London to Washington Flight diverted to Boston

[CherokeeDriver]

3 SLF had a confrontation with the crew apparently.

On Sky Breaking News right now.

[Fernando_Covas]

Skynews reporting that a 767 of United bound for Wahsington from London has diverted to Logan after a disturbance onboard.

[Ranger One]

Skynews reporting that a 767 of United bound for Wahsington from London has diverted to Logan after a disturbance onboard.

Apparently a female pax got catastrophically claustrophobic and lost the plot completely. No drama, move along, nothing to see here.

R1

[Fernando_Covas]

Fighter planes escorted the aircraft into BOS. Woman said to have had a screwdriver and matches.

[CherokeeDriver]

Glad to see the hightened security at UK airports is working well.:ugh:

[Ranger One]

Fighter planes escorted the aircraft into BOS. Woman said to have had a screwdriver and matches.

Journalists... fah! Different outfits giving totally contradictory stories. One lot now say she had... wait for it... vaseline! The mind boggles.

R1

[GreatCircle]

Another media frenzy on the way, which we can all do without...in this instance though sounds like a sound precautionary measure if the news is accurate. Would have to be UAL though wouldn't it...

[HowlingWind]

Flight was UA923.

BOSTON (AP) - A woman who authorities say had a screwdriver, Vaseline, matches, and a note referencing al-Qaida is now in custody -- after the trans-Atlantic flight she was on was diverted to Boston.

Link to story (http://www.wltx.com/news/story.aspx?storyid=40995)

[jondc9]

as vaseline might be used to disguise something more ominous, I think we should pay close attention to the incident.

[PaperTiger]

And now a reference to A-Q too :sad: :rolleyes:

Officials say it started with a woman who became distraught. She was carrying vaseline, a screwdriver, matches and a note referencing al-Qaeda.

[GreatCircle]

As I said on the other thread, which will merge into this one, most unfortunate it was a US carrier i.e. UAL....and IF it was only vaseline, the American paranoia needs attention.

IF, it included screwdrivers, matches, notes to ALQ, Taliban or whatever, then a sound precautionary measure, with the usual US National Guard itchy finger part timers escorting her down...

Media Frenzy ahoy. The last thing we need.

[haughtney1]

latest BBC report..........a 60 year old woman acting suspiciously

[oceancrosser]

Stuck in a hotel with CNN the only channel in English.

Incredibly stupid coverage by CNN, with two ladies, Daryn Kagan and Carol Lin blabbering away utter rubbish.

Be sure, this is going to fill airtime for hours to come...

Professional bull****ters!

[GreatCircle]

It'll all come out in the wash.....but if it is a 60 year old grannie, then the UAL bunch ought to ashamed. as I say, it'll all come it in the wash...

[Craggenmore]

I wonder how many non US crews will bother to declare a Mayday over FAA airspace now? :confused:

Sky News really is appalling too. Its just total waffle to fill up airtime!

[GreatCircle]

[quote=Peter Wacker]
I am sure the crew acted appropriately. Flatten her and get the duct tape out for starters.
/quote].

Ah yes, the measured approach of a professional flight-crew...

Aware of appropriate measured actions during an alleged security breach - all of our outfits have procedures...and I am sure the actions of the cabin staff in their minds was correct at the time. In hindsight, their actions will be under the microscope ...let's hope for their sake they didn't overdo it, but by current accounts, they went a tad OTT.

Sad, but I know plenty folks now avoiding UAL, DL, CO, US, AA and going to the US via Canada and on BA/VS/BMI because of the jitters actions like this cause... and headlines like this will do nothing for corp PR...let alone revenue.

[jondc9]

what is wrong with the coverage? facts as they become available, updates to past reports and thoughtful comments by those who might know something of aviation or security.

[Airbubba]

Our own jondc9 has been giving a very good overview of the issues involved in the divert live via phone on CNN.

[jondc9]

thanks airbubba

if anyone has anything they think is material to coverage, post it here and I will try to get it on if asked later.

I do think we just have a scared woman who meant no harm, but we know very little right now

jon

critiques welcome

[atakacs]

screwdriver, vaseline, matches, and a noteHmmm... opens a whole lot of interresting scenarii :mad:

[wheelbarrow]

It's absurd that a plane full of passengers was endanangered by scrambling jet fighters because a bonkers 60 year old woman had a jar of vaseline. Declaring a "security emergency" over the incident was just plain stupid, being as she had been tied up anyway. Terrorists don't make threats before they act. Closing an airport and throwing passengers luggage around on the tarmac after diverting under fighter escort is not going to help the airline industry.

[BitMoreRightRudder]

Now I'm not saying this woman had a screwdriver, or even a screw loose, we don't know the facts as yet. This does bring to my mind however the article in the comment section of a british broadsheet written by Martin Samuel yesterday. I don't know if anyone else read it - in the article he made the case for the profiling of passengers, paying particular attention re handsearches/additional screening, to those whom intelligence sources believe pose the greatest theat. It was his solution to the current raging argument over delays brought on by additional security measures. And I don't have it to hand to quote verbatim, but he basically said there was no point carrying out searches on "75 year old grandmothers" as clearly they don't fit the profile the authorities are most wary of.

IF this woman was carrying a screwdriver or anything that should not have passed security, then it is a clear sign to all those who seem to value commercial expediency above safety that sadly the way things are we all must be searched before boarding an aircraft.:(

Hopefully she just went doolally.

[colmac747]

....and still Sky News show this as a "Breaking News" story..

Jeez.

[Man-on-the-fence]

IF this woman was carrying a screwdriver or anything that should not have passed security, then it is a clear sign to all those who seem to value commercial expediency above safety that sadly the way things are we all must be searched before boarding an aircraft.:(
Hopefully she just went doolally.

You miss an important point. We dont Profile yet!

[MReyn24050]

From Fox News

Transportation Security Administration Director George Naccara refuted initial reports that the incident was terrorist related, and said the passenger was claustrophobic, became upset, and got into a confrontation with the flight crew.

Naccara denied reports that the woman was carrying Vaseline, a screw driver, matches and a note referencing Al Qaeda.

"I don't know what she had on board with her, but we have been told she did not have a screw driver, she did not have any liquids such as Vaseline, and any notebook she may have had, it did not contain an Al Qaeda reference," he said. "There was speculation in the beginning of all those items, but those have been proven untrue."

Massport spokesman Phil Orlandella initially said an unidentified woman carrying Vaseline, a screw driver, matches and a note referencing Al Qaeda had been taken into custody.

United spokesman Brandon Borrman said a female passenger was spotted engaging in what was described as "suspicious" activity, but he could not detail what the activity was.

[GreatCircle]

Massport spokesman Phil Orlandella initially said an unidentified woman carrying Vaseline, a screw driver, matches and a note referencing Al Qaeda had been taken into custody.

Orlandella, as a seasoned Massport spokesman needs to be let go. i.e. fired. This type of misquote just fuels the jitters and paranoia of the American traveling public and something we can all do without.

The sensationalist and inaccurate news coverage, and the banal nonsense from CNN, Fox and the usual always-on news stations is flabbergasting. No wonder many ppruners react the way they do to media if this debacle is anything to go by.

[Low Flier]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/graphics/2006/08/11/matt.gif

[finfly1]

OK, to quote myself (on my weblog) the US is winning the war against Claustrophobia.

I am sure the cost of this episode is six figures, and impossible to calculate the upsets to people who miss connecting flights, cruises, court dates or other life changing events as a result of the delay.
To quote self again:

O --- which is it? We are sniffing bags and using F-15's because someone had a panic attack, or there IS a terror connection which is being vigorously denied by all the reporting sources?


And parenthetically, is the sudden 'discovery' of a new bunch of calls to emergency ref the WTC attack merely in order to promote the inevitable series of news [or is it entertainment?]specials sure to be perpetrated as the grim anniversary approaches?

[SLFguy]

OK - it's all gone crap.
I mean....non events take up hours of news space. A few years ago a dippy passenger would have been sorted out and not a word would have been heard. Now? Hundreds of hours of analysis and 'What if?' scenarios.
I'm bored of hearing it.

am I missing the point here or what??:confused:

(a) I don't think the newspapers chose to divert..the commander, (with, I guess, appropriate consultation & consideration chose to divert).

Given (a) above occured, and (b), we are in the middle of a security issue regarding planned destruction of multiple aircraft, then I'm in no way suprised the press are crawling all over this one.

Some of you people seem to think that all terrorists wander around with turbans and AK47s! You should perhaps remember some of the sweet innocent looking girls that used to be in the Bader-Meinhoff units!!

[wheelbarrow]

A claustrophobic 60 year old woman with a jar of hand cream is hardly a security threat. The aircraft was, however, put in danger in danger by the captain declaring a "security emergency". Having two fully armed fighters scrambled turned a minor drama into a potential disaster.

[G-CPTN]

Apparently she was sitting next to an emergency exit, and fellow passengers were afraid that she might open the exit in an attempt to escape.
Just imagine the mayhem if she'd managed to open it at cruising height! :cool:

[wheelbarrow]

How exactly was she going to open an emergency exit while the aircraft was pressurised? And how are jet fighters going to do anything to stop her if she could?

[G-CPTN]

She had a jar of vaseline and a screwdriver!

[wheelbarrow]

Right. Nothing quite so dangerous as a well lubricated screwdriver.

[woolyalan]

People are saying it was stupid to declare a "security emergency", but really, was it?
The captain may have just been told that "Theres a nutter running around with vaseline and a screwdriver" (s)he may not have been told it was a little old lady that might be just a bit claustrophobic. And given the events last week I can't disagree with the decision the captain made.

It may be nothing (probably is) old lady and vaseline kinda go together nothing to worry about, the screwdriver though, a bit harder to place.

[G-CPTN]

From recorded interviews with passengers, I've heard that she was attracting attention to herself and behaving sufficiently strangely that fellow passengers alerted the cabin crew. When the suspect attempted to visit the toilet she was prevented from doing so by a stewardess. This prompted a confrontation where the suspect pulled-down her trousers and knickers at which stage two passengers restrained her.

BTW, is 59 'old'?

[BOAC]

Ignoring all the ?'humour'? on this thread, the flight originated in London where 'security screening' is supposed to be an an all-time high. She boards with a rumoured closed jar (NB Liquids or 'gel' is banned) which is potentially inflammable, reported 'matches' and a potential weapon.

Compare this with the fiascos that operating crews are experiencing.

[flash8]

It really is an absolutely sad and tragic situation, if reports are to be believed and this was just a middle aged/old woman with a jar of handcream and possibly some slight mental imbalance.

I would personally be far far more worried about trigger happy National guard jocks and current US policy than one old batty deary.

It really does show you though the state to what paranoia has reached. I mean, how much further can it go? Will "overdressed" passengers be asked to remove clothing before boarding? Laugh you might, but quite frankly the whole situation is completely absurd, and has been for some time. Engineered no doubt by certain parties to meet their own agendas.

As for this massive terrorist plot. It came just as confidence in the government and police in the UK must be at an all time low (especially in relation to terrorism) - the arrested must have been the geese that laid the golden egg for a lot of people. Give the current propensity of the UK government to bare face lie (and having the arrogance to think they will get away with it) it will be interesting to see how things unravel.

[GreatCircle]

...and get restrained into your seat when you are suffering from claustrophobia or some sort of ailment...and get arrested as a result...then have Massport spokespeople concoct blatant lies to create even more paranoia.

And of course, the part time, National Guard pilots, with their itchy fingers get scrambled in the process to add some good old Hollywood-esque drama to the plot.

Yes, tongue in cheek, but a very sad indictment of the state of affairs we now live in.

As a professional aviator who knows using my own common-sense, 99.999999999 per cent of customers are fine - it's likely the crew training needs modified from this sort of behaviour.

In terms of BOAC's comment on the nonsense local and overseas crews have to endure when reporting for duty, I agree, the fiasco needs sorting pronto...off on another LGW sector next week, and looking forward to it like a hole in the head if my experience is going to be like what I endured last time...

Friendly Skies?....not anytime soon!

[Kirstey]

Can anyone tell me why the stop aeroplane and do the business on the runway? why don't they taxy into a corner somewhere and keep the runway open?

(non big aeroplane pilot here - so apologies if I've missed the obvious!)

[scruggs]

Not a pilot also, but if I was to have a guess, I'd say it was either to keep the aircraft from the populated terminal areas and/or it is safer/easier for the appropriate security/police personal to carry out their business.

As I say, that’s just my guess.

Changing the subject slightly, I saw an interview with Captain Eric Moody on Sky News - he said was a laughable over-reaction this incident has been.

[BahrainLad]

Not a pilot also, but if I was to have a guess, I'd say it was either to keep the aircraft from the populated terminal areas and/or it is safer/easier for the appropriate security/police personal to carry out their business.


It also made for exceptional television.....................:ugh:

[derekl]

What did they expect to happen if they tried to separate a 59 year old American woman from her anti-wrinkle cream? :)

[GreatCircle]

Procedures for dealing with aircraft involved in security alerts when on the ground are a combination of central and local policy - the airport operator will find a remote, secure location for the aircraft, away from populated and other sensitive areas of the field where the unloading and checking of the craft can take place - normally remote and secluded.

Not ever having operated into BOS, althought passed through it in the back, I can't provide precise comment why the 76 was parked on the piano keys of one the runways....but BOS is a very tight piece of real estate. Bangor would have seemed more sensible frankly - although UA has extensive handling at BOS.

As an aside, you can always count on Eric to inject common-sense into any discussion - shame he wasn't in the left hand seat of that particular service, but he is of course sadly long retired...

[GreatCircle]

We all know the mentality of American law enforcement...

This whole thread is about the reasons why the commander of the UAL service elected to divert following declaration of a security emergency, which he/she discussed with company based on info from cabin staff in the thick of it.

Without the press jumping in (CNN's coverage was appalling, with "experts" dragged in who knew little and waffled for their fee), whilst I agree with the PIC's decision or not, or whether the jittery cabin staff over-reacted, or not (and if they are THAT jittery - time to seek new employment), what we would like to hear about -

1. How a seemingly distraught woman suffering from an ailment became subject of a security emergency and was restrained by PAX and Cabin Crew?

2. If she posed a threat by sitting at an emergency exit...were suggestions made to move her to another seat ?

3. What information PIC received and interpreted to turn this incident into a major flap complete with National Guard?

4. Why Boston and not some other under-used field ? (operational ease reasons I imagine)

5. What will be the consequences for a woman, who may have had some form of illness, and may have been innocently carrying "banned items" - matches and petroleum jelly - which should have been picked up at screening...

When all of that's answered, then we'll know why and can criticise or support the commander involved.

[grimmrad]

Not a pilot also, but if I was to have a guess, I'd say it was either to keep the aircraft from the populated terminal areas and/or it is safer/easier for the appropriate security/police personal to carry out their business.
As I say, that’s just my guess.
Changing the subject slightly, I saw an interview with Captain Eric Moody on Sky News - he said was a laughable over-reaction this incident has been.
If you look at the runway where the plane is located it says 15R. This is by far the closest runway to the terminals, so by no means a "remote corner" of the airport... It is actually 330 meters away from Terminal E (Google Earth 42'22'18.5''N and 71'00'52.42'' W)
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2006/08/16/us/16cnd-logan.337.jpg

[metabolix]

Apparently she was sitting next to an emergency exit, and fellow passengers were afraid that she might open the exit in an attempt to escape.
Just imagine the mayhem if she'd managed to open it at cruising height!

Forgive me for asking, but has anyone ever tried opening an emergency exit at 37,000 ft? Surely the crew would realise that with a cabin pressurised to about 8,000 ft (approximately 7.6 psi of pressure) it's just not possible. Certainly not for a 59 year old lady anyway.

Drama crisis indeed!

[the_hawk]

yesterday (see page 2 of the thread):
From Fox News
Transportation Security Administration Director George Naccara refuted initial reports that the incident was terrorist related, and said the passenger was claustrophobic, became upset, and got into a confrontation with the flight crew.
Naccara denied reports that the woman was carrying Vaseline, a screw driver, matches and a note referencing Al Qaeda.
GreatCircle posted on p. 2, too
Massport spokesman Phil Orlandella initially said an unidentified woman carrying Vaseline, a screw driver, matches and a note referencing Al Qaeda had been taken into custody.

now CNN.com today:
The woman was carrying hand lotion, matches and a standard Phillips screwdriver, Marcinkiewicz [FBI spokeswoman Gail Marcinkiewicz] said. Up to four books of matches and screwdrivers shorter than 7 inches are allowed on flights, according to the Transportation Security Administration. But under the tighter restrictions, hand lotion is not.
Oh dear :E
Finally I have a question:
A United Airlines spokesman said the woman began her journey in Dubai, where she underwent security screening, then connected to the United flight.

Do I read correctly that she was screened in Dubai only?

[crewmeal]

Here we go again - a sledgehammer to crack a nut!!!

Why was she by the overwing exit??? I thought they were for ABP's!!!

[finfly1]

I'll bet this is one time when Channel 9 was turned off.

I also wonder if there is anybody or agency who can be held liable for any financial losses suffered by the passengers. As I said earlier, the airline is out tens of thousands of dollars, but individual passengers may have also suffered real financial loss from this episode.

Exactly WHO said she had matches etc and a letter "referencing" Al q? .

[MarkD]

hope that Massport guy got his ass kicked for his gossipmongering.

[PaperTiger]

Well, here's the latest. No guarantee that it's any more accurate than all the previous versions
http://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/9694468/detail.html
And according to (ahem..) another board, the woman in question is a bit of a 'known' nutter :hmm:

[PaperTiger]

Exactly WHO said she had matches etc and a letter "referencing" Al q? .That would be Phil Orlandella, a "spokesman" for Boston's Logan International Airport. Whether he still works there or not, I can't say.

[Airbubba]

I can't fault the crew for doing a divert after some of the conversation reported below.

From an updated article in The New York Times:
______________________________


...She also had a bottle of water, which did not appear to be supplied by the flight crew. It wasn't clear how the items made it through airport security, which is been significantly tightened since the terror plot arrests.

Later during the flight, according to the affidavit, Mayo asked a flight attendant: ''Is this a training flight for United Flight 93?'' The flight attendant didn't know if she made a mistake because the flight was actually Flight 923, or if she was referring to Flight 93, the hijacked plane that crashed in Pennsylvania on Sept. 11.

She was ''biting her fingers, rubbing her feet and in a constant state of movement. She appeared very agitated,'' the affidavit said.

She also wrote in a note and said to flight attendants that she had been in a country illegally, and later said she had photographs of Pakistan.

''She stated that the photographs would be awful, and she indicated that they related to the people that she had been with in the mountains of Pakistan,'' the affidavit said.

Flight attendants summoned the captain, who spoke to Mayo. During the conversation, she made reference to there being ''six steps to building some unspecified thing.''

''She made reference to being with people associated with two words. She stated that she could not say what the two words were because the last time that she had said the two words she had been kicked off of a flight in the United Arab Emirates,'' according to the affidavit.

The captain and purser both believed that she was referring to al-Qaida, Choldin wrote...

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/us/AP-Flight-Diverted.html

___________________________________

[flash8]

She had a bottle of water, mentioned some alleged photographs of Pakistan (sheez, thats serious!), agitated (possibly because of the amount of attention she was receiving) and mumbling probably slightly incoherently by published accounts. All signs of a batty old crow, not a determined al-qaida terrorist.

Whilst I can't fault the judgement of the commander (after all I wasn't there) there is a slight odour of over-reaction here going by published accounts.

The disturbing aspects though are how this incident is a reflection on how the state of things are today...

[GreatCircle]

The disturbing aspects though are how this incident is a reflection on how the state of things are today...

Quite; my feelings entirely.

If the NYT article is 100% accurate, and the UAL crew were jittery, as the date for the planned attacks was yesterday, I guess, at a pinch, you could see where they were coming from.

Also, a batty old crow, mumbling crap is not the same threat as a nutter wanting to bring jihad into our lives...

However, I am sure there will be a full report we can disect and discuss in a few months...

One of the most objectionable things about yesterday was the media hysteria - predominantly CNN whose coverage was appalling, and served no purpose at all in the intelligent debate that could have occured.

[jondc9]

First off:

why boston ? pull up a copy the of the US AIM and find out that BOSTON has an FAA sponsored K9 explosive detection team and Bangor doesn't. (though it may or may not have a local law enforcement team).

The distance from Bangor to Boston is 174.5 NM and could be flown in about 25 minutes...even though the decision to divert was made 2 hours out, even if the decision had been made over the top of Bangor, just descending normally would have taken 10 to 15 minutes...and let me tell you BOSTON is a much more capable airfield than Bangor...so if things were under control and no other factors were present Boston makes good sense!


And some of you are being critical of news coverage without actually offering suggestions on how to make it better. I was involved with CNN's coverage and would like to know what you think in a constructive way. (see previous post on page one).

As to parking the plane on 33left (the numbers of 15right showing on tv) makes good sense, as 33left/15right is not used too much at boston due to noise and prevailing winds...at least on that day.


Yes, it appears that some poor lady "lost it" and all precautions were taken. An over reaction? As long as everyone is safe, how can anyone be too critical...especially with all the fuss in England recently?

regards

jon

[Eff Oh]

jondc9
CNN's coverage, along with Fox and MSNBC (I was in Orlando at the time) was sensationalist to say the least. We had some old Senator, I think he was, saying "They have taken the nuts out of business class, but not off the airplane completely." In reference to the woman in question. I mean come on is that really nessessary? No it's not. Then we had all the "pilot experts" come on to say how expertly trained the crew were with regards to terrorist situations. Errr, what?? :confused: They then explained there was no sky martial on board and how they should have diverted to Bangor. Oh OK then. I'm sorry if it offends, but I'm not trying to be controversial (unlike CNN.) CNN, and all the other US news agency broadcasts I saw, were total sensationalist kack! And as for;
Yes, it appears that some poor lady "lost it" and all precautions were taken. An over reaction? As long as everyone is safe, how can anyone be too critical...especially with all the fuss in England recently?
By England I take it you mean the United Kingdom. Most Americans I meet (unless they play golf) don't know that we have a few nations over here, not just england!

[jondc9]

eff oh

I was the only PILOT expert on CNN that morning. I agree with you, there were people saying stuff like: "why didn't they go to bangor, maine" and everyone always says a load of %^&* about how expertly trained people are.

there were other security type experts on cnn that day speaking about certain things, the reporters were getting a bit too worked up about whether there was a Federal Air Marshal on board or not. I hope you didn't find anything wrong with what I was saying. Let me know if you did.

Forgive the mention of England rather than the United Kingdom, but once in awhile we here in the United States of America here people call us, THE STATES.

Here is the transcript of my portion of the coverage...I invite your constructive comments...I know I didn't like the bit about "burecratic" stuff...you decided.

jon

===++++==

In the meantime, we want to get more insight into what happened onboard that plane. So with on the telephone is Jon Regas. He's an airline pilot.

Jon, Give us an idea of who makes the decision to divert an airplane, and how that decision is handled.

JON REGAS, AIRLINE PILOT: Yes, good morning. Naturally, the captain or pilot in command, as it's known technically, is -- will make the final decision on the diversion. However, he usually consults with a number of people, including what is referred to as the airline dispatch office. Certainly the FAA. He -- the remaining -- remainder -- remaining part of his crew, the flight attendants are vital on a day like today.

LIN: Jon, let me interrupt you at that point. Because, if you were sitting in that pilot's seat...

REGAS: Yes.

LIN: ... and there was a confrontation going on with the crew -- all right, so things are happening onboard your plane. What you're describing is a step-by-step, pardon the word, if you will, bureaucracy to try to get this kind of clearance. What's going through your mind at the time?

REGAS: Well, the first thing nowadays is the pilot must stay in the cockpit protected by the heavy duty door in order to maintain control of the plane. They would -- the pilot would decide to start heading towards the nearest suitable airport. And while Bangor, Maine, has been mentioned, if the situation was more under control, Boston is a much better choice. It allows for better connecting flights. And as you know, the Washington shuttles from Boston could accommodate people to Washington National Airport.

But if there was a federal air marshal on board, I would consult by what we call the interphone. It's a little telephone between the cockpit and the back end of the airplane. And certainly the flight attendants.

LIN: Who would actually, if -- well, first of all, let me get back to this issue of the air marshals. Because I just spoke with a former TSA undersecretary who felt very confident that there was not an air marshal on this flight because, in his words, if there was an air marshal on this flight this would not happening as we're seeing it on the air.

So can you give me an idea of whether or not you think an air marshal might have been on this plane and could have prevented this diversion? Was able to, perhaps, control the situation?

REGAS: Well, even if the air marshal had been on board, the wise thing would have been to land at Boston and take care of it. There's simply no reason to fly some -- another 60 minutes or so down to Washington Dulles if you can land at Boston. The prime concern of the pilot, once some security situation like this -- is to get the airplane on the ground, and then it becomes no more difficult a situation than one might expect at a large retail store or building on the ground. When the airplane is in the air, it still is a potential weapon that we learned from 9/11.

LIN: Absolutely. And you know what else we learned on 9/11, John Regas, is the courage and the forethought and the training of that flight crew is absolutely critical in any kind of emergency situation. They're the one who keep the passengers calm. They're the ones who figure out if necessary how to restrain a passenger who may be a threat to others. So, really, hats off to the crew who was onboard this United Airlines flight out of Heathrow.

REGAS: The crew may have also been aided by able-bodied passengers. Perhaps, for example, a United States soldier coming home on leave. Flight attendants are trained to find the good people on board who are physically capable of helping. And they are also equipped with small devices that are not quite handcuffs -- they're sort of plastic handcuffs. And this woman could probably be relatively easily overpowered.

Many questions come to mind, though. If this was not an intentional situation, there's the question of mental illness on board of the passenger in question -- comes to mind. The question is also, has this woman been served alcohol either prior to take-off or during the flight? Or countless variations on this theme.

LIN: But the job of the pilot is to remain safe, inside the cockpit, behind locked doors, so you can manage the situation and get the plane safely on the ground?

REGAS: Yes, and sadly, on 9/11, we learned that the pilots have to stay in the cockpit. Prior to that, the -- one pilot would normally come back and assess the situation. And on 9/11, we learned that that just doesn't work anymore. And it's not because the pilots don't want to be involved, it's just that they're the only people who can get the plane on the ground.

And now, the passengers feel equipped to assist the flight attendants in a situation like this. And there had been many incidents in the past when a passenger has become unruly or has been on drugs, or has not had sufficient medication. And you may even recall a tragedy in Miami where federal air marshals shot a mentally ill passenger as the plane was parked at the gate.

LIN: Right, right.

REGAS: So all of these questions come to mind. And that's why, when the flight attendants union and the pilots union and all its interested parties, speak out about even something which we don't know for a fact yet, like a screwdriver being allowed into the cabin, really we shouldn't allow things like that, because they can be used as weapons.

And it's the flight attendants that have to deal with it. It's the flight attendants who should make the call whether something like that is allowed on the plane.

LIN: All right. Well, at this point, John, we're still working out the details of that. Conflicting reports as to whether there was a screwdriver, Vaseline, which would be considered a gel. It's not allowed on flights anymore. John Regas, thank you very much for joining with us and giving us the insight of a pilot and how a pilot would handle a situation like this on a commercial flight.

[Stumpy1000]

The paranoia is staggering.

All of the security steps are just being carried out to appease a terrorised public (terrorised by the government and media). For example X-raying of shoes, because one whacko years ago tried something that was never going to be successful. If the guy concerned would have been profiled and watched, he would never have got on board. Now we have no screwdrivers or nail clippers, and plastic knives and forks, yet in business class, wine and champers is still served in glass bottles, and poured into glass glasses. Me thinks breaking two bottles together from the trolley would provide a far greater weapons threat than a pair of nail clippers, or a screwdriver or streuths sake, a pot of vaseline. By the way was it a pot of vaseline? or one of thoses tiny containers the size of a 10 pence piece that many people take on board to stop their lips drying out.

I will never fly with a US carrier again. The last time i did the crew were jittery, and used the security issue as an excuse to be down right rude. The service was appalling. I just imagine the scene on-board the aircraft as being similar to the one in the movie 'Anger Management' with Adam Sandler and Jack Nicholson.

[Eff Oh]

Agreed Jon
Your part of the interview was well put, and correct. I guess I was more thinking of the other "experts" on CNN and all the other channels who were talking as though they were pilots. To be honest I think the whole thing is caused by the news reporters and anchormen/women. Their level of speculation is staggering! People actually believe what they are wildly speculating at. In my opinion this causes more fear than the true event. The media has a lot to answer for, and should be taken to task. Just look at the stories of vaseline, notes about A-Q, screwdrivers etc. :ugh:
Eff Oh
PS No worries about the England/UK thing. Just some of us here in Scotland sometimes think we don't exist! :)

[jondc9]

eff oh

Believe me when I say this, I have seen many behind the scenes things at CNN (which is much better than fox for example) and have actually said stuff like:

gee, I don't think this situation is that newsworthy.

I also indicated that I thought this was a mentally ill situation and not a terror plot.

BUT, the world is nuts. We try to take an honest view of flying. That is what prompted me to get involved ( I get NO pay!) Better to have a real pilot on, then someone who just sort of knows what a pitot tube is.

I will make mistakes, but I will try to be honest and forthright on the flying part of it.

It was quite early in the AM where I live (nevada, usa!) and my mind was still a bit behind the power curve. It is hard getting interviewed by someone who doesn't know about flying, and do it all before a world wide audience of millions...AND doing all of this with a really cheap telephone ( in the true mark of being a pilot, I am cheap!...my computer is 40 bucks used!)


I hope all of you will take my e mail address and when a breaking story on aviation is covered on CNN you will contact me with pertinent data as the story unfolds to help me be accurate.

EFF OH...I love Scotland! Wish I could go and see it in person!

regards

jon


ps...we here in Nevada are often overlooked as part of the USA! :-)

[GreatCircle]

Jon and EffOh (from the land of my birth - actually the city of my birth before the Great White North called my parents):

Great response Jon. Issue with the coverage, not just CNN, is the pressure to report and therefore create ratings, by being sensationalist, and flow snippets of info the viewers' way to keep them hooked. "Breaking News" soon becomes "Broken News"...

Now that Jon explained more about the United situation, and when the PIC took the divert decision, more details about the disruption in the cabin, and where she was in flight, the BOS decision looks sensible. In the thick of things, given the current climate, irrespective of this being a situation with a passenger with mental stability issues, you could understand why they reacted the way they did. I suspect the PIC knew it wasn't a security alert soon after declaring it.

We could easily divert into discussions about politics, American paranoia and so forth, but this topic is about the operational reasons and perceived threat to an aircraft which caused it to divert. Best to focus on aviation and flying!

2 years ago, on a service YYZ-GLA, just after half way, a fellow from the rear section of my flight, charged forward to the mid-galley, screaming about George Bush, screaming about how we're all going to die, and then tried to move up the cabin towards the pointy end.

The F/As grabbed him (he wasn't a small guy) and he was all over the place. A doctor on board assisted after we had him calmed (and restrained), and it turns out he had suffered some sort of seizure after the outburst, and he was provided with care, understanding and attention until arrival.

As they were trying to restrain him - and he did struggle hard - thoughts about getting to SNN were obviously right up there. However, the situation calmed down, and we arrived at GLA to be met with the usual welcoming committee.

I fall into the same trap as some contributors here, by crying foul before all the facts are out. Seeing what Jon has said about the UAL circumstances (not withstanding the F-15s of course - but that is now US procedure), how many of us, would have carried on to IAD ?

[Airbubba]

I will never fly with a US carrier again. The last time i did the crew were jittery, and used the security issue as an excuse to be down right rude. The service was appalling.

I can't argue with you there, the service on U.S. airlines is almost non-existent even on long haul. The flight attendants are empowered 'safety professionals', customer service is a fading memory in many cases.

Still, it's not just the U.S. that is jittery over the recent UK air security problem, a UK airliner diverted earlier today.

[Beausoleil]

I'm not a pilot, but I was amused by one sentence on the bbc(?) website. Apparently some expert opined that the detector was very sensitive and hence unlikely to be wrong. :rolleyes:

[Stumpy1000]

Airbubba

Just to let you know mine wasnt a 'Brit-American' Dig, it just seems the way it is. I guess it is now down to the training systems on US carriers for the Cabin Crew. Your phrase 'They are now 'Empowered Saftey Professionals' sums it up nicely. Perhaps the US carriers need two types of Cabin Crew, one half can be the 'Empowered Saftey Professionals', and i just wish the other half could be those people that make you feel special after spending a lot of money with them, that ultimately goes to pay their mortgage. Just like it used to be. I cant understand why a security situation can affect peoples manners.

[cwatters]

It now appears she did have prohibited items after all...

http://news.scotsman.com/uk.cfm?id=1208312006

Fri 18 Aug 2006
Deranged jet drama woman had screwdriver in her bag
ALASTAIR JAMIESON

Bizarre behaviour from woman carrying screwdriver and cigarette lighters Made several references to terrorism and urinated on the cabin floor Banned items on plane despite increased security embarrasing for BAA Key quote
"She made reference to being with people associated with two words. She stated that she could not say what the two words were because the last time that she had said the two words she had been kicked off of a flight in the United Arab Emirates" - FBI AFFIDAVIT

Story in full CRISIS-HIT airport operator BAA last night launched an investigation after a passenger who forced the diversion of a plane from Britain to the United States was found to have been carrying a screwdriver in her hand luggage.

FBI officials said the tool and cigarette lighters had been found in the bag of Catherine Mayo, 59, who is charged with interfering with a flight crew after being forcibly restrained as she flew from London to Washington on Wednesday.

The woman, from Vermont, urinated on the cabin floor and made comments believed to be references to al-Qaeda and 11 September while on board United Airlines Flight 923.

The flight, with 182 passengers and 12 crew members, landed in Boston with the escort of two F-15 fighter jets after the pilot declared an emergency on board.

Federal officials quickly dismissed any terror ties shortly after the flight landed, but the discovery that banned items had slipped through security at Heathrow will cause huge embarrassment at BAA.

The company has been widely criticised by airlines, travel bodies and passengers over its handling of the recent security clampdown, including two security breaches at another of its airports, Gatwick, earlier this week.

A spokesman for BAA at Heathrow said: "The safety and security of our passengers is our number one priority. We are currently investigating the incident and cannot comment further until both our investigation and the criminal investigation have been completed."

Mayo was due to appear in federal court yesterday to answer the charges.

According to an affidavit by FBI Special Agent Daniel Choldin filed in US District Court in Boston, cabin crew noticed Mayo about 90 minutes into the flight because she was pushing against the aircraft bulkhead. When the attendant told her to return to her seat, Mayo said she wanted to speak to an air marshal and made statements about knowing that people wanted to see what was in her bag.

FBI spokeswoman Gail Marcinkiewicz confirmed authorities found a screwdriver and an unspecified number of cigarette lighters in her bag, items which are banned under new security regulations. Ms Marcinkiewicz also confirmed that matches were found in Mayo's bag.

Later during the flight, according to the affidavit, Mayo asked a flight attendant: "Is this a training flight for United Flight 93?" The flight attendant did not know if she made a mistake because the flight was actually Flight 923, or if she was referring to Flight 93, the hijacked plane that crashed in Pennsylvania on 11 September, 2001.

During that time, she was "biting her fingers, rubbing her feet and in a constant state of movement. She appeared very agitated," the affidavit said.

She wrote in a note and said to flight attendants that she had been in a country illegally, and later said she had photographs of Pakistan. Her US passport indicated that on 15 August she had left Pakistan and entered the UK, according to the affidavit.

Flight attendants summoned the captain, who spoke to Mayo. During the conversation, she made reference to there being "six steps to building some unspecified thing".

"She made reference to being with people associated with two words. She stated that she could not say what the two words were because the last time that she had said the two words she had been kicked off of a flight in the United Arab Emirates," according to the affidavit.

The captain and purser both believed that she was referring to al-Qaeda, Mr Choldin wrote.

About 35 minutes later, when she tried to go to the toilet, the flight attendants directed her to a different lavatory. Instead, she pulled down her pants and urinated on the floor, Mr Choldin wrote in the affidavit, which was based on his interviews and those of other federal officials.

At that point, the captain ordered her to be restrained. Two male passengers helped a stewardess tackle Mayo and restrain her in plastic cuffs. She remained seated in the galley area of the plane until the flight landed.

The Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney said the woman was claustrophobic and became so upset she had to be restrained, and passengers said Mayo appeared to have emotional problems.

Martin Drinkwater, from London, told the Boston Globe: "She was in a frenzy. She then pulled her trousers and knickers down and squatted on the floor."

Antony Nash, 31, of San Diego, said he grew nervous watching the muttering woman seated near him, as she paced and made too many trips to the toilet. The pilot did not make a general announcement to passengers of what was happening.

"I noticed F-15s next to the plane. I said, 'Oh my God'. And then we saw the emergency vehicles," Mr Nash said.

Terror scares garner particular attention in Boston because of Logan's history. Members of al-Qaeda hijacked two planes from Logan on 11 September, 2001, and flew them into the World Trade Centre in New York.

Logan airport also was where an American Airlines Paris-Miami flight was diverted in 2001 when Richard Reid, the so-called shoe bomber, tried to blow up the plane. He was thwarted by attendants and passengers after he tried to light a fuse leading to the concealed plastic explosives in his trainers. He is now serving a life sentence.

Earlier in the week, airlines demanded investigations into security procedures at Gatwick after two separate breaches.

Thomas Cook called for the prosecution of a man who smashed his way on to one of its aircraft to retrieve a lost wallet. The charter airline operator accused Sussex Police of failing in its duty by releasing the man without charge, and is demanding answers from BAA as to how he was allowed to wander in a secure area.

The Asian man was discovered clutching a briefcase inside the plane at 1:10am on Tuesday.

The incident followed a lapse on Monday when a 12-year-old boy managed to board a plane at the airport without any documentation.

He had run away from a residential unit in the Wirral, Merseyside, and managed to pass through airport security checks and board a 6am Monarch Airlines flight to Portugal. Staff only realised the boy was a stowaway after he had sat down and been served a soft drink.

[GreatCircle]

I can't argue with you there, the service on U.S. airlines is almost non-existent even on long haul. The flight attendants are empowered 'safety professionals', customer service is a fading memory in many cases.

Still, it's not just the U.S. that is jittery over the recent UK air security problem, a UK airliner diverted earlier today.

Interesting stuff Airbubba. Safety should be a given - a standard from Timbuktu to L.A. It's the service differenciators and crew attitude that remain upmost in a customer's mind. An indifferent crew on service generally = a bad experience.

I still believe service is key - and one that makes all the difference, and safety is omnipresent, underlying it all. Quietly.

US Carriers need to tend to the ever-decreasing and scant service levels. And none of us should rest on our laurels.

[jondc9]

how many of you have had something that could have been an emergency but you chose to keep cool about it and just get on the ground...AND THEN hear from the chief pilot that YOU SHOULD HAVE DECLARED AN EMERGENCY.

anyway, United says we got a problem with a passenger, blah blah blah...ATC and FAA and UNITED dispatch react with max efforts and you get

F15's
bomb dogs

your own personal runway at KBOS

And you feel a bit sheepish.

oh well, that's the new reality.

And as to service levels on airlines...you get what you pay for if you are lucky...out here in the good old USA, under the direction of GW BUSH...we are TOLD how good our economy is and how productive we are...BUT pilots, flight attendents, mx and the like have taken huge pay cuts, work more, appreciated less and may I say, don't give a damn?

Remember the good old days, just worried about wx or engines quiting at V1?

yikes!

jon

[PaperTiger]

Jon, if I may...

You said (and I agree)REGAS: Well, the first thing nowadays is the pilot must stay in the cockpit protected by the heavy duty door in order to maintain control of the plane.which seems to be at odds with other reports (including in this thread) thatFlight attendants summoned the captain, who spoke to Mayo.I hoping that's false otherwise the 'impregnable' flightdeck thing would appear to have been a wasted effort. Or can 1 come out leaving just "the pilot" ?REGAS: When the airplane is in the air, it still is a potential weapon that we learned from 9/11.Same comment - it's not a potential weapon if the good guys are the only ones up front.

[jondc9]

papertiger

you make some good points. during live coverage you get very little information, you have to talk about things in general, vamping as it were, while waiting for facts to come in like:

the CEO of united gave all pilots a raise (science fiction of course).

Almost nothing surprises me anymore. I would HOPE that the pilots would stay behind a locked door and communicate via interphone.

While I was not on board, if the captain left the cockpit and it was locked and there was an international relief pilot on board, well I guess that wouldn't be too bad...BUT... I would rather trust the judgement of experienced f/a's (senior run from london to dc)and as it may turn out an Air Marshal than make the front end vulnerable.

Believe me, in the pre 9/11 days I would have gone back to take a look...but not now...

That lady might have been a distraction to allow bad guys to make their move.


There were actually people from TSA saying : An air marshal was not aboard the flight! Subsequent reports seem and I say again SEEM to discount that.


The news shows are in business to make money by getting ratings. I try to add some real pilot views to calm things down a bit.

You don't know how I hate stuff like:

The 737 was dumping fuel.

The pilots have trained for stuff like this for years.

The f/a's have excellent security training.

Airline management would never sacrifice safety for profit.


Care to add any?

jon

[Two's in]

Hopefully the Boston incident was a rare, somewhat unique event, caused by nervousness and overreaction by United, the like of which we should not see again for some time to come...

...or answer (B):

Muslim doctor wants apology from U.S. airline
Last Updated Fri, 18 Aug 2006 20:52:04 EDT
CBC News

A Winnipeg doctor is demanding an official apology and compensation from United Airlines after being kicked off a flight in the U.S. this week, an incident he has characterized as "institutionalized discrimination." Dr. Ahmed Farooq, a Muslim, was escorted off an airplane in Denver on Tuesday. According to Farooq, reciting his evening prayers was interpreted by one passenger as an activity that was suspicious.

"The whole situation is just really frustrating," Farooq said. "It makes you uneasy, because you realize you have to essentially watch every single thing you say and do, and it's worse for people who are of colour, who are identifiable as a minority."

Farooq said the allegation came from a passenger who appeared drunk and had previously threatened him during the trip.

When flight personnel were alerted, the 27-year-old radiology resident and two colleagues — a man and a woman — were taken off their flight. They had been returning from a conference in San Francisco.

Farooq said that even officials from the Transportation Security Administration soon realized the flight crew had overreacted, but by the time that conclusion had been reached the trio were forced to stay in Denver for the night and catch a flight the next day — at their own expense. "There's no recourse," Farooq said. "There's no way to really be able to talk to anybody to really be able to reason it out. The police officers who talked to me afterwards and subsequent officials within the first three to five minutes, they were like, 'You know what? The crew made a mistake. We apologize that they took you off. They overreacted.'"

Brandon Borrman of United Airlines told the Winnipeg Free Press this week that the airline is obliged to take any allegations threatening passenger safety seriously, particularly in the wake of last week's arrests in the alleged bomb plot on flights from Britain to the U.S.

"Whenever these types of claims are made we have a duty to investigate," Borrman said. "Our flight crews are trained to make safety the No. 1 priority."

Winnipeg MP Pat Martin has called on federal Public Safety Minister Stockwell Day to raise the issue with his American counterparts.

[TheSailor]

Hello,


A claustrophobic 60 year old woman with a jar of hand cream is hardly a security threat. The aircraft was, however, put in danger in danger by the captain declaring a "security emergency". Having two fully armed fighters scrambled turned a minor drama into a potential disaster.


I wonder if, before send the "fully armed planes"...permission was requested and granted by the president of United States...as it's seems to be a "normal procedure"....as I read from a interwiew of Richard Cheney........:uhoh:

Mr. Cheney's statement that "the toughest decision was this question of whether or not we would intercept incoming commercial aircraft" ????. Publicly available FAA documents prove that fighter jets routinely intercept commercial aircraft under certain designated circumstances without requiring or asking for approval from the White House

:)

Regards. http://photobucket.com/albums/v509/Bebermaur/th_bye.gif