PDA

View Full Version : Man runs on runway at LHR


Easy Ryder
13th Mar 2008, 15:05
On the BBC, Man with back pack runs in front a plane!?

Runway closed

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/7294745.stm

Hollymead
13th Mar 2008, 15:13
Confirmed Man arrested at 14:05 on runway 27r .

nebpor
13th Mar 2008, 15:17
Yep, other runway operating.

blue up
13th Mar 2008, 15:17
Initial report suggests that rucksack contained a 250ml bottle of water. Lucky he wasn't shot:}

Dan D'air
13th Mar 2008, 15:20
You could probably get away with a shot. It's only about 25ml in my local.

Tiddly Eater
13th Mar 2008, 15:21
According to news only 27R closed. Seems like a nutter or something more sinister. Reports say he ran in path of plane.

99jolegg
13th Mar 2008, 15:21
http://news.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30100-1309211,00.html

Daysleeper
13th Mar 2008, 15:26
Reports say he ran in path of plane.

Yeah but Heathrow's so busy that if you're on the runway it's hard NOT to be infront of a plane. :hmm:

111boy
13th Mar 2008, 15:29
the question really is "would you stop?"

xraf
13th Mar 2008, 15:32
Best you could hope for is to snag a rucksack strap following the words "positive climb" and take him for a ride to JFK they know how to deal with frozen corpses!:suspect:

Anansis
13th Mar 2008, 15:33
Does anyone know about the perimiter fence itself? Size, height, materials etc...

I recently flew from New York LGA and was shocked by how easy it would be for someone to scale its fence- a simple wire mesh fence, maybe 7 foot high with a little bit of barbed wire on top. Even passed a security gate which prevented unauthorised vehicles from driving onto the apron with nothing more than a raisable barrier (identical to the type found in car parks)....

Latest from BBC news- "northernly runway now partially operational, southern fully operational, some delays expected."

Zyox
13th Mar 2008, 15:44
Initial report suggests that rucksack contained a 250ml bottle of water. Lucky he wasn't shot:}

No chance he was from Greenpeace. Bottled water?!? :eek: He'd be kicked out instantly.

READY MESSAGE
13th Mar 2008, 15:47
Must be serious, Sky have wheeled David Learmount out!

Taildragger67
13th Mar 2008, 15:57
There's more than one place in the world where, after having scaled the fence, he'd be lucky to have actually made it to the concrete without having one or two holes put in him... :hmm:

Plastic 787,

So what? Most people (ie. the bulk of the Beeb's audience) have no idea what '27R' means, let alone '09L/27R'. It is the northerly of EGLL's two east-west oriented runways; hence it's the 'north' one. An entirely accurate description. And if it happened at the western end, then, getting a tad more technical for those interested, then '27R' is accurate.

Approach gets you lined up for '27R', not 'the northerly runway' or 'the eastern end of 09L/27R'.

slip and turn
13th Mar 2008, 16:03
Love the way that...Love the way that a certain type of PPRuNer always leaps to criticise journalists who may or may not be blessed with an inbuilt glossary of aviation jargon, and who unsurprisingly have used phrases that their audience are actually more likely to understand.

The runway inquestion IS the runway skirting the full length of the northern perimeter of the airport, and it does appear that it was very close to the 27R Threshold where the action was, and 27R was in use at the time, so what on earth is achieved by splitting hairs and introducing contrary nonsense about 09L being an equally valid description?

Learn this: Jargon is useless for any audience outside of one comprised solely of the minority groups that use it. And evidently minority groups don't always know what's best for them.

Mr Learmount is doing the rounds it seems. What he seems to want to say sounds equally useless to me. He is suggesting that small objects on runways are of no danger to aircraft - obviously he missed yesterday's revived story 'Continental Airlines metal strip caused Concorde puncture' that made it again to the newsrounds yesterday.


Edit: you said it first Taildragger ... :ok:

Plastic787
13th Mar 2008, 16:04
I meant that calling it the Northerly Runway is sufficient. You made the point exactly, the majority of the audience wouldnt know what 27R meant. So why even bother calling it this?

I'm sorry its just 24 Hour News really gets on my tits, this is a non-story thats only reported because they have time to fill and it helps them create more sensationalist "terrorist" alarm. In the good old days of the 70s/80s when there was a 6 o clock news and nine o clock news and not much in between this wouldnt have been featured at all I bet.

Anansis
13th Mar 2008, 16:10
Latest news from BBC 24 is that a controlled explosion has been carried out on two bags- no explosives were found.

plastic787- If you refuse to listen to a word the media say about anything Aviation related, how are you aware of this story!?:ugh:

Taildragger67
13th Mar 2008, 16:11
I'm actually they bothered to put in the '27R' bit - journos usually get pilloried on PPRuNe for not being 'up the curve' enough on aviation stories - so here, they appear to be trying to strike a balance between ab-initio ('the northern runway') and geek ('27R').

I do agree that 24-hr news channels need to dredge stuff up to fill the time; in this case, though, it is news when ops are (even potentially) affected as it could potentially affect thosands of peoples' travel plans.

slip and turn
13th Mar 2008, 16:14
Yeah I thought that too ... but the video footage they captured before the police told them to bugger off did show the big white numbers "27" in almost every shot so I guess that prompted someone to say "whassathen/wheresathen?"...

What I do object to, being British, yet not being allowed to set up a company named anything starting "British..." unless it truly is in remarkable ways, is the British Broadcasting Corporation's (John Sople's) howler in twice reading press release statements from BAA and labelling them as from the "British Airports Authority". That's not an aviation-related misunderstanding, it's lack of basic citizenship :p ... oh and alright then, he also propounded that other grating error about the Greenpeace "Boeing Triple-Seven" tail protest / security breach in the same breath ... altogether now (quietly :p) .... it was an Airbus not a bloody Boeing!

I wonder where the two rucksacks would be now if it had been foggy this morning....

Tigs2
13th Mar 2008, 16:14
The police probably had every right to shoot him dead. The news is saying Arabic/Asian appearance running on the runway with a ruck sack. Shoot him I say. Endangering the lives of hundreds of people. Rather than him being released and going back for a communal hug-in at green peace headquarters or wherever, if the lefty pinko officials from whoever organised this were called in to identify a stiff, then maybe they wouldn't do it again.

Plastic787
13th Mar 2008, 16:15
Im not trying to argue with anyone here I just hate the amount of hysteria that gets dredged up nowadays any time anything unusual happens. The "oh my god he's got a rucksack!" and "Car backfires in town, terrorism has been ruled out" crowd. Im a grumpy old man at 27 so just needed to vent a bit.

Herod
13th Mar 2008, 16:17
The big question has to be; did he have an airside pass?

Check Airman
13th Mar 2008, 16:18
The police probably had every right to shoot him dead.

Touched a nerve hasn't it Tigs2? Instead of killing people, why not secure the perimeter?

Check Airman
13th Mar 2008, 16:21
The big question has to be; did he have an airside pass?

LOL. Maybe he was late for work.

radarlove
13th Mar 2008, 16:22
Well in case anyone was wondering, Sky have their own level of non-aviation intelligence - even if the clue is in the name:

When Prince Harry arrived back at Brize after flying home from Dust-Central, Sky's own Geoff Meade (the defence correspondent) was standing not far from the stand as the TriStar taxied in ...

"And now if I can just talk above the noise of the 4, no the 2 engines of this RAF TriStar ..."

So, some nut jumped over the fence at LHR ... I tend to agree with those who dish this culture of sensationalism ... "American breaks fingernail in Paris" would certainly get CNN and Fox News in a tizzy ...

drspankle
13th Mar 2008, 16:28
This is from the BBC website:

Norman Shanks, a former head of security at airports operator BAA, said it was not the first time a person had climbed over airport fencing.

He said it often transpired they were drunk or mentally unstable, and occasionally they were protesters.

"Who knows what category this person falls into," he told BBC News 24.


Surely you can belong to all three...?

Tigs2
13th Mar 2008, 16:31
Check

Why add additional security to what must be 8-10 miles of fencing? Those knowingly going over that fence, do so knowing that they are doing it with criminal intent, to either disrupt or endanger flights. You do not climb over or dig under or cut through the fence by accident. No nerve touched at all.

Do you want to post sentries every 50 mtrs around the perimeter fence?? Even if you put three fences there and razor wire, if someone is determined to go through then they will. Unless of course you mine the fence line, or have a lethal electric charge going through the fence, either way it is much cheaper to shoot the person who knows they are committing the offence. just stick big sines on the fence every 50 mtrs. 'Anyone entering this area illegally, tampering with aircraft or endangering air traffic is liable to be shot', simple.

Skipness One Echo
13th Mar 2008, 16:34
Does anyone know about the perimiter fence itself? Size, height, materials etc...

I recently flew from New York LGA and was shocked by how easy it would be for someone to scale its fence- a simple wire mesh fence, maybe 7 foot high with a little bit of barbed wire on top. Even passed a security gate which prevented unauthorised vehicles from driving onto the apron with nothing more than a raisable barrier (identical to the type found in car parks)....

Does the job. If you have an 8 ft ladder thats the business. A bigger fence is dealt with by buying a bigger ladder alas.

RexBanner
13th Mar 2008, 16:36
And of course Tigs, firing off live rounds accross a crowded airport is exactly the best and safest way to deal with it isnt it? Just like in 2002 when a reaction to a possible bomb scare was to bring in the tanks?!?! Yeah coz they're going to be useful arent they!

endian675
13th Mar 2008, 16:38
'Anyone entering this area ...is liable to be shot'


They need those on London Underground.

Skipness One Echo
13th Mar 2008, 16:48
What will actually happen now is that any aviation enthusiast who points a camera or dares to have a ruck sack near Heathrow will be picked on under the Terrorism Act. Again ! The Police do love to over compensate....

Three Yellows
13th Mar 2008, 16:48
... meanwhile back to the BBC bashing, their website says


It is understood the north runway, also identified as 27R, was closed, but is now being partially used.



.. which part is being used I wonder? The left part, the right part, the end part or the beginning part?

Avman
13th Mar 2008, 16:51
27R was in use

Yes, but for departures or arrivals?

The SSK
13th Mar 2008, 16:56
Someone told me of a Swiss protester who tied a rope around himself and dangled from a motorway bridge. Police came along and cut the rope. One less protester.

Urban myth?

RexBanner
13th Mar 2008, 17:00
"Those who sacrifice part of their liberty to ensure their safety deserve neither liberty nor safety"

Old quote, cant remember who by now exactly (Jefferson maybe?) But perfectly fits the climate today and the valid point Skipness One Echo has just made.

Just a spotter
13th Mar 2008, 17:09
"Who knows what category this person falls into,"

Anyone able to account for the movements of one (ex-)Fr. James Horan?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003_British_Grand_Prix

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/6/67/Silverstone_horan.jpg/200px-Silverstone_horan.jpg

Muppet!

JAS

MAN777
13th Mar 2008, 17:13
Brought onto pprune by pruner not media !

http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?t=317958

sitigeltfel
13th Mar 2008, 17:14
News reports say he was of Asian or Arab appearance and had removed his shoes. The rucksack probably contained his prayer mat and he was using the approach for 27R to ensure he would be facing East.

king surf
13th Mar 2008, 17:17
Thebig concern here is here is how the heck has LHR had 2 serious security breaches in as many weeks.Being an airside pass holder myself i am scanned,body searched,jacket off,shoes off etc etc,meanwhile with all the security staff looking at us with a fine tooth combe they actually lose the big picture.
It's all quite pathetic and we must be the laughing stock of the airline world.:ugh:

GearDown&Locked
13th Mar 2008, 17:34
hmmm...if this man was running down 27L who gave him clearance for TO?! He didn't get airborne... probably was exceeding his own MTOW.

I blame LHR TWR ATCers...

BoeingMEL
13th Mar 2008, 17:59
:=If this moron had been at BHX a few years ago (as I was) when a misguided fool was sucked through a BAC1-11 engine on 15/33......he may just have had second thoughts := cheers bm

jcds
13th Mar 2008, 18:11
The man in question was aprehended within 4 minutes by the police!!
:D:D
He did go under an aircraft on the runway after jumping the fence though.
I would have thought totally insane he must have been.

rogervisual
13th Mar 2008, 18:14
Lucky for all us airport workers from 2009 this will not be able to happen again, because we shall all have our national identity cards which will ensure this never happens again. We should count our blessings that we have government that knows what is best for us.:mad:

flowman
13th Mar 2008, 18:18
What's needed is an airport fence tax. That would fix it.

captplaystation
13th Mar 2008, 18:22
Probably a pilot, late for his report, and realised the only way to get to the aircraft on time , and avoid all the [email protected] we crew are subjected to in Planet UK ,was to go direct to his airframe.
An Airport can never be, or even come close to being, a secure area, particularly one on the scale of LHR.
As we all know, all the rest is just face-saving and window-dressing.

autothrottle
13th Mar 2008, 18:23
like it rogervisual, like it!

handflown
13th Mar 2008, 18:26
Sure he will probably get off, be put up in the hilton and given an outward bounds weekend to rehabilitate him but then he will be prosecuted for not wearing a Hi Vis jacket. :rolleyes:

jcds
13th Mar 2008, 18:29
...... and dont forget the prosecution for not wearing safety shoes!
That charge will mean he will get a full massage while on holiday in rehab!!:ugh:

111boy
13th Mar 2008, 18:51
actually good point about the high vis jacket, how the hey did they know he was there even without a high vis ?

two green one prayer
13th Mar 2008, 19:14
Anansis asked about the perimeter fence at LHR. When I was a contractor I did several jobs next to the fence and can confirm that it is standard seven foot chainlink with a standard barbed wire topping. An ordinary pair of wirecutters would get you through in seconds. It is however, enough to keep out drunks and unprepared idiots. I don't think any fence by itself is enough to exclude the determined. Put in a higher fence and the malefactor buys a longer ladder. Replace the wire with steel angle and the malefactor buys a hacksaw, or digs underneath it. The existing fence does the job it iis meant to do and no upgrade would much improve security.

aviate1138
13th Mar 2008, 19:21
Might I suggest an electrified fence would do the trick? :rolleyes:

Bit of extra carbon wouldn't affect Global warming much. Give something for the birds to peck at........

TheOddOne
13th Mar 2008, 19:21
Norman Shanks, a former head of security at airports operator BAA, said it was not the first time a person had climbed over airport fencing.

Norman Shanks? Blimey! I remember him when he was a 2-ringer 'L' grade in Terminal 3 back in the black uniform days (well before the 'Brown Army'.)

TheOddOne

juststartin
13th Mar 2008, 20:14
Tis very true, if someone mined and wants to get in - they will find a way!!

Where is the deterent for mind-less morons like this person. Like said before he will probably be put in the Hilton, have a slap on the wrist and be on his way.

In my opinion the only deterent would be for this arse to have been shot (maybe with placcy bullets or something), make an example of him! I dont think hed be doing it again in a hurry!

When will this country stop being such a soft touch - and this isnt over-hyping everything - and get tough with security issues, and make a stand to everyone else that this country and its assets will be protected.

I have no problems with protesters or people wanting to make a point, but breaching security, no matter how lothargic it is, deserves a severe penalty.

Dont know the ins and outs on this idiot, but I think a long stretch in a Mental home might deter others.

darrylj
13th Mar 2008, 20:19
from the BA staff site;


Man arrested at Heathrow



A man has been arrested after he scaled the perimeter fence at Heathrow airport and ran into the path of an aircraft.

The incident happened just after 2 pm on Heathrow's north runway after the man, carrying a bag, scaled the fence surrounding the airport.

A BA member of staff contacted BA security, who in turn called the police. They apprehended the man at 2.17 pm.

The runway has been closed by the airport authority and will remain closed for two hours while the bomb squad inspect the bag.

BA, which was not directly involved in the incident, is experiencing initial 60-minute delays and 40-minute stacking delays and has cancelled the following flights:

* BA322/7 Heathrow to Paris and return
* BA404/1 Heathrow to Brussels and return
* BA442/3 Heathrow to Amsterdam and return
* BA1458/65 Heathrow to Edinburgh and return
* BA914/5 Heathrow to Frankfurt and return


A Metropolitan Police spokesman said: “A man was arrested and is currently in custody. A bag has been recovered.”

LGS6753
13th Mar 2008, 20:33
He wasn't shot when the incursion happened, but surely it's not too late to shoot the pillock now???:E

Sir George Cayley
13th Mar 2008, 20:41
"A bag has been recovered":D

Wasn't mine by any chance? Been waiting ages:ok:


Sir George C

martinidoc
13th Mar 2008, 21:00
A 2 hour runway closure while they inspect his bag??? Why???

Paradise Lost
13th Mar 2008, 21:17
You can't just offer to shoot the poor fellow.....he has human rights don't you know? I think a short holiday on Rendition Airways would rectify his errant ways and he could once more return to society as a useful citizen; maybe he could become a consultant for perimeter security or just be a pilot/journalist.

Check Airman
13th Mar 2008, 21:32
News reports say he was of Asian or Arab appearance and had removed his shoes. The rucksack probably contained his prayer mat and he was using the approach for 27R to ensure he would be facing East.

:D:D:D

Can't blame the guy for being smart. He was probably heading for the centerline to make sure he was exactly east (+/- 5 degrees:E)

Check Airman
13th Mar 2008, 21:44
just stick big sines on the fence every 50 mtrs. 'Anyone entering this area illegally, tampering with aircraft or endangering air traffic is liable to be shot', simple.

Tigs,

Tigs

I'd rather take my chances with a police chasing lone fool than having bullets whizzing past. The fool MAY do damage. The bullets WILL do damage.

I'm not sure what sines on the fence every 50 meters would do either. Better still, instead of using multiple sines, why not just use 1 sine along the entire fence?

http://www.math.unh.edu/mac/calc/sine_whole.gif

Sine courtesy of http://www.math.unh.edu/mac/calc/sine_whole.gif

SkyCamMK
13th Mar 2008, 21:51
If only it were just the sines!! Good job flying is a mainly practical skill... Could he have climbed on any "log tables" in the vicinity?

jcds
13th Mar 2008, 21:52
"" A 2 hour runway closure while they inspect his bag??? Why???""


For a start they didnt know what was in the bag.
Police deemed it highly suspicious and placed a cordon
They had to wait for explosives police to inspect it
Then had to do a controlled explosion.
Scan the area for anything else he may have dropped or placed.

Once it was cleared runway had to be inspected.

Then runway 27R was reopened (Calling it 27R as that was what it was operating as)

Thats why it took the time it did

jcds
13th Mar 2008, 22:07
Just listened to ITN news.The lady reporter said "Apparently the man crossed the runway called "R27" !!":rolleyes:
Made me laugh!
Night everyone

Ken Wells
13th Mar 2008, 22:08
I wonder if this tosser was wearing a high Viz vest just like the Greenpeace muppets that got on top of the BA a/c last month!!!!!!!!!1

Anyway as one of my mates said today,

"I wouldn't have stopped anyway, would be fun to file a Muppet Strike"


I suppose BAA will now increase landing fees to pay for a higher fence!!!

mickjoebill
13th Mar 2008, 22:23
Despite not piloting a helicopter at the time, BAA should charge him for a "run on landing" :8



Mickjoebill

darrylj
13th Mar 2008, 22:27
maybe he really wanted to catch that emirates flight...:p

Beatriz Fontana
13th Mar 2008, 22:41
"A bag has been recovered"

Definitely wasn't flying BA... or from Terminal 4.

llondel
13th Mar 2008, 23:01
I think a short holiday on Rendition Airways would rectify his errant ways

A week of flights on Adam Air would probably do it, except they might not be flying that long.

NotPilotAtALL
13th Mar 2008, 23:16
Hi,

Have seen goats and childrens crossing the runway at Pointe Noire :)
The Casa stoped for let them cross ... (I was on the jumpseat ...)
What all this fuss for only a moron? :)

Cheers for now

View From The Ground
13th Mar 2008, 23:18
Ahhh and of course airport workers having mandatory ID cards would have prevented this....well I am sure that is what Ms Smith will tell us. I was heading for my car at about 1405 this afternoon and it was quite spectacular watching the old bill weave their vehicles (including the armoured mini tank like one) through the massive queue for Control Post 8! Looking forward to meeting Queenie tomorrow...oh or maybe the BAA won't be showing her around the less than state of the art T3. :{

John Marsh
13th Mar 2008, 23:32
Check Airman:
Excellent idea! Especially if the Y axis were labelled "voltage".:E

frangatang
14th Mar 2008, 07:12
Unlikely to happen in Gove,but l am not so sure. If the indigenous hit the meths,then run onto airfield! Been there many times,and any roots on groote these days?

Ivanbogus
14th Mar 2008, 07:21
I wonder if he contacted the TWR before entering the runway?

cwatters
14th Mar 2008, 07:27
I was wondering which newspaper he worked for?

ZFT
14th Mar 2008, 07:36
For all of you wanting people shot – I hope you never experience the ‘joys’ of mentally disturbed family or friends.

Shoot 1st, ask questions later is an awful prospect.

GOLF_BRAVO_ZULU
14th Mar 2008, 07:57
A very good point and, additionally, genuine nutters do get on to aerodromes.

Let's remember that it's the former Great West Aerodrome; not the bloody Wild West.

RFFS
14th Mar 2008, 08:41
"The existing fence does the job it iis meant to do and no upgrade would much improve security."


Yes keep the law abiding fully security checked empoyees in, not nutters out!!!

plane silly
14th Mar 2008, 08:47
So, for those that say he should just get cuddle and the chance to apologise for causing such an inconvenience, what would your call have been if it had been a real suicide bomber?

A B744 fully loaded with a nutter underneath doesn't bear thinking about does it?

You jump the fence you take your chances...

flyr767
14th Mar 2008, 09:13
Could of been very bad indeed. Glad it turned out how it did. The fact that they got him within 4 minutes of the breach is really something to be said for. Airport security isn't going to keep everyone or everything out by itself. It's what you do if there is a security alert that counts too and they did the right thing quickly.

Wish he did get sucked through an engine though! One less crazy in the world. :E

Tigs2
14th Mar 2008, 09:45
Plane Silly

Spot on:ok::ok:

Check

I am afraid I disagree. The police are not shooting at him inside a terminal. If they were, they would not take the shot if it was not safe/clear to do so. Likewise on an Airfield, which is a very large piece of real estate, if the guy was stood next to an aircraft or with one behind him, they do not take the shot. The Heckler and Koch has a maximum range of 200m, i.e a very safe weapon to use in the middle of an airfield. Safe that is except for the person being aimed at. This was clear justification for a shoot on site policy. As Plane Silly says, what would all you people out there with your PhDs in Hindsight say if he would have exploded a bomb as he went underneath a rolling 747.

ZFT

I too hope none of my family members suffer from any form of mental illness. If they do and are likely to act as this person has done, then I would ensure that they were taken care of properly, in order to ensure that they were not a danger to themselves or others.

Taildragger67
14th Mar 2008, 09:56
Ivanbogus,

"Cross 27R and expedite, advise when clear"

Creaser
14th Mar 2008, 10:00
Heathrow Perimeter should have the same protection against errant vehicles as the terminals.
Many parts of the perimeter are vulnerable to vehicles. Enough said.

And 4 min police response isn't enough to stop a vehicle causing havoc...

Solution is around 5000? posts and also remote controlled barriers at the crash gates.

Motorway engineers can erect mile after mile of concrete barrier overnight whilst the posts are installed.

Job done. Not rocket science. Do it now, it doesn't require planning permission, need a Lord to design it nor a Queen to open it.

Anyone care to take a stab at the cost?


Creaser

mystic_meg
14th Mar 2008, 10:50
So what? Most people (ie. the bulk of the Beeb's audience) have no idea what '27R' means, let alone '09L/27R'. It is the northerly of EGLL's two east-west oriented runways; hence it's the 'north' one. An entirely accurate description. And if it happened at the western end, then, getting a tad more technical for those interested, then '27R' is accurate.


...and getting a tad more technical for you Taildragger, '27R' would be the Eastern end :ugh:

wiggy
14th Mar 2008, 10:59
Problem is where does this end...? Once you've installed your 5000 Concrete barriers to stop vehicles some lunatic will land a light aircraft at LHR without permission - then what do you do? Put a hardened roof over LHR?

777Contrail
14th Mar 2008, 11:03
A drunk, insane, protesting Greenpeace reporter!

Who was late for work.:E

p7lot
14th Mar 2008, 11:12
He was probably about to practice his TO run for the Red Bull Flugtag

Creaser
14th Mar 2008, 11:57
Problem is where does this end...? Once you've installed your 5000 Concrete barriers to stop vehicles some lunatic will land a light aircraft at LHR without permission - then what do you do? Put a hardened roof over LHR?

If concrete barriers deny the bad guys ground ramming opportunities well and good, in comparison a light plane into T5 is a fly on an elephant. T5 is the size of 4 football pitches.

What is the more likely threat and the one that is a simple one to counter?


Creaser

Skipness One Echo
14th Mar 2008, 12:17
Then having fortified Heathrow as the new Berlin, we move onto Gatwick and then Stansted and be joyous about our new shopping malls behind fortified concrete. No harm done. These things happen, knee jerk lunacy has led us to old white grannies having their shoes. Good the Police didn't shoot him even though they had reason. I think things are calming down a little bit in some respects, perspective is dawning slowly.

Concrete fortress my arse ! Someone's got shares in concrete...

TheOddOne
14th Mar 2008, 12:21
Concrete barriers to stop vehicles some lunatic will land a light aircraft at LHR without permission

Been done already (yawn)

A Chipmunk from Denham landed on the grass alongside the Northern runway during the small hours quite a few years ago now. It wasn't spotted until the First Light inspection. It belonged to a famous Daily Express journalist, though he didn't do it and didn't know if had happened until afterward. Allegedly and I believe that the controller on duty at the time went on to be GM of ATC at Gatwick (retired now!). The pilot apparently jumped over the fence (in the opposite direction from our latest amusement).

TheOddOne

Ozzy
14th Mar 2008, 12:53
Couple of points.

First, how do the police tell the difference between a suicide bomber and a genuine nutter?

Second, if the guy is willing to blow himself up I assume he is not bothered by being totalled by the aircraft he wants to take with him to paradise.

Third, given the first question, would you as a police officer drive a vehicle at him? I fecking wouldn't. I'd shoot him from a distance.

Ozzy

MuttleyJ
14th Mar 2008, 13:12
You'll never stop nutters.

LHR's not a fortress, it's a commercial airport. I realise that huge holes in BAA's security have been shown recently, but it's never going to be impenetratable.

As for shooting the guy, look what happened to Juan Charles de Menezes on the tube, and subsequent enquiries into the individual policemen involved. The possibility that they'd face manslaughter charges. That's got to put a police officer off shooting someone.

Mr.Brown
14th Mar 2008, 14:06
Probably just the first of many staged security breaches over the next year so the government can get public support for the national identity cards being madatory for airport workers. Which will be the first step to there introduction by stealth. Next it will be anyone working with kids, or in any public transport because its a free country of course!!!!!!!!!!!!!

LGS6753
14th Mar 2008, 15:13
Mr Brown,

Quite right. If he had had an ID card, he would have had to show it before scaling the fence:}

Skipness One Echo
14th Mar 2008, 15:19
Do we know who he was yet? Or why he went awandering as I'm sure the 27R piano keys aren't in The Lonely Planet Guide to London....

birrddog
14th Mar 2008, 15:36
I agree that making a bigger fence or castle wall around Heathrow will not offer more protection. If the IRA could procure, and use handgrenades at LHR what is stopping other nutters from using a mortar?

What they need is better detection and reaction of nutters about to breach the fence.

Maybe they could give Boeing the contract like the US - Mexico boarder protection / surveillance deal, so they stop bitching about the airbus air-refueling tanker deal.. :}

hellsbrink
14th Mar 2008, 15:37
Latest I have found is this

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23454597-details/Army+guard+at+Heathrow/article.do

So, he's 26, a Sri Lankan Tamil, asylum seeker (new phrase for an illegal?)mental state unknown.

FullWings
14th Mar 2008, 16:01
If he's from that part of the world, he probably thinks it's perfectly normal to go for a stroll across the runways then set up camp on the grass somewhere.

If you operate regularly to countries outside the EU/US, this sort of thing is a common occurrence - trick is to taxi fast enough that they can't get on to climb up into the undercarriage bay for a free (fatal) ride.

In Africa, India, etc. I think people must actually live inside the airport perimeter, judging by the cooking fires and shanty huts by the side of the runway. (Not to mention the goats...)

Check Airman
14th Mar 2008, 16:04
Check

I am afraid I disagree. The police are not shooting at him inside a terminal. If they were, they would not take the shot if it was not safe/clear to do so. Likewise on an Airfield, which is a very large piece of real estate, if the guy was stood next to an aircraft or with one behind him, they do not take the shot. The Heckler and Koch has a maximum range of 200m, i.e a very safe weapon to use in the middle of an airfield. Safe that is except for the person being aimed at. This was clear justification for a shoot on site policy.

I really wasn't even considering the terminal situation. Consider the case where said simpleton manages to start running through the line of planes on the taxiway getting ready for the rush hour departure. Still think it's safe to start shooting? Bullets grazing a hydraulic line here, an engine spar there... How long would you wait to shoot?



ZFT

I too hope none of my family members suffer from any form of mental illness. If they do and are likely to act as this person has done, then I would ensure that they were taken care of properly, in order to ensure that they were not a danger to themselves or others.

Easier said than done my friend. Fortunately, I've never had to care for the mentally ill, but it's not as simple as saying "keep an eye on them" or "keep them on a leash". They're people like you and I, not wild animals- you can't just keep them on a leash. Here's something to think about- suppose you're a pilot and you had such a loved one who managed to find his/her way to the airport. The person knows you fly the "big silver plane". He/she sees you taxiing out to the runway and starts running to the plane, excited to see your plane. Let's say for argument's sake that the person even gets close enough to make eye contact with you. You still want the police shooting?


I'm not trying to down play the importance of security, but we MUST be sensible.

Willing to sell soul
14th Mar 2008, 16:22
Latest rumour is this guy was an asylum seeker....

Realising his error of judgement, and that this country is actually a s***hole full of greedy fat cats and cider-swilling teens, he was willing to play the 'wheel(well) of fortune' and stow away on the next aircraft to depart from 27R to anywhere else in the world...:}

JW411
14th Mar 2008, 16:29
flyr 767:

"Wish he did get sucked through an engine though! One less crazy in the world".

Just exactly what do you have against engines?

"The laughable suggestion that the military might be called in to make Heathrow safe".

I can remember an occasion when I was in the RAF that we calculated just how many we would need to make the perimeter of a large airfield in Oxfordshire totally safe. The answer was around 2,600 guards working 24 hours a day on 8 hour shifts.

If we were to extrapolate that figure to the Heathrow problem then we would be looking at around 5,000 troops. Does anyone out there, apart from the current Minister for Defence, imagine that we have 5,000 uncommitted troops lying around doing nothing?

The simple answer is to put bloody great signs up on the perimeter fence in at least 64 languages and point out that if you go over or through the perimeter fence, you will quite simply be shot. That way we could get away with about 20 well-trained snipers with high-powered rifles.

The tree-huggers won't like it but those of us who pay taxes in this country will be delighted at such a cost-effective solution.

flyr767
14th Mar 2008, 17:10
Lol, nothing against engines. Just kidding. :cool:

jackharr
14th Mar 2008, 17:21
quote
So, he's 26, a Sri Lankan Tamil, asylum seeker
unquote

Let him in I say. Being Sri Lankan he might be able to play cricket better than the natives.

Jack

JW411
14th Mar 2008, 17:37
Jack, I think he was actually trying to leave. He was just so disgusted with the state of English cricket!

Tigs2
14th Mar 2008, 17:43
Mr brown has a good point

MuttleyJ

As for shooting the guy, look what happened to Juan Charles de Menezes on the tube, and subsequent enquiries into the individual policemen involved. The possibility that they'd face manslaughter charges. That's got to put a police officer off shooting someone.

Juan Charles de Menezes had not committed any illegal act, this guy did!


Check Airman
Your inability to think and let go is staggering. Do you actually read any of the posts that you comment on? You quote me as saying

I am afraid I disagree. The police are not shooting at him inside a terminal. If they were, they would not take the shot if it was not safe/clear to do so. Likewise on an Airfield, which is a very large piece of real estate, if the guy was stood next to an aircraft or with one behind him, they do not take the shot. The Heckler and Koch has a maximum range of 200m, i.e a very safe weapon to use in the middle of an airfield. Safe that is except for the person being aimed at. This was clear justification for a shoot on site policy.

and then continue to say

I really wasn't even considering the terminal situation. Consider the case where said simpleton manages to start running through the line of planes on the taxiway getting ready for the rush hour departure. Still think it's safe to start shooting? Bullets grazing a hydraulic line here, an engine spar there... How long would you wait to shoot?


Did you read my quote? did you consider what i said about the police rules of engagement:ugh::ugh:

you then say


ZFT

I too hope none of my family members suffer from any form of mental illness. If they do and are likely to act as this person has done, then I would ensure that they were taken care of properly, in order to ensure that they were not a danger to themselves or others.

I wrote that!

you reply to that with

Easier said than done my friend. Fortunately, I've never had to care for the mentally ill, but it's not as simple as saying "keep an eye on them" or "keep them on a leash". They're people like you and I, not wild animals- you can't just keep them on a leash. Here's something to think about- suppose you're a pilot and you had such a loved one who managed to find his/her way to the airport. The person knows you fly the "big silver plane". He/she sees you taxiing out to the runway and starts running to the plane, excited to see your plane. Let's say for argument's sake that the person even gets close enough to make eye contact with you. You still want the police shooting?


I'm not trying to down play the importance of security, but we MUST be sensible

Well could you please start by being sensible. Has your fairy tale ever ever happened??....No! Has a terrorist attack on an airport ever happened??.....Yes!

'And as you think your mental loved one is running to greet you as you reach 90 knots and think 'oooh its him poor soul climbing the fence and running down the runway to see me, he looks so excited to see my big silver plane (bye the way a plane is for shaving wood!), as do the watching policeman, you realise as he is about to go under the wing it is not him, just as he explodes 30kgs of HE under the aircraft resulting in the destruction of you and the 300 people sat behind you.'

Wake up and smell the coffee, and from your little scenario grow up.

ChristiaanJ
14th Mar 2008, 18:20
Lol, nothing against engines. Just kidding.
If you knew what mere birds, like herons, or vultures, or even seagulls (to mention some I know about) can do to an engine.... you wouldn't be kidding about it. How many people were there in that plane?

Finn47
14th Mar 2008, 18:34
The homeless man, named in this latest article, will be charged with aircraft endangerment, whatever that entails:

http://ukpress.google.com/article/ALeqM5h3pxS5r_JDSnO0rzovC-_Uj3YyDg

ChristiaanJ
14th Mar 2008, 18:57
And don't you love the Chinese news about T5 (linked on the same page)?

"The 4.3-billion-pound (about 86 billion U.S. dollars) terminal....."
I know the dollar is dropping through the floor.... but at THAT rate?

CorkEICK
14th Mar 2008, 19:02
"Senior officers at Scotland Yard have been calling for improved security at the airport for years. In 2006, a chief superintendent at Heathrow said security had not kept pace with the terrorist threat. Jerry Saville said he was concerned about the effectiveness of perimeter fences. "


Simplest solution of all is to ban all passengers from all terminals at LHR.......;)

Check Airman
14th Mar 2008, 19:37
Tigs,


I haven't addressed the issue of a shooting in the terminal. You're the one who decided to shoot the guy right off the bat.

The police probably had every right to shoot him dead. The news is saying Arabic/Asian appearance running on the runway with a ruck sack. Shoot him I say.

I must also say that the tone of your statement suggests (to me) that his ethnicity may have something to do with your point of view. I hope that's not the case.

I realize what you said about the mentally ill. I'm trying to make you understand that sometimes it's not as easy as one would like to make sure they do not harm themselves and others, since we agree (I hope) that you can't just lock them up.

Well could you please start by being sensible. Has your fairy tale ever ever happened??....No! Has a terrorist attack on an airport ever happened??.....Yes!

Have you seen terrorists running towards planes at LHR? Methinks they'd try something a bit more sophisticated than that long shot. I'm not trying to say that these people run towards planes. Rather, I was trying to personalize it for you. It seems your emotions don't go that far.

And as you think your mental loved one is running to greet you as you reach 90 knots and think...

I could have sworn that my scenario had you taxiing (sp?) the aircraft. Then again, I have noticed that some folks taxi a bit faster than others.


The police probably had every right to shoot him dead. The news is saying Arabic/Asian appearance running on the runway with a ruck sack. Shoot him I say.

... 'oooh its him poor soul climbing the fence and running down the runway to see me, he looks so excited to see my big silver plane, as do the watching policeman, you realise as he is about to go under the wing it is not him, just as he explodes 30kgs of HE under the aircraft resulting in the destruction of you and the 300 people sat behind you.'

From what you've posted here, you seem to have little sympathy where it comes to human life. I suspect that's the root of our disagreement. Forgive me for seeing the value in the life of another. I'm not denying that we need to be more aware of security- that is not at all in question, but we must not allow fear to be our first reaction to an unusual occurrence. Face it, people did harmlessly strange things before 9/11, and they'll keep doing harmlessly strange things. If we allow ourselves to think of every unusual act as an act of terror, the terrorists have truly won the war, and we're the just entertaining them in their little game.

Check Airman
14th Mar 2008, 19:39
The homeless man, named in this latest article, will be charged with aircraft endangerment, whatever that entails:

If such a thing does indeed exist, I know a few pilots that should be charged too:)

ChristiaanJ
14th Mar 2008, 20:36
... you seem to have little sympathy where it comes to human life.Well, I DO have a certain amount of sympathy for human life, in particular for the 300-odd passengers on that aircraft, who with an almost identical scenario would have died in a huge fireball a bit further down 27R !

If it looks like a terrorist, if it behaves like a terrorist (deranged, sure, but then most suicide bombers are, let's not go there), if it carries a bag big enough for a terrorist batch of explosives.... to me it is a terrorist until proven otherwise.

And I think anybody with a sufficiently clear line of fire would have been justified to shoot to kill.

Heathrow is NOT a football stadium where you can go and 'streak' to your heart's content.

CJ

hellsbrink
14th Mar 2008, 21:12
And I think anybody with a sufficiently clear line of fire would have been justified to shoot to kill.


There's no other kind of shooting, all are trained to aim for the torso (especially the chest area) as it's a nice large area to hit compared to hands/arms/etc so there is less chance of missing.

And, as you say, in the current climate it would definitely have been justified. Just think what would have happened if both rucksacks had been filled with TATP...

'Nuff said

Feux Verts
14th Mar 2008, 23:45
Creaser wrote in #89
Solution is around 5000? posts and also remote controlled barriers at the crash gates.

Motorway engineers can erect mile after mile of concrete barrier overnight whilst the posts are installed.
A bloody contraflow on 27R/27L - that'll cause delays....

... call Sally Traffic quick!

Tigs2
15th Mar 2008, 07:30
Check Airman

must also say that the tone of your statement suggests (to me) that his ethnicity may have something to do with your point of view. I hope that's not the case.


Actually Check that is the case, and I am not being racist so don't try and pull that one for a minute. Please describe the appearance and ethnicity of every bomber since and including 9/11. Bali, london, Madrid, Palestine. Afghanistan, Pakistan, India. Need I go on. At this moment in our history, bombers fit a particular profile....Fact, not racist. This man running across/down the runway fitted that profile. It was not a 65 year old Grandmother from the Chelmsford lunatic assylum climbing the fence to find her pilot son whilst he taxis. It is only a matter of time sadly before the next atrocity in the UK will take place, and when it does, people like you will be calling for the police's blood because they should have shot the perpetrator on sight. Go and get a job in security at LHR you are exactly the type that a suicide bomber wants to see check him through security. You probably would not scrutinise him for fear of upsetting his feelings over his ethnicity.
Why is it my friends in Saudi and Qatar, both nationals in the military and one a Colonel in intelligence are seeking out terrorists who are of Arabic/Asian appearance. They don't seem to be interested in white Granny's or portly business men from europe and the states. I wonder why??

As Cristaanj says, there could have been up to 300 people on that aircraft. What would you have said had he blown them up?

Ricky1
15th Mar 2008, 08:27
Skipness one echo,
The name of the crazy is, Ketheeswaran Uthayakumar. Bit of a tounge twister alright.

Anyway below is the latest from what I can see, from bbc,

Police have charged a man accused of triggering a major security alert at Heathrow Airport by allegedly running towards the runway.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/london/7295817.stm

bjcc
15th Mar 2008, 11:24
Tigs2

The point being made about appearence is that not everyone who is dark skinned is a terrorist, and that terrorists can be any colour.

As for shooting this particular chap. All of the circumstances have to be weighed up by the officer with the gun. The only people that know what theose circumstances were, are those officers, not people on here. Shooting is a last resort, if there is another way of detaining someone then that has to be tried, or considered first. It was, and he was detained without shots being fired.

The difference between this incident and Stockwell, and any other inicdent where police have fired, is that in those cases the belief in the officers mind was that the person was an immidiate threat and shooting was the only way to prevent injury and death to the officers and others. That that belief was later found to be wrong matters not, in terms of the officers calpability.

This is not the first time someone's climbed the fence at Heathrow, nor will it be the last. Like any instalation, it's next to impossible to make it impregnable, no matter what.

Tigs2
15th Mar 2008, 11:31
bjcc

I agree with your comments and at no time have i even tried to intimate that everyone with dark skin is a terrorist. just as everyone with dark skin does not scale the fence at Heathrow. Only those people with criminal intent do so, regardless of skin colour. With reference to your comments concerning terrorists having many skin types. Yes I am sure they do, however the people we are concerning ourselves with do not. They are of a particular profile, and if someone of that profile is committing an illegal act at an airport concerning security, then that individual becomes very high risk. Far more high risk than people who have been kicked off flights for 'wearing muslim clothes, or wanting to pray before flight' and other such nonsense.

bjcc
15th Mar 2008, 12:22
Tigs2

No, I'm sorry, but there are still flaws in what you say.

Quote
"just as everyone with dark skin does not scale the fence at Heathrow. Only those people with criminal intent do so, regardless of skin colour."

I was arresting officer for one in the early 90's. He had no criminal intent at all, he was completly bonkers. I'd thrown him off the airport 30 minutes earlier, the local mental welfare team having declined in section him (wrongly!) and he came back and decided he wanted to look at a plane. He climbed the fence, and walked to the threshold of 09R, where a 737 was waiting to go. Captain looked out the side window and saw him, fortunatly. He was charged but failed to appear at court after Uxbridge Magistartes bailed him, in spite of strenuous objections to bail and application for mental health reports before an effective hearing date, well, I made them strenously to the CPS, how forcefully they put them to the Magistrates, who knows?

He was later arrested in Scotland, but a more sensible doctor sectioned him, ie took the most sensible course of action, at that point the charges were dropped, because they were inappropriate in the circumstances.

Of all the others I know of that climbed the fence, the vast majority were mentally ill. The only ones I can think of that were not, were working on re surfacing 27R/09L and were late for work, so climed the fence hoping to get away with that not being noticed, sadly they just drew more attention to themselves.

Quote
"With reference to your comments concerning terrorists having many skin types. Yes I am sure they do, however the people we are concerning ourselves with do not. They are of a particular profile, "

Ok, lets not beat about the bush here. You are refering to Muslim Extremist Terrorism?

Assuming so, what colour is Cat Stevens (Yes, I know he calls himself something else now, but I can't spell that!). Not all Muslims are dark skinned, nor are all Muslims, or dark skinned people terrorists.

Leaving that brand aside, how many other terror groups are currently active in the world? A lot, and confining your thoughts to one sort isn't preventing, say the Basques is it?

Irrespective of all that, I don't know how close he was at the time of arrest to an aircraft, nor do I know how close he had been before arrest, which is an important factor when deciding threat. If he'd been stood next to an aircraft that then took off, with no bang, then that reduces the terrorist threat thoughts, and leans more towards the mentally ill. Meaning less possibility of him being shot.

So in summary, because someone climbs the fence, it does not make them criminal, nor a terrorist, nor a threat. If they are a threat, it is usually to themselves only, and where they are not, it is not automatic justification for shooting someone, there are other ways of detaining.

Tigs2
15th Mar 2008, 12:51
bjcc
lets agree to disagree. No, - focusing on one group will not prevent the Basques. However current British Intelligence does not consider that the Basques are a threat to UK security. Yes Cat Stevens is white, so are many muslims. We agree that if a terrorist is muslim does not make all muslims terrorists. However, the profile of all bombers to date since 9/11, listed in one of my previous posts, fit a definite profile, which does not include white muslims. I understand as an ex policeman the urge to be politically correct will be strong, but as i mentioned in a previous post concerning my Muslim friends in the Middle East who are in Military intelligence, they are not searching for white muslim terrorists, they are searching for people who coincidentally fit the current profile of a terrorist bomber we have in the US and UK.i.e Arabic/asian fundamentalist muslim. This is a fact, it is not racist or unfair. The reason Israeli airport security is so good is that they do not give two hoots about your shoes, belts or bottle of water, they profile passengers and at immigration you are questioned thoroughly.

Lets not have a hamster wheel.