Irish Govt questions UK Govt over bomb threat handling

[Bomber Harris]

Irish Times report today:

Cullen tells UK of flight threats concern

Liam Reid, Political Reporter

Minister for Transport Martin Cullen has written to the secretary of state for transport in the UK to raise concerns about the handling by the British authorities of bomb threats on board two Irish aircraft last month.

In the letter, Mr Cullen said there was "understandable disquiet" among Irish airlines about the decision to have the two aircraft fly to Prestwick airport in Scotland, when there were airports closer by.

There was also concern about the delay in allowing passengers to disembark from both aircraft once they had landed, Mr Cullen said.

He also sought information from the British authorities on the "lessons learned" from the two events.

A major security incident was sparked in British airspace on April 18th when passengers on a Ryanair flight en route from Beauvais near Paris to Dublin discovered a note hidden in magazines and handed it to staff.

The note claimed there was a bomb on board.

After contacting British authorities, the aircraft was directed to land at Prestwick airport, accompanied by three RAF Tornado fighter jets.

When it landed, passengers were held on the plane for 30 minutes before being allowed to disembark.

A few days later a similar incident occurred on an Aer Arann aircraft en route from Luton to Galway.

In his letter two weeks ago to Alastair Darling, then secretary of state for transport, Mr Cullen said his department had received reports from Ryanair and Aer Arann.

"I know that Ryanair has been in touch with your department separately about the handling of the incident involving their aircraft and I understand that the police investigation into both incidents is ongoing."

He added: "Unfortunately, incidents such as this are likely to occur again in the future and accordingly airlines need to be aware of the nature of the contingency planning arrangements which the UK authorities may implement in response to a bomb threat to an aircraft in flight."

Offering assistance to the British authorities in relation to any issues arising out of the two incidents, he said he believed it would be "very useful in terms of our contingency planning if your department could share any lessons learned from the experience of handling the above incidents".

[apaddyinuk]

Im not too sure what to think of this. Is it perhaps just a courtesy so as to be seen to be doing something in the eye of the airlines and passengers involved or is it a genuine show of upset with the British Authorities by the Irish?

[A and C]

I don't see this as a goverment issue If the captain of the aircraft has reason to think that there is a bomb on the aircraft then he/she should order an evacuation.

If the authoritys won't provide steps then the slides must be used to ensure passenger safety.

My worry is that these things are in the hands of some goverment ministers who would not suffer if the worst did happen, in fact it could be usefull to have an event like this to hide some bad news. But this goverment would never stoop to that would they!

In these troubled times a captain has to have the political issues in mind after all how can the authoritys stop you evacuating an aircraft when they won't approach it? and what can they do when you have evacuated ? if they take you to court on some trumpped up charge they will make fools of themselfs when you ask the jury if they would like to be trapped in an aircraft with a bomb and 2000kg of fuel.

[lexxity]

I thought the diversion to Prestwick was because it, like Stansted, is a designated airport for bomb threats and hijacking?:confused:

[EGBE0523]

I would say the UK has a pretty good record at handling such incidents. I would certainly go to whichever airport the guy in the Tornado tells me to!
If the Irish government is unhappy with this perhaps they should require their airlines to go the long way around UK airspace - think what that would do to their costs/competiveness?

[mutt]

If the Irish government is unhappy with this perhaps they should require their airlines to go the long way around UK airspace - think what that would do to their costs/competiveness?
What a totally stupid answer!

Mutt

[RAT 5]

Was there not an ej a/c which diverted to LPL a couple of years ago with a bomb threat? I'd always had the idea that, with a credible threat, and who's to assess that from the ground, you should get the a/c on the ground and pax off PDQ. OK, there are on-board inflight search procedures. But surely those are applicable only if there is time to carry them out? Remaining aloft so as to carry out such a search, and with nothing found continuing to a distant airfield, incurrs some risk. And who's at risk?

[delwy]

EGBE0523 before you make any more mindless pronouncements such as I would say the UK has a pretty good record at handling such incidents. you might care to examine the existing information on these two events and then tell us if you think that the handling of both meets reasonable requirements for maintaining "a pretty good record". Your post, including your inane remark about "going the long way around" suggests that you posted without even knowing what is under discussion.

[Human Factor]

I'd always had the idea that, with a credible threat, and who's to assess that from the ground....

Larger airlines have access to numerous sources from whom the credibility of a threat can be determined.

[bullshot]

Although ground agencies might make the risk assessment and can advise the Captain, ultimately, it's the Captain who makes, and takes responsibility for, the final decision.

Once a credible threat has been established, I agree with RAT 5, the a/c should be landed at the nearest suitable airport and pax disembarked without delay, by evacuation if necessary. Some airports are better equipped than others in this respect and this should be taken into consideration.

No-one can, or should, TELL the Captain what to do, just advise him/her - equally, the Captain should not be asking others what to do; just assessing any advice given, in order to come to a decision. Under these circumstances the close presence of Tornado's is just an unwanted and unhelpful distraction.

BS

[PAXboy]

A and C I don't see this as a goverment issue If the captain of the aircraft has reason to think that there is a bomb on the aircraft then he/she should order an evacuation. As I read the original report - they would not let the pax off the a/c until they had the security staff to round them up onto a bus. Concern being that, if you pop the slides and everyone is milling on the tarmac, a suspect could run away. I am not saying that I agree with that but it is plausible

I sit to be corrected.

[bear11]

Great, glad that's all sorted then - an Irish Government minister who couldn't find his arse with both hands demands answers from "British authorities" who clearly couldn't either, given the deafening silence having left 2 groups of crew and passengers sitting on bomb-threatened aircraft for hours.

[me109]

Putting aside both government's statements , the PIC / Captain of the aircraft has certain duties and responsibilities under the ANO .
Perhaps both governments can now propose to change the fundamentals of the ANO .I think not .
I was faced with something similar on the ground at an Italian airport , no diversion was involved .The Italian authorities made all sorts of threats after an evacuation was made .
If you are the PIC / Captain , then your responsibility is to your passengers and crew . There can be no arguement on that . It would be a sorry day in aviation , when you hand over total control of safety of your aircraft to security services and / or politicians . That said , of course , you take on board all the info available to you .
Therefore I think it is a mute point , the respective airlines contacting government departments . it has nothing to do with them . If you feel an evacuation is necessary , then so be it .
No steps , no problems , blow the slides , and be very prepared to support your actions , again under the ANO .

[green granite]

A and C As I read the original report - they would not let the pax off the a/c until they had the security staff to round them up onto a bus. Concern being that, if you pop the slides and everyone is milling on the tarmac, a suspect could run away. I am not saying that I agree with that but it is plausible

I sit to be corrected.

You're probably correct, but if there was time to scramble 2 tonkas and escort the a/c to prestwick then there should have been ample time to get security in place. If not then one could argue that the airfield is not properly equiped to handle such incidents.

[flyerire]

Precisely Green Granite,

The safety of the passengers is the first and most important issue.......whether the potential terrorist/hijacker escapes should only be thought of once the passengers are off the plane and safe on the ground.

Also, there would definitly be enough time (in almost all cases) to create a security cordon around the aircraft to make sure nobody pulls a legger!!!:)

[Too Few Stripes]

Had I been either a pilot or passenger (or CC) on the flight I would already have started legal action against the authorities for delibarately placing me in danger (ok, potential danger - but they couldnt have been certain). The authorities on the ground were failing to show any duty of care by not supplying steps. Do the police actually have the power to detain people without charge or caution? In Scotland you canbe held for 6 hours under section 14, this is basically to 'assist with enquireies', however you still have to be told why you're being held and you still have to be cautioned. Where any of the passengers and crew advised why they were being detained or where any of them cautioned - i doubt it.

Yet again the Scottish police show themselves up for the inadequate and inept force that they are.

I'd be really surprised if there's no legal action already started behind the scenes.


TFS :)

[Loose rivets]

I think we need to have a very, very clear picture of the reception committee that greeted the aircraft, before we say what the captain(s) should or shouldn't have done.

[bjcc]

Too Few Stripes

Police would only have to caution if asking questions. At the stage where pax are on an aircraft, and the police arn't, then as no questions are being asked, no caution is needed.

The point over sufficent security of pax before allowing disembrakation is well made, it may be unpaletable, but that is one reason for keeping pax an aircraft, if it means protecting more people, then thats the way it is.

[Too Few Stripes]

If a bomb threat is received concerning a building you don't lock everyone in the building - can you imagine the outcry? Yet again, when it comes to aviation, common sense goes right out of the window. How would you feel trapped, against your every wish, on an aircraft (on the gorund!!!) which is currently under a bomb scare? I can only imagine how angry those involved must be feeling.

The entire event, as far as I'm concerned, was dreadfully handled. There can be no excuse for what amounts to complete incompetence of the authorities. Someone must take accountability for making these dangerous decisions. It won't happen of course, look at the police assasinations on the london tube recently. Police screw up=no accountability.

TFS :)

[cleo]

We can speculate on here all we like. The folks in possession of the facts are those in a position to make the decisions. If the IAA has issues with the CAA over the handling of these incidents then those will be discussed at that level and the necessary changes made to the relevant procedures. Until all the facts are in the public domain all we do here is expose ignorance and give further publicity to those individuals who get a kick out of scribbling notes in inflight magazines.

[bjcc]

Too Few Stripes

I gave you a reason why pax may have been contained on an aircraft. And as I said, unpalatable though it may be, thats a valid reason. Why? Because its better then a possible alternative. You really ought to realise, that what ever the Police 's reasons in the 2 cases recently, they probably arn't happy about it either, but, they were the ones in possession of the available facts, or were gathering them, not us.

Another alternative is, either the Police, or the airlines threat assessors considered there not to be a threat or danger. But again, we don't know that is, or is not the case.

The issue here isn't what happened, because it's over now, but isn't it about time that the Mil, airlines and Police got together and sorted out who does what and why? That way, we wouldn't have to have this discussion again.

[PIK3141]

Don't think for one minute that in diverting to Prestwick hundreds of Police officers will suddenly appear from no-where. I understand that one of the reasons why the Ryanair pax were held aboard for 2 hours + was that Police could still be seen coming down the M77 from Glasgow in those two hours. Meanwhile the airport was shut for the 2.5 hours, 4 flights diverted, and 6 completely cancelled, with those pax receiving standard Ryanair treatment. Don't know of any aviation professionals around PIK who don't believe the aircraft should have landed at the nearest suitable airport and the pax immediately taken off. And the facilities...runway 21 and the grass around.

[055166k]

Were the pax told of the exact nature/reason for the diversion? I'm not sure what my own reaction would be if I was told to sit on the aircraft for anything much over a minute. With hindsight I might sue for unnecessary trauma.

[Too Few Stripes]

bjcc,

You ignored my point, would they have handled a building bomb threat the same way ie. lock evryone inside a building. Of course they wouldn't, so why should this aircraft have been treated any different? Put yourself in the shoes of the pax and crew of this aircraft and now tell me that what was done was perfectly ok - I bet you can't.

Not sure why you're so blindly defending a disastrously handled situation? This incident comes up in conversation on most flights I do and I haven't met another pilot who can even begin to agree with what was done.

TFS ;)

[Too Few Stripes]

Also, my understanding of the threat assessment process is that threats directed at a specific flight or airframe are classified as red. If the assessment was green or amber there would have been no need to divert at all!

TFS :)

[mikip]

OK so the pax were kept on the craft until a security cordon could be set up, are the authorities saying therefore that it is more important to catch the terrorist than it is to save possibly 200+ peoples lives I sincerely hope not, ok I accept that if the terrorist(s) escape they could threaten another plane but at least all the pax would be alive

[bjcc]

Too Few Stripes

Suprising as it may be, there are a large number of bomb threats to buildings where the biulding is not evacuated. Usually, because it would not achieve very much, for instance in the case of a large building, the occupants may well be safer in it than out side in the way of flying glass, bricks etc.

Ok, so you can't see the logic of keeping people on board. I can, that doesn't mean I don't accept that the situation isn't ideal.

The instruction to land wasn't made by a threat assessor as far as I can make out, it was made by the Mil. I goi back to what I said, which is sort out who does what and why, and explain it to everyone else involved before it happens.

Mikip

Its not a matter of catching the 'terrorist' its preventing more harm if possible. Everyone on the aircraft will be suspect, including the crew, until proven otherwise.

[mini]

If I may comment on the original post I think Mr Cullens "letter" was naive in the extreme, asking his UK counterpart to share information on security procedures through a medium (official letter) that is essentially public - i.e. available to Irish newspapers through the Freedom of Information Act is almost laughable. Whatever the issues raised by the handling of this incident, detaining passengers on board, captains authority vs responsibility etc. It would seem that this is yet another miserable populist tirade by a most inept politician.

[sweeper]

thought.....
bomb threat level deemed minimal....
aah..practice for quarintine diversion, a-la-potential bird flu mutation?
or shud i get out out more???:} :confused:

[Bomber Harris]

Sorry Mini, thats not the way it works. Protocol demands that one minister makes a request to his/her counterpart on the other side. Then if that minister agrees the response states that they will facilitate the request and the appropriate civil servant has been instructed to do so. Then the junior boys contact each other and thats when the sharing of detail occurs. Mr cullen (i'm not a fan of his all the same) is just following protocol here.

[snaga]

mini I think that Bomber Harris has been rather polite to you. You said I think Mr Cullens "letter" was naive in the extreme- but you don't even know what was in it. The facts of this matter speak for themselves and the issues of relevance are reasonably clear. Not least relevant is U.K. policy and police procedures in respect of aircraft with bomb warnings. Nothing naive about asking about that - not least because every aircraft commander is entitled to know (and the travelling public too). They are also entitled to know about the kind of reasoning which declares a bomb warning of sufficient seriousness to lead to a diversion/fighter escort - but not the immediate evacuation of the aircraft.

[derekvader]

Had I been a passenger on either of these flights and aware that there was some sort of potential bomb threat, I would not have sat calmly in my seat waiting to either blow up or for someone to get around to bringing stairs to the plane.

I would have evacuated myself, via the slide if necessary, and I am sure that other passengers would have joined me. Who would have stopped me?

I am amazed that passengers didn't take things into their own hands. Either they didn't have any idea whatsoever why they had quickly landed at Prestwick (I find this hard to believe) or something was said to them to keep them quietly in their seats, but what?

[mikip]

Mikip

Its not a matter of catching the 'terrorist' its preventing more harm if possible. Everyone on the aircraft will be suspect, including the crew, until proven otherwise.

Are you saying then that as they are all suspects it doesn't matter if they are blown to kingdom come!!!!

[bjcc]

mikip

No. Thats not what I am saying. I am pointing out that everyone on board is a suspect, therefore everyone has to be secured when they get off. The alternative is maybe a terrorist running round airside, where much more harm could be done.

I also said, police probably arn't happy about it, but have to balance one problem against another.

[DickChomh]

If you check icao, you will see that the safety of pax superseds the capture of a suspect.case closed.complete shambles.

[bjcc]

DickChomh

You are missing the point. The safety of all pax, not just on the suspect aircraft is the concern. The idea of containg all those on the aircraft is not just to catch a terrorist, it is to minimise harm and damage. Yes, it puts one group in danger, but keeps many others safe.

[holiday pay]

Would you evacuate the aircraft when the authorities have requested you keep passengers on board and the aircraft is surrounded with armed police?

It is perhaps not as easy as it first seems to expedite passenger evacuation whilst UK police continue with their "containment" policy.

[snaga]

bjcc with the greatest of respect you are coming close to talking absolute tosh. I accept that, in very particular circumstances, there could be an argument for wishing to contain passengers on an aircraft that was going to be blown up by a bomb.

But that would require specific knowledge in a particular case. You are now turning this into some form of a general argument about "The safety of all pax". Evacuating all passengers at a remote part of an airfield does not come under that heading. Remember, the police behaviour in this case occurred on two separate occassions, involving two separate airlines.

You are, apparently, saying that retention of passengers on an aircraft with a bomb warning is not only sensible, but highly justifiable. It is an utterly disproportionate argument in which you maximise the risk to one group to protect another group that is not directly at risk.

I say to that contention one word: "NUTS".

Hoiliday Pay it is not that hard to blow the slides and give the passengers either an order to evacuate or to give them the choice of evacuating. Back to the same issue: who is in charge? - hence the need to clarify policy on these occasions.

[bjcc]

snaga

I bow to your obviously far greater knowladge of policing, security at airports, police deployments, and of course terrorist ability.

I made my point in a general context, not in these 2 particular ones. Those comments come from doing it for real, at another airport, with plenty of police, in full possession of the facts, full knowladge of the security situation and terrorist ability...............

You ask who's in charge. The senior Police Officer on scene is. Police being the designated authority for terrorist incidents.

[Flame]

OK Men (& ladies) ...

Lets assume you are the PIC of an aircraft that has been diverted to Prestwick, you are sitting on the ground for 10 minutes, knowing (obviously) that a bomb threat has been made against your aircraft. Security people, on the ground have refused you permission to allow your PAX off, you can see armed police / soldiers on the ramp:eek: , then a few PAX demand to exit the aircraft, get boistrous, start getting angry with your cabin crew, the situation may get out of control, they allege your crew are putting them in danger and demand to get out of the aircraft....bearing in mind that all they want to do is get off your potential ticking time bomb.... what do you do:confused:

[groundbum]

it was interesting what somebody said earlier about whether a bomb threat in a building would be treated the same way..

so what would happen if a bomb threat against a police station was called in? Would the finest in blue sit there tapping their reports into the computers or would they suddenly find a need to go on patrol or catch a criminal on the street or catch up on a witness statement at a tower block far away? Remember that the alleged bomb would be large enough to totally pulverise the station, as that is by and large what would be happen to a fully fuelled aircraft. Not a little letter bomb that just blew out windows in the immediate cube where you could rationalise the odds.

!

[Idunno]

OK Men (& ladies) ...
Lets assume you are the PIC of an aircraft that has been diverted to Prestwick, you are sitting on the ground for 10 minutes, knowing (obviously) that a bomb threat has been made against your aircraft. Security people, on the ground have refused you permission to allow your PAX off, you can see armed police / soldiers on the ramp:eek: , then a few PAX demand to exit the aircraft, get boistrous, start getting angry with your cabin crew, the situation may get out of control, they allege your crew are putting them in danger and demand to get out of the aircraft....bearing in mind that all they want to do is get off your potential ticking time bomb.... what do you do:confused:
Get on the PA and tell them they can get off if they want, but armed Police have declared the intention of shooting them as they leave.

See how brave they are then.:p

[nick s]

So just to summarise what you're saying BJCC, just so you don't receive any undue criticism.
Passengers are kept secured onboard the diverted aircraft, potentially sitting on a semtex seat cushion, rather than being allowed to disembark/evacuate because of the potential risk of one or more terrorists running amok airside with whatever they managed to smuggle aboard.
Now if this is the case at least there was some logic behind the decision, perhaps flawed logic but not paralysis.
However, the risk assessment does seem a little skewed as I assume the aircraft in question is parked on the most remote stand at the airport and any running amok would be easy to isolate, even with the existing airport police before the cavalry arrive from Glasgow.

[WHBM]

One wonders if this gross cockup had anything to do with the departure of Charles Clarke as Home Secretary shortly afterwards (terrorist security is still a National concern, not the Scottish Parliament).

I am glad that the Irish Govt has raised it at government level so it won't be glossed over.

Bearing in mind this flight was Beauvais - Dublin, if the threat occurred in UK airspace they must have been near either the West Country or West Wales. To divert to Prestwick from there would take quite some time (in fact possibly Stansted, the other security alternate, would have been closer). If the authorities at Prestwick cannot marshal their people into place in that time then it shows that Prestwick is the wrong airport for such diversions.

[snaga]

bjcc I don't know what thread or what discussion your are contributing to, or whether or not you have read what this discussion has been about, but you say that You ask who's in charge. The senior Police Officer on scene is. Police being the designated authority for terrorist incidents. This is to do two things. (1) Ask a key question and give an answer, and (2) introduce a red herring - or, worse, to designate a bomb warning to be something that it has not been in the past (this is all about two specific events, not a bit of theory).

In respect of (1) your claim that it is the senior Police Officer who is in charge is disputed (as you assert it above) - no matter how firmly you assert it, and in respect of (2) you are apparently claiming that once a bomb warning is issued there is a "terroritst incident" and the aircraft commander loses all his or her responsibilities for the safety of the passengers. (It also looks like, if I many say so, that you have had some exposure to U.S. thinking on the widespread powers that the police seem to feel they can assume just by announcing the word "terrorist").

One way or another, the commander of an aircraft is legal in charge until some point. The purpose of ascertaining who is in charge of the aircraft and of the safety of the passengers is what this thread is about. You can state your version as firmly as you want, but I am clear in my mind that the facts in how these two flights were managed do not stack up. There is a manifest lack of clarity about policy and decision-making autonomy that needs to be sorted out.

I am not in the slightest interested in getting into a spat with you about terrorist stuff. This was a bomb warning, considered serious enough to lead to a directed diversion to an diversionary airfield - but not considered serious enough to evacuate the aircraft. This is the key point of tension. In addition you are among a small number of individuals who seem obsessed with the rights of the police, but not of passengers and crew.

The issue for you to address is this: at what precise point from the issuing of a bomb warning to the crew of an aircraft to the successful disembarkation of the passengers and crew does the responsibility for the disposition of the flight move from the captain to "senior police officer on scene". That, and the relevant policy, is what the letter from the Minister is about. It is not an unreasonable idea, to put it mildly, that these matters should be cleared up. An answer requires a bit more than a mere assertion from you which flies in direct contradiction of the law as it relates to the operation of aircraft. The real issue is the lack of clarity and the consequent potential for a really serious error of judgment.

[green granite]

If there are designated airfields for terrorist threat diversions, then surely the thing to do, if it's desirable to contain the pax, is to erect a compound that is enclosed by a secure wire fence on 3 sides big enough to take a 380, that way the a/c would taxy into it, and the pax could be allowed of the a/c but could only go in one direction making it easy to control them and ensure no one escapes. Also it would ensure that people were in a relative safe zone as most of the explosive force would be to the side of the a/c not rearwards.

This would of course show a lot of planning on the part of the goverment something that seems lacking at the moment.

[bjcc]

snaga

Dealing with your last point first, the lack of clarity. I agree, or we wouldn't be having this discussion. I made the point twice earlier, The CAA/NATS/MIL/Home Office/Police and all the other bits that hang on and get involved SHOULD sit down and explain why they do what. It may not help these situations, but at least everyone knows then why things are done.

Ok, having established that, dealing with the 'who's in charge' point. This isn't a peeing contest. The pilot knows how to fly and operate his aircraft, as a Police officer, I am not interested in that, nor do did I want to get involved in it. But where I do did get involved is when it arrived at the airport I worked on. From that point, its is as I said the responsibility of the senior police officer on scene, be that a PC or the Commissioner.The reasons it is isn't up for debate, its in a home office memo. Even if you ignore the T word, the aircarft, in both circumstances are scenes of crime, and again, fall under police control.

Now, usually, the deicisions are made by 'committee' at this sort of thing. The captain is the planes expert, Police are the terrorism experts. The Airport authority provide the faciliies and so on. It works provided everyone understands why. In these 2 cases, that has either broken down somewhere, or there were reasons not to say. I can't say which, I wasn't there.

You should not assume that because you can't or don't agree with what is from Police point of view a valid reason for not doing something, then they are wrong. They had more info that you do on the subject.

It could also be of course that the airline had decided the threat was green, and therefore there was no need to evacuate. We don't know.,

[bacardi walla]

It could also be of course that the airline had decided the threat was green, and therefore there was no need to evacuate. We don't know.,

If the threat was GREEN why divert in the 1st place ? In terms of position, they would have flown past DUB to get to PIK, surely an expeditious approach to DUB would have been better, if the threat was GREEN !!

[bjcc]

I don't know it was green, I am just suggesting that one other possible reason why nothing was done.

As I understand it though, the decision to go to PIK was not made by the airline threat assessor.

[snaga]

bjccat what precise point from the issuing of a bomb warning to the crew of an aircraft to the successful disembarkation of the passengers and crew does the responsibility for the disposition of the flight move from the captain to "senior police officer on scene". - That was my question. Your response was: But where I do did get involved is when it arrived at the airport I worked on. From that point, its is as I said the responsibility of the senior police officer on scene, be that a PC or the Commissioner.
That is not specific enough. Does the law not say that the captain is in charge until the doors are opened. In this case it appears the doors were closed AND disembarkation was refused and - possibly - the captain was informed that snipers were positioned to enforce the refusal (though I cannot be certain that this was definitively the case).

You know what you know because ... it's in a home office memo. Well, the obvious questions are (a) if this is a memo about Bomb Alerts or some other type of event and (b) when precisely does the transfer of responsibility take place according to the memo?

Also, would you think me picky if I were to suggest that when you say They had more info that you do on the subject. - that maybe they did not have more info, but perhaps had the same, or even less? I think it is evident that something has gone askew here and I think you might even share my suspicions.

[bjcc]

snaga

Leaving aside the snipers comment, because thats the last thing that a. the crew would be told and b. that would have happened by that stage.

I'll repeat what I said. The relevent authorities should sit down and thrash it out. This isn't the place. Moaning on here may make you feel better, but wont solve it. The Mil have thier way, the airlines theirs. The Police then have to sort it out, having been faced with a plane arriving, probably with next to no warning.

The common sense approach is to take advice from each other. As I said, I don't fly planes, you don't Police. My objectives in the circumstances may well be the same as yours, saftey, but how we arrive at that may well be different. Your concern is just the pax on that aircraft, mine would be the entire airport. There is little point in letting all pax off an aircraft, and not having the ability to keep them sterile.


As I said, Police are the prime authority for crime in the UK. Terrorism is a crime. A Bomb threat is a crime. Police therefore have control over it. In the same way as if there was a murder on an aircraft. Again, the point at which control passes from you to police is common sense. I aint going to interfer in the air. Once you land its a police matter.

Do I agree something went wrong? Presuming that the crew were not informed why they were not getting off, and that the threat was not classed as green after landing, then yes, there seems to have been a breakdown in communications. I say seems because thats all I can say.

[Shuperstar Loadie]

Yes sounds like a delay because pax should be disembarked with the minimum of delay. Green threat? no, aircraft do not need to divert for this. Prestwick was the correct airfield to land at and an F3 escort is the best cause of action as 'you never know!!'

If Ryanair and the Irish govt don't like the way it was handled then don't operate in the UK. They are an Irish airline and are an overseas carrier when it comes to UK emergency planning.

Im sure the Irish authorities would have acted just as fast??????

SL

[snaga]

bjcc it is true to say that Terrorism is a crime. A Bomb threat is a crime. - but they should not be conflated. The constant introduction of terrorism into this matter is an utter red herring. You also say that Again, the point at which control passes from you to police is common sense. - but you have not been able to tell me, despite my asking twice, at what precise moment this happens. I did explain my understanding of the situation and I stand to be corrected.

loadie, I think you may find that representations were also made by U.K. organisations. You would not have made such an inane remark about not operating into the U.K. if you had the slightest grasp of what is at issue here. If you are a commercial pilot you would do better to pay a bit of attention to how this matter develops.

[WHBM]

..... and an F3 escort is the best cause of action as 'you never know!!Why is "you never know" appropriate for deploying the Tornado F3 escort but not for getting the pax away from the threat at the first opportunity ?

[Bomber Harris]

Guys, read loadies post again. He is either winding you up or else under 10 years old and on daddies computer trying to play with adults. Don't argue! It just eggs them on.

[Loose rivets]

I would have evacuated myself, via the slide if necessary, and I am sure that other passengers would have joined me. Who would have stopped me?
I am amazed that passengers didn't take things into their own hands. Either they didn't have any idea whatsoever why they had quickly landed at Prestwick (I find this hard to believe) or something was said to them to keep them quietly in their seats, but what?

Read my earlier post, and imagine the worst sight facing you---by our 'own' team. If I had been the captain, I would have been breathing fire, but I might still have complied.

[bjcc]

snaga

The reason why terrorism is introduced into this is because it is the relevent subject. A bomb threat comes under that general heading, so it's whats being dealt with.

I can't give you a precise moment of passing control, because it depends on the specific circumstances. In general though, while the plane needs controlling in some way, I would not have interffered in that.

The question needs addressing to people who probably don't read this though. Try ACPO or SRG.

[Shuperstar Loadie]

WHBM and Bomber Harris, obviously you have never been involved in real security or the real military as you would understand the term lateral thinking. And yes i'm ten years old. Thats ten years of keeping myself alive in my previous employment as 'you never know' has kept me on this mortal coil more than once.

Over reacting has saved lives on may occasions. Not appropriate but people are alive still because of this.Yes the pax need to get off quickly but a hand written note was probably left on the aircraft by someone on board as the cabin crew would have or should have picked this up during security checks. So the authorities on the ground would have to detain all on board until they were satisfied that the culprit wasn't a pax on board and to set up a cordon or holding area with the manpower required does take time.

You stick to flying as you know nothing about security operations do you both???

Maybe it's time you grandad's left the kids computer alone.

[A and C]

Do some of you people honestly think that a police commander in the UK would order the shooting of passengers in an inccident if they started to evacuate the aircraft (under the command of the captain or as an independent act)?................... I doubt it !

This idea of keeping people on the aircraft looks to me to have more to do with a slow witted police commander on the spot with a lack of police manpower to deal with the seach of ALL the pax and a lack of political guidence as well as a failure to grasp the need to act to secure the safety of the pax becaue he has lost sight of the primary objective due to the "security is above all" culture that seems to be the order of the moment in aviation.

Some of you seem to be saying that the police stance is "if you run from the bomb we will shoot you". I have to ask how would that stand up in court in a contry that cant even kick out people convicted of hijacking ?

The fact is that if the authoritys won't move people off an aircraft that might have a bomb on it with reasonable speed the captain has no option but to order the evacuation of the aircraft to ensure passenger safety.

[clicker]

....they must have been near either the West Country or West Wales. To divert to Prestwick from there would take quite some time (in fact possibly Stansted, the other security alternate, would have been closer).

Have to admit this is a guess but these routes to EGSS could end up going over, or near, some well populated areas including London. That could mean a few casualties on the ground. However a run up the Irish sea would be somewhat safer. Not that's any comfort for the crew and pax.

clicker

[snaga]

Loadie, you say obviously you have never been involved in real security or the real military as you would understand the term lateral thinking. Do you think you could explain this apparent nonsense to us ordinary folks?

You may not be 10 years old, but you don’t appear in the slightest conscious of how much of a parody your post seems to be of a particular mindset. Either that or you are a superb trickster (though I doubt that).

bjcc, you say I can't give you a precise moment of passing control, because it depends on the specific circumstances. I believe that it passes from the moment the aircraft comes to a stop and the doors are opened. I don’t believe that “it depends on the specific circumstances”. The key point is not which of us is right here, but that something so important is not clearly understood by everyone concerned. Such mis-appreciation might also explain the police behaviour to which this thread is directed.

You also say that terrorism is introduced into this is because it is the relevant subject This is a self-serving statement and I beg to suggest that if this is the view taken somewhere important - like amongst the police - it is equally wrong that such an important re-definition has not been drawn to the attention of flightcrew.

These are precisely the sort of confused lines of communication that leads to mistakes, including bad mistakes. And to return to the theme of this thread, it also explains why several bodies have sought an explanation as to the decision-making in the events concerned. If the security services have been redefining events and not communicating their thinking, then we have a potential explanation for the bizzare and unprecedent events in Prestwick.

[ekw]

Well said Snaga.

In the old days (before 9/11), the police reponse to a hijack was to get the aircraft on the ground (preferably in someone elses jurisdiction) and isolate it. There would then be a stand off and negotiation. Bomb threats would never have been dealt with like this, and in most cases would have been categorised as a "crank". If there was real suspicion that there might be a bomb, then of course the focus was on the safety of passengers and crew - which meant getting them away from the threat.

9/11 created an additional threat profile - 'how many people on the ground is the culprit planning to kill'? It has also created a new set of opertational orders for police and airport security which tend towards overreaction and treating everything as worse case scenario. The politicians are really to blame (as ever) because they will want their scapegoats when something goes wrong. 'Why didn't you do this or that'?.

The Irish Government is right to challenge the reaction because we need a bit of sanity to return to this type of contingency planning. We do not need every single incident to be treated as a worse case scenario. There should be corroborating evidence available first - as well as a distinction between the different types of incidents. In the case of 9/11 the corroborating evidence was there, the FBI just didn't see it.

It reminds me of some third world countries where you can get executed for something relatively minor, which makes up for the fact that your chances of getting caught are slim.

[ekw]

There does not seem to have been much debate about the fact that there were a bunch of teenage adolescents onboard (as opposed to the adult variety), and it was their teacher who handed up the note.

I'm sure that on the next occasion, the accompanying teacher will do his own threat assessment.

ps Couldn't resist this remark -

I bet the police raised the threat level because of the large number of potential Irish terrorists onboard :-)

[Bomber Harris]

Ok Loadie, so you're not a child. And maybe you are not trying to wind us. This is worrying...you actually believe what you are saying. Please try put yourself into our shoes and reread some of the eh...stuff...you've written.

here are some examples:
If Ryanair and the Irish govt don't like the way it was handled then don't operate in the UK. They are an Irish airline and are an overseas carrier when it comes to UK emergency planning.


This can be translated easily as "wah wah wah it's our trainset wah wah wah why don't you go home and play with your toys wah wah wah". Not really a fitting statment to be made to a group of airline pilots.

Thats ten years of keeping myself alive in my previous employment as 'you never know' has kept me on this mortal coil more than once

This can be translated as "I am really a secret agent and you have no idea who you are talking to. So be careful. If you are lucky me and me mate Bond, James Bond, will tell you all about hijacking". No room for cloak and dagger stuff here either loadie (or should i say "mittie"). Now pick up you hand held scanner and back to checking those passengers.

You stick to flying as you know nothing about security operations do you both???

And this is "wah wah wah, stop picking on me, wah wah wah, or i'll tell my daddie, wah wah wah"

All through your statements is a complete misunderstanding of the simple point that most posters are trying to make. Here it is AGAIN. If there is a suspected bomb on board then it has to be taken seriously or else ignored. No halfway measures. No matter how you tart it up, there is no justification for leaving passengers on the same vehicle as a bomb for 2 hours, whether its a plane, train or bus.

Unless of course somebody is sitting on a pressure activated bomb and if they move then everone will die. Now this happens all the time in bruce willis movies. So I'm sure you have seen this many time in your time as a spy loadie. 'you never know' has kept me on this mortal coil more than once

Now please make an argument I can respect you for. No more whining, and for gods sake read your posts as an observer before you post them.

[Shuperstar Loadie]

Bomber. If YOU had bothered to read the first sentance of my first post you would have read that I agreed that the pax should be disembarked with the minimum of delay.

Terrorist organisations are actively trying to find different ways to get at you or I on whatever means of transportation we may use. By taking a careful and security consious approach we can stop these vile persons from killing you or I. Yes a two hour delay is unacceptable but if a device has been placed on board it will have been intoduced on the ground thus will have been made to withstand all the phases of flight until it is initiated. So in that respect once on the ground the likelyhood of any device going off is small unless set off by a pax that has a trigger or the device itself. Hence caution when disembarking them as until identified or searched everyone is a potential threat.

Yes yet again it was wrong to leave pax there for that long but they were in more danger in the air than on the ground.

No I am not a walter mitty as if you knew me you would know my background as may do on here.

So if you want to go on about something you do know nothing about carry on. Please dont be little me with security as not once have I told you how to fly an aircraft.

[alibaba]

:ugh: :ugh:

Nice one loadie! Honestly. :} :}

Please dont be little me with security as not once have I told you how to fly an aircraft.

How many times have I or other people heard this comment from a £4.50 an hr BAA official over a pass or something else. :D

Please if you are not still in school? Go back to school and learn how to construct a sentence. This might help other people including the general public communicate with you.

p.s. grunting doesn't count as communication. Cheers Kevin. :ok:

[Bomber Harris]

Loadie, I have to say that this post is much better and does actually make me want to have a discussion with you (not agree with you, just discuss!). You did have a little tantram at the end of the post but we all do that from time to time.:)

First of all by saying I know nothing about security because I am pilot implies that my collegues who are pilots know nothing about security(that was the little tantram:) ). This is categorically wrong. Pilots are aware of the operational security issues that affect aircraft operations e.g. interception procedure, in flight device searches etc etc. We may not know AS MUCH as you about security but we do know something. And that "something" is enough for us to have a discussion. We have a RIGHT (not just a legal right, but an ethical right) to discuss how we think bomb threats on board aircraft should be handled.

Next of all you have finally agreed that
Yes a two hour delay is unacceptable
Well that is what the whole post is about. The Irish government therefore have a right to ask why this unacceptable delay occured.

Your other comment which has a slight whiff of racism
Im sure the Irish authorities would have acted just as fast??????
however I AM giving you the benefit of the doubt and assuming it is just good old fashion sarcasim. My response to this comment is that the Irish security services will recieve the same criticism on Pprune if they take similarly irrisponsible actions. The fact that they are or are not more capable than British Security services is completly irrelevant.

I have to question a comment you made
Yes yet again it was wrong to leave pax there for that long but they were in more danger in the air than on the ground
To me if a bomb goes off in an aircraft with 4 tonnes of fuel on it; well it doesn't really matter where I am, unless of course I'm not on it:} :}
Is there something I'm missing here?

I must admit loadie, your last post doesn't make sense in a couple of places. i'm not trying to goad you but maybe you could re-read and rephrase a couple of points which I'm sure were well intentioned

[Shuperstar Loadie]

He is a sentence for you Kevin.

Get back into the condom you have got out of for your own safety.

Bomber. Yes a reasonable dicussion would be the way forward. The airline that you fly for will have security measures and SOP's that are to be followed, agreed?, i'm just pointing out that some countries are not as stringent as the UK. and yes that was sarcasm.

[bjcc]

Bomber

I don't denie your right to discuss, not your obvious vested interest in what went on, as it I guess may happen to you one day.

The picture is incomplete though in the 2 specific cases, and really, this is not the place you will get answers to the questions you want answered.

For instance, you may or may not know that the decision to intercept and divert is taken by the Mil, not the police, not the Goverment.

The result of that decision is an aircraft arriving, probably with the emergency call, Full Emegency, Bomb warning to aircraft.

It is then the Police get invloved. And that is probably the first Police have heard of it.

At that point, it could go all sorts of different ways. The chances are it is a wind up. Every single one of these threats I have ever heard of has been. Someone thinks its funny, and does it. The airline concerned codes it as they feel appropriate. And Police Action will follow from there.

There are other concerns than the pax on that one aircraft, and I wasn't party to what happened in these 2 cases, so I can't tell you if it was coded green, or if the Police felt that the most appropriate action was detain on the aircraft, or there was another factor that delayed the evacuation.

I can tell you, I have dealt with this sort of incident lots of times, in one case only was the aircraft evacuated, and that was before we arrived. Mostly, they are dealt with by a Police officer going on board and investigating, the culpret usualy quickly being identified and arrested. There then remains no need to evacuate.

I stress, I don't know the ins and outs of these 2 cases, but then nor does anyone on here.

The issue is a lack of explanation and communications between a number of different agencies, and I'm afraid it's not new either. In the mid 90's we were asking for better liason and communication between everyone concerned, it seems nothing has changed.

[SIDSTAR]

Guys,

Never mind the handbags at 40 paces. The simple fact of these two incidents but especially the Ryanair one is that the cops etc screwed it up royally and the Irish govt is more than correct to question that cockup, as would any other foreign govt whose a/c had been treated in such an appalling and downright dangerous manner.

The real effect of this bungling is that those of us with common sense (a rare commodity it seems) will from now on, declare some other sort of emergency when faced with this issue. We'll land at the nearest suitable airport, get the pax and ourselves off pronto and to hell with the UK govt's arrangements.

Once I have my pax and crew off the a/c, the cops can play with it to their heart's content. I don't give a toss whether they blow it up if that's what they wish. If they want to arrest me, I'll take my chances with the judge in court later. Now where will that leave the precious Mr Blair and his team of comedians. Do I care? I'd prefer to be still alive and so I'm sure would all of the pax and crew. At the end of the day that's what I'm paid to do, and what they, the ANO, the company, and it seems, the Irish govt agree I should do.

[Bomber Harris]

BJCC, all good info. I have to agree that all the facts are not in yet. And you make the most important point that the least likely place someone will find sensitive security info will be on a public website. In fact I have had to bite my tongue in order not to mention my own internal procedures during this discussion because I felt it would not be true to the 'security cause'.

It looks like we both agree there was a systemic failure here. I was aware of some of the detail you mentioned but not all of it. Either way it leads to the logical conclusion that if all the individual departments followed their brief, then the controlling organisation needs to be taken to task i.e. the government.

So, in my opinion, this letter is a good thing for pilots and others interested in security.

Now, as already stated the Irish government are probably in no place to be smug about this. However, that is not relevent to the argument. Let me explain; if you are the best golfer in the world then by definition your coach cannot be as good as you. The British govenrnent may be good at this, but it seems like they need a little coaching at the moment!!

Sidstar, I think your approach is admirable but I would prefer to whine until the problem is fixed. However, I am hanging up my handbag on this issue, it's all been said!!!!!

[derekvader]

Read my earlier post, and imagine the worst sight facing you---by our 'own' team. If I had been the captain, I would have been breathing fire, but I might still have complied.

There is very little chance that UK Police will shoot to kill again after what happened at Stockwell tube station. Someone with a bulky overcoat running towards a crowded place - well, maybe. Someone getting OUT of an aircraft - no way. The absolute worse they would do to someone emerging from an aircraft is shoot them in the leg or something, if that, although I suppose there is an even more miniscule chance of them being a really bad shot and hitting somewhere more vital. Either way, I think I would rather take my chances and offload myself, because at that point, the chances of my dying or being seriously injured are significantly higher in the "remain on plane" option.

[Toulouse]

What a totally stupid answer!
Mutt

I concurr, what a pointless post.

[Toulouse]

Yes sounds like a delay because pax should be disembarked with the minimum of delay. Green threat? no, aircraft do not need to divert for this. Prestwick was the correct airfield to land at and an F3 escort is the best cause of action as 'you never know!!'
If Ryanair and the Irish govt don't like the way it was handled then don't operate in the UK. They are an Irish airline and are an overseas carrier when it comes to UK emergency planning.
Im sure the Irish authorities would have acted just as fast??????
SL

Maybe you're right, and to be honest, seeing the totally inept fashion in which these bomb threats were handled, I think I would feel safer avoiding British airspace... but that's a bit of an illogical approach, isn't it? The more logical approach: that the British authorities learn from these events and rapidly improve how they act in these situations

Regarding the Irish authorities acting just as fast??? Sarcasm perhaps? I'm sure they would not have acted "just as fast" and hope they would have acted alot faster.

[FullWings]

Up to fairly recently, there was never any doubt about your course of action if you developed a 'security' problem in British airspace. You immediately alerted the authorities through whatever channels you could and then took advice from professionals both in the air and on the ground as to what you should do. Fine.

These last two incidents, described in this thread, have injected a considerable amount of uncertainty into the minds of many pilots as to what their actions would be in a similar scenario. I, for one, will now give serious thought to executing a diversion to an airfield of our (crew) choosing and telling everyone else why after we've landed and got the passengers (and ourselves) off.

I am deeply disturbed by those who claim to work in the 'security industry' defending what any reasonably intelligent observer can see are two monumental communication and leadership cock-ups. I think those who were involved 'in the field' at these incidents must take a share of the blame; "But I was only following orders..." has not been a good excuse since Nuremburg.

Unless rectified quickly, this will cause a serious breach of trust between pilots and officialdom in the UK. After all, we are both on the same side, aren't we?

[DogsDiner]

Sorry, I hope I don't sound too much like an Airport Security Operative, but could someone please explain. What was the point of scrambling(or possibly diverting from a routine patrol) a Tornado to escort the flight to an airport that surely the crew knew (or even if they hadn't actually been there before, knew were it was) how to get to, and even if they weren't sure they could have got radar vectors.

So what was the point of the Tornado?
To give the Tornado crew some practice at interception?
To shoot the aircraft down if it didn't go to PIK?

[captplaystation]

SIDSTAR, and a few posts ago, FullWings, you hit the nail on the head.I think any of us who take our Command authority/ responsibility seriously, are left with very little choice. Take care of yourself ,and those you are charged with taking care of, and sort the "bull****" out from a safe distance on the ground.DogsDiner, I think the answer to both your suggestions is Yes,so the question is, do you really want to be the guinea-pig , and do you really want "your life in their hands" ( imagine, mind you ,the same scenario in French airspace over open countryside heading Northbound towards Paris. . . . No thanks)Methinks a Pan/ Mayday with a request to land at the nearest suitable airfield for technical reasons , is the only way to go if you wish to have some influence on the outcome.For those of you who think otherwise Good Luck.