Air Pacific Pilot broke rules, says airport controller

[JQTOMMY]

From Fiji Times:
Pilot broke rules, says airport controller
Monday, April 21, 2008

THE pilot that captained the Brisbane-bound Air Pacific flight that was forced to return to Fiji after a bomb threat on Friday night has been accused of ignoring safety procedures.
While the threat turned out to be a hoax, air traffic controllers claim that the impact would have been devastating if proven otherwise because of the decision made by the pilot.
According to an air traffic controller on duty, when the request was made for the aircraft to return to Nadi International Airport, the pilot lied to traffic control on the reasons for returning.
"When we queried as to why he wanted to return to Nadi, the pilot said they were returning for operational requirements.
"He did not inform traffic control that there was a bomb threat. Due to this misinformation, air traffic controllers guided the aircraft to Gate 8 at the international airport," said the air traffic controller.
"But once the aircraft had landed and passengers were rushed off, we found out from Airports Fiji Limited security personnel that there was a bomb threat.
"This was a huge flaw on the part of the pilot not to inform us of the bomb threat because at that time, it was still active and he had not only endangered the lives of his passengers but everyone at the international terminal."
The controller said if they were informed of the threat while the aircraft was enroute to the airport, they would have directed the aircraft to an area that is located at the far-end of the runway to ensure minimal damage or casualties.
He said due to the pilot withholding information, air traffic control had not put in place emergency response strategies to assist the passengers and defuse the situation.
He said the pilot's decision not to inform air traffic control and bring the aircraft to the terminal had endangered hundreds of lives.
A flight attendant that was onboard the aircraft confirmed they disembarked at gate 8 of the airport terminal.
She said they were all scared when they were informed that they were returning to Nadi because of the possibility of explosives being onboard.
Questions sent to Air Pacific Managing Director, John Campbell remained unanswered.
When contacted yesterday, Transport Minister, Timoci Lesi Natuva referred questions to Civil Aviation Minister, Ratu Epeli Nailatikau, who could not be contacted.
Numerous attempts to contact AFL chief executive, Ratu Timoci Tuisawau yesterday were also unsuccessful.
Fiji Police Force's assistant public relations officer, Corporal Josaia Weicavu said he was yet to receive any report of the incident.
Cpl Weicavu said only the Fiji Police Force's and military's arms experts had the necessary expertise to clear any aircraft or building of bomb threats.

From Fiji Times:
http://fijitimes.com/story.aspx?id=86943

Anyone heard about this?

[billyt]

Copy it to the down 'n under forum. You may get some response there.

[Jonty]

Dont blame him. I wouldnt have told ATC either. Although I wouldnt have parked next to the terminal.

[anartificialhorizon]

Why on earth would you not have told ATC?

Am I missing something?

Surely ATC being in the loop for a situation like this is a must. I am sure they would have considered not letting the aircraft fly over densely populated areas, would have kept other traffic away and directed the aircraft to a remote part of the airfield after landing ....?

Taxiing the aircraft to the gate and then allowing all of the associated ground handling staff to approach it as it was returning for ops reasons is beyond comprehension.....

Total disregard for SOP's I would have thought.

[Wellington Bomber]

Possibly worried that an F15 would shoot them down before he got back to minimse damage

[maui]

You can't win.

When I had a bomb threat inbound to Gothenberg, after landing I was directed to the terminal. I queried ATC as to whether or not they were aware of our situation. To which they replied yes, and confirmed that I was to go to the terminal. Aircraft either side of our parking point but thankfully no pax as it was about 0200 dark.

Different hemisphere different standards? Go figure.

M

[Funnel Cloud]

Dont blame him. I wouldnt have told ATC either. Although I wouldnt have parked next to the terminal.

For what reason would you NOT inform ATC? I also feel we should always keep ATC in the loop, that's what they're there for and that's part of CRM.

[FoxtrotAlpha18]

Possibly worried that an F15 would shoot them down before he got back to minimse damage

An F-15? At Fiji??? :}

[FlyMD]

While there are good arguments for NOT broadcasting a bomb threat over an open ATC frequency, I imagine that most airliners are nowadays equipped with satphone... A quick call to the company, and let the head of security figure out, together with the airport, what the proper procedure on ground should be.
But then maybe time was short, and an inflight return makes everyone very busy...

[RoyHudd]

CRM means what exactly? Informing ATC of a bomb threat is nothing to do with it.

And as for SOP's, well bomb threat actions are not in any carrier's SOP manuals (can be located in QRH or equivalent and detail nothing concerning ATC communication). A lot of other on-board actions need performing, which take time and effort for both FD and CC, along with flying the aircraft and preparing for approach and subsequent overweight landing.

Communicating with excitable ATC can bring about a dramatic increase in unnecessary workload, as I've experienced when issuing PAN calls in Southern Europe. Best stay quiet and concentrate on the priority tasks.

Once landed, and before taxi-ing onto stand, a call to ATC would then have been in order, I reckon. As for ground preparations prior to landing, emergency services would do nothing extra in such a case; they are on full standby for an accident at any given moment. Well at some airports anyway....

Finally, bombs are usually activated by pressure devices or timers, and are intended to go off in flight.

Some of the previous comments are evidently from non-pro pilots, as per usual.

[ayrprox]

excitable atc?? your honour, i object!! :ooh:
so for example you would just return to heathrow and not tell anyone until you were approaching the airport?? i submit that you would not be welcomed with open arms. As has been mentioned, you need not tell us over the r/t, however i would expect to hear from your company informing us of the situation, as this could greatly effect the routing that you are given and the choice of destination, as well as where you will be parked once you landed.
i realise that your prime responsibility is to those you have onboard, but i personally would not like to put you over the centre of a large city just incase the worst did occur.

[CI300]

Im not sure I would tell ATC fiji either.
Your not dealing with a stable country. Since the military takeover, i wouldnt be confident that they could be trusted.
Plus as mentioned above, its easy enough to monitor radio communications.

But parking on a gate?..

For those that are not aware, Fijian infrastructue is collapsing.
ATC and airports are not in good shape.

[walu]

CI300 you're a little out of context here, this is about a bomb threat and the criticism which was heaped on the crew for their decision not to infirm ATC directly as a result.
There are valid arguments for both sides but in the end the Skipper will wear it and we'll all learn from it too, hopefully!
By the way, Fiji is not in a state of collapse in the way you think it might be either and if you think the Military are not to be trusted then you know little about the previous Government's achievements/activities.
I think it's best to leave this debate within the realms of aviation and things you understand better than to start making generalised and inappropriate comments about Fiji ok!

[Modest Pilot]

Why would the pilot say anything to ATC? (one has to presume that aircraft communications are being monitored by other parties)
The Company would have informed the crew of a problem, and as a matter of course should then inform all the required authorities. The Company and the threat team would then assess the threat and advised the crew as to possible courses of action.
The crew should open the sealed threat and search plan and action as required.
The P in C is the final authority until police or other national authority take control after landing. (I would refuse a terminal park myself but would be careful of annoucing reason on air)

[RoyHudd]

Just to be clear, Ayrprox, my posting included a reference to certain areas of the world where ATC can be very excitable, not all ATC. The UK happens to boast one of the coolest and most efficient ATC organisations IMHO, and LHR are very good indeed.

I propose NOT to mention any countries where ATC may get a bit frenetic when faced with words like "Mayday", "Pan" "Bomb Threat" or the like. But believe me, there are centres not a thousand miles from Blighty where verbal panic sets in on the ground, accompanied by loud, frequent and repetitive requests for information, which only serve to make the Flight Crew's job that much harder.

Sorry for the misunderstanding.

[cribble]

:hmm: "And as for SOP's, well bomb threat actions are not in any carrier's SOP manuals....."
Gutsy call Roy. Misinformed, but gutsy.

BTW, did you re-read that phrase and think " Yep, I know every operator's SOP on this matter?"

[Daysleeper]

I would suspect that what happened to the Ryanair flight in the UK is seen as a good reason not to tell ATC.

Dont allow the aircraft to land ASAP.
Divert it a couple of hundred miles at gun/missile point
Hold passengers on aircraft for 3 hours after landing.

pprune thread (http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?t=221454&highlight=ryanair+bomb+threat)

[Swamp Heron]

Air Pacific management have publicly endorsed the Captain's actions. :D
Check out the CEO's statement to the Fiji Times at:

http://www.fijitimes.com.fj/story.aspx?id=87107


And FYI "walu" Fiji is sliding inexorably towards "failed state" status. Not sure how you can make an assesment about the previous government from the wilds of Scotland.

[411A]

It is clear from some previous comments, apparently emanating from those not so experienced airline pilots (if they are pilots at all...:rolleyes:) that they perhaps have not flown to those parts of the world where, to inform ATC of this sort of threat, only serves to send the folks on the ground into a frenzy, which soon gets out of control, and makes life far more difficult for the operating crew.
It should be realised that airline flying does not begin and end at Heathrow, nor indeed other busy airports in continental Europe.

And, specific threats of this nature that includes actions of the crew (or not) to deal with that threat, are not really the place to discuss, on an open forum.

[ACMS]

Yeah tell ATC and the whole world too:D

that's what the company can do BEHIND the scenes.

Go back to Flight Sim fellas and leave the real flying to the REAL Pilot's.

D:mad:s


I suppose you think they should have informed the PAX over the PA too.:(

[walu]

Hey Swamp Heron, you must not recognise my handle bro! "WALU"it's a Fijian fish or Spanish Mackerel in valagi speak.. Why shouldn't I make comment on issues in Fiji? Is it because I'm in Scotland? :confused: What qualifications would you like to see? Passport, photo, license, birth certificate? Are you certain your not talking to a fourth generation Fiji born with all his family still in Fiji, working and living there? well you are!

[Nogbad the Bad]

Yeah tell ATC and the whole world too

that's what the company can do BEHIND the scenes.

Go back to Flight Sim fellas and leave the real flying to the REAL Pilot's.

Ds


I suppose you think they should have informed the PAX over the PA too.

I suggest it's YOU who should go back to flight sim school sonny - I hope I never have the misfortune to fly with you !


:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

[Spitoon]

OK, here's a view from an ATC and airport ops person.

Let's consider an aircraft in flight. In an ideal world what should happen is that the threat is passed to someone in authority - who, I guess, will depend on how the threat is identified. This info is then passed to the aircraft operator who conducts a threat assessment using as much information as is available and involving any other agency that may be able to offer something to the assessment. Having decided the degree of confidence in the threat (i.e. is it a real threat or a hoax...or something in between) the aircraft operator takes actions already set out in its SOPs (and not just in the aircraft). Communications with others involved are done using discrete channels, such as telephones if available and everyone who has a part to play will be advised of the situation and the actions that they have to take.

On the ground, much the same process is followed but there will often be procedures in place to deplane pax and move the offending aircraft away from infrastructure and other aircraft before it is searched. Again, ideally, you'll hear little direct reference to the situation on open comms channels but if it is necessary to pass info, it will get passed.

On the topic of threat assessment, there are many sources of info that can be used to help assist the assessment. For example, many airport telephone switchboards (if you can ever get through and talk to a real person!) are prepared with a list of questions to ask someone who makes a threat - these are selected to help judge whether the threat and other information that is available are consistent.

How much of this sort of thing is in place at any particular airport or ATC facility will vary of course - for many reasons.

[bluemic]

Several points about this incident - and "Spitoon" has addressed much of it.

As we all know, threats of this nature come in all shapes and sizes.

But from the benefit of my now fixed-base lounge chair equipped with 20/20 hindsight, it seems (to me) that the appropriate response for a valid threat would have been for the captain to ensure that Ops had been notified (quite likely Ops had first told him/her of the 'problem' anyway) and that the appropriate authorities (ATC, Fire vehicles, etc) were in the loop. (A phone call from Ops to the tower would've done that.) Then skipper's mission is to get the thing back on the ground and to plan/liaise what happens after landing.

If memory serves, Nadi airport is not well-equipped to disembark large quantities of pax via airstairs, so – short of going directly into the 'escape slide' exercise out on the tarmac somewhere – the only way to quickly disembark would've been through the parking bridges. Presumably other aircraft would NOT be in the vicinity of the jetway, but from MY chair, the available options make it a judgement call. Lots of other factors to consider as well: wx, darkness, etc.

As for telling the passengers about the situation? That's definitely a judgement call. Depends on your comfort level with yourself and how well you think you can express something over the p.a. that is a) truthful, b) comforting - but not going to create chaos, and c) will aid in getting the aircraft empty as quickly as possible after landing. Everyone will have differing opinions on that one.

Lastly, and quite off the original topic (but since Swamp Heron brought it up), although Fiji has had its political problems, Nadi airport was always MY first choice of a diversion airport when I operated the "twin-too-far" in that area.

Ni sa moce

[ACMS]

NOGBAD: you really are a dope aren't you.

Why would you BROADCAST over VHF or HF to the WHOLE DAMN world you think there is a bomb on board?
The company WILL liase with ATC as required, probably before they even tell us.
And what benefit is there in scaring the living **** outta 400 people needlessly?
They can be told the real reason for the return AFTER landing.

I hope I never fly with your company.:D

What an idiot.:hmm:

GROW UP SONNY JIM.:ok:

now where's Dean Martin when you need him?


In short. YOU FOLLOW YOUR COMPANY SOP's FOR THIS EXACT THING.

[FireLight]

As a passenger, I'd definitely want to know there was a situation going on, but only in a general sense. Something like, we have an inflight emergency, we're planning to land at ..., prepare for emergency exit if necessary, we'll let you know if the situation changes kind of thing. Of course, after the pilots have the situation well under control.

I would anticipate that all references to potential explosives on the plane would definitely increase the risk of panic on the plane, so it would likely be difficult to present this information in any sort of comforting way. In any event, that information wouldn't have given pax anything they could do that would change the situation - other than praying. I'd be more than happy to know about the potential explosives after we were safely on the ground.

From there the situation is in the hands of the pilots, and their best judgement to bring the aircraft safely home. The comments that direct communication with ATC by the pilots could have potential negative implications seem reasonable for many scenarios. It also seems reasonable that Air Pacific would look at their SOP's regarding the company communicating directly with ATC on a secure line to minimize the risks from open air radio communication in a similar future situation. {Assuming their SOP's don't cover this already.} This would allow them (ATC/Company/Pilots) to make an informed decision regarding bringing the aircraft into the gate or leaving it in a more safe/secure location elsewhere at the airport.

[ACMS]

Wrong wrong and wrong AGAIN

We tell the SLF ( self loading freight ) as little as possible.

What are you going to do anyway? riot perhaps? hold the cabin crew hostage until we do something you want?

Get a life buddy.

WE WILL MAKE THE CHOICES BASED ON THE FACTS WE ARE GIVEN, YOU ARE ALONG FOR THE RIDE I'M AFRAID TO SAY.

IT's CALLED TRUST, FAIR ENOUGH?

[FireLight]

I understand.

You're in the nose, I'm in the tail. Plane goes where you point it. :)

[nnc0]

In this post 9/11 era we've seen shoe bombs, biological attacks through the mail, explosives in toothpaste, impregnable f/d doors, and god knows what else. For one reason or another and not with any deliberate intent on my part I seem to have been involved in the development of a number of the onboard security projects we've all seen to guard against those threats. The experience included working with security and governmental agencies I never even knew existed beforehand. It was quite an eye opener.

My sense of things from the above discussions is that there's a lot of confusion out there about how to handle threats. I guess that also implies there's a lack of information in your QRH's about how to handle threats, or if there is, the procedures and guidance vary widely between carriers. It shouldn't!

I'd suggest you get your security, flt ops, in flight and airports people to get together and speak with some of those government security and health folks re todays threats and the strategies to deal with them. At the very least you need coordinated procedures in flight and some definitive guidance in your manuals for your crews.

[ACMS]

Correct


p.s. If you see something you think we should know then by all means SPEAK UP.:ok:


And please keep your seatbelt fastened at all times and don't walk around when the signs are on.:ok:

Now we are all on the same page:ok:

[nnc0]

I'm not an expert by any stretch, like I said my experiences were quite the eye opener, and I'm not comfortable divulging particulars on an open forum.

I will say that if a positive threat identification has been made then your company security folks should already have an explosive ordinance disposal expert available for you to communicate with. There might even be one on board so a PA for an 'EOD' expert might be appropriate. If you're SOL on both counts or an F/A discovers an unattended brown bag/suitcase or some powder where there shouldn't be any, then you've got some risk analysis to do. That's why you need the coordinated crew procedures and preplanned strategies in place beforehand. At the very least you should be aware of the least risk bomb location (LRBL) on your aircraft because unlikely as it seems, you might want to move it (the bomb). You might also give some consideration to aircraft systems and the flight profile and how they can be used to lessen the threat. There are some strategies there. This is especially true if it's a biological threat. Here again you need some well thought out QRH procedures in place beforehand. It's not difficult once you know the threats that are out there.

To address a question argued on this forum - at the gate, on the ramp, or in flight - you need to advise ATC. Again, I won't go into particulars but there are contingencies and concerns that they have and that you'll need to be aware of or avail youself of. In our risk analysis and consultations there was no question about doing so.

[ACMS]

Can't say you are wrong in THOSE circumstances.

But they were different on the Air Pacific jet.

SO DIFFERENT RESPONSE REQUIRED BY THE CREW.

**** it's not rocket science folks.

[Nogbad the Bad]

Nice bit of name-calling ACMS :D

[FAStoat]

Does no Airline have "Rainbow" Exercises any more?There should be a Company SOP for exactly this occurence!As someone previously stated in this thread,when my old Company practised this,we would inform ATC on landing,if nothing else had happened,and hopefully be informed of where to park the A/C,e.g.Northside at Stansted,and await the Team on the Ground.

[ACMS]

Thanks, but do you get the point or not?

FOLLOW YOUR COMPANY PROVIDED SOP's IN THE QRH and get on with it.

That's if you have 1/ a company and 2/ sop's in the QRH

Which if you operate a Boeing, you most certainly WILL HAVE.

It's not hard mate.

[glad rag]

Good call by the captain, he got the cab and its pax on the ground and off the aircract as soon as possible.:D

Just perhaps he had enough experience to know what would have happend if he had "explained" to the local ATC.

Judgement call.

[pulseair]

Hi CI300.

Apart from AP, one just have to look at the Air New Zealand and Virgin Blue pax load into Nadi in order to work out how much trust this operators/paxs have on both the govt of the day and airport authorities to do what is expected of them. Politics aside, ATC and airport personals are proffessionals and are expected to perform as such. As for what happend to the Air Pac flight, your guess is only as good as mine...just speculations...we weren't there.

The infrastructure in Nadi is still much better than some of the places I've operated into......Nadi is still one of the best alternate choices for most operators flying in this part of the Pacific.....just ask some of our fellow pilots. Its not first class but its not as bad as what you may have unintentionally potrayed.

Regards,
P.

[cribble]

ACMs
You've clearly been around a bit, and "got your knees brown"

You make a big call, though,when you declare "We tell the SLF ( self loading freight ) as little as possible"

You may do that, but any number of captains do not treat their punters as dickheads: rather, they tell them the truth (I don't mean baffling them with bull****, but certainly going a bit beyond "we have a minor technical problem")

[ACMS]

I follow the proceedures laid down in the Boeing 777 QRH by Cathay Pacific Airway ltd. AS per our AOC.

It even has PA's to use and say.

I don't have to MAKE stuff up.

cheery pop, read your 777 QRH too:ok: