latter case you are dead if you twitch and dead if you don’t, but this was not the case here.

The passenger told me that the authorities – the crash/rescue services included – were keeping their distance – about 500m or more. So they were entertaining the possibility that there really was a bomb on board.

Somebody please tell me, in my ignorance, that there was a reason for risking the lives of 173 people on this aircraft, and that the authorities were not prepared to sacrifice them to the police’s fear that one potential terrorist might escape their clutches if they let the people disembark.

I would never criticise this captain for not exercising his authority and ordering an evacuation, because I suspect that he thought the authorities knew better than him.

But did they?

IFALPA, BALPA and IALPA must accost the Home Office and the Department for Transport NOW to find out what is behind this logic, so they can give advice to captains on situations like this one. They have done this before in the case of armed hijacking, but maybe this one has slipped through the cracks.

SF

[WHBM]

If the aircraft had a mechanical failure it would be readily accepted by any airport underneath its path with a long enough runway.

Why are things different with a suspected bomb hoax ? In fact I thought the Heathrow/Prestwick designation was for hijackings, not for bomb warnings.

And why Prestwick on a Beauvais to Dublin routing ? For goodness sake, no matter where it happened Dublin will always have been closer.

[Speed of Sound]

OK you did read my post, but I still can't see where I said that crew would defuse a device............that he's better trained to deal with it than the professionals on the ground?

You didn't say that the crew would de-fuse the bomb!

The captain may not be be better trained than the professionals on the ground but he is certainly better placed. Why do you think armed fighter aircraft are sent up to 'escort' the plane? To prevent it doing any harm to life or property. There is only one way they can do that and that is to shoot it down.

If I was a captain responsible for the lives of those on board, I would think seriously before alerting ATC of the full situation. If there is a bomb on board that is timed to go off before the plane has a chance to land, then very little can be done to stop that, while the plane is in the air.

SoS

[britanniaboy]

The idea that cabin crew will be expected to search and possibly de-fuse a device is nonsense.
SoS

You implied that I said that.

But you are still missing my point. The Captain is in no position to decide whether informing ATC of a bomb threat is the best course of action. He must tell them so that people better informed than him can make the decision of what to do. Like I said, if the bomb was timed to explode on the ground, or the timer malfunctioned and detonated late, then the results on the ground would be far more catastrophic if the jet was parked at a gate (the result of not informing ATC) than if it was parked away on a remote stand (the result of informing ATC).

As for the fighter escort, this seems to be the standard procedure in any case where there is a terrorist threat made to the a/c.

Who was to say that the bomb threat wasn't a ruse of a would-be terrorist(s) to take over the aircraft in some ill-hoped for confusion? Perhaps waiting for a crewmember to go into or out of the flight deck to investigate the threat and then attempt to overpower the flight crew. That's why I recon that they had an escort: if things escalated then there was more time to play with.

[JW411]

This whole thread is getting ridiculous and I think the moderators should seriously consider closing it down now. Once again we are being besieged by promising hysterics who do not have the faintest idea of what they are talking about.

Bomb threats used to happen on a daily basis and probably still do. Each one is assessed and given an order of merit by those who know about such things and advice is issued accordingly.

Usually the threat is assessed as very low but the situation is still considered seriously.

I have been in the front of three "bomb scares" and found it very difficult to take any of them seriously.

The most ridiculous was when I was working for a good but poor Muslim nation and ATC could not understand why I was not prepared to put 350 passengers down 30-foot slides and probably kill some of them for a ridiculous claim.

My guess is that the reason the punters were kept on board Ryanair for 2 or 3 hours was that the assessment was very low and the hope was that the culprit might just be smoked out after a bit of pressure.

[Litebulbs]

Some people go to great lengths to hoax.

A few years ago, pre 9/11 I was on a jet at LGW, in the flight deck going through some bits and pieces with the crew. One of the cabin crew came upto me and informed me that some wires were hanging out of one of the seats in the front cabin. I said it was probably IFE wiring and I would pop down to have a look in a bit.

I finished up with the crew and walked down to the seat in question. I saw a blue wire in between that seat and the next one to it. Very odd, as you do not see coloured wires like that on aircraft. I had a closer look and on the other side was a red wire. I looked closer at the first wire and followed it down below the seat base (without touching it!), to see it ending in a croc clip, that was clipped to the frame of the seat. A slight brown smell of fear grew around me as I departed from the seat at great haste. I informed the Captain, who had just given the OK to board. He stopped that and we all got off as quick as we could.

The police turned up with a sniffer dog and handler, who asked what had happened. I told him and he asked me to show him where abouts it seat in question was. Skeptically, I followed him and pointed him in the right direction. He released the dog who ran straight to the seat in question! I was about to bolt, but looked at the handler, who wasn't concerned. I asked him why and he replied that the dog wasn't barking, but if he started I would have to race him of the jet! We all walked over to the seat and one of the officers moved the seat base (I was still more than a little nervous!), to find the two bits of wire wound round a spindle and hidden at the base of the seat. PAX lists were requested for the last few flights and that was the last I heard of it.

I wonder what would be the reaction now?

Well done for the crew member who found it!

What would have happened if it had been found in flight? This was not a fone call or note, but physical evidence that there could be a bomb on board!

[Pigsfly]

This is not the first time that Authorities have forced crew to DETAIN pax on board an aircraft while the decide what to do.

Firstly NO ONE, whatever the Assessment is, can definitely say that the threat is not real.

Imagine the outcry if a bomb exploded after the aircraft had sat on the ground for an hour and crew were awaiting clearence to disembark!!!!!!. The main body of pax were teenage school children!!!!.

As a Captain I will put my hand up and admit I would request steps and if they did not come immediately, I would evacuate the pax.

P

[JW411]

Pigsfly:

Q1: Have you ever been involved in a bomb scare?

Q2: At which airport would you expect a set of steps to appear "immediately"?

Q3: Depending on your definition of "immediately" would you really contemplate possibly killing and injuring passengers going down 30-foot slides (or can you perhaps step out of your aeroplane)?

Q4: If the risk assessment is low (as it usually is) would you be prepared to be sued by all of the punters or their relatives that you have just killed or injured for no good reason?

[rolaaand]

Lastly, one report said that the pilot reported the bomb scare to ATC who promptly handed control to the RAF.... Hmmmmm....

HD-I can't remember the exact wording from my MATS2 but the RAF Distress and Diversion cells at ScOACC and LACC have "executive control" over emergencies within the Scottish and London FIR's. The controller who is working the aircraft at the time has "operational control". Should the controller feel that due to workload,airspace,nature of the emergency or any number of other reasons that the RAF D+D cells can provide a better service to the aircraft then they would co-ordinate and transfer the "operational control" over to the RAF. So the paper may well have been correct here. Hopefully a smarter colleague can correct me if I'm wrong with that.

I'm puzzled though about who exactly "forced" the crew to keep the passengers on board while there was a bomb threat? I'm sure that as far as the safety of the aircraft and the people on board are concerned then the buck stops with the captain. If he/she had decided to evacuate everyone down the slides would the police be there telling them to make their way back up? If I was a passenger I would be desperate to get off the aircraft ASAP,so I feel sorry for the folk who were put through an ordeal yesterday. Glad everyone is OK.

[fireflybob]

There are some aspects of this incident, as reported, which I find quite puzzling and, as flight crew, quite concerning.

I am with Pigsfly on this one. As commander I would be inclined to inform the airport authorities that if steps were not provided post haste I would be ordering a pax evacuation. Ok there might be a few minor injuries but the consequences would be insignificant compared to a bomb being detonated with all pax still on board. Apart from the liability aspect should the latter case apply (could you not see the lawyers having a field day?) the aircraft commander is the person who has final responsibility for the safety and security of his/her passengers. It concerns me that it appears from all the reports so far that in this case the commander's authority has not been respected. I would hope that BALPA, IFALPA the IPA investigate the full circumstances of this case and make suitable representations to the politicians concerned. In short, it's not much good having the responsibility without the authority.

[John Farley]

Given that the airfield for this landing was chosen by the authorities as one that has certain advantages for dealing with this sort of emergency (whatever the eventual outcome) I am extremely surprised that steps were not waiting where the aircraft was directed to park.

I suspect something went pretty wrong with this operation and if a similar event happened next week it would be handled quite differently

[HOMER SIMPSONS LOVECHILD]

Well said Pigsfly.The threat was considered serious enough to block off all roads surounding Pik for several hours.Not to mention the origional diversion and escort.There was a considered and real possibility ,regardless of how small that this was a genuine threat. Hence the afformentioned actions. As commander I would have informed the authorities that on reaching a stop I would evacaute the aircraft asap.Preferably by steps.If "they"refused steps I would bang the slides and get out.Some broken ankles I could live with. If there is a possibility of a bomb on board I'm sure not going to sit around while the police conduct a risk assesment.Go ahead and sue me.

[hobie]

I hear that an Irish Pilots Union rep has expressed great concern over failure to evacuate the aircraft as soon as reasonable, despite the crews request, and has called for an investigation ....

[Sunfish]

Assuming this is not a total media beat up and on the basis of the information provided, as a humble passenger, If I find out that a bomb threat has been made and you do not evacuate me immediately on the ground, then I'm either going to evacuate myself or sue you for every last dollar for needlessly exposing me harm, imaginary or not.

There is a law enforcement doctrine that treats the possession of a replica weapon exactly the same as a real weapon. I suspect that this principle would be easily extended by the Courts to apply to "replica" or imaginary bombs.

For example, if someone threatens you with what appears to be a firearm, you are entilted to believe it is real and act accordingly, including killing the person holding it, without any further action to ascertain if the threat is real or imaginary. The fact that the weapon is a "replica" or "Toy" is regarded as irrelevent. If you would like to test this hypothesis, try taking a plastic toy gun through screening and see what happens to you.

No one looks at a replica and gives it a "figure of merit" as to its accuracy of depiction. The idea that you can give a "figure of merit" to a bomb threat and safely ignore some of them is therefore patently absurd. The pilot would be quite within his rights to order an emergency evacuation.

Translation: No one is entitled to expose myself or anyone else to the slightest risk without my express permission and certainly not to "smoke out" a culprit as part of a law enforcement activity.

[Strepsils]

Playing devils advocate here, but if a bomb threat has been received and with no further information available, assumptions could well be :

1) Bomb on board

2) One of the pax took bomb on board

3) Pax may have bomb on their person

Would you then want all pax heading for the terminal possibly with bomb?

Could this be why all were held on board, until provisions were in place for control of pax? Surely everyone has to be a suspect in this situation until more is known?

[Lon More]

With Strepsils on this. Until it's known who the possible terrorists are, and how many of them there are - worst case scenario; everyone on the a/c, including crew, is involved - it is much better to contain them. If the bomb could be remotely detonated then there is a chance that the person with control over it may have second thoughts.

[jumbowanabee]

It was a bomb threat serious enough to make a diversion to PIK. If the Captain decides to advise ATC then that is his decision. Once on the ground the aircraft was directed to a remote stand. If the flt crew decided not to advise ATC then they could very easily have done so on landing and remained on the runway or taxiway. Personally I would have then evacuated the aircraft using the slides if necessary. Diverting to the nearest suitable airport due to any serious threat, fire, bomb, hijack etc would necessitate the immediate evacuation of pax and crew by whatever means possible. Keeping them on for two hours having decided to divert is a contradiction.

[John Farley]

Naturally the threat had to be treated as real. Get them off. Out in the open. In groups. Questioned, searched, then for those individuals cleared off to the terminal for a bit of hospitality. Like I said earlier I do not believe the operation went according to any reasonable plan. But it would next week.

[skyman1]

"Security threat" is what the crew reported, and requested diversion to Liverpool - they were over Manchester at the time. Diversion to Prestwick was instucted by military. F3's arrived very quickly from SW.

[A330busdriver]

As far as I can see, the safety of all persons on board the aircraft is the commander's responsibility, and as such is enshrined in law. In the case of a bomb on board threat, or in any other emergency situation in the air, the responsibility of the captain is to try and get the aircraft safely on the ground. Once on the ground the risk does not automatically disappear, and neither does the captains responsibility for the safety of all on board.

The captain has the authority to take whatever course of action necessary in the event of an emergency to ensure the safety of all on board. If the captain believed that there was a device on board likely to cause harm to any of those on board it would be his responsibility to ensure that all persons were removed as far as possible from the threat as soon as possible. It would appear in this case that the aircraft's commander decided that there was no risk to all those on board and deemed it safe for all to remain on board for a prolonged period.

Acquiescing to the wishes of others, whether they be Air Traffic Controllers, marshallers, Police Officers or Politicians is the captains pejorative, however it does not relieve him of his responsibility of ensuring the safety of those on board.

Worst case example: If a device really was on board and it was to detonate some time after landing with all the passengers still on board, the aircraft commander would be responsible for the outcome, not those who would have persuaded him to keep everyone there.

[Ron & Edna Johns]

Pigsfly, I'm with you. It's good to see there are still some Captains around who are prepared to exercise command and demonstrate leadership when under pressure.

[FullWings]

Starting to look like the crew thought it was a bomb threat and the authorities thought it was unlawful interference. I have to say that on receipt of a confirmed bomb threat, near 100% of pilots would land ASAP and get the passengers off without delay. All the talk of searches and LRBLs is for when you can't get back on the ground immediately due lack of suitable airfields.

[Dani]

Amazing what some people post here! "Containing the passenger to avoid"??? :eek: Avoiding what? That the bomb explodes? That there are only passengers dying??

I'm absolutely sure, every CMD would start evacuation. I only guess that the FR CMD had information to come to another decision (maybe he had evidence that it was a hoax).

One other thinking error: 737 have built-in retractable stairs. You can do an "rapid disembarcation" without slides. That's what you most probably would do. JW411, nobody dies in a 737 ecavuation!

[issi noho]

In the case of the failed London bombs (note: real bombs) Security forces were happy to let a suspect travel by train to Italy; In this case, Bomb threat, they keep everybody on the aircraft, despite the fact that PIK has a good fence round it (enough to stop anybody getting in during last years G8 summit-although they had a few thousand police then).

Obviously not an expert but I don't recall any extremist terrorist group issuing warnings, so was this just an over reaction to let idiots know what will happen if they start up this sort of thing again, hence leaving security forces to only worry about real terrorist threat?

for years companies have had bomb threat assessment techniques and procedures to deal with them; it looks like these were not followed but there was 'legal' interference by the authorities which forced the diversion.

The truth will come out probably when one of the passengers takes legal action.

[Pigsfly]

I would expect the Steps to appear immediately at PIK, seeing as it is a major FR HUB. The danger of a Bomb far outweighs a sprained ankle. No I cannot step out of my Airplane. Risk assessment.......I am afraid I would not trust the assessors. Yes I have been involved in a bomb scare.

[britanniaboy]

All the talk of searches and LRBLs is for when you can't get back on the ground immediately due lack of suitable airfields.

FullWings, the topic of LRBLs and searches only came up because of a comment made about Captains not informing ATC that there was a bomb threat and simply asking for a diversion.

[st patrick]

Interesting to note that the FR spokesperson said "the safety of our passangers and aircraft are our number one priority" NOT a mention of the safety of the crew! Shouldn`t be surprised I suppose:hmm:

[RichT]

I think that you are missing the point here. The passengers were not detained to contain any explosion risk. They were detained because they were suspects in a criminal investigation. If it were a hijack then not only would the pax be detained but plasti cuffed and unceremoniously and forcibly removed from the aircraft, laid on the grass and treated as terrorists until positively identified.

In the case of a bomb threat like this, where I am sure the authorities knew with some degree of certainty that it was a hoax, the pax would be retained in their seats, photographed and interviewed in place. There are no allocated seats on Ryanair flights. You have to identify who was sitting where. They may even have had to make some written statement for hand writing analysis.

[issi noho]

If they knew it was a hoax why go to all the trouble of flying it to Scotland?

PIK really isn't overflowing with police of any kind, LHR,STN,LGW,MAN (maybe TB reads pprune and decided agaist the extra publicity) even GLA are better policed. If you'd seen the number of police cars screaming down the M77 you'd have some idea of how caught out they were.

Chances are this is a cock up, which will give every passenger the right to a wad of government compensation.

[Brian McGrath]

Heard David Learmont of Flight International on the Radio this morning and he said that it was the biggest cock up of all times not to take the passengers off the aircraft. He said the police or who ever was in charge did not appear to have a clue as to what they were doing or how to deal with the incident. The Radio interviewer said that they have been unable to get the police to comment on the reason for leaving the passengers on the plane for over two hours.

[RichT]

issi noho,
So you think it would have been a better plan to fly them through the London TMA, over the city or close one of the major airports you named do you. Although i stated that they probably knew it to be a hoax there is a procedure to follow, a set of SOPs. The passengers will get squat by way of compensation for this unless they sue the fool that wrote the note. The pax could have been held for much longer than they were. I am sure that the police are sorry for the inconvenience but thats as far as it goes.

[issi noho]

The police were sorry for shooting a Brazilian and that wasn't as far as it went. Endangering persons on board an aircraft is an offence whether you meant to or not, as a passenger you only have to argue who endangered you the most. The person who wrote the note is an IDIOT, the person who found it did what they must - take it seriously. The Capt informs ATC and hopefully tells them HIS/HER intentions.

ATC have their procedures with regard to who to advise. Now this is what we're guessing about; the details go up the chain of command probably to the top, they look at the info 1. Paris--- shoe bomber---bad 2. Ireland--- used to be bad --bad 3. note----specific threat---bad

Already too many bads, so lets play it by the book- instigate the plan

back down the chain of command right the way back to the controller - instigate the plan; great idea, what plan? never mind I'll deal with it.

ACC; TC got a paddy with a bomb where do you want him for STN

TC; hes not going north of LHR it'll screw up my outbounds for the Ocean, not going south about coz Gordon B is coming thru DVR on a Kittyhawk. Can't go over the top?

ACC; no, don't worry he can go dct TRN to PIK.

Now back to reality, this was a very real bomb threat but the actions taken up the chain of command were for a very real unlawful interference event, that is the mistake. As usual, the contingency plans must have been written but putting them into practice fell short of the required standard. I wish the Captain had declared his intention to divert and followed it thru with or without a clearance, I hope he would not have been shot down but I wouldn't bet on it.

[issi noho]

BTW If you really think no aircraft has landed at LHR or LGW with a bomb threat just accept you are WRONG.:)

[RichT]

Issi noho I understand what you are trying to say I really do BUT…
You are making huge assumptions. The Captain is in command of the aircraft but he doesn't have the information to make a decision to divert.

The note was received in flight. Who wrote it? Are they still on board? Is this going to escalate to a hijack situation? Which agencies need to be involved? Who are the passengers? What nationality are they? What is the security at the departure airport like? All these questions are being processed while the aircraft is still in the air. If the Captain had unilaterally decided to divert to another airport there would have been even more chaos. Somebody said earlier in the thread that the Prime Minister was involved. He would have been. Several Cabinet ministered would have been gathered. The Commissioner of Police would begin forming a team. The SAS bleeps would have started and a team already deploying to PIK. This may sound like fantasy land or way over the top but this is what happens. The bill for this is huge. The man power is huge. A couple of hours delay for the Pax isn’t even in the equation.

[issi noho]

bomb threats happen, probably not as much as they used to, but they happen and most of the time they never get beyond the airline security responce team. I completely accept what you say and agree that is what happened but strangely enough the Captain could have done what ever he wanted, he could have assessed the note as rubbish drawn by a child and said nothing on RT.

Some years ago I operated a series of flight thru LAX, very night we had a bomb warning, every night the aircraft was searched by LAPD. After a week or so we still got threats but stopped acting on them and operated the flight on time and were sued by the pax who won very considerable compensation.

As with everythnig its what you learn from an incident/cock up that matters but I really think we have not heard the end of it yet.

[britanniaboy]

the Captain could have done what ever he wanted, he could have assessed the note as rubbish drawn by a child and said nothing on RT.


Yes, but he's not part of the airline security team and, therefore, is not trained in assessing whether the threat is real.

And the day that a business or government body deems a threat a hoax simply because they've had a run of them is the day that it happens.

[Tom the Tenor]

If the aircraft had been a G-reg and full with a load of 189 Brits would the pax have been evacuated immediately after landing at PIK?

[Rollingthunder]

Ok , real bomb threat onboard.

A/c lands somewhere, engines shut down in remote parking area.Flight is over as for as I'm concerned.

Someone announces we as pax would be held on board for sometime.

Next thing I'm doing is cracking door 1L regardless of CC instructions and if slide does not deploy, I'm sitting on the bottom sill and easing my way to the ground (B737) and making my way away from the A/C.

By the way, has the idiot who passed the note been arrested?

[issi noho]

BritBoy- well he has some security training and would probably have decided it was worth diverting but I bet he wouldn't have chosen Prestwick, and I bet he wouldn't point out Lockerbie as he flew over it either (do they get hard hats in that town)

Pleased they've got a suspect in custody, that means we can have trial and find out what happened.

[snaga]

In the case of a bomb threat like this, where I am sure the authorities knew with some degree of certainty that it was a hoax ...
This is just one of a string of assumptions made by different posters above, which I have simply quoted by way of an example. Such assumptions are all very jolly, but would take some justifying if they had to be sustained were things to have gone wrong. Those of you who are aircraft commanders (or aspire to be) need to start thinking about how you can end up with responsibility for something (here the safety of the passengers) in a situation where you do not actually feel empowered to take control of the situation.

I do not think that anyone in this particular situation can be properly second guessed so quickly after the event (even though it happens all the time here), but neither do I think that assumptions or deductions such as the one quoted above could possibly be justified after an unfortunate outcome.

Given what we now know can you imagine the following being among the conclusions after an inquiry:

……….

1.5 The established assumption that most bomb warnings are hoaxes contributed to confused lines of communication and decision making responsibility,

1.6 The failure of the commander to determine the basis on which he was obliged to retain the passengers on board contributed to the disaster,

1.7 The lack of clarity as to the responsibilities of those involved was a contributory factor, but the commander was the individual with explicit responsibility for taking appropriate steps to assure the safety of the passengers,

1.8 In the absence of overwhelming grounds or clear justification for retaining the passengers on board the commander should have taken command of the situation,

1.9 It is clear in retrospect that the passengers were held - within seconds of reaching safety - for a sustained period due to the unwillingness of the commander to insist on a resolution of the conflicting information he had received,

2.0 It is not known what the pressures and perceptions of the commander and crew actually were, but the unwillingness to take command of the situation suggest that the commander was not confident that the decision to evacuate the aircraft could be successfully defended or justified,

Etc. etc.

What would everbody be saying if this was the outcome?

[britanniaboy]

Next thing I'm doing is cracking door 1L regardless of CC instructions and if slide does not deploy, I'm sitting on the bottom sill and easing my way to the ground (B737) and making my way away from the A/C.
By the way, has the idiot who passed the note been arrested?

OK - completely disregarding the situation we're talking about here, but this comment is that last thing that we need on a public forum. I certainly don't want PAX thinking that it is ok to self-initiate an evactuation.

"Passengers aren't waiting for orders from the crew in emergencies - sometimes to their own detriment." (http://www.sptimes.com/2004/06/20/Business/_Fight_or_flight__tra.shtml)

It's dangerous, it's foolish and can lead to much more dire circumstances.

[old,not bold]

This posting on a forum is becoming addictive....I must stop it. But before I do......

Re the attitude that a bomb threat is a hoax until proved otherwise, because there are so many. The anecdote below illustrates a similar mindset.

In a period of heightened threat in the Middle East some years ago, baggage identification by passengers as they boarded was routine.

And it came to pass that, after about 3 months of doing these and finding bag after bag left on the apron unidentified, another check was done (for a full L1011 service operated by a high risk airline) which resulted in a bag being left behind. This was carried to the edge of the apron and forgotten, just like all the others.

And 60 minutes or so later, it exploded with considerable force on a time switch, killing the loader who was sitting on it for a short rest.

The aircraft it wasn't on was over the ocean, and its crew and passengers lived/will live, I hope, to a ripe old age.

One other thing...the flight was a few minutes behind schedule. The Captain (British) had tried to over-rule the baggage ID check procedure as "A total waste of my time and yours. It's people like you applying the rules blindly, without any common sense, that cause all the problems".

[Rollingthunder]

You protect your own life following some amateur official's dictates whose been through a few classroom scenarios and thinks he knows it all with no actual experience.Your trust in jobsworths is mind boggling.

Protect your own life where you think things are going bad really fast.

[Max Angle]

If the situation warrants a diversion it also warrants a rapid de-plane after landing and if no facility is provided for that, an evacuation down the slides. Stuff what the police or ATC are telling you, get them, and yourself, off the aircraft ASAP.

There can be no half measures with this sort of thing, you either assume there is no threat (duty free bag left in the locker after a flight) or you assume there is a threat in which case you treat it as a real bomb until you know different. Heads need to roll for keeping them onboard, what a complete screw up. As it turned out there was no harm done but it could have been one of biggest cock-ups in aviation history, a successful diversion and landing followed by an explosion 30 minutes later killing all the passengers and crew because they were still sitting on the aircraft. Makes my blood run cold to be honest.

[britanniaboy]

Sorry Rolling Thunder, regardless of you're (rather dismissive sounding) views on the training crew go through, are you honestly saying that a passenger initiated evac is better than one initiated by the crew?

A passenger who thinks (s)he knows an aircraft better than it's crew is a dangerous ones.

And, by the by, I find your remark somewhat offensive and if you are a professional pilot, deeply disturbing.

[snaga]

Heads need to roll for keeping them onboard, what a complete screw up.
But you can't know that, can you? The facts of the situation are not yet clear enough to say it was "a complete screw up".

[snaga]

Can you cite an instance where a bomb warning to a flight was not a hoax ?PaperTiger, really good question, but kinda misses the point ... unless you want to argue that since there has been none, that they can then be ignored. Which then raises the issue of why aircraft are diverted and quarantined rather than just continue to their destination.

(By the way, I do think there have been a couple of bomb warnings prior to aircaft losses in the distant past ... an insurance scam comes faintly to mind, but I cannot be sure).

[snaga]

So, you then think that bomb warnings should be ignored - is that "exactly your argument"?

[SIDSTAR]

This episode is very disturbing simply because the Captain was refused permission by the authorities to do what the law requires him to do - ensure, as far as possible, the safety of his aircraft and everyone on it.

Leave aside the issue of the a/c being diverted to PIK. That's the prerogative of the UK government and if that's where they have planned for such events then that's where the a/c will go.

It was when the a/c got on the ground that the real problem started. Captain unable to exercise his responsibility to ensure the safety of the pax. He and he alone in law is the one charged with this responsibility during flight time (in the Irish context that means until the last person including himself has left the a/c).

I'm sure there are very good reasons why he didn't just tell them all to bugger off and throw everyone down the slides. However, the real issue is what happens the next time this occurs? If it's me, I'm going to divert to the nearest suitable airfield and to hell with the consequences. I'm well prepared to face any court on that one. And even more to the point, how many of us will tell ATC the truth about our diversion? Very few, I'd suggest, after this debacle.

In the FR 25 case, there should have been no problem in getting the pax off the a/c - even if the authorities believed (reasonably) that there might be a bomber among them. Get the pax off, away from the potential bomb that the a/c was, search each one in turn and get them all to a safe secure (so they can't run away) location. The rest of the search for the guilty one (probably from a previous flight) could go ahead without any problem and all, including the crew, at the very least would have been safe.

Whoever decided that these pax would not be allowed off the a/c has just royally screwed up every future problem in this area.

Which of us is going to tell ATC the truth from now on if this is what is going to happen? Certainly not me. I'd much rather that the one terrorist that I might have on board the a/c blows himself up on the ground than in my aircraft. And never forget, Mr Tony Blair, that as long as I'm the Captain I will do all I can to ensure the safety on my pax and crew regardless of what you and the security services may try to do to stop me. I'm prepared to bet that most Captains will do the same thing. Now where is that going to leave aviation security?

Last of all, if the culprit is found, let's hope he gets a long stretch in the slammer - preferably in the IOM where they give these idiots the required treatment.

Let's hope that BALPA, IALPA and IFALPA really make their voices heard on this to ensure that sensible and workable security procedures are put in place for the future. WE all wish to help the security services in this regard but not is such lunatic policies are pursued. Time for some clear thinking.

[Rollingthunder]

britanniaboy

Sorry but I don't think you're reading my posts accurately.

I wouldn't be initiating an evacuation - I would be hoofing it. Everyone can make their own decisions.

Iam not denigrating the CC as they are only following instructions from the Fd, who are following instructions from ATC, who are following instructions from some ad hoc management- type team that gets to deal with these situations maybe once every five years.

Once the ac lands and shuts down the episode of my having to trust my life to someone else is over. There is always a point where you need to take responsibility for your own survival. Others are welcome to be sheep if they wish.

Me, I'll be taking a nap on the grass about a hundred metres from the ac awaiting debriefing.

[ranger703]

Aer Aaran 508 was escorted into Prestwick tonight by 2 scrambled F3's from Leuchars.Airport closed for about 15mins and then reopened,reason unknown at this time.Happened about 40mins ago.

[A330busdriver]

SIDSTAR,

The captain was not stopped from doing what he should have done. The authority of the commander cannot be overridden. He took a decision not to evacute the aircraft with a bomb on board threat. The final say in these matters rest solely with the aircraft's commander. He is the one that is legally responsible and accountable. If the situation turned nasty and there was a loss of life, he would have been held responsible.

WHy he failed/ refused to let everyone off the aircraft at this stage is speculation and conjecture, but I would love to know.

Anyone remember the Tristar at Riyadh, with a fire raging on board, where the muppet in charge, after landing taxied slowly off the runway to facilitate the imminent arrival of some rich geyser? Poor decision making cost everyone on board their lives.

I fully agree with Rollingthunder - if I were on board and aircraft with a bomb threat, I would not remain quietly seated whilst the muppet up the front pondered life.

[Jamesie]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4911296.stm

Another security alert.

Why Prestwick though this time - surely Stansted would have been closer? Unless it was simply to meet the Tornadoes enroute.

[Sunfish]

The issue i suggest is this. The Captain is niether trained nor equipped to judge the serousness of a bomb threat.

He is trained to get the aircraft on the ground Asap after a bomb threat.

He is not trained to deal with a bomb threat on the ground.

Last time I looked, there is nothing anywhere I know of that advises about dealing with a bomb threat by confining people in the vicinity of the threat.

End of story, Unless anyone can provide a logical reason about minimising harm through confining people on board.

Failing that, the pax have the perfect right to take matters into their own hands and deplane any way they can.

My guess would be that the Captain of this aircraft was mindful of the costs associated with an emergency evacuation of the aircraft and decided to take the "low cost" option.

P.S. Thats why I sit by the emergency exit if possible. I'd rather be on the outside helping others leave than on the inside trying to get out behind half a dozen obese clowns.

[snaga]

certain types of bomb 'warnings' ought to be ignored
PaperTiger, as you will have immediately realised the problem then moves to "what types of warnings?", "who decides?" and "what are the criteria?".

Hence we end up back at the same point - who decides, who is responsible and who has the authority to act. Hence my original post (on which you commented) and the position I took. Several other contributors including Sunfish above have taken a similar line. I see no way that the logic of the situation does not end up (and should not end up) anywhere other than with the captain.

P.S. Not that I am unsympathetic to your point that warnings are invariably false. The temptation to say something along the following lines is considerable: "With modern security methods we no longer consider that a real bomb AND a bomb warning are a credible probability. Accordingly, we will henceforth ignore any bomb warnings that are not sufficiently precise as to be credible". I was just wondering if you were going to make such an argument in a way that I had not anticipated. (While attractive it may have a couple of flaws).

[A330busdriver]

Sunfish,

I agree totally that the captain is not in a position to judge the seriousness of the threat. The upshot of this that he must assume the worst case scenario and act in a manner that protects those he is responsible for. Getting the aircraft on the ground and then sitting there keeping everybody on board is not in keeping with that.

Getting everyone a safe distance away from the aircraft would be the safe thing to do.

In this incident this was not done.

I question as to why the commander did not take a course of action that would have rendered his crew and passengers safe in the event of the threat being real.

Perhaps his course of action might have been influenced by his interpretation of the the Flight Crew Memo issued by FR management that passengers are to be kept on board in the event of a diversion?

[dustybin]

all bomb warnings should be taken seriously as they are alway one step ahead. I know we have stepped up security but the people checking items are only human and mistakes can and will happen, even more so when low cost airlines are increasing hand baggage as a money saving option. This is what bombers look at and spend ages finding ways to get round the systems in place, these people dedicate their lifes to their causes and will research the system till the cows come home.

[michaelknight]

For the second time in a week a bomb threat was found on board an Aer Arann flight RE508 from luton to galway last nite. Aircraft diverted and escorted by RAF to prestwick after note found on board containing a bomb warning. Details can be found on www.rte.ie.

[issi noho]

Very much agree Dusty, the move away from checked bags is very bad for security (and queues to get airside).

One thing to get straight, the Captain is trained, entitled and obliged to judge the seriousness of a bomb threat discovered in-flight.

They are not trained nor entitled judge the 'non'-seriousness of a threat discovered in flight.

I've checked the guidance notes about the use of PIK and STN, they only get a mention due to their ability to handle dangerous goods; if these are hoaxes and being treated as such why PIK again.

SIDSTAR just a point to note, you say the Capt was refused permission to do what he was required to do - well that's always going to be the case, there are stock messages laid out for controllers to refuse permission on behalf of HM Gov't. Back in the days of traditional Hijacks (Ah, remember the good old days) you were refused entry to the country, some countries would put obstacles on the runway. As Capt you state your intentions and act on them, squawk the good squawk and land where you see fit.

It would be good to hear from anybody who actually heard the RT during either event to see how it was handled.

[San Expiry]

And what practical function was the pair of F3s there to fulfil. Absorb the shock wave from the explosion and save the good folk of Ayrshire - I think not. I can only think of one reason and it would have (ultimately) involved the use of AIM 9s (or whatever they carry these days).:eek:

[Banon]

were the passengers evacuated on landing or were they kept on board for another 2 and half hours again>?


its becoming like clockwork

[redout]

It appears that they were kept on board again, the second time this week.

Taken from RTE

IAPA calls after second Prestwick diversion

15 April 2006 15:05
The Irish Airline Pilots' Association has called on the Department of Transport to clarify what security procedures are being used by airport authorities in Britain.

An Aer Arann flight from London to Galway was diverted to an airport in Scotland last night, and passengers were then forced to wait on board for over an hour.

Flight RE508 took off from Luton airport around 10.30pm last night.


Shortly afterwards staff found the note and raised the alarm.

The plane was escorted to Prestwick airport, near Glasgow, by two RAF Tornado jets and landed just before 11pm.

Officials say the 53 passengers and crew disembarked safely and the plane was searched.

Police have confirmed that the note was a hoax.

It was the second plane bound for Ireland to be diverted to Prestwick airport this week.

On Wednesday, a Ryanair flight from Paris to Dublin was also diverted there, after a steward was passed a note saying there was a bomb on board.

Passengers on that flight had to stay on board for two hours before being allowed to disembark.

[captainpaddy]

Can anyone explain the logic in keeping people on board an aircraft which may have bomb on board? I have been trying to understand this policy ever since the Ryanair incident a few days ago. I can't get my head around it. If I had diverted due to a bomb threat and they wanted us to stay on board I'd be inclined to say tough ****, we're all getting off. :confused: :confused:

[Irish Steve]

OK, right now I have my SLF hat on, and it's a not happy hat, big time.

It would be bad enough ending up somewhere completely other than where I want to be as a result of the activities of a :mad: neanderthal. What would get me ticking like a meter, and ready to do serious damage to someone would be the concept of FORCING me to stay on an aircraft that has been deemed at risk when it is possible, realistic and appropriate to get the passengers and crew the fcuk out of there as rapidly as is safely possible.

Will someone please justify keeping passengers on an aircraft that is suspected of being dangerous, and deemed sufficiently dangerous that the armed forces of a supposedly friendly neighbour state see fit to "escort" it with aircraft whose ONLY purpose in life is to be hostile when needed. As has been commented prior to this message, the only "advantage" to having 2 or more Tornado aircraft "escorting" an incident aircraft is that they can be hopefully relied on to make an objective report if the unthinkable happens, or they can be used to take executive action if the said suspect is about to do something deemed unacceptable!

Keeping the passengers on the aircraft is without doubt putting all concerned under stress, and may be putting them at serious risk, depending on the circumstances.

If Prestwick or Stansted are designated airports to be used for this type of emergency, then as far as I am concerned, they MUST be required to have the necessary facilities IN PLACE to allow the IMMEDIATE disembarkation of passengers on arrival.

If the passengers then have to be kept in sterile holding until they can be interviewed etc, so be it, but to keep them on the aircraft for the sort of time periods that have been mentioned is unforgivable.

There's security, and there's Insanity, and I know which category the events of the last few days falls in to!

[AN2 Driver]

Keeping the passengers on the aircraft is without doubt putting all concerned under stress, and may be putting them at serious risk, depending on the circumstances.

...


If the passengers then have to be kept in sterile holding until they can be interviewed etc, so be it, but to keep them on the aircraft for the sort of time periods that have been mentioned is unforgivable.

There's security, and there's Insanity, and I know which category the events of the last few days falls in to!

Since ever I can think back, bomb alerts have been treated VERY differently than this, up to the point where the aircraft would leave the runway if practicable but then initiate an evacuation in order to get everyone on board off as expeditiously as possible. If there is only a shadow of a doubt wheter there might be some kaboom device on board, I see this as the only acceptable action if an immediate disembarkation is not possible.

Having said that, I wonder what the crew's and particularly the pic's options are in a case where he is forced to keep pax and crew on board an aircraft which is subject to a bomb scare. Evacuate? Order the disembarkation by authority of the commander of the aircraft? Can the airport authority really denie that?

Catching the low life who has put the threat on the airplane sure has a big priority but not bigger than putting the occupants of the said airplane at risk if a note is not all that the said low life has put on board.

Best regards
AN2 Driver

[JW411]

Has this got anything to do with the fact that both aircraft were headed for Dublin and connected with the latest machinations in Ireland (South and North)?

Certainly, IRA bomb threats in the past were treated with a high degree of interest.

[ExSimGuy]

I agree wholeheartedly with the above posts that itis ludicrous to keep pax on an aircraft that may have an explosive device on board.

However, regarding the "escort", could it be that at least part of their purpose is in case there is an explosion, so that they can be on hand to assist - either to help a damaged aicraft (loss of some controls, external damage inspection, or maybe nav-aids problem) get down safely. Or in the worst scenario, to ensure that the point of arrival on the ground is marked and quick/easy to locate by the emergency services.

[issi noho]

The disembarkation fiascii has nothing to do with the Airport Authority and everything to do with Strathclyde POWlice.

[JW411]

The reason that the F3 Tornados are there is very fundamental. Should the Ryanair 737 or Aer Arran ATR suddenly have veered off course and headed for such an important building as the Boddingtons Brewery in Manchester, the Scottish Assembly, Ibrox Park or the RAFA Club in Prestwick then they would have shot it down without hesitation.

After all, other headbangers had a go at the World Trade Centre and George Bush has been wishing ever since that he had had a couple of F-16s or Tornadoes nearby with properly briefed crews!

[standardbrief]

the reports are the authoritys made all the pax stay onboard for an hour untill the crew insisted they be let off, otherwise who knows how long they would be stuck there!

[A330busdriver]

The decision by the captain of this aircraft and the one earlier in the week to keep the passengers on board are ludicrous.

If someone is suggesting that they were kept on board at the behest of the local police chief, they are mistaken. The decision in such matters rest solely with the aircraft commander. He is the one that will bear the brunt if things go wrong. If that were to happen the local police chief would be cleared as the course of action would have only been a suggestion by him. He does not have the authority to override the captain. The commander's authority to make and execute such decisions is backed up by international law.

[issi noho]

Yes, agree entirely, I only state the info which was passed to the crew. Personally would have gone elsewhere, would love to see the footage from F3-cam on America's wildest police chases. Apparently RYR had to orbit to wait for them to catch up.

[JW411]

The fact of the matter is that as from the moment you announce a bomb threat or a hijack to the authorities then you are no longer really the captain of your aircraft.

You will be told where to go and you will be told where to park on the remote stand at an airfield that you had not really planned.

Whatever you might wish to do as a captain on arrival will have been largely overtaken by the threat assesment team. I think you will find in law that they have now taken over the responsibility for your aircraft and its contents.

You could always decide to disregard their advice and launch yourself out of the DV panel and probably break your leg on the ramp.

Whatever your grandiose ideas of being the perfect captain might be, you will have to listen to the advice being given from outside.

I reiterate that if you choose to disregard this advice and go for your gung- ho attitude and evacuate the aircraft, you could subsequently find yourself in DEEP sh*t. For all you know, the SAS could (and probably will be) outside the aircraft and you could end up with an AK47 round up your arse.

I am not impressed by the statement that folks can step out of a 737 without any problem. An ex-mate found himself in deep sh+t when he fell out of Door L1 from an easyJet 737 at EDI.

[wotsyors]

It may help to know that command of the aircraft passes to the senior policeman present on parking. I don`t think that is sensitive info.The captain would not be in a position to order anything.
As for the delay in disembarking, well think bonfire night and would you get close to a firework that had been lighted and not gone off?
A horrible experience for all involved.
What to do to stop this idiocy ? A scribbled note found on board is the extension of going through security and saying you have a bomb in your bag, but with a degree of anonimity.
Had it been there for days unfound ? possibly not.
Was it from a person onboard that flight ? probably yes.
Everyone on board will suffer but will that deter the next ? People still say there is a bomb in my bag knowing the outcome of that.
A remedy has to be found and quickly.

[JW411]

Perhaps all of you gung-ho captains out there would care to go to the Aer Arran bomb scare to Prestwick forum.

There you will read that the moment the captain puts the park brake on the senior police officer present takes over responsibility for the aircraft and its contents.

That has always been my understanding and I still think that an emotive "I want to get out of this" evacuation is still not advisable.

Unlike a lot of you out there, I have been a captain since 1966 and I have a fair idea of what is important and what is not.

[wiggy]

OK, I take your point regarding "the law" I'm sure you are correct, but unless the police are darn sure, no, absolutely cast iron certain, that there isn't a bomb on the aircraft I would suggest that they are the one's being "gung-ho" in ordering all the passengers to remain on the aircraft.

[JW411]

So you would still order an evacuation against all the advice that you would already have received from the security services involved?

I doubt that you would really have the balls to do that.

If you think that life is that simple then why did the FR captain who was actually involved (unlike all of you Monday morning quarterbackers and all of the similarly general promising hysterics out there) not immediately blow the slides and evacute the aeroplane?

The reason that he didn't was that:

1. He listened to advice.

2. He had read all the books and had done the security courses.

3. He did what he was told.

[snaga]

The fact of the matter is that as from the moment you announce a bomb threat or a hijack to the authorities then you are no longer really the captain of your aircraft.
It may help to know that command of the aircraft passes to the senior policeman present on parking.
Would the two posters who have made such definitive statements - not so much as a "I think" or a "it may be the case" etc. to be found in either - please be good enough to cite the grounds for such emphatic statements?

The fact that so many pilots - presumably the majority of posters here at least think they are pilots - are willing to entertain the notion that they loose their responsibilities and authority in such circumstances is very telling indeed. For starters, it seems to provide excellent grounds for taking that authority away. Actually, when you think about it, why should a captain who declares a low fuel state be allowed to be in charge of the aircraft? Would it not be better to hand the matter over to ATC? Actually, when you think about it, do we really need pilots at all?

[IcePack]

Well if I was sitting on the firework that had not gone off I'd get off and run and watch from a safe distance! One day if the authorities carry on in this vain one will go off and the resulting Law suits will go bannanas. I believe all ops manuals (uk) say bomb threat evac/get passengers off soonest. index.:mad:

[snaga]

JW411 on that thread do YOU DO NOT LEARN any such thing. You get an unsubstantiated opinion to that effect. Neither is it true to imply that one would still order an evacuation against all the advice that you would already have received from the security services involved? Are you saying as a matter of fact that there was ADVICE? Or INFORMATION?

Who do you think is charged with the responsibility for the passengers? If it is the police when on the ground, why not in the air? When does the responsibility transfer from the captain to the police?

I hope you are not a pilot.

[wotsyors]

Surely the problem is the idiots enticed from the railways by Stellios and Mol onto aircraft, with the additional dangers entailed, for a bargain fare and zero attempt at control.
Ye Gods, an easy returned to Belfast after a brawl on board yesterday and nobody was charged !
Is this the right message to send ?

[Daysleeper]

Every person in an aircraft shall obey all lawful commands which the commander of that aircraft may give for the purpose of securing the safety of the aircraft and of persons or property carried therein, or the safety, efficiency or regularity of air navigation.

Nowhere in the ANO does it state that upon parking -

command of the aircraft passes to the senior policeman present

I would also suggest that detaining pax on an aircraft with a possible bomb on board would breach article 73

A person shall not recklessly or negligently act in a manner likely to endanger an aircraft, or any person therein.

[michaelknight]

More details emerging tonight through the media on breakingnews.ie

"Passengers on a Luton-to-Galway flight diverted following a mid-air bomb scare finally arrived at their destination today.

The Aer Arann flight was escorted by two RAF Tornado fighters to Ayrshire’s Prestwick airport just before 11pm yesterday after stewards were alerted to the word “bomb” and a picture of an arrow scrawled on a seat table.

Four crew members and 49 passengers had to be evacuated from the plane and were interviewed, searched and photographed by detectives.

No device was found and the passengers and crew were sent to a hotel just before 5am – only to be woken at 10.30am in a fire evacuation.

The plane finally arrived in Galway at about 4pm today.

The scare follows a similar incident on Wednesday when more than 170 passengers and crew on a Paris to Dublin Ryanair flight were diverted to Prestwick after a note warning of a bomb on board was found in an in-flight magazine.

Travellers today condemned the “irresponsible” hoaxer and said there was a feeling of frustration rather than fear on the plane.

Some were unhappy at having to wait on board an hour after landing at Prestwick but praised airline and airport staff.

Taisce Gillespie, a footballer with Barnet FC, was sitting beside the two passengers who found the message.

The 17-year-old, who was heading home to Galway for the week, said: “I thought the reason we landed at Prestwick was because they were prepared for the situation, which they didn’t seem to be at all.


"The longer it went on people started getting frustrated but there wasn’t any panic.”

Mr Gillespie said a “stupid prank” had ruined many people’s Easter weekend, saying some had simply flown back to Luton instead of going on to Ireland.

Energy consultant Jim Bown, 61, who is originally from Lancashire but now lives in Ukraine, was travelling with his family for a relative’s 60th birthday celebrations in Galway this evening.

He said passengers were “well looked after” by air staff but he condemned the “irresponsible” actions of the person who wrote the message.

“Some people might be smiling having seen the news, but it’s just sick,” he said.

“There’s no reason to put people through that kind of situation. It is stressful because you never quite know for certain.”

Passengers said they were given boarding passes at around 3am but were later told the pilots had exceeded their flying time and they could not travel until this afternoon.

Meanwhile, Prestwick chief executive Mark Rodwell praised his staff for their handling of the latest incident.

He said: “In situations like this the airport follows pre-determined procedures, which allow us to work alongside the police and emergency services to ensure the safety and well-being of the people involved, which is always our number one priority.”

[standardbrief]

the problem here is the lack of communication between defence officials and airlines inregards to eachothers procedures. I know at my airline we have procedures for such situations but as far as i know we have not been given information on the authorites procedures. granted every country has different procedures i assume or maybe under all jar or even icao members they keep to the same critera. then maybe we could brief the passengers more accuratly on what they are likely to encounter on the ground. if someone has been given this information from their please let us know then obviously its accesable

[wotsyors]

An aircraft not in the air, ie an ex aircraft, an aircraft deceased, an aircraft without air, would appear to be part of the landscape and, indeed , is legally and quite sensibly regarded as so.
Err, without movement Mr Plod is in charge.
Clear now ?

Seems we`ve reached the stage where airlines should brief the crims about what happens to them next.
Doesn`t bode well does it ?

[JW411]

Ice Pack:

I can well understand that as a passenger you would get quite excited about a bomb scare.

Now I have just retired after 49 years of professional flying and I have to tell you that bomb scares are pretty low on my "getting frightened scale".

I have been through three of those in my civilian career and all three have turned out to be total bullsh*t.

I also spent 18 years as a transport pilot in the Royal Air Force in places such as Aden (where driving home was the big problem when it came to staying alive) and I have to tell you that I have a pretty good idea of fear.

A bomb scare on an airliner nowadays (and for many years) is a non-event. It is usually the result of a college kid or a Cuban trying to impress his girlfriend or something similar.

There are several hundred bomb scares levelled at UK airlines every year and no one has yet been killed by any one of them.

However, we could just be getting into a new phase of bomb carriers but we do not have to worry about that for the BAA will stop anything and everythng from ever getting on our aeroplanes (including passengers).

[747loadie]

re Bomb Alerts on TWO Irish Aircraft in the past week. Presumably both aircraft had been on DUB recently - I believe notes were found on board on RETURN flights to Eire.
Has anyone thought it may be the work of some prankster on the ground in DUB who is doing this during servicing?

[AdanaKebab]

I think you'll find, regardless of where authority lies at any particular time, if the Captain does not comply with an ATC instructed diversion or Police instructions when on the ground, the consequences could be very serious.

If I was that Captain, with 2 fighters up my chuff, and the Police / SAS welcoming committee, I'd do exactly what I was told!

Bon Chance, to those who wish to do their own thing and try their luck.

[unwiseowl]

It may help to know that command of the aircraft passes to the senior policeman present on parking. I don`t think that is sensitive info.The captain would not be in a position to order anything.

The Captain would be in a position to order an evacuation, would he not?

It may help to know that command of the aircraft passes to the senior policeman present on parking.

In the unlikely event that a bomb had expolded, the captain would have been held responsible for not ordering an evacuation. Any suggestion that the police were in charge would be treated with derision by the courts, IMO. The police can do nothing to prevent an evacuation taking place and that is an undeniable FACT!

[Bearcat]

what utter pondlife drivel to say the capt is not in a position to order an evac.....go to bed it's past your bedtime.

with two tornados....yes I'll go where they say...they own the the football re the airspace.....but sitting on the terra f and after a bomb threat the capt has the onus and right to make the decision whether to stay or go re an evac....I know what I'd do but that's just humble me.

:ok:

[old,not bold]

I think you'll find that senior policemen in the UK command junor policemen and no-one else, not you, me, or any aircraft Captain.

The Police powers of arrest and detention of suspects, for which they must have good reasons, and in certain cases powers to restrict entry to certain places or areas.

They have no powers to "command" an aircraft Captain to detain people in an aircraft, especially one which is the subject of an unresolved threat of an IED aboard. Nor does ATC or the airport operator.

Neither, emphatically, do they themselves have the powers to detain people against their will aboard an aircraft in a possibly dangerous condition.

So, fellas, if you are in the unfortunate position of a Captain in that situation, don't ask, just evacuate your passengers and crew asap. If there are no steps then pop the slides. You are the aircraft commander and you can forget all the stuff about "as soon as it parks you are no longer responsible". If you are then arrested ask them what crime you are suspected of committing, precisely, and then sue for unlawful detention when they have trouble finding one.

On the tarmac and well away from the possible danger, the Police can arrest and detain anyone they reasonably suspect of committing a crime. Others may voluntarily stick around to help them with their enquiries, if the Police ask nicely.

What could make me wrong are any new laws we haven't been told about by good ole Tone to remove our remaining civil liberties and create a Police State in the name of prevention of terrorism. But I doubt very much that even those would specifically require a Captain to detain people in an aircraft against their will when asked to do so by Police, especially before anyone knows for sure if the bomb threat is real.

Don't worry about the SAS. They are rather better trained than the Police, a bit less bloodthirsty, and they rarely shoot people by mistake. They have no civil powers whatsoever to detain anyone.

[issi noho]

Just wondered, has anybody ever been in a tube station/shop/night club/hotel etc which didn't evacuate in the event of a Bomb scare?

I'm pretty sure that following last summers London attacks there were numerous false alarms which resulted in evacuation (in every sense). Did anybody notice a policeman ordering people back in?

According to the ANO when an a/c comes to rest after landing it is no longer in flight, it does not say I'm no longer the Capt otherwise any time I required to evacuate an aircraft my authority would be compromised.

The only way to resolve this is if the authorities make it known through the profession (security managers, CEO's and accountable managers) exactly what they were up to. Alternatively if a pax involved or crew were to take lagal action stating that they were endangered by being kept on board, which is an offence and could be tested in court.

[snaga]

Err, without movement Mr Plod is in charge. wotsyors are you stating that as a fact? Or is it an opinion? (Hint 1: are the doors of the aircraft still closed? Hint 2: who is ultimately charged with the safety of the passengers?).

[Daysleeper]

the moment the captain puts the park brake on the senior police officer present takes over responsibility for the aircraft and its contents.

JW411 you still haven't provided any link to where you get this information


Consider this, had this been the main terminal at PIK , a hotel or train station it would have been immediately evacuated. There is no justification for detaining people in a location subject to a bomb threat, be that an aeroplane or a building.

[click]

We weren't there so I wouldn't go around second guessing our colleagues. They may have had a very persuasive welcoming committee. However, I'd go for the Evac button and pop the slides. Let's sort out the mess a couple of hundred yards away with a nearby coffee machine. In the end, I'd rather be judged by twelve instead of carried by six. Btw.....doors closed, it's my show and I call it!

[Capt Pit Bull]

Well, I'm out of this game now (thank god, the crazy way things are going) but as I recall the SOP was quite unequivocal, for a bomb warning on the ground:

Park where directed (somewhere remote)
Deplane (note: NOT evacuate) (IIRC without pax hand luggage)

I certainly would not expect an evacuation.
I certainly would not expect to remain sitting on the jet either.

CPB

[False Capture]

General theory regarding messages discovered in flight (on UK flights that is) is that they are vague warnings which lack credibility. This is confirmed by two hoaxes (Air Arran and Ryanair) in the last week.

[unwiseowl]

I think Prestwick police have blured the distinction between "bomb on board" and "hijack"!

[old,not bold]

Just seen in the IACA Press review...

Dutch Bomb Scare Man Released
April 13, 2006 Dutch prosecution authorities said on Thursday they had released a 32 year old Spaniard who triggered a bomb alert aboard a plane bound for Madrid last week, and had cleared him of any wrong-doing.
The Iberia flight returned to Amsterdam's Schiphol Airport last Friday after a woman raised the alarm about a fellow passenger she thought was acting suspiciously.
The Spaniard's lawyer said the man had said in Spanish just before take off "we're going up", which the woman took to mean he would blow up the plane, Dutch news agency ANP reported.
All 165 passengers were evacuated and police searched the plane with sniffer dogs.
(Reuters)

[SixDelta]

Having recently been involved in a very realistic airborne "hijack exercise" for a European Airforce, if i'm ever in a situation like that for real I'm going to do exactly what i'm told by whoever assumes control of the situation (be it the authorities on the ground or an airborne interceptor) I will go exactly where i'm ordered to and once i get there i'll do exactly what i'm told. In a hijack or bomb threat situation the crew at the sharp end may not be in possession of all the relevant facts.

[harrogate]

I agree wholeheartedly with the above posts that itis ludicrous to keep pax on an aircraft that may have an explosive device on board.

However, regarding the "escort", could it be that at least part of their purpose is in case there is an explosion, so that they can be on hand to assist - either to help a damaged aicraft (loss of some controls, external damage inspection, or maybe nav-aids problem) get down safely. Or in the worst scenario, to ensure that the point of arrival on the ground is marked and quick/easy to locate by the emergency services.

Yeah, come on guys, everyone with an ounce of common sense knows it would be best to have an escort rather than not to have an escort. The RAF pilots can make visual assessments / corroborations of what the folks on the ground know from what they've been told. They can even peek into the cockpit to try to see if there's a 'situation' or if something looks suss. This isn't always possible, of course, but it's best to exercise the means to having that option at your disposal. Situations can escalate, so where initially it may seem an overreaction, events could transpire later into making it a genuine emergency. Better to overreact than underreact.

Besides, if QRAs weren't scrambled in this instance, can you guess at what the big questionthat the media would be posing today...? 10 points for the first person to answer correctly.

This highlights a bigger question, which may warrant a new thread... This often used tactic of a hoaxer could be used by real terrorists to cause a diversion of resources from a genuine and unannounced hijack/bomb situation. They could take advantage of the UKs precautionary measures and divert both QRA units to hoax situations, thus removing a major obstacle that sits in the way of their real objective. Even a half-organised terror group could coordinate this reasonably simple situation. You never know, instances like these (and I'm NOT talking about these specific instances this week!) coud be someone 'trying it on', just to see if the policy to react in this way remains in place after a rash of hoaxes. Could be classic 'prodding' tactics with the aim of drawing certain conclusions. A research exercise.

Please don't call me a scaremonger - I'm adding some thoughts, not saying that there's a big attack looming.

The other question is - it'll only take 2 of these on the same day at the same time (which we were only a few hours away from this week) to cause a situation where both UK QRA units are pre-occupied. Obviously there will be contingency plans to 'stand up' more crews when the QRAs are launched, or at least put other crews on some form of heightened readiness, but bearing in mind Coningsby QRA, for example, is manned by detached units from Leeming in Yorkshire ( which only has 2 aircraft on the detachment at any one time), then there's likely to be some sort of gap in the cover which could be exploited, if the desire was there.

The Typhoon isn't yet declared to QRA, so maybe there's some food for thought on the notion of detaching more Tornado aircraft to CBY?

These are all thoughts that are slightly off topic, but interesting to ponder them nonetheless I think.

[snaga]

I'm going to do exactly what i'm told by whoever assumes control of the situation SixDelta Are you a licensed aircraft commander? If you are, don't you think that in the event of a bomb being on board it might be an idea to acquaint yourself with the facts or, at a minimum, to determine who exactly IS in control (if you think it isn't you)?

In general, at what point would you give up your responsibilities and to whom do you transfer those responsibilities and how do you determine that they have actually assumed those responsibilities?

Even more to the point, if you were convinced for some reason that there was bomb on board but were being sent to a convenient (to them) airfield 30 mins away from the one below you, would you take the view that (1) you were in charge, or (2) that it was the "somebody" who was sending you elsewhere?

[SixDelta]

Snaga, i understand your point but....

If you have a pair of fighters, one being visually very directive on your left-hand side while his number 2 sits in a one mile trail with his radar locked to you, it's advisable to do as requested and follow. Even on an exercise it's an uncomfortable position to be in.

[snaga]

SixDelta all very well, but it sounds to me that a hijacking or similar situation is being confused with a bomb warning. I am also at a loss to understand why so many professional pilots seem willing to abdicate their responsibilities in circumstances where the justification for their actions might be rather difficult to sustain ex poste. The obvious questions, after the event, would start with "on what basis did you decide that you no longer had the responsibilities with which you started the flight.... ?"

I am also sure you do not mean to imply that the mere presence of "friendly" fighter aircraft should be enough to cause you to lose your wits. And surely a "visually very directive" fighter is in R/T contact with somebody that can be communicated with?

[SixDelta]

were being sent to a convenient (to them) airfield 30 mins away from the one below you

That was the statement i was responding too. You might well have an airfield below you, but if "they" don't want you to go there (because of a bomb-scare, threat of hijack or whatever), you WILL be directed elsewhere be it via R/T backed up by fighter presence or by being intercepted and directed.

I wasn't for a moment suggesting that you might "loose you wits", nor was I suggesting that you have to abdicate command of your aircraft, merely that in the above situation you would be well advised to do as you are told. Even if does tread on your ego.

[snaga]

Even if does tread on your ego I think you are missing my point. This has nothing to do with ego, but with confused lines of communication and responsibility. Here the responsibility for clarity, and for the passengers, lies with the captain until somebody explicitly takes that from him/her (on grounds that he finds credible and consistent with his or her appraisal of the situation). You clearly do not accept that the captain could declare an emergency, or act in any other way he deems appropriate. Your sole justification is an - implied - threat (from "friendly aircraft" that may or may not know what is going on). None of which washes with me. Anything starting with "I thought..." used after the event is not good enough. "I ascertained that ... and then I .... " would be a better position from which to start.

I think we have both given this a good outing now and I'm happy to leave it at this point. It identifies the issues that need to be clarified as far as I am concerned.

[PPRuNe Radar]

snaga

The commander does not lose his direct responsibility, however, if instructed by the UK Air Defence Authority (either directly or by ATC) to take a course of action and the commander decides not to comply, then his responsibility will also be stretched to include the resultant actions taken by the authorities.

As SixDelta suggests, the urge to not comply with an armed fighter sitting off your wing either displays huge cojones or a complete misunderstanding of the situation you are actually in.

It does however seem that the handling by the authorities once on the ground needs a big shake up.

As a Devils Advocate, for aircraft travelling to an adjacent country then they could perhaps even consider escorting such aircraft clear of UK airspace (remaining clear of densely populated areas) and let some other authority deal with it in the future ??

[snaga]

Well, I did say that I was going to leave this... but I do need respond to the latest comment. I really don't want to reduce this to A,B,C's .... but:

1. You have R/T and you can ask questions - or express an opinion,

2. You can make sure that what you think is conveyed to somebody,

3. You can state your concerns and desires (as commander),

4. You can even declare an emergency and state your intentions ...

and so on. You are NOT impotent. This is not to say that you would be wise to ignore a direct order to comply with a reasonable order or direction, but it is to ask that people stop and think before just following somebody who may be in an even greater state of ignorance.

What I have really been saying is that the appearance that the police are "in charge" and know something you don't know, or that the fighter pilot knows something you don't know may be entirely erroneous. I think it is evident that something very strange took place here leading to an unacceptable outcome.

What are the odds that the police in this case ran the procedure for a hijack, etc. in error, or in the absence of knowing what to do? I don't know, but I find the outcome strange and I find the loss of control of the situation to be "interesting" - not least because I will bet a lot that there was nobody else who felt that they were responsible for the passengers (whatever else they thought they were in charge of).

If the aircraft had been destroyed by an exploding bomb, what would an inquiry have to say about the movement of responsibility, or confused lines of communication?

As far as I am concerned this little spat started solely because of the implication that someone external to the aircraft suddenly becomes the boss, even in circumstances where the crew might know something of relevance or significance.

I still don't see how it is wise to have a "system" that merits a warning as being serious enough to divert an aircraft with a fighter escort, BUT which is not serious enough to have the passengers taken off the aircraft at the earliest opportunity. Am I missing something?

[Idunno]

Regarding this argument about whether you are 'in charge' or not when parked - my own little story might be of interest.

A week or so after 9-11 I had a security 'situation' on the gate in LHR.
I called SB to the a/c, and they concurred that there were valid reasons for my suspicion.
I felt the situation thus warranted an orderly disembarkation of the pax via the jetway. There was no bomb threat - just some suspicious behaviour/ circumstances.
When I told SB that was my decision - they informed me in no uncertain circumstances they would not allow it. And when I pointed out that this was my a/c and I would make such decisions - they told me - NO - you are on the ground in the UK, your park brake is set and your door is open - we're in charge, not you.

I'm interested to hear what the gung-ho types would've done in the situation.
By the way - there were armed police surrounding the a/c and standing on the jetway. My bet is the first guy off would've got a bullet.
Hello RollingThunder.:ok:

[issi noho]

Lots of food for thought here, QRA's, exercises and people in charge; loads of stuff. Just worth pointing out that if I were in the market of attacking aeroplanes and had absolutely no knowledge of aviation at all, following this weeks events I would arm myself with a shoulder launched missile and sit on Prestwick beach until fishes swim to me, so to speak.

Well done, don't tell them your name Pike!:ok:

[snaga]

Idunno, thank God for a simple one:And when I pointed out that this was my a/c and I would make such decisions - they told me - NO - you are on the ground in the UK, your park brake is set and your door is open - we're in charge, not you.They were right and you were wrong (the fact that they had guns is an entirely separate matter, though I do accept it has a tendancy to concentrate the mind ....). But, legally speaking, that is an "open and shut" example.

[Rollingthunder]

Idunno

I take your point but according to info supplied on that other situation, the idiots were likely running around trying to arrange ground stairs (will be 1/2 an hour sir) or buses (will be a couple of hours sir before they can get here, Stagecoach says). Who the hell has the authority to keep a plane full of pax on board when there is a bomb threat to the aircraft and the threat cannot be dismissed by any COMPETANT authority?

Doubt they could organize the sharpshooters in less time than the buses.

I am a cynic. It has saved ny life before.

[brain fade]

I would have evacuated and bollocks to the police. So would most folk, I'll wager.

Just imagine if there really was a bomb and it went off 90mins after they'd landed. Fuxxackes!

[ollopa]

consider escorting such aircraft clear of UK airspace? Surely this is not an option w/ Ireland because the Irish Air Corps have no interceptors?

[Pax Vobiscum]

Just imagine if there really was a bomb and it went off 90mins after they'd landed.

What would actually have happened? I think most contributors have agreed that a real bomb is unlikely (but certainly not impossible). In all the cases I can remember where there has been an explosive device on an aircraft, it has been relatively small. Of course, at 35000 ft any explosion is likely to have catastrophic consequences, but what would happen if a small device went off in the hold while on the ground?

What I'm trying to say is that the risk that the captain (or whoever is responsible) has the unenviable task of balancing may not be the loss of all souls on board, but 'only' a few - set against an evacuation that may result in injury or even some over-reaction from armed police/soldiers outside the aircraft.

As a mere pax, I'm sure I'd be most uncomfortable being held on board in such a situation - but it may not be quite as unreasonable as is being suggested by some commentators.

Apologies if my lack of technical knowledge is causing me to spout complete nonsense (wouldn't be the first time).

[issi noho]

I'm trying so hard to see this from another angle but it isn't coming to much.

best case, its a hoax and we're trying to find either idiot hoaxer or terrorist testing the mechanisms - either way I'm not landing in a field where the pax can run off into the undergrowth. Every airport where you're likely to divert a reasonable sized aircraft has excellent security and some have their own police forces, I'm not thinking about letting the matter drop just taking people/suspects off the aircraft incase it is not a hoax and the unthinkable happened.

P Vscum - imagine it was the tiniest amount of explosives, say you just lost a foot - would that be OK. How about you're 'happy' that you die because " whats being suggested by commentators is not so unreasonable" Would your wife/husband/dependants see it that way? Do they go after plod or airline, does the airline hang the Capt out to dry (If you can tell one thing from this thread its that we are not given sufficient information about this topic). And why do you assme the device would be in the hold? There are many ways to get things on aircraft and hold baggage is not the highest risk.

An evacution of a 737 or ATR really would not be so tough, much bigger and you're correct to assume some injuries. A controlled de-plane would be no problem at all provided the eqpt was available.

Controlling these events isn't an unenviable task, just treat us like any other place of work, empty it of people and allow the appropriately trained to search it after an appropriate amount of time has lapsed.

[bia botal]

"evacuate evacuate through all available exit's" end of story,, if there was a device on board and it may have been something as simple as was found on a alatalia flight a couple of years back,,, small, simple and easy to get on board but extremally effective. try and do a rapid disembacation once the slides are disarmed and there are vehicle all around the aircraft. good luck.

[AbeamPoints]

A few points:

1. This is a bollox bomb note NOT a hijack.

2. Land wherever you deam fit by the simple words " Pan Pan Pan Airline Flight 123 request diversion to land at NEAREST THAT TAKES YOUR FANCY due to security".

3. By the time that has been kicked up the chain of command and down again you'll be passing 20,000ft and well underway.

4. If you are concerned about a bang when on the ground then get on the radio to TWR and say " Mayday Mayday, Boeing 123 on Fox 3 Apron request steps in 3 minutes of else will have to evacuate 2 over 80yr wheelchair bound grannies plus 7 under six month old babies plus one paraplegic down the slides.... request ambulances...

Sod the police. You are in charge of the people on board ypur aeroplane. If you want to then evacuate them all at will and let Plod deal with the consequences.

AP

[Sunfish]

With the greatest of respect, and assuming the information published so far is approximately correct, I am becoming so deeply disturbed by the apparent behaviours of the security services that I will never willingly fly anywhere in Europe or the UK again.

For the record, I saw an extremely gory documentary some time ago about the bombs and results produced by muslim extremists including a photo of the remains of the poor japanese who had the misfortune to sit in an aircraft seat that had "a very small bomb" planted in it.

The construction of that bomb was also described in some detail and as far as I can tell a similar device, or even a dummy, would be simple to smuggle onto an aircraft. Given the recent tube bombing, I would have thought that an aircraft related bomb incident would have a non zero probability and the authority should err on the side of caution.

The only conclusion I can draw from what has happened is that the British Security services either over react and shoot innocent people or don't react at all when it is obvious that they should.

[old,not bold]

Snaga,

At the risk of repetition, the Police do not have the powers to detain people aboard an aircraft against their will, regardless of its position, its doors' position and/or its park brake's position. They do not have the powers, either, to order an aircraft commander to detain people against their will.

The SB are Policemen, in civvies with special duties. They have no additional powers.

Faced with a confident police officer, SB or uniform, blocking the door, backed up by a bunch of the usual thugs, it is very understandable that any Captain would back down. But for self-protection he/she should insist that the request, and the assertion that they have the power to make it, should be made in writing and signed. As a back-up, try and get it on the ATC tape if you can, and/or the CVR, and make sure it isn't wiped automatically (30 minutes loop? I don't know.)

If that is refused, it will be simply because it is an unlawful request backed by an untrue assertion, and the police officer knows it only too well. They will be relying, as do most of the Police, on ignorance of the real law when it comes to what they can and cannot do. They are also not necessarily the fount of all wisdom in matters of terrorism in which - apart from those who learned from the PIRA/RIRA etc - they are not necessarily very experienced.

If Tone and his friend Charles C have introduced recent laws to change all that without telling us what's in the small print, then I'm wrong.

Most people on this thread have got it right; don't ask permission, you don't need it. If your judgement says get the crew and pax off now, just do it. You will not have made a mistake.

[unwiseowl]

Of course the next captain to have such an incident may think twice before telling ATC. I would!

[fireflybob]

>Of course the next captain to have such an incident may think twice before telling ATC. I would!<

unwiseowl, yes I am sure you are correct! Sad really that the authority of the aircraft commander has been eroded to an extent that we have to play games to achieve the end game.

Much debate on this thread about who has the authority when the aircraft is on the ground. No doubt in my mind that it's the commander running the show especially whilst the doors are closed but it would be interesting to have a definitive answer from a legal specialist.

[Idunno]

old,not bold - I told our dispatcher to get our security supremo to the a/c post haste. He duly arrived and much fevered debate went on between him and the SB chappy. The best he could acheive was a MAD suggestion that they'd allow the pax to deplane onto THE RAMP but not INTO the building - no way, no how, never.

I declined their kind offer.

I like your style though - keep it coming.

[SixDelta]

AbeamPoints wrote:

Land wherever you deam fit by the simple words " Pan Pan Pan Airline Flight 123 request diversion to land at NEAREST THAT TAKES YOUR FANCY due to security".


While i agree with the sentiment AP, if you use the phrase "due to security", in the current climate, you will be intercepted whether it's a "bollox bomb note" or not. At that point the choice of divert field MAY be made FOR you not BY you, unless you subsequently upgrade to a MayDay for a non-security related problem.

[snaga]

Old,notbold you say At the risk of repetition, the Police do not have the powers to detain people aboard an aircraft against their will, regardless of its position, its doors' position and/or its park brake's position. - but I did not say what you think I said. I responded only to the issue of the legal position of the commander.

If you read my previous posts you will see that you and I are cut from the same cloth on this business. However, while I take your point, I am somewhat more cautious than you. When the captain's authority is clear, then he or she can use it appropriately. However, what the police said was - in law - correct. And that FACT should give any captain, no matter how sure he is of himself, serious pause for thought (not least because he might be subsequently judged to have acted or interfered where he had no right to interfere - and possibly to the detriment of those involved).

Furthermore, if the police believe there is a security situation on the ground - when the captain has no formal authority - and determine a suitable course of action then it would be a courageous captain who decided to disagree (unless he had evidence of a "clear and present danger"). I see that case - where the responsibility for what takes place is clearly with the police - as being distinct from a case where the captain is responsible, but has no authority or willingness to act.

By the way, it could be considered fanciful to suggest that the police in such circumstances "do not have the powers to detain people" .. I think I would prefer that you argued that in court than I!

That being said, I agree with the thrust of your observation that: Most people on this thread have got it right; don't ask permission, you don't need it.

[old,not bold]

snaga

You are right, we do think the same way..

except..

It is a myth, you know, that the Police have the power simply to take charge of any situation they choose to, and if they do that other people must do what they say. In certain very well specified cases, yes they do, but it is not a general power.

If the aircraft Captain is still in charge, the Police cannot tell him what to do because he is in charge.

If not, he's just another peron in the aircraft with no powers to tell anyone else (including the other crew members) what to do or to stop them leaving if they choose to. He could not prevent passengers or crew taking matters into their own hands.

If the Police then seek to take charge of the aircraft and its passengers, and to prevent anyone from disembarking, they are acting outside their powers and would have to take the consequences, including actions for assault if they act physically, illegal detention etc, forcing people to remain in a dangerous situation etc etc.

The Police cannot detain anyone unless they have reasonable grounds for suspecting that the person has committed an offence or is about to do so..

The only agency with any kind of legal authority to order people to stay on board might be HMRC, or even the airport operator under its byelaws or the Civil Aviation Act, for reasons to do with revenue collection and or Health & Safety. And those powers would be over-ridden by the IED threat.

A bomb warning in a full cinema, discovered by an usher, is a parallel case. The Police do not have the power to prevent the management from evacuating the premises, and if they were to try they would have a riot on their hands.

As I said at the start, the only people that the Police can order about, apart from a few well-defined cases, are other policemen or people they suspect reasonably of an offence.

Unless (the usual caveat) we have just lost our remaining civil liberties without being told by Tone 'n Charlie.

[DG101]

Old, et al.

Pardon my intrusion. As a pax, I really don't belong here - but I would like to ask if, in the circumstances being discussed, your rights and obligations as a commander are compromised by the prevention of terrorism act?

As I understand it, the police can, and do, use the POTA to make arrests without reasonable evidence. The very fact that you are aboard an aircraft that may be carrying an IED may be sufficient grounds (as far as the police are concerned) to arrest everyone on board.

So, captain says "Get the steps here within 5 minutes, or I'll make my own arrangements", Inspector Plod replies, "Sorry, sonny, You are under arrest - POTA. I'm in charge ..." :confused:

[Idunno]

I was thinking the very same thing.

[stagger]

This is interesting - some people seem to believe that the Police have the power to ARREST everybody on an aircraft. I've read some of the recent terrorism legislation and don't recall seeing anything that specifically permits this.

There is a section on "Detention of Aircraft (http://www.opsi.gov.uk/ACTS/acts2001/10024--j.htm#86)" in the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001, but as far as I can tell this section allows the police to prevent an aircraft from flying - it doesn't say anything about detaining the passengers and crew.

If anyone does know of legislation that would permit the arrest of everybody on an aircraft in these circumstances could they please post a link to it here?

[rudekid]

Ladies & Gentleman

Forgive my intrusion onto your rumour and news forum. I normally confine myself to the more grown-up threads, but reading some of the garbage posted on here I felt it necessary to reply. It's difficult to understand how some supposedly professional pilots (at least posing as professional pilots) can see the world from such a narrow view-point.

I really hope that the bright spark who entitles himself Rolling Thunder is not in command of an aircraft with a serious security issue on board. If he over reacts like he does in his posts, an already serious situation is only likely to get worse. I can assure him and others, that the first one through the door/down the slide, in an un-briefed evacuation, faces a better than even chance of getting a 9mm round or two firmly embodied in their centre mass from Mr MP5.

Seriously, if you were involved in an IFE at FL350, you wouldn't expect any input from the SB/UKSF in how to resolve it. Nor would you welcome it. Once on the ground at Prestwick or Stansted, you effectively hand the situation over to the experts, who are trained, equiped and ready to deal with such a situation. At that point, you merely become a conduit for information as the focal point for communication. Any decision making should be well out of your hands. You are neither qualified, nor trained to make decisions in this situation. I would argue that you could be found culpably negligent by making any decisions outwith your remit to operate the aircraft. Any decisions you make outside of this are likely to prolong the situation and potentially make it worse.

I can think of many possible reasons for detaining the passengers on board the aircraft for an extended period. Decisions like this are not taken in isolation from the events on the ground! The security services have every right to treat all passengers on board this aircraft as potential criminals. The decision to detain them would not have been taken if the situation did not warrant it.

With regard to information flow between the BALPA/Airline Reps and the security services, it's really quite simple. You don't get told because you don't need to know.

I'm sure the people on board were mighty upset to be held there for an extended period of time, but there are more chilling scenarios.

[bia botal]

I'm sure the people on board were mighty upset to be held there for an extended period of time, but there are more chilling scenarios.

What like, a device going off on board whilst the pax and crew are still on board.

rudekid, you are welcome to leave this site and return to your more grown up one.

[hobie]

Once on the ground at Prestwick or Stansted, you effectively hand the situation over to the experts, who are trained, equiped and ready to deal with such a situation.

What exactly do the experts expect to occur during the 1 1/2 to 2 1/2 hour stand-off period? .... :confused:

What are they waiting for? ....:cool:

[bjcc]

old,not bold

The definition of an aircraft in flight is from the point where the doors are shut in preperation for take off, until the point where they are opened to allow disembrakation.

Police do have the authority to take over in these circumstances. A criminal offence has been committed, they are the prime agency for the investigation of crime in the UK, and therefore as your aircraft is a scene of crime, yes, they can detain anyone on board while it's investigated.

I don't know that it was Police that preveted the pax getting off in these 2 cases. Nor do I know what PIK's preoccedures are for it. My own experence was pre 9/11 and at LHR. I can say that this type of thing is not unusal though. In genral we allowed the pax off. Althouh a VS captain once gave u8s no option and popped the chutes before we got there.

Thats not to say I disagree with your sentiment. But, the decision on a threat is not made by Police, it is for the airline management to do so. Most airlines have a threat assesessor, sometimes it's thier secuirty branch sometimes it's just a manager. But they code the threat as they see fit, sometimes they take advice from Police and sometimes not.

Police officers based at airports tend to have a very good knowladge of terrorism, and that extends a great deal further then the Irish form.

What concerns me, and it appears a few others on here, is right hand and left hand and neither knowing what the others are up too, nor why they are doing it.

Scrammbling the QRA? Why? how where they going to defuse a device? They weren't. But thats a decision made by the RAF. Do they talk to Police? It appears not in these 2 cases. It certainly wasn't the case when I Policed LHR. They just did it.

On landing, the crews in these 2 cases don't seem to understand why they were kept on the aircraft. Someone could and should have told them. There could wel have been good reason, although what it was I have no idea.

So perhaps the questions are being addressed in the wrong way and at the wrong people. The DfT, CAA, MOD and ACPO maybe need to get thier collective heads together and sort the mess out.

It doesn't really matter who has what power at the end of the day, it is better if everyone understands and knows what part they, and each other play.

[HOMER SIMPSONS LOVECHILD]

Rudekid,if you substitute "aircraft" with,"cinema","Pub","Police HQ"in this scenario what is the first thing the public need to be doing??
(Clue...Get out.)
Your post perfectly illustrates how rational thought and common sense go out the window as soon as the words aviation and security are uttered in the same breath these days.
Shoot to kill marksmen,risk analysis,need to know,security "experts"
Bollox! get out dummy.

[snaga]

rudekid, I initially thought you were one of those rather secretive, silly securocrats who just hints at special and secret knowledge (which just cannot be revealed), but then you said: The decision to detain them would not have been taken if the situation did not warrant it.
Of course, now that you say that I am fully reassured that all - despite appearances - was well under control. I shall retire to sleep well in the knowledge that a person with you superior knowledge and mature disposition deigned to visit us here to deliver this reassurance. I hope that I will be followed by others who erred in their ways and who will also wish to acknowledge their debt to you.

[172driver]

Once on the ground at Prestwick or Stansted, you effectively hand the situation over to the experts, who are trained, equiped and ready to deal with such a situation.
Oh, really ? Guess you don't follow current affairs much, then, Rudekid :}

[SixDelta]

Bjcc,

Launching Q is an automatic response, post 9/11, to any "security" situation involving an aircraft.

[rudekid]

Thanks for the predictably puerile responses from certain individuals.

For some who need it, patronising tone intended...

Unlike a cinema, pub or police HQ, an aircraft is a highly mobile target. it is also at it's most vulnerable when airborne. All of the security decisions come down to a risk analysis. Whether you regard this as worthwhile or not, it's done to put the minimum number of people at risk. Once the aircraft is on the ground, the greatest risk to the majority of passengers is over. I'm not suggesting that all risk is removed, however the difficulty of onloading enough explosive onto an aircraft to cause major loss of life ONCE ON THE GROUND places this scenario in a significantly lower threat band. To suggest that we shouldn't take these things seriously is patently ridiculous. I would rather have every incident treated in the same way, inconvenience or not.

Without knowing the exact threat scenario, it is difficult to give a picture perfect answer. The security service personnel will have fitted the worst case scenario to the case until further intelligence information came to light. You are faced with some simple logistical issues prior to gaining the required intel. Once the aircraft has landed, it would need to taxi to the dedicated incident bay-requires time. You need to assemble your personnel, who will not be all on immediate standby at the incident location-requires time. As you have set yourself for the default worst case scenario you will require a military CT unit, who will need to be called to standby and arrive by helicopter-takes time. Background checks on the passengers will be run-takes time. When, and only when, all this and more is in place can properly informed decisions be taken.

A well intentioned, but ill informed Captain ordering an evacuation immediately after landing may remove one potentially harmful scenario. It also opens up a whole load of other equally deadly options. Controlling a scenario like this requires a great deal of prior planning and manpower. Do you have any ideas of the numbers of people involved in an Op like this. It's a frighteningly small number, especially in the early stages.

On receipt of all the information, this decision looks deceptively easy to take, get the pax off ASAP. This is called hindsight! However, multiple terrorists, shooters, suicide vests, hostage scenario all present a vastly different operational arena.

How would you guys have called it, with your vast knowledge of counter-terrorost operations?

Regards

RK

PS I'm not hinting at secret information to try and sound clever. Release of classified is simply an offense under the OSA and something I'm not prepared to do. All the information here is available open source.

[issi noho]

Total CANT!

How many counter terror agents does it take to read a note.

Mobile target - its not a target - if it has explosives on it its a missile.
Risk to majority - stop pizzing about in the air and land the sodding thing.
vulnerable when a/b - as above

Stop reading Clancy and bog off to Iraq theres a good chap

[Sunfish]

Ahh Mr. Rudekid, (adopting patronising tone) perhaps the family of Mr. Menendez should take comfort in the fact that he was murdered as a direct result of your highly sophisticated counter terror capability and your vast knowledge of these matters.

I would have thought that in a dedicated counter terror facility it would be relatively simple to remove at least the majority of passengers from the dangers of suicide vests and suchlike without exposing the rest of the community or folk such as your good self to any further risk.

The phrases, get out, walk over there, sit down, don't move and shut up untill we are ready for you come to mind.

It shouldn't take more than a squad of ten, some colored lines painted on the tarmac and (considering English Weather) perhaps an open covered area and a few chairs.

And P.S., if you want a p*ssing competition I've signed the offical secrets act at least five times.:ok:

[issi noho]

Rudeboy

one more thing, if counter terror chiefs only give their minions one procedure, you can bet your life it's not because it's best but they think its all you can remember!

rswipe

[PPRuNe Radar]

So if there's a bomb threat on, say a London Tube train, why the difference in SOPs ?? Stations, trains, and streets would be cleared as quickly as they could be, make no mistake.

The problem here is one of the authorities making. They don't explain the needs and requirements they are placing on aircraft bomb alerts. Saying that they will pass this through company 'need to know' networks is no earthly use to the majority of crews or the public affected. They are possibly in fear of their lives, most likely being given little or no coherent information from the 'authorities' and yet they are expected to sit on an aircraft which may or may not be about to experience an explosion. In the same way that pax won't sit dumb with a 'hijack' situation after 9/11, would it be any surprise if an evacuation was started without an approval from anyone in officialdom ??

As for the officer who starts pumping his MP9 ammo in to the evacuating masses, he'd better have a damn good lawyer !!!

[rudekid]

issi noho

Sadly, it's a target if you're a terrorist.

You're presuming of course that you have instant and complete knowledge of the threat to the aircraft from reading a note. The note was read by the cabin/aircrew. It wouldn't have been read by anyone else for quite some time.

Thanks for the advice, I'll gladly stick to reading Clancy and go back to the dust bowl if you promise to keep up with your written english lessons.:} My what a big boy you are...

Sunfish

Take the point on the Menendez case. From what I have read, a lot of very serious errors occurred. Not sighted on the intricacies of it except what is in the public domain. Will be interesting to read the results of any inquiry.

Sadly, our (and I mean UK PLC) CT capability is nowhere near as big and as capable as we would like to think and things are constantly evolving. Despite being considered amongst the best prepared and trained countries in the world, there are many interfaces between different organisations which could be resolved more effectively. It should be as you suggest, simple. The reality is a damn sight more difficult and unpredictable.

Hence, my default position. Treat the threat as worst case, within the manpower/capability you have in place. It would be nigh on impossible to ramp-up the security screen once a breech had occurred. It does, as I have already commented, place additional people at increased risk for a period of time, as in this case. However, with hindsight, it is very easy to be critical of an area which very few have visibility of.

Sadly, a squad of ten and some painted lines doesn't quite cut the mustard. It would take more than that just to man the telephones to political Lord's and masters!

Radar

Hopefully, noone starts pumping ammunition into anyone. However, if there was an unplanned and unbriefed evacuation from the aircraft ordered by the Captain, an additional and unneccessary risk factor would be created. Do you think that the Captain would be similarly investigated for his actions? I think both sides should have a good lawyer!

The issue with differing SOPs is valid. However I suspect at a static event, for example a cinema, the criteria post Jul 05 may not be as clear cut as you believe. Thank you for your considered, non insulting response!

[stagger]

rudekid wrote...The security services have every right to treat all passengers on board this aircraft as potential criminals.

Perhaps, but it is not at all clear that they in fact have the right to detain all passengers on board.

If a passenger or crewmember decides they wish to leave the aircraft it is not clear on what legal basis they could prevent them.

In contrast there is legislation giving the captain this power, isn't there? If it is necessary for the safety of the flight?

[Rollingthunder]

How I laughed. rudeboy could have checked my profile and would have discovered I do not claim to be flight crew and with a little more research found out I never have. Does a couple of hours flying a Cessna count for anything? However, I suspect I have more years in the aviation industry than he has spent breathing and have some lnowledge of police response capabilities in emerging situations.. It takes a while to get assembled, briefed and get the Landrovers started (where the hell is my left boot?) and for me as a pax that time is better spent away from the problem taking in the sunshine and exercising self-preservation techniques.

Just what does a "tactical bus driver" do laddy? I used to drive buses in a younger life - never had to attack anyone with one.

[Irish Steve]

re Bomb Alerts on TWO Irish Aircraft in the past week. Presumably both aircraft had been on DUB recently - I believe notes were found on board on RETURN flights to Eire.
Has anyone thought it may be the work of some prankster on the ground in DUB who is doing this during servicing?

AS , (among MANY other things) a former loadie at DUB, this is unlikely, for several reasons.

Loadies don't get into the cabin very often, there's too much else to do on short turnrounds.

FR self handle, Aer Arran are handled by Sky Handling, so completely different sets of loadies responsible for the aircraft.

[harrogate]

AS , (among MANY other things) a former loadie at DUB, this is unlikely, for several reasons.

Loadies don't get into the cabin very often, there's too much else to do on short turnrounds.

FR self handle, Aer Arran are handled by Sky Handling, so completely different sets of loadies responsible for the aircraft.

Surely it's obvious then...

:eek:

ARREST THE CLEANERS!!!

But what are their demands? Dysons!

[Sunfish]

this is an interesting subject even from the perspective of a humble passenger and occasional private pilot.

The Australian Aviation Transport Security Act, and the associated regulations appear to make it clear that there exist what are called "Compliance Control directions and Incident Control directions" that would in theory allow the authorities to direct the aircraft and its passengers to do whatevr the authorities require.

There are however two let outs to the huge penalties for disobeying a control direction.

(1) If a person (eg the pilot) has a reasonable excuse.

(2) There exists a blanket defence that I will reproduce below:

"10A General defences

Decisions of pilot in command

(1) A person does not commit an offence against this Act if:

(a) a physical element of the offence exists (whether directly or
indirectly) because the pilot in command of an aircraft
engaged in conduct in the operation or control of the aircraft;
and

(b) without the existence of that physical element the person
would not commit the offence; and

(c) the pilot engaged in the conduct to protect the safety or
security of:

(i) the aircraft; or

(ii) the aircraft’s cargo; or

(iii) a person (whether on board the aircraft or not); or

(iv) another aircraft; or

(v) an airport, or an airport facility or other installation
within an airport; and

(d) the conduct was reasonable in the circumstances.

Note: A defendant bears an evidential burden in relation to the matters in
subsection (1) (see subsection 13.3(3) of the Criminal Code)."


So it seems that at least over here, if you had a bomb threat and you smelt something burning, you would be justified in ignoring an incident direction and get everyone out.

I am not a lawyer. I hope this helps, and I would be surprised if the British Acts didn't have a similar provision.

[wotsyors]

If l`m overstating the case please tell me, but twice in three days with tabloid exposure ?

Maybe you didn`t pick up what happened, too local.

Twice a scribble appeared from a checked cabin claiming a bomb on board.

All involved lost 24hrs+ and serious hassle.

My point is that if you have people claiming bombs in the bag alongside them going through security - and they still do - how easy is it to be anonymous and and claim the scribble in the inflight mag is a real threat.

[Sunfish]

It's very easy - until a scribbler is caught and gets the five years in jail they so richly deserve.

[wotsyors]

So how do you catch him/her then, any ideas ?

[FullWings]

I have to say I don't think much of the "You don't need to know" and "We know better" attitude which some security 'experts' seem to think is the way ahead.

As flightcrew, we try to make decisions using all the available information. If those 'in the know' deliberately withold such information, then logically we are going to come to a somewhat different conclusion and act on it. How can we do anything else?

A bomb threat is either believable or not. If it IS assessed as genuine enough to warrant an immediate diversion, then the first action to be taken after the a/c comes to a halt is to disembark/evacuate everyone as quickly as possible and talk about it afterwards. At a safe distance!

If these sort of incidents repeat themselves, we may start to find information being withheld from the other end, i.e. flight crew will not inform the authorities of the full extent of a problem in case they are mishandled. There is very little an outside agency can do to help those on board an IED-threatened aircraft and that 'help' certainly won't be coming from intercepting fighters...

[wotsyors]

Prune radar, l don`t want to be argumentative but a tube train has lots of doors and they open on a regular basis.
lnstead of the semantics has anyone got a clue as to how this silliness can be stopped ?
Has anything gone bang ? No.
ls there a serious threat of something going bang ? No.
Will daft kids do this again and dilute the response ? Bl**dy right they will.
And for those looking for the wrong inflection to give cause to attack look at the problem please and not the messenger. A couple of you could club together to get an IQ in double figures, couldn`t you ?

[SixDelta]

Wotsyors:
ls there a serious threat of something going bang ? No.

What makes you say that? Is security around the worlds airports really THAT much better than it was before 9/11, before Lockerbie.
I don't think so.
Of course there's a threat to commercial aviation.
Though possibly not gliders (added to include an insult which seems customary on this thread now) :rolleyes:

[wotsyors]

What lets me say that is you can buy a ticket with no hassle for the next flight out.
No insult with sailplanes, so that`s three then. ?

[epreye]

In an effort to gain some clarity to this discussion could Flying Lawyer give us his considered opinion, both from the point of view of the PIC and the "Authorities" ?:confused:

[MarkD]

epreye

I too hope FL makes an appearance. 11 pages and so few facts.

[brain fade]

We see these incidents from our own point of view as flight crew.

The essential difference between 'our' point of view and the police's is the pivot point in this debate.

WE wish to see the situation resolved quickly and safely. Thus a prompt diversion followed by a prompt disembarkation is the only correct course of action. After all if it is 'worth' diverting for then the a/c must be emptied even though loss of life in a ground explosion will probably not be as destructive as the same explosion airborne.

The police, on the other hand, have completely different priorities.

Their main objective is not to do anything which could expose themselves to criticism or liability after the event. In other words if a cop is killed or injured during the incident, and the police are seen to have acted carelessly and this led to the injury or death, court action will surely follow. This must be avoided at ALL costs.

This same approach led to the police leaving a woman who had been shot and wounded, to die, rather than enter a house, despite being repeatedly assured that the gunmen had left the scene. (it was a multiple shooting at a BBQ in England a few years ago).

[akerosid]

I agree with what you say, but couldn't police have evacuated the acft anyway and left it for a couple of hours before approaching? I see no logical explanation for what happened. They can protect both their officers - which is understandably a concern, but also pax.

I have to say I'm particularly disappointed by IAA's washing of its hands; these are Irish registered aircraft, carrying Irish nationals. Does the National Aviation Security Council have a view on this? What would it do? Have any objections been raised at a diplomatic level?

OK, what has happened on this occasion has been the work of some pitiful nothing creating trouble ... but what if it actually happened and a bomb did go off; if this happens again, will need some policy in place. Will need to seek agreement from UK authorities that either (a) Irish registered acft able to get to Irish airport and issue will be dealt with professionally there, OR (b) the issue will be dealt with in the proper way at a UK airport (and the nearest one, too - not diverting hundreds of miles to PIK).

It's time for Dept of Transport/IAA to develop a backbone on this issue. The IAA has a responsibility, whether it wants to carry it out or not; it can't simply wash its hands of it.

[FlyingV]

I have to say I'm particularly disappointed by IAA's washing of its hands; these are Irish registered aircraft, carrying Irish nationals. Does the National Aviation Security Council have a view on this? What would it do? Have any objections been raised at a diplomatic level?

There was a report on RTÉ saying the IAA (or DoT, can't remember which) had confirmed it was seeking an explanation of events from its British counterpart. Can't find the report now.

[A330busdriver]

It's time for Dept of Transport/IAA to develop a backbone on this issue. The IAA has a responsibility, whether it wants to carry it out or not; it can't simply wash its hands of it.


You're a real funny guy!!

Invertebrates cannot develop a spine, no matter how far along the evolutionary path they aspire to be. Period. The IAA will continue to fudge and dodge issues like they have since day one. All it serves to do is top up the pensions of geriatric Fungus and Whineair pilots.

[alibaba]

The PIC has total authority over the aircraft and contents as is given under ICAO annex's under international law. Also this is reiterated under FAA FAR'S, JAA JAR OPS, CAA and Air Navigation Order and Company rules with the OPS manual and security manual's if one is published and any other rule or law you want to state. “PIC/ Captain in a Security situation are the ultimate and final authority for the safety of the aircraft”. That is as plain and simple as it comes.

PLOD and SPOOKS need to be aware of this. :ok: :ok: Obviously they are lacking in there training if they do not. And they should be made aware of the law here. No if or but about parking brakes or such rubbish.

If PLOD can override your decisions on the ground what is stopping him in the air? Where does it end not just in a security situation but in an emergency? :ugh:

This is not a committee, the buck stops with you.

What rubbish about shooting people if you disembark the A/C by whatever means air stairs if fitted or slide. Please stop stupid scare mongering. If an evacuation was ordered do you think this would not have been pre communicated to the authorities? "NOTIFY THE TOWER/ AUTHORIES" is in the evacuation checks. I think it would have been communicated along time before this point in the evacuation anyway.

No ware have I read that you have a licence to kill and ask questions later. Even if Sir Ian Blair and his chums think otherwise! They will answer to their mistakes in due course......

If we are not aware of all the facts well it is your duty to make us aware so that PIC'S can come to decisions in consultation with security services in this type of situation. I am not talking about a hijacking here!

A calm measured response is what is needed in this type of situation by all parties and jumping for joy on the slides is maybe what is not needed but I know that is the Head DRIVERS decision not PLODS and SPOOKS. :mad:

[brain fade]

Alibaba

I agree. What if the cops get air traffic to instruct you NOT to evac?

Me? I'd still do it. These guys didn't. Don't know why not though. You?

[alibaba]

Brain fade, I wasn't there so I can't really comment on the details and what conversations might have taken place on R/T or what I would have done. :confused:

I do think that responsibility rests on oneself though. As quite a few security manuals in previous and current companies would back up, as well as all the other documents and legislation at our disposal.

Common sense is the most important thing in this type of situation. Each party concerned have there own objectives and agenda's but the law states pretty clearly who is ultimately responsible. ;)

[CamelhAir]

I have to say I'm particularly disappointed by IAA's washing of its hands;

Your disappointment is then wasted. I thought you would have known enough about Irish aviation to understand just how utterly useless, toothless, workshy and regulatory-shy the IAA actually are. It's no conincidence there are so many EI reg aircraft flying around Europe with non-Irish carriers.

[MarkD]

camelhair

the reason would be the large leasing concerns based at EINN...

[skyman1]

Maybe the low cost airlines should concentrate on cleaning their a/c on turnaround, and removing all items from seat back pockets. I don't believe that the perpetrators of these hoaxes were actually travelling on the flights concerned - more likely that the "scribbled notes" were left by passengers on the previous sector(s). The last time I flew Ryanair I was appalled at the amount of rubbish on the a/c from the previous sector.

[alibaba]

I believe there is no seat back pockets on RYR anymore. :}

[Getoutofmygalley]

Maybe the low cost airlines should concentrate on cleaning their a/c on turnaround, and removing all items from seat back pockets. I don't believe that the perpetrators of these hoaxes were actually travelling on the flights concerned - more likely that the "scribbled notes" were left by passengers on the previous sector(s). The last time I flew Ryanair I was appalled at the amount of rubbish on the a/c from the previous sector.

At easyJet it is an SOP to ensure the seat pockets are empty of all rubbish and that the seat pocket is redressed a specific way :ok:

[XSBaggage]

But as alibaba says, there are no seat pockets on a large portion of the Ryanair fleet, including I think the aircraft involved in this incident!

XSB