Two BA pilots questioned about mobile phone incident

[LTNman]

From the BBC:

A British Airways flight was delayed for three hours after a mobile phone was allegedly thrown from the plane on to a runway at Edinburgh Airport.

Two BA pilots have been questioned by police about the incident on Friday.

The BA2945 flight to Gatwick, carrying 149 people, was delayed after the incident at 1930BST.

BA apologised and said: "We are investigating the matter and speaking to the pilots to understand the exact circumstances around the incident."

The incident apparently followed the discovery of an unclaimed mobile phone on board.

The captain and co-pilot have been questioned by Lothian and Borders police, who are still investigating the incident.

A police spokesman said: "We are investigating after a mobile phone was reported to have been thrown from a plane on to the runway at Edinburgh Airport about 7.30pm on 24 June."

A British Airways spokeswoman said: "We apologise to customers on the BA2945 from Edinburgh to Gatwick for the delay to the aircraft's departure.

"There was a local airshow in aid of Armed Forces Day that meant some aircraft couldn't depart or arrive for some time.

"This was further exacerbated as an unclaimed mobile phone was located on board so the aircraft returned to stand."

[doubleu-anker]

If the reports are found to be true, then it is a hanging offence.

FOD, debris on the runway. Any remember the Concorde tragedy?

[blueloo]

If the reports are found to be true, then it is a hanging offence.


And there we have our first call in the thread for a lynching! Any advances on this early call based on a newspaper report!

[Teddy Robinson]

Notice how the informed silence ensues .. while the redtops sell their papers.

[LTNman]

BA pilot 'threw mobile phone from his cockpit' just moments before take off | Mail Online (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2008241/BA-pilot-threw-mobile-phone-cockpit-just-moments-off.html)

"Anxious not to delay the flight further by returning to the stand and unloading the mobile, the pilot radioed air traffic control for permission to drop the phone out of the cockpit window.

When controllers refused permission, it is understood he simply defied them, opened the window and dumped the phone out on to the tarmac anyway

Last night one source claimed: 'The captain was already late and in no mood to delay even longer.

He ignored the advice, put the phone in a bag, opened the side window of the cockpit and threw it to the ground"

[cyflyer]

'Moments earlier he'd asked air traffic control to get a member of the ground crew to come to the end of the runway and get the phone from him.


I think the pilot acted correctly in these circumstances, and the airport authorities were the ignorants. Why couldn't they send an airport vehicle to pick it up ? Maybe the better course of action though would have been to just hang on to the phone and hand it in at Gatwick.

[Earl of Rochester]

.
Sorry, but for the uninitiated among us, could someone kindly explain the issue with anyone (be it passenger or crew) possessing a mobile phone on board a flight?

[Artificial Horizon]

It would have been an unclaimed phone. Probably left on board after the last sector and was either 'found' on the taxi out or the Cabin Crew had found it on the turnaround but forgot to 'hand' it off. Problem that faced the crew was that once the flight crew were notified it becomes a 'security' issue and the 'object' can't travel without its owner so has to be taken off the aircraft. The pilots obviously were trying to avoid having to taxi back onto stand and shutdown just to hand off a phone. I can't see why ATC wouldn't have just sent out a vehicle to collect the phone. Once they said they wouldn't though, it was a bit of a silly move to drop it out the window anyway (if indeed they did).

[dubaigong]

@Earl of Rochester,

The problem was that the phone found on the aircraft did not belong , apparently , to anybody on board...
That's were the problem is , it could be put there with some explosives inside or a kind of trigger for a bomb place somewhere else etc...
In all the companies I have been , you are not allowed to take off with anything found on board and not belonging to somebody sitting in the aircraft.
It is the same reason why we can't leave the gate if one passenger don't show up and his or her bag is on board.
We must find the bag and unload it , not to be nice with the passenger still in the airport but to avoid to take off with a bomb in the hold ( you never know why this passenger is not showing for boarding... )

[Earl of Rochester]

.
Unaccompanied baggage etc. one can accept, but a phone!

So all anyone has to do to disrupt a departing flight is leave something (anything) on board and hope that the cleaners don't find it but that someone else does once the doors are shut and the taxiing begins.

Moral of the story: Employ cleaning crews who are thorough in their work and who will (hopefully) remove anything they find.

Do you suppose that some carriers have contracts with cleaning companies which allow them to recoup the cost of de-planing, returning to the gate or re-crewing as a result of items missed by the cleaning crew?

Also, if 'Jane' suddenly discovers that 'Mark' really is the love of her life and that she shouldn't have left him (and suppose this revelation occurs just when her flight to JFK is about to turn onto the runway) all she has to do is hold up her phone and say "look, I've found this"?

[doubleu-anker]

Hindsight the Captain should have claimed the phone was his. The phone would have gone though security as it was air side so what would be the problem? It was "clean" surely. They probably would have done the Captain for theft I guess.

Terrorists win again.

[Earl of Rochester]

.
Smart move Doubleue :D, except one of the FA's should have come up with this (motivated by a sense of duty) rather than hasstle the captain with such trivia.

If the cabin crew were genuinely concerned with security they could even dismantle the phone into tiny pieces so as to ensure it could not be used for some Al-Qaedic purpose!

[spinnaker]

Earl of Rochester

Cleaning crews are not the final check. It is the responsibility of the cabin crew to carry out a check before each flight after the cleaning crew have left, and immediately prior to boarding. Any left items, no matter how small raise a question mark. I cannot comment upon this particular incident, but in my own day I have asked to go back to stand because a suspicious event had occurred. Maybe similar to the one in the news right now. In fact I did not go back to stand, I was directed to a safe area, and the matter dealt with properly. Yes, we were late, but who cares. The passengers were fine, and so was the company.

If afraid, just throwing something, anything out of the window, just to meet schedule is a hanging offence. FOD and an unreported security issue, incorrectly dealt with. I've said it before, when the chips are down, sod the schedule, Commanders, start bloody well commanding.

[Final 3 Greens]

Excuse me as the non-professional pilot asking a dumb question, but if one threw a small object out of the side window on a 737, isn't there a risk (maybe low probability), that it might, break and that pieces of FD might get into the engine on that side?

My point being, does anyone really believe that an airline captain would even contemplate such a thing?

[spinnaker]

Final 3 Greens

"Excuse me as the non-professional pilot asking a dumb question, but if one threw a small object out of the side window on a 737, isn't there a risk (maybe low probability), that it might, break and that pieces of FD might get into the engine on that side?"

Yes. and its a risk to other aircraft.

"My point being, does anyone really believe that an airline captain would even contemplate such a thing? "

A professional commander would not do this.

[TDK mk2]

Any chance that this could be dealt with sensibly and objectively is now probably gone, due to the media coverage.

I recall an incident some years ago where a cabin crew was slurring during a safety demonstration due to sedative intake the night before. A passenger brought it to the attention of the Captain who offloaded the cabin crew member at the earliest opportunity. On the day the Captain was commended by the Flight Ops Director for handling the incident well however a week or so later, after the incident got coverage in the tabloid press thanks to that passenger not getting the compensation he wanted, the cabin crew was sacked and the Captain and other flight deck member (a line training captain) were demoted.

[Daysleeper]

When I read the headline I assumed some pax had refused to turn off his/her phone and, eventually, the crew had got so fed up they expeditiously removed it from the aircraft. I'd have a lot of sympathy with that...:}

[NigelOnDraft]

F3G but if one threw a small object out of the side window on a 737, isn't there a risk (maybe low probability), that it might, break and that pieces of FD might get into the engine on that side?Not if it is wrapped / secured in a bag.

My point being, does anyone really believe that an airline captain would even contemplate such a thing?I have seen it done when I was an FO (Loadsheet), and done it a few times myself as Capt (Paperwork, Despatcher walkie talkie, mobile). Accepted practice, and saves a lot of hassle. I will not speculate relating the circs under which I have done/seen it done and the EDI situation.

[ross_M]

It is the responsibility of the cabin crew to carry out a check before each flight after the cleaning crew have left, and immediately prior to boarding. Any left items, no matter how small raise a question mark.

I find the "however small" stuff annoying. Yes, there is completeness but there are always constraints. Dang; life is a compromise!

Do you really think CC should go through every seat pocket? I can think of a hundred places (well maybe not that many!) on a plane where one could hide something small.

Problem that faced the crew was that once the flight crew were notified it becomes a 'security' issue and the 'object' can't travel without its owner so has to be taken off the aircraft.

Sometimes I think the security paranoia needs to be tempered by common sense. Can you imagine any other mode of transportation (buses, trains, ships etc.) where returning to base for an unclaimed cellphone might be deemed reasonable?

Agreed that aircraft have unique risks and are hot targets but the "secure at any cost" mindset has no end. Even for security there has to be a cost benefit analysis.

[Dunbar]

Not speculating on this example Nigel, but that's a different case...I've found putting the object (forgotten wallet, loadsheet etc) in a bag and tying it to the escape rope allows for a graceful delivery...but I certainly wouldn't consider it if told not to by a ground agency...and there would have to be someone on the ground to accept it...

[Northbeach]

Years ago (long before September 11th 2001 & the subway bombings) as a first officer during a night flight I discovered a large heavy metal flashlight (MAG Light) in the flight deck a few thousand feet below top of climb. We had experienced a mechanical delay at the departure airport and several maintenance technicians had been on the flight deck resolving the issue.

It was a nice flashlight, heavy duty and felt very good and solid in my hand. What's the first thing that crossed my mind? You guessed it: gee I wonder if it works? So, I pushed down on the on/off button and sure enough it lit up. I didn't talk to the Captain about it, I just pushed the button. Almost immediately I was overcome with a terrible thought; what if the "flashlight" had been modified to contain an explosive device. If it had been, then my actions had just killed me and everybody else on the jet.

Sure enough several months later reading through some industry security briefing materials revealed the existence of several modified devices, including a flashlight. I sure felt dumb.

Often it is not the flying part of this job that makes it at times so very difficult. It is all the "odd" variations of circumstances, people and environmental challenges that present one with the most puzzling scenarios. Further there is usually several entities waiting in the perimeter to criticize and second guess your every action and word.

Good luck to this crew, I hope the best possible outcome and I am glad nobody got hurt.

Ya'll be careful out there!

[BOAC]

Two points to calm the hysteria:

1) We are at the mercy here of journos, to whom the 'runway' extends from the gate to the far end of the piste.
2) The phone, if unclaimed by pax, should not travel on the flight

Other than that, let's wait and see the facts. I have myself (in BA) offloaded a suspicious package (at LGW, out of the window and into the arms of a member of the fire service who attended the aircraft 'on the runway' (we call it taxyway) and received said (ultimately harmless) item into a secure stowage.)

[hunterboy]

The problem with dismantling the phone or object is that you don't know if it is booby trapped. The other problem is that you also don't know if it has a secondary power source.
I also had a security incident at 35000 feet , mid Atlantic, meaning we had to go through a mobile Phone deactivation procedure, and I don't mind telling you, there is more to it than meets the eye.
Had I had the opportunity to drop it out of the window, I probably would have!
(barometric switches, etc not withstanding)

P.s ATC are supposed to be there to help us, not the other way around. They need to remember who their customers are.

[General_Kirby]

P.s ATC are supposed to be there to help us, not the other way around. They need to remember who their customers are.

The airport authority? There is a good chance the ATCO asked and permission was refused.

[bracebrace!]

It's a shame that they're not in such a hurry when they block the taxiway waiting for their performance figures by ACARS.... :eek:

[RevMan2]

Shades of Nevil Shute's "In the wet"....

[Nightrider]

Bit ironic to be questioning the professionalism of the press?
now that is a statement!

Nothing on board of an airplane which cannot be linked to anyone on board is allowed to be there during a flight!
Airport authorities should do their job and assist in safety, not in harassing crew and passengers as it is the norm these days!

[MReyn24050]

Other than that, let's wait and see the facts. I have myself (in BA) offloaded a suspicious package (at LGW, out of the window and into the arms of a member of the fire service who attended the aircraft 'on the runway' (we call it taxyway) and received said (ultimately harmless) item into a secure stowage.)

Totally agree BOAC. Until the full circumstances are known nobody should make any judgement. He may well have dropped the phone into the hands of someone on the tarmac.

[hetfield]

Was it samsung or iphone?

[77]

Once the doors are closed and steps etc removed the easiest way to remove forgotten items from the aircraft is via the flight deck window, suitably wrapped and weighted. I have done it many times on the ramp and occasionally on the taxyway, but always to a member of staff and with the help of ATC.
The question is why were ATC so unhelpful, even obstructive and why the heavy handed approach with police involved.
With the information available I would have thought that apologies from Airport/ATC to airline, crew and passengers were necessary.
Seems to have been a jobsworth approach by airport staff and I hope the airline remonstrates with the airport.
One can only speculate that had the airline been say Ryanair then Michael O'Leary would probably withdraw from the airport tomorrow.
I hope BA shows some backbone and supports its crew.

[A and C]

The issue here is not one of the actions of the crew who I am sure took the correct action but what action the BA management take.

Do the BA management back the crew ? or do they act on the mis-informed report from the public that that been blown up into a so called news story to fill the front page on a slow news day.

So its over to you BA management it's your call back the actions of two professionals or yeald to a mis-informed reporter who has the luxury of power without responsability.

[Nubboy]

A sensible plan of action thwarted (indirectly?) by ATC, but flight deck carry on regardless:ok:

Nothing new in that then

[Nightstop]

The Law wrt dropping of items from an aircraft in flight is covered by Art 66 of the ANO I think and may apply here:

Dropping of articles and animals

66.—(1) Articles and animals (whether or not attached to a parachute) shall not be dropped, or permitted to drop, from an aircraft in flight so as to endanger persons or property.

-(4) For the purposes of this article “dropping” includes projecting and lowering.

[Spunky Monkey]

I wouldn't have thought that it was in flight, due to the fact it was on the runway or taxiing.
Unless during the transition at rotation when the main wheels are on the ground and the nosewheel is in the air and the wings are producing lift, the Captain has the opportunity to open a side window and bomb the piano keys with aformentioned Al-Queda mobile phone super bomb.

It would appear Jobs worths and The Big Bad Al have won again.
:ugh:

[edinv]

The following is the UK definition of flight.

UK Air Navigation Order Article 256:- (1) An aircraft is deemed to be in flight:
(a) in the case of a piloted flying machine, from the moment when, after the
embarkation of its crew for the purpose of taking off, it first moves under its
own power, until the moment when it next comes to rest after landing.

[wiggy]

The question is why were ATC so unhelpful, even obstructive and why the heavy handed approach with police involved.

:ok:

Agreed, I've had this happen at LHR and ATC were on the spot with a leader vehicle within minutes ( and FWIW the advice from security was remember it's been screened).

.... and if we're reduced to dissecting the ANO over this, for whatever reason, then UK commercial aviation might as well shut up shop right now :ugh::ugh:

[A and C]

Quote.

.... and if we're reduced to dissecting the ANO over this, for whatever reason, then UK commercial aviation might as well shut up shop right now

I could not agree more there is something about a small section of pilots in the UK who are so hung up on the rules that they let common sense & safety go out of the window to stay inside what they see as the letter of the law.

[AAIGUY]

Captain's prerogative.. He's in charge. Its his call.

He didn't sacrifice a kitten on the FMC, he tossed out a security risk.
I would do it, WE have done it countless times with items left by ground staff, paperwork. Its a non story.. one the British media would rather play up than the fact your country is bankrupt and your aircraft carriers have no planes, or any number of other things the public should be concerned about.

Bloody Drivel...

[stuckgear]

Captain's prerogative.. He's in charge. Its his call.

He didn't sacrifice a kitten on the FMC, he tossed out a security risk.
I would do it, WE have done it countless times with items left by ground staff, paperwork. Its a non story.. one the British media would rather play up than the fact your country is bankrupt and your aircraft carriers have no planes, or any number of other things the public should be concerned about.

Bloody Drivel...


couldnt agree more.

However, 'Outraged of Tunbridge Wells' would have nothing to moan about.

[poorjohn]

Not so long ago at least one airline had cc checking under each seat between segments with a mirror-on-a-stick. Security measures seem to come with a short memory sometimes, though.

[Greek God]

The captain and co-pilot have been questioned by Lothian and Borders police, who are still investigating the incident.

The police then got involved and he was ordered back.

And the Police involvement???
Insert shaking head smiley

[sudden twang]

Some what ifs......
1 The phone was taken to the terminal building and had then blown up?
Hero pilot saves hundreds of lives as a headline?
2 phone is found to be ... Just a phone but capt claims he believed it to be a bomb, broke the law to protect lives! EU JAR and ANO allow for this.
3 The airline put capt and f/o through a CRM refresher concentrating on DM and one of the curved balls addressed was ,yes you guessed it Finding a mobile phone on board after push back.
4 The LGW chief pilot , training manager and tech manager are all good blokes?

Actually 3 and 4 aren't what ifs .

If the capt can prove he believed it could have been a bomb and that the average pilot with his training and experience may have made the same
decision , he should get away with it , IMHO see 2 and 3 above.
Mind you he may get done for littering or if the phones damaged criminal damage. :rolleyes:

[TimV]

10 year old son was on this flight using the BA Skyflyer service - which is superb.

What the Daily Mail story fails to report (!) is that selfish px not getting to the aircraft on time caused the initial delay and then the aircraft got held up by the Red Arrows needing to do their display over the Highland Show next door to the airport. The Captain gave folks on board permission to use their mobile phones at the hold point where they'd shut down. My son phoned me, I could hear all the announcements being made.

Utter disgrace by EDI ground staff - they should have gone out to the aircraft and collected the errant phone. As you know, the crew had to return to the stand for interview. It was at this point that I asked for my son to be removed from the aircraft as he'd already been sat on it for 2 hours. Plane touched down, as you know at 2430 under a new crew. I'm with the original Captain.

[DADDY-OH!]

Am I right in thinking that the 'BA Groundstaff' at EDI aren't BA Groundstaff in the true sense but BA 'Representatives'?

[spo]

Do not think this has anything to do with ATC I am an LAE at EDI. OPS/Security at EDI are very petty minded.I feel sorry for this guy. Cabin crew did not carry out security checks as they should have.Senior hostie reported the unclaimed phone at the last minute which put the Captain in a difficult situation. I cannot see what would be wrong with the Captain dropping the phone from the sliding window. Think its a safe bet that the phone was dropped on the grass at the side of the Taxiway and not on the runway or taxiway as reported.

[nurjio]

FFS, will someone post the truth. All this speculation is, frankly,:mad:.

[BarbiesBoyfriend]

Could someone please state a comparable ATC unit which is worse than EDI?

Answer (I bet) came there none.

[MATELO]

Next time the Captain will call for a full scale bomb scare. The closure of Gatwick for 5 hours whilst the BDU arrive and declare the phone safe.

And if the company & the CAA complain, then he can cite this story.

[Ex Cargo Clown]

I cannot actually believe a more trumped up "charge" than this.

Many a time I've had skippers throw all manner of documents during pushback, sometimes a few kilos worth!

Plus just doing the maths, even if you filled the mobile with a high explosive, you would need a detonator, and you probably couldn't blow your nose with that amount!

[lomapaseo]

My take is that once a safety/security of flight issue is raised by the pilot it has to be discharged by appropriate authorities. I suspect that since mobile phones have gone together with explosive devices in the past, so that somebody in the security side of things needed to decide what was appropriate.

Since this side of the story has not been displayed in the R&N, I'll just go back to sleep.

[avionimc]

A few years ago I was waiting for a takeoff clearance when tower called saying that a PAX from the previous leg forgot an envelope in his seat pocket with a [very, very] large amount of cash notes inside. ATC asked to taxi back to the gate; replied UNABLE but that we would try to locate the envelope. I also asked ATC to send a vehicle to the end of the runway/taxiway, they did. We found the envelope, threw it on the ground, airport staff retrieved it, everyone was happy, security was not compromised, delay was minimum, ensuing flight very pleasant. Of course all this requires some common sense and cooperation with everyone involved.

[crewmeal]

Of course all this requires some common sense and cooperation with everyone involved.

Sadly not a lot of it around these days.

[stuckgear]

Sadly not a lot of it around these days.


indeed, but if the operator sends an invoice for the costs incurred, you can be next time a bit of 'levity' will be employed.

it's b/s like this not only makes the working profile more stressful and obnoxious, it also pushes more costs to the operator to absorb, while only one incident, many little issues occur everyday at mutlitudes of airports by some 'jobsworth' which piles on additional costs that damages this industry doesn't well need.

therefore, if the operator sends an invoice for the costs incurred to EDI, these pointless exercises and other operators do likewise and backing crew instead of suspending them, the activities of 'little napoleons' or those that cannot think rationally, will decrease.

[ross_M]

I cannot see what would be wrong with the Captain dropping the phone from the sliding window

So did they finally find whose phone it was? It'd be a tad inconvenient if we've socially reached the stage where the appropriate response to any unidentified property is immediate destruction and disposal. No investigation, no quarantine, no questions asked. Hell, my town bus service keeps even umbrellas for 3 months before they dispose them off!

[clunk1001]

Plus just doing the maths, even if you filled the mobile with a high explosive, you would need a detonator, and you probably couldn't blow your nose with that amount!

Jesus, ex. Cargo clown - what kind of "math" are you doing??!!
It would be enough to close the airport for a few hours.

To drop or not to drop, that is NOT the question.
The question is - if ATC specifically tell you not to do something, do you disregard and do it anyway? I think it's been demonstrated there is little danger dropping presents to ground staff out the window, but how about the dangers of deliberate disregard of ATC instructions in a busy environment?

[frontcheck]

As usual, a series of seemingly inocent circumstances have come together to cause this situation. Captain was advised by airfield ops that no-one was available at the time of the request due to an aviation display for veterans day taking place and a fly-past by Red Arrows. There were already aircraft backing up at holding point his actions seem to have made the situation even worse. As stated by clunk1001 he was aware and disregarded ATC instructions, so why people can say it is a disgrace by ground staff I cant quite understand.

[tezzer]

Plus just doing the maths, even if you filled the mobile with a high explosive, you would need a detonator, and you probably couldn't blow your nose with that amount!

Oh really ?

Yahya Ayyash - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yahya_Ayyash)

[angels]

As soon as people started saying mobile phones couldn't be used as bombs I thought of Ayyash.

Talk at the time was that the head of Mossad called Ayyash on the phone to wish him goodbye and sent a signal down the line to detonate it.

If a phone can take a guy's head off (as this booby-trapped phone did), it can easily blow a hole in an aircraft skin.

[Heliport]

Is it known which clever soul(s) decided it was necessary

(a) to call the police, thereby using up police time/resources investigating trivia
and
(b) to refuse to allow the flight to depart, thereby inconveniencing 150+ people?


I wonder if there will be a review of whether they have sufficient judgment to perform a responsible job?

:rolleyes:

[Mercenary Pilot]

it can easily blow a hole in an aircraft skin.

No, apparently it can't. Experts did a lot of testing after the Nigerian Christmas day bomber tried it with a mix of chemicals concealed on his person. The BBC did a documentary which showed that a much larger amount of explosives would be needed to actually bring the aircraft down from structural failure. Also, the size of modern mobile phones is significantly smaller from mobile cell-phones from 10-20 years ago.

The programme mythbusters also did a segment with 'pen bombs' made using industrial high explosives which although believed could fatally injure a human, were not actually powerful enough to even cut a foam mannequin in half so I think it would be extremely unlikely to destroy an aircraft in flight.

[angels]

the size of modern mobile phones is significantly smaller from mobile cell-phones from 10-20 years ago.

Shin Bet apparently used 15 grammes of RDX to see off Ayyash.

I doubt that's enough to cause structural failure to a modern plane, but all the same, I'd rather not be on the flight it was detonated on.

Of course the chances of this happening are all very remote, but as the recent very scary ink cartridge devices showed there are some evil and fertile minds out there. :(

[77]

Aren't we getting way off topic. Surely the real question is why some jobsworth wouldn't collect the phone from the a/c at the holding point.
Costing airline a shed load of money and inconveniencing a planeload of passengers.
The airline industry should provide a service to passengers. And the "industry" includes airport staff/management, ATC and the airlines.
This airport fell well below the service standard needed.

[BarbiesBoyfriend]

If one was looking for unhelpful 'jobsworths', there are worse places to start looking than Edinburgh.

[Heliport]

Aren't we getting way off topic.
Surely the real question is why some jobsworth wouldn't collect the phone from the a/c at the holding point.
Costing airline a shed load of money and inconveniencing a planeload of passengers.

Yes. :ok:

Captain v jobsworth

I'll use my initiative and solve the problem v I'll use my initiative to turn a minor problem into a major problem.

[stuckgear]

Surely the real question is why some jobsworth wouldn't collect the phone from the a/c at the holding point.
Costing airline a shed load of money and inconveniencing a planeload of passengers.
The airline industry should provide a service to passengers. And the "industry" includes airport staff/management, ATC and the airlines.
This airport fell well below the service standard needed.


well thats two of us !

[SPLIT-FFMTCC]

4 pages in and views from both ends of the spectrum conveyed ..... lets all calm down, have a little reality check and put the following in perspective.

1./ In the past 10 years terrorists have shown an increasing desire to commit suicide as part of the terrorist act so they can get their 40 virgins than before.

2./ The no passenger, no bag policy idea makes sense to a degree but in reality we all know it won't deter the most ardent jihadist.

3./ The jingoist, middle class redtop stirring up the story and its track record.

4./ Captain makes what seems like a reasonable and common sense laden request based on the circumstances and the fact his delay would result in further inconveniences for all current and subsequent passengers using that particular aircraft that day.

5./ BA have to recognise why the flightdeck did what they did, saving the company money, causing as little disruption for the passengers and future schedule, isn't that the thing airlines love to hear when you are being interviewed.

6./ ATC/EDI Airport (however I'd argue all decision makers) don't like it when unique requests come through and tend to opt for the risk free, I'll cover my own back/I'm not taking initiative in the chance it may come back to bite me in the arse response.

7./ If they shut down the engines while in sequence (as conveyed by the poster who's son was on the flight), the APU's would have been running, I would argue no chance of the phone being sucked/blown anywhere critical rendering that argument null and void.

8./ If they backtracked the runway and returned to the apron, would they connect a jetway or dropped the phone out the window there as there was a greater proximity of a mechanic or other apron staff?

9./ If so, why not send a guy out in the Follow Me landrover to do the same at the holding point, same result however less hassle for the passengers, airline and airport, maybe not by the book but it would ultimately get a better result for all concerned.

10./ Ask any of the passengers for their opinion, I suspect it would be unanimous.

11./ This in effect is a total non-event of a story, however in the environment we currently live in, they unfortunately become so.

[bingofuel]

Is it not a case of looking at the risk assessment and who is responsible?

On board the aircraft the Captain is responsible for carrying out the risk assessment. Outside the aircraft, within the confines of the aierodrome it is the responsibility of the Airport Manager. The Police can override either if they wish, as they may have information not available to the others.

Now assuming the Captain did indeed carry out a risk assessment based on his company criteria etc, it would appear he did not consider it a viable threat. He then decided to pass the item into the responsibility of Edinburgh Airport PLC.

Now whether ATC contacted the Airport duty manager or not is unknown, but it was his call to accept the item, it was not up to ATC to refuse to send an ops vehicle as they do not control ops, nor do they control security, both come under the authority of the Airport manager.Was he consulted? As for the Police involvement, were they called by someone or did they respond on their own initiative.

Until we find out some more details we are speculating.

[763 jock]

It is high time we had a new offence on the statute books in the UK. It should be called "wasting police time" and be reserved for officers of the law who demonstrate a disregard for common bloody sense.

How this became a matter for the police is beyond me. The Stasi must have moved from East Germany.:ugh:

[Tay Cough]

So next time; the transmission from the flight deck should be along the lines of:

"My engines are shut down. Send an ops vehicle to pick up the phone from the flight deck window then I'll move. No I won't return to stand."

[Betty girl]

On BA aircraft, out of UK airports on shorthaul flights, the seat pockets are checked by the UK cleaning staff and NOT the cabin crew.

Out of non-UK airports, our shorthaul aircraft have the pockets checked by the cabin crew.

Having said that though, on this occasion, we don't actually know where this phone was found anyway. Very occasionally phones get stuck right down the side of a seat, when they have fallen out of a passengers trouser pocket; and unless all the seats pads are completely pulled out each flight on every seat, occasionally these can get missed.

They are of course, usually the well loved phone of a passenger who was on the plane previously, but if found it would be normal to offload, and in most cases ATC would usually be of assistance in this matter.

[BOAC]

and be reserved for officers of the law who demonstrate a disregard for common bloody sense. - you will probably find that the plod were reacting to a request, so let's not necessarily pick on them. When my 'previous' occurred at LGW and we continued on our merry way (minus the 'suspect' tranny) to Scandiland we were blissfully unaware that ATC had summoned the whole of the Sussex and Surrey constabulary, fire service, ambulances and probably alerted the COBRA committee too, which did cause some subsequent tooth-gnashing, especially when they arrived all hot and steamy to ask where the a/c with the suspect package was to be told it was heading north-east at FL130 over Clacton. All to do, apparently, with laid-down procedures in the ATC book.

[Xeque]

It's a security issue. Here in Thailand where we have a major insurgency problem in the south of the country, mobile phones have many times been used to trigger IED's. The situation got so bad that a year or so ago all SIM owners had to re-register their numbers and any left over were disabled until their owners came forward.
I can understand this Captains frustration at not being able to get rid of if from his/her aircraft without having to return to the stand with the further delays that this would, apparently, have incurred.

[bingofuel]

Of course if the scenario had escalated, he may have found himself parking a long way from anywhere and deploying the slides! Then all the pax and crew get detained, aircraft searched,etc. That is why the risk must be assessed and an appropriate response taken when those that need to know agree on the threat and subsequent procedure.

[stuckgear]

Of course if the scenario had escalated, he may have found himself parking a long way from anywhere and deploying the slides! Then all the pax and crew get detained, aircraft searched,etc. That is why the risk must be assessed and an appropriate response taken when those that need to know agree on the threat and subsequent procedure.


or, to prevent the situation from escalating drop the phone out of the cockpit window to ground crew and let ground crew, fire service, bomb squad, the army, the navy, SAS or a detachment from the US rangers deal with it.

sheesh !

[bingofuel]

Which is an option, provided he told the Airport authority he was doing that. Do we know if he told anyone what he did, or was he seen by someone else who reported the incident.

[Robin400]

Unlike many post on here high explosive only "speaks once". A small mobile phone packed with explosives is a serious matter and should be disposed with as soon as possible.
Full marks to the Captain involved :D

[MIDLGW]

Well done, Bettygirl, for telling the world about how we do our security checks :*:ugh:

[shotpeened]

:)isnt it the real issue here, that it was British Airways, and THEY do not do things like this. if this was a Ryanair flight, he would be getting a bonus from Michael, who would be on to the media about how this captain was only doing the right thing to get his weight below MTOW

[White Knight]

Well done, Bettygirl, for telling the world about how we do our security checks


Seriously?????????????????????

You think it's a secret?????????????????


Stupidest post in this entire thread:ugh::ugh::ugh:

[stuckgear]

Well done, Bettygirl, for telling the world about how we do our security checks http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/bah.gif:ugh:


i wouldn't be having a dig at Bettygirl, those that wish to commit certain acts are fanatical not stupid.

in the public domain..


jury at Woolwich crown court also found Karim, 31, guilty of three additional counts of preparing for terrorist attacks, including conspiring with on-the-run radical cleric Awlaki. Karim plotted to blow up an aircraft, shared information of use to Awlaki, offered to help financial or disruptive attacks on BA and gained a UK job to exploit terrorist purposes, the jurors ruled.

Police took months to break encrypted messages on his computer. They found he had been in direct contact with Awlaki, who is accused of having links to the attempted bombing of a plane over Detroit during Christmas in 2009 and an attempt last year to explode ink printer bombs on freight planes heading to the US.

Karim, who worked for BA in Newcastle, studied electronics at Manchester University from 1998 to 2002 where he gained a 2.2. He then went back to his native Bangladesh, where he supported an extremist organisation.
He returned to the UK in 2006, purportedly to seek medical treatment for his young son, who was wrongly thought to have cancer. But police believe Karim had committed himself to violent jihad and sought a job where he could best help the terrorist cause.

In September 2007 he became a graduate IT trainee with BA Police described the computer encryption Karim used as the most sophisticated they had seen in a British terrorist case. It took nine months to crack the secrets of his home computer, with one detective comparing the encryption to "Russian dolls", where one layer was cracked only to reveal another.

Police believe Karim was offering to supply information to terrorists that could be used to stage an attack. He also tried to join BA cabin crew during a strike but failed because of a technicality.


British Airways worker Rajib Karim convicted of terrorist plot | UK news | guardian.co.uk (http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/feb/28/british-airways-bomb-guilty-karim)

[stuckgear]

isnt it the real issue here, that it was British Airways, and THEY do not do things like this. if this was a Ryanair flight, he would be getting a bonus from Michael, who would be on to the media about how this captain was only doing the right thing to get his weight below MTOW


No? Of course all BA Captains have handle bar moustaches, wear a monocle and riding breaches as part of the uniform and start the take off roll with 'Tally-ho chaps!'

[bingofuel]

Terrorists are clever, dedicated, resourceful people who devote their lives to their cause. Anyone who has any experience around airports will know how ludicrously easy it is to enter the restricted zone/critical zone and place an object on an aircraft undetected.

[kotakota]

I am sure it will all be ok , BA will do the PC / Democratic thing as usual , and organise a tribunal type solution , as they did in the C4 ' drinking ' fiasco , where totally innocent crew were unlucky enough to be filmed by that b***h , and had to PROVE their innocence which was a farce as they appointed various twerps to investigate each crew , the classic being the cargo manager who kept insisting that the crew were ordering a certain brew called 'Cerveza' , and had no idea what it meant ,
God help these ' mobile' boys - they have no chance against the system.

[korrol]

It's stretching it a bit to claim that a terrorist with a 2.2 degree at Manchester University is "clever".

[jumbojet]

Times have changed, not always for the best.

Professional flight crew do not throw items of the window in 2011. They go back to stand & follow the rules.
He F#ked up.
period!

[wub]

Here's a photo I took at the time of the 'incident', you can see that the captain's window is open and there is an Ops vehicle near the front of the aircraft
http://i66.photobucket.com/albums/h269/wub_01/P1010059a.jpg

[RevMan2]

It's as simple as this:

Had they gone back to the gate, their management would have ripped into them asking them "What the @#$% they were thinking about - they should have continued with the flight"

Now that they've avoided management pressure, they're getting the standard Bohica and "of course we would have supported them had they followed ATC instructions to return to the gate"

Anyone who believes a different scenario is a fool

[Sir George Cayley]

Just imagine you're in a Leader/Ops vehicle. Not a bad day, no accidents, benign weather, nice sandwich at lunchtime and to cap it all the Spadgers doing their stuff. Nice:ok:

Then the handheld goes, its apron Control - "Ranger 02 can you go to the Speedy 73 on Alpha? Capts got a suspicious object he wants to give you"

Holy Shiyt! You can guess the rest.

[jumbojet]

Its possably true that their managment would of tried to "rip them apart"

but any captain worth his weight would would reply, " I felt it was a flight safety & security issue,,,, don't you agree?"

It stops there!

[lomapaseo]

Well you can't deny it didn't go right

look at the hub bub it created on the internet.

At this point hopefully the media gives up trying to second guess what the right decision should have been.

[Ex Cargo Clown]

the classic being the cargo manager who kept insisting that the crew were ordering a certain brew called 'Cerveza'

Where was this? Not heard this one......

[Passanger1]

So far people have assumed it was all to do with a mobile phone because that was reported in the papers. What if this information was not true? Does anyone know the source of this initial report?

[Earl of Rochester]

.
So, as I asked on page 1, does this mean that if 'Jane' suddenly discovers that 'Mark' really is the love of her life and that she shouldn't have left him (and suppose this revelation occurs just when her flight to JFK is about to turn onto the runway and she wants to get back to the gate) all she has to do is hold up her phone and say "look, I've found this"?

[Basil]

look at the hub bub it created on the internet
Well, if this lot saw a squirrel coming down a tree backwards it would run to a dozen pages :=

[etrang]

and she wants to get back to the gate) all she has to do is hold up her phone and say "look, I've found this"?

Yes. Or the pilot may just throw it out the window (into the hands of a suitable recipient, of course).

[clunk1001]

Earl, I suppose she could hold up and wave around any personal battery powered device she happened to have on her at the time. :ooh:

Women thought vibrator was a bomb (http://www.redandwhitekop.com/forum/index.php?topic=19869.0)

"er excuse me miss...I found this, buzzing around my feet, its not mine though, is it yours?..."

That would also explain ATCs reluctance....."Speedbird69 say again, you want to drop WHAT out of the cockpit?!"

[Earl of Rochester]

.
Excellent! :E

[SassyPilotsWife]

This is absolutely hilarious. 6 pages on Pprune and you guys vent about the media jumping into this meaningless story ? ( Ok so I bit.. but for a reason maybe)

I flew on the 25th from MEM to ORD to IAD to DXB and don't recall which flight it was, but there was an announcement over the PA about a mobile phone found ( actually called it a cell phone) on board. I didn't pay much attention to the announcement as I was glad to get on board ( non rev). All turned out well and we all made it safe to our destination, early as a matter of fact ( thank you UAL crew). Now to read on Pprune and learn about this story, This is just crazy.

Firstly, my flight was not interrupted, the crew didn't throw it out the window. Probably because it was found prior to gate departing ( now there's an idea BA crew! UAL cc did their job prior to push back avoiding altogether the potential for the same scenario.

Second, I have worked for 2 airlines on the ramp and even cleaned a few a/c to get them the hell out of my gates so I could get off work on time and keep our pax happy. Not to mention, that word has it, :E , you find cash on the floor, especially the back rows and anything you find that is not claimed in 30 to 90 days is yours, (Georgio perfume and jewelry not claimed was phenomenal, thank you pax). The magazines that are left in the front pockets can be an entertainingly free bonus, and go ahead and look err I mean clean inside the pockets ( new IPOD) but, careful cleaning the crevices of the seats ( needles etc..) because not only do they need to be clean, you just might recover what didnt make it to the floor of the a/c. Not quite sure if a vibrator was ever found, but that would definitely NOT be an item of interest and probably left in the front seat pocket but one would wonder, was it really necessary inflight ?

I did find a cell phone once. It took me about 2 minutes to find out the pax who sat in that seat, I had gate agents look up the seat holders name and flight itinerary and within minutes was at his connecting gate and merely handed it over and he had no idea he had left it. He was not a terrorist, nor was the phone a detonator. Unless you want to count a brain fart which caused him leaving the phone on the a/c due to the fact he was getting home as fast as he could to see the birth of his baby.

There was no reason to involve police nor any other upper management other than my direct supervisor who gave me authority to attempt to find out who the pax was. All was well ( it could have turned out differently had the number I called under ( wife) didn't know he was traveling at all. and as a matter of fact, once I reunited him with his phone and he called his wife he was able to hear his new baby who had just arrived minutes earlier into the world.

Dear UAL CC:

Thank you for finding the phone on our flight on the 25th of June. PRIOR TO PUSH BACK. Because the phone was found prior to push back, the owner wasn't, it was removed from the a/c and off we went..

Dear BA crew and/or staff:

Do your job and all will go well much better to avoid any situation where flight deck crew are faced with the decision they made to avoid a flight delay as well as avoiding the potential for FOD. Of course, I don't know exactly when this phone was found but common sense would say that it was found after push back resulting in the Capt. having to make the " corporate " decision of saving dollars and delay of flight by dumping the phone, continuing on as was planned and calling it a day. While I'm not a tech expert and don't know the " what if's " or " what could have happened" I do know the dangers of FOD and as far fetched as we might want to think, think of the Concorde flight

Dear " anyone looking for humour in the story" : my first thought when I saw this story was that the wife or g/f ( or both) of one of the pilots in the cockpit finally had enough shi* from the caller and said " screw it " and chunked it (I have NO idea how I could have come up with that analogy lol )


PS: don't pick on Betty. Hell if anyone wants to know how to commit a crime, be a terrorist, cook meth etc.. it is on google and other internet avenues.

Most importantly though, all inquiring minds want to know, Had it been an actual vibrator, would the pilot still have thrown it out ? Or better yet, would one of the cc have claimed it :)

[Basil]

Had it been an actual vibrator, would the pilot still have thrown it out ? Or better yet, would one of the cc have claimed it
Now, having a 'preloved' car is one thing but . . . :yuk:

[clunk1001]

Come on, be serious. A buzzing vibrator is not going to be go unnoticed after push back......everyone knows that modern aircraft have vibration gauges in the cockpit so the pilots would know about it. :}

[pinkaroo]

Didn't Monarch have a diversion for a suspicious object a couple of years ago which was revealed to be a vibrator?

[Capot]

Didn't Monarch have a diversion for a suspicious object a couple of years ago which was revealed to be a vibrator?

She may have done, but if I told you I would have to shoot you. All information about the Royal Flight is classified Eyes Only. Anyway, it's her business if the Greek needs supplementing from time to time.

[ltn and beyond]

Everyone has a opinion on the rights and wrongs here but as usual the crew on the day had to make a call.

Should they have returned to the stand?, maybe but if it was a explosive then it could have been triggered at any point, so the safest place for it would be off the aircraft asap and away from any buildings etc..

why would ATC not say to the crew to go to a remote part of the airfeild where they could deal with the suspicious item?, did atc not realise the gravity of the potential problem?.

Had anyone claimed the phone ?

Would anyone on here be happy flying with a suspicious item on board?

The crew obviously decided that their " least risk bomb location" was outside of the aircraft.... I agree !!!

[amsm01]

Surely if it were a bomb, the least appropriate thing would be to find the nearest heavily peopled building, preferably surrounded by aircraft and fuel trucks - and take it there?

That said, if it were a bomb then I imagine some sort of additional search of the aircraft would be in order. Once over from the dogs etc.

I have a question, it's a serious one - if it had been a bottle of water, or a yoghurt - given how seriously those are regarded by airport security, would it have been advisable to delay and return on account of them?

[JW411]

Many moons ago I was stationed at Brize Norton and I remember the RAF Regiment Officer telling me a great story. A Canadian Armed Forces 707 en route from Germany to Canada made an emergency diversion into Brize when a suspect package was found in one of the rear loos. The package was making a ticking noise.

The aircraft landed safely and was directed to the remote parking stand reserved for the purpose. The steps were put up and the Regiment officer shot up to the top of the steps. The passenger door opened and a crew member handed him the package and then promptly shut the door again!

My chum was left standing there with the ticking parcel in his hands feeling just a little lonely.

It turned out to be a Swiss cuckoo clock!

[fc101]

I'm just glad 411A wasn't around to see this.....:=

Explains the thunderstorms last night ;-)

[stuckgear]

there's also the aspect to the issue in the the mobile phone is actually a mobile phone and not a bomb, dildo or any other sundry device.

so the crew can ignore bugger off down route with the phone and let admin return the phone to the owner or dump it in lost property, while the owner may or may not be standing in the terminal at an unmanned desk with a website address to refer to for assistance.

or drop the phone into the hands of ground crew who can return it to the terminal building where the owner may be waiting, or if not return it to where he or she deplaned. rather than taxi the plane down the runway, back down the taxi way to the terminal to the stand, open the door at the jet way and hand the phone to someone else, providing the operator with additional costs, maybe a missed slot into the destination airport intended, the potential of having to deal with pax that have missed onward connections etc etc.

As contacted opined:

Aviation Security, despite best intentions, often lacks one basic element, Common Sense. We are becoming conditioned into irrational behaviour by fear and incorrect application of unworkable procedures.



and the costs for these unworkable practises are being met by the carriers which, in a highly competitive market eats into the profit margins day in, day out, which then has effect on the T&C's and working conditions that we all have to deal with.

[BarbiesBoyfriend]

If this had happened to me I would have:

1. Accepted the phone from the cc.
2. Dismantled it as much as I could, ie battery out, back taken off etc. or if it was an iphone, turned it on to see if it really was an iphone.

If there was any doubt, I'd stop and evacuate the a/c straightaway.

If it was plainly a lost phone, I'd pocket it and say nothing. It would be 'rediscovered' on the next T/R.

Oooooh! Aren't I a devil?:rolleyes:

[ExSp33db1rd]

..........Aviation Security, despite best intentions, often lacks one basic element, Common Sense...................

Once had the pleasure of flying a Royal Personage ( at Dukedom level ) home from the USA. (nice chap, actually, came and amused us on the flight deck - shock - horror ! we allowed it ! just think, he might have been a terrorist )

Security - such as it was in those days - advised that they had received 3 bomb threats against the aircraft that day, and that even tho' all 3 had been deemed unreliable, nevertheless the flight would be delayed whilst a 'bomb search' took place. No problem with that, seemed a Common Sense decision.

Then " Security " asked what they wanted me to do if they received another threat after we had departed ? How the h*ll would I know ? I told them that I considered them to be the 'experts' and if they deemed the threat to be real then they must order a return via ATC comms. but if considered to be another hoax then don't bother me. Seemed the Common Sense thing to do.

[Loose rivets]

So if it was a bomb with a detector tab on the back . . . what then?



Phone. Bomb? Possibly.


Bomb? Remote detonation by calling that number. Probably.

Get rid of it, SASPO, and by any reasonable means, cos if they see the aircraft turn around, they won't wait until it's in the air.

[stuckgear]

If this had happened to me I would have:

1. Accepted the phone from the cc.
2. Dismantled it as much as I could, ie battery out, back taken off etc. or if it was an iphone, turned it on to see if it really was an iphone.

If there was any doubt, I'd stop and evacuate the a/c straightaway.

If it was plainly a lost phone, I'd pocket it and say nothing. It would be 'rediscovered' on the next T/R.

Oooooh! Aren't I a devil?:rolleyes:


so if it wasn't a 'phone' and was an IED you've potentially blown your hand(s) off and probably lost your sight.

what if the phone was a phone and had flat battery.. then, there'd be the red tops screaming 'Airport shut down by mobile phone with flat battery' and there'd be a Pprune thread running about a dumb@ss who evac-ed an aircraft on the 'runway' because a phone with a flat battery was found, probably with the suggestions that it would have been better to drop it out of the window for ground to deal with. N.B: there may, or may not, be TAF's and METAR's posted for the relevant airport at the time.

[BarbiesBoyfriend]

What if it wasn't a bomb? As is highly likely.

OK. It could be alq uaedas first phone bomb attck, and they've chosen to plant it by cunningly flying with it and then leaving it where it's likely to be found (as it was found).

They've figured that I'll get it and turn it on. Thus wounding myself.

Or maybe one of the pax left his phone by mistake.

The likelyhood of it ACTUALLY being a real phone bomb is about the same as being shot down by a MANPAD on takeoff, IMHO.


Get a GRIP!

[Dream Land]

Actually this thread has been quite educational, my crew found a hand phone prior to departure a while back, I now see that I totally mishandled the situation. :ugh:

[stuckgear]

What if it wasn't a bomb? As is highly likely.



indeed, you will see that form my post above, that my contention is that the phone was most likely a phone, not a bomb, or dildo or other sundry device.


OK. It could be alq uaedas first phone bomb attck, and they've chosen to plant it by cunningly flying with it and then leaving it where it's likely to be found (as it was found).



well, it wouldnt be the first time a cell phone has been used, i care not to comment on what 'cunning methods' AQ or any other extremist group may care to impliment in furthering their 'message'.


They've figured that I'll get it and turn it on. Thus wounding myself.



people do dumb things like turn on electrical devices they find in a secure environment.


Or maybe one of the pax left his phone by mistake.



that was my contention see post above ^^^ (arrows provided to assist in direction)


The likelyhood of it ACTUALLY being a real phone bomb is about the same as being shot down by a MANPAD on takeoff, IMHO.



or a whole host of other scenarios


Get a GRIP!


perhaps you should read the posts before posting on what you think they say, rather than what they actually say.

[Skipness One Echo]

Isn't the question really that the chance of the aircraft crashing is statistically quantified and acceptably small where the risk of the package not being a normal mobile phone is also quantifiable, staggeringly small and completely ignored in the current thinking.

Every point about the potential to harm is true but the odds are staggeringly small and unlikely. Like the 95 year old woman who had her incontinence pants examined by the TSA last week as they were taking no chances. It's really difficult to argue against that mantra that to do anything else is taking risks with people's lives, even decades after Lockerbie where bombproof cargo containers are still not widely used due to a risk vs cost analysis.

[macdo]

Having ploughed through this thread with the odd giggle and lots of sympathy for the Captain doing what he did, sadly, in this day and age, in fact, he did do the wrong thing. The odds of the phone being anything bad were beyond remote, but thats where we are, dealing with odds of a million to one against and having to take it seriously. Many would argue that this has made the terrorists the victors and everyone one of us who is abused by intrusive security or affected by nonsensical legislation, a victim. This Capt. is just the latest.

[stuckgear]

Many would argue that this has made the terrorists the victors and everyone one of us who is abused by intrusive security or affected by nonsensical legislation, a victim. This Capt. is just the latest.

And you're not even getting into Health and Safety evaluations which could involved, to drop a phone from a cockpit window into the hands ground crew, at least three safety checklists, use of a hard hat, safety goggles, heat resistant gloves and at least three H&S supervisors, one standing by with a fire extinguisher.

[macdo]

:D quite so!

[lomapaseo]

Well just to be sure, they could have found the mobile phone's number using its menu function and then called it. If they got a voice mail they would then know man or woman, heavy accent or not. Of course if the phone was really a bomb calling it would also answer that question.

It's not rocket science logic, all it requires is more snap decision making :)

[Eagle402]

You are of course presuming the 'phone was already switched on. If it had been off it may have been password protected to prevent its use in case of theft and secondly not everybody records a personal answer 'phone message. An awful lot of people just leave the default message on.

[rh200]

The chances of it being a bomb are that low its, stupid. That said if there was a chance that it was, what would be the best course of action. Keep in mind there have been instances of terrorists remotely activating them before, in fact if I remember rightly one bloke had one up his coight.

I would imagine that a remote activation of a device on a fully laden aircraft clambering into the air over a residential area would be one of the worst places for it to happen. Hence would have thought the if you really thought it was a bomb your first duty was to open a window or door and throw the thing as far away from the aircraft as possible, including the wing. I would imagine you would do this first before notifing ATC.

Why? you don't want any one watching or listening to notice something wrong and just let it go anyway. But as I stated at the begining, it would be the last thing on my mind, and maybe that's just a lack of imagination on my part.

[ExSp33db1rd]

..........could have found the mobile phone's number using its menu function......

Did that recently when away from home, when I kicked one of the new super -expensive super-phones out of a grass verge, the chances of it being a bomb designed to kill a passing dog - or me - were totally remote, and anyway by now I'd kicked it, but I couldn't work out how to use the darned thing but eventually found a number labelled 'Mum', so rang it and got the owners mother ( not surprisingly) who contacted the owner, who came around to the Starbucks that I had visited for free WiFi and paid for my coffee - with thanks ! ( no comments about drinking Starbucks coffee pls. the WiFi was free. QED )

( used to be a Boy Scout, too, when Good Deeds were restricted to helping Old Ladies across the road - even if they didn't want to cross )

[White Knight]

The world has gone stark raving mad!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

John R - do you work for the left wing H&S by any chance????

It's a 'PHONE... Verdammt!!!!!!

[BarbiesBoyfriend]

John R.

You'd fit right in at EDI.

A dunderheids paradise.

[BarbiesBoyfriend]

Gawd save us from the inane mutterings of the righteous.:ooh:

Where does your 'area of expertise' lie btw?

[Loose rivets]

It's not a phone until proven to be one. There is room in the battery for some power and an explosive.

It most certainly is a small electrical device, solidly built and heavy for its size. IT APPARENTLY HAS NO OWNER ON BOARD THAT AIRCRAFT.

It is a potential hazard, and it's not up to the crew to assess the odds.

Millions of small actions by the TSA every day find nothing. Just occasionally something is found. The odds are millions to one against, but try telling the TSA to go home.

I was presented with a Dangerous Goods chitty. A small amount of a substance I had no real training in handling was listed. It was decided by the dispatcher I could not take it. I was sorry, cos it was the chemical in the battery of a life-jacket from another aircraft.

There are a horrifyingly large number of people, including children, who have been left with no feet, no hands, and/or no eyes. Devices I read about last week are not much bigger than a mobile phone. One weighs less than my phone.

The odds are against, but the threat is real.

[BarbiesBoyfriend]

No loose.

It IS a phone (invariably) and remains a phone until recycled.

Get a (harry blankers) GRIP.

You're right about one thing tho: 'Millions of actions by the TSA everyday, find nothing'.

The only thing that saves us from the terrorists is the fact that they are pish terrorists.

If they had ANY CLUE, we'd be in a world of ****.

And as for the TSA etc?

I think the Girl Guides are capable of more independant thought and therefore, action than the half-wits who work in 'security'.


Anyone care to disagree?

[crippen]

Hope it wasn't one of these!;)
RETROBRICK - the home of vintage and rare mobile phones (http://www.retrobrick.com/4500x.html)

[STOLskunkworks]

What I really want to know is what kind of phone was it?

[arem]

Edinburgh - Scotland - say no more!

[bingofuel]

The only thing that saves us from the terrorists is the fact that they are pish terrorists.Some are, but many are not!

Gawd save us from the inane mutterings of the righteous.http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/icon25.gif
You said it!

[Al Murdoch]

In my old job we had a saying: "The biggest threat to security is the perception that there is no threat".
Say what you like about the chances of the phone being suspicious or otherwise, but the Captain had to have the thing removed from the aircraft. The chances of an engine going tits up on takeoff are extremely remote, but we still account for that eventuality in every take off calculation, briefing and sim. Our responsibilities as pilots extend far beyond the flightdeck. Anyone who doesn't take that seriously is not fulfilling their obligations.

[sudden twang]

I'm just glad barbies boyfriend isn't a captain. A troll maybe.

[Beakor]

On being given the phone the Captain's decision to make seems to me to be; is this thing a suspect IED or is it lost property? Now there will be many mobile phones on the aircraft all of which have been security screened and are accompanied by their owners so we're happy with them. This phone is unaccompanied but that should make little difference in this era of suicide bombers? Therefore treating it as lost property seems reasonable to me. If it had been discovered before push back it would undoubtedly have been treated as lost property, not sure how a delay in its discovery makes it an IED but there may be facts we don't know.

However, we could also make the other decision and treat it as a suspect IED. No procedure I know says to return to stand with a suspect IED on board, hand it to the ramp agent who will then carry it through the terminal and hand it to lost property. Nor do I know of a procedure that says chuck the IED out of the DV window either to a waiting ops person or onto the tarmac. Both of those procedures seem to be the "we all know its not really a bomb but we're slightly covering our arses" procedures.

So, decide, IED or lost property. If lost property then treat as if its a lost paperback book or similar and carry out the relevant company procedure. If IED, treat it as if its a stick of dynamite wired to some sort of detonator and carry out the company procedure for that situation. The cobbled together not really sure but bit of both procedure is how we end up in this ridiculous situation.

[42psi]

Having read this through I'm left thinking that everyone has become fixated on the object (the phone) and what was done with it.

Is it not entirely possible that the "security issue" was not the phone itself being a risk as such but that it indicated the a/c had not been properly secured or checked.

In years gone by I've certainly accepted "lost & found" items dropped out the window to me after doors closed and saw no problem with that.

In this particular situation it may be that someone decided that it suggested the a/c may not have been either secured overnight or an acceptable cabin check carried out prior to boarding.????

[Storminnorm]

I'm amazed that no-one tried ring back to try to find out
who the phone belonged to.
Or have I missed that bit?
Just couldn't be bothered to read through it all.

[glad rag]

Is it not entirely possible that the "security issue" was not the phone itself being a risk as such but that it indicated the a/c had not been properly secured or checked.

^^^this^^^^

and of course it could have been one of those dry runs......?

[cwatters]

It's quite possible for a phone to be used as part of a bomb without it being physically connected to it by wires. If you find an unclaimed phone perhaps you should double check for an unclaimed bag nearby. If I remember correctly one terrorist incident (reported in the media at the time) even involved the bomber swallowing the explosive device and using a mobile to communicate with it.

[Ex Cargo Clown]

As the phone was in a "sterile" area, it would have been security screened, and even the worst security bloke in the world wouldn't miss a phone which has organic matter in it! Big orange rectangular thing with some green around it, do me a favour, it would have been flagged up ASAP.

[cwatters]

The phone need not be modified at all.

[bingofuel]

As the phone was in a "sterile" area, it would have been security screened

I wouldn't bet on it.

[YorkshireTyke]

As the phone was in a "sterile" area, it would have been security screened

I wouldn't bet on it.

Agreed. ( I believe in Father Christmas, too.)

[wiggy]

I guess by that logic since the aircraft, crew, fuel, passengers, their bags, catering et. al. are in a secure area we can't assume they've been screened either.

[Loose rivets]

Captain's decision to make seems to me to be; is this thing a suspect IED or is it lost property?

To Captain Shrodinger, it's both . . . until he opens the phone.


I'm not being altogether flippant either.

[Chief McFarland]

This discussion is almost getting comical... But, if its true that a mobile phone can be used as a device to trigger an explosive, then, there's no doubt that the phone had to be removed from the aircraft. If its found when the aircraft has left the terminal, then it has to return to the gate and passed on to the authorities by hand. No flight or cabin crew is trained to ascertain that the phone is indeed safe. Similarly, throwing it on the runway is ridiculous for many reasons.

Yes, its extremely inconvenient but necessary, I would think?

[Earl of Rochester]

.

This discussion is almost getting comical ..

I think that may have happened some pages back!

[Bronx]

Most people seem to agree the phone had to be removed from the aircraft.

The real scandal here is that the pilots used some common sense and ended up being questioned by the police.

Breach of the ANO by dropping an article from an aircraft in flight?? http://i306.photobucket.com/albums/nn245/marie01_08/Smileys%20and%20Stuff/th_AnimatedLaughingSmiley.gif

[Juan Tugoh]

It would seem to me that it is irrelevant whether or not the phone was or was not an IED. What the phone revealed when it was found was that the security checks had been compromised. That in itself made prudent to return to stand and have the checks completed thoroughly, throwing the phone out of the window was foolish and in no way represented a common sense attitude by the flight crew. Security may be an inconvenience but that is a fact of modern aviation as the captain on this flight should know.

[stuckgear]

What the phone revealed when it was found was that the security checks had been compromised.


in what way ? should a plane return to stand anytime detritus from a previous flight is found ?

[Pukka]

phone call to collect the milk on the way home do tend to frustrate!!

[Juan Tugoh]

in what way ? should a plane return to stand anytime detritus from a previous flight is found ?

Yes, as it shows that the cleaning and security checks have not been done correctly. It shows that there may well be other items that may have been missed, items that may be far more sinister in nature. The biggest threat to security is complacence and people making ill-informed judgements coloured by commercial pressure. This incident may have been nothing but a dry run, an attempt to prove that a small electronic device could be planted aboard an subsequently missed by the checks or it could have simply been a lost mobile phone. The point is that we do not know. Sadly the cost of safety is vigilance, this is sometimes inconvenient but that is the modern world.

[BOAC]

Sitting here in my '20/20 hindsight upholstered' armchair, I see Juan has a valid point. Whether it would have been top of my action list in that situation I doubt. Is it, or should be, in Company procedures?

SG - not a well-phrased post.

[stuckgear]

BOAC, Juan,

I take your point after explanation, however it would be impractical and potentially economically disastrous for a plane to return to stand upon any detritus from a previous flight being found. A paperback ? Could be carved out pages, containing an IED etc etc. However, in this situation it could be considered that what ever has been brought onto the aircraft by passengers had passed security screening. Yes, there is also the scenario that a rogue member of ground crew could have placed the item on board.

There is the issue; there are so many potential holes that to legislate them all out would make the business of operation of aircraft for transportation unviable. As you point out 'vigilance' is important.

If the item 'is' suspected to be an IED then it 'must' be treated that way, of course the aircraft would not return to stand, but be moved to an appropriate location on the field, the pax and crew evacuated and the bomb squad called in to deal with the item.

Did that happen in this instance? Not my knowledge.

The aircraft was instructed to return to stand. Now if this was a requirement in the event that it 'was' a suspect device then, that in itself was a fatal error of judgement of ATC/Ground. To place an aircraft on stand with a suspect device? Evacuate the whole terminal, risk to other aircraft on stand so on and so forth? If it was a suspect device and the request to return to stand was made, then I would contend that the security procedures were written by Coco the Clown and need immediate review.

We can run around this process of 'what if it was bomb' all year long and postulations on what would or wouldn't have been the correct course of action, or not.

The fact is, it wasn't, the phone was a phone, not a bomb, not a dildo, not placed by AQ, Hamas, the PLO, the SNP, the IRA, the TUC, the BBC, Dora the Explorer or anyone else.

I'm going to go out on a limb here and suggest that the security procedures were not drawn up by Coco the Clown and are in fact relevant to the threat process and that an IED would be dealt with in accordance to the procedures set forth. So where does that leave us? The plane wasn't dealt with as host to a security threat from an IED, but was holding a passenger's phone that had been left on the aircraft and rather than incur additional costs and delays for both the operator and the passengers, the captain took a decision to attempt to hand the phone off to ground crew with the added benefit of returning the phone to the passenger.

Alas, ground didn't want to play ball, (despite it seems from the picture previously posted that a ground vehicle was there at the time) if anything BA should be standing by its crew and supporting them and the ground people involved need a hefty kick up the backside to either deal with an IED threat as the procedures dictate (and if they do, then we can determine there was no security threat) or assist aircraft operators in the expeditious flow of traffic.

Sadly the cost of safety is vigilance, this is sometimes inconvenient but that is the modern world

I couldnt agree with you more. :ok:

[Juan Tugoh]

stuckgear, you seem to imply that the commercial decision overrides the security implications and you focus on the phone. This is a red herring, the phone is merely evidence that other things may well be on board that should not be there, the phone in itself is irrelevant. Decisions based on what the phone is/was etc are missing the point.

The fact is, it wasn't, the phone was a phone, not a bomb, not a dildo, not placed by AQ, Hamas, the PLO, the SNP, the IRA, the TUC, the BBC, Dora the Explorer or anyone else.

I agree with you and the phone clearly demonstrates that the security procedures had been circumvented or had not been carried out correctly.

the captain took a decision to attempt to hand the phone off to ground crew with the added benefit of returning the phone to the passenger.


No. The captain took the commercial decision not to be inconvenienced by the potential ramifications of the now proven failings in the security procedures.

There is a reluctance in us all to cause a fuss - and this reticence is one area that can be exploited to circumvent security. Remember that both the shoe bomber and the underpants bomber had both been through the security procedures, they are not foolproof but when they have been clearly been insufficient then we must act. Ignoring the potential ramifications because it could cause a delay or lead to some missed connections is irresponsible at best.

Perhaps all this crew need is a little re-education. The worst that happened here is that we have all been afforded the opportunity to reflect upon this incident and consider what may have been. If he did nothing else the captain involved has made us think about the security issues. Very little is black and white and sometimes a small incident can help to define the issues a little better.

[Someone_Else]

Do you know, I came on here looking to see if there where any facts. What do I find? Over 9 pages and 160 posts which mainly contains absolutely mind numbing drivel.

Considering that there is a lot of criticizing the media about their reporting. Don't get me wrong, I fully expect their reporting to be rubbish and sensationalist but the first P in this website stands for 'Professional'. I think I've read less than 10 posts on this thread where the term professional comes close.

Ridiculous.

[stuckgear]

you seem to imply that the commercial decision overrides the security implications and you focus on the phone.


nope, that is not the implication i am making at all and incorrect i am not focusing on the phone, quite the opposite.



and this reticence is one area that can be exploited to circumvent security. Remember that both the shoe bomber and the underpants bomber had both been through the security procedures, they are not foolproof but when they have been clearly been insufficient then we must act.


indeed, and i suggest you re-read my post.


Ignoring the potential ramifications because it could cause a delay or lead to some missed connections is irresponsible at best


That is not what i set forth. Again, quite the opposite. do not put words into my mouth.

Perhaps all this crew need is a little re-education.

perhaps ATC and the appropriate personnel at the airport in question need extensive re-education in dealing with security threats. have you completely missed the whole post i made or are your reading what you want it to say, rather than what it does say.


Very little is black and white and sometimes a small incident can help to define the issues a little better.


that was partly the the point i was making it is not always black and white indeed or did you miss that.

[Loose rivets]

Maybe you're thinking of someone else's post.:}

[Torque Tonight]

If under 'User CP' you change the setting for number of posts per page from the default 20 to 40, then you'll find it's only 5 pages of drivel, not 9.

Happy to help.

[YorkshireTyke]

I guess by that logic since the aircraft, crew, fuel, passengers, their bags, catering et. al. are in a secure area we can't assume they've been screened either.

Oh, they'll have been 'screened' alright, most of them, anyway.

Define 'screening' tho' ? A total waste of time if anyone thinks that so called 'screening' is actually going to stop the Bad Guys doing what they want, when they want to do it.

Aviation security ? look up oxymoron.

[bubbers44]

Doesn't it seem like priorities for safety of flight items should focus more on flap and trim settings, proper runway selection for takeoff and weather, rather than a cellphone or doll left on an aircraft from the previous flight? What would John Wayne do?

I had a flight attendant try to ground my flight in Honduras because a piece of caulking fell off the ceiling of the forward luggage space and shattered causing chalk dust to get on the floor. I showed her where the caulking fell off, where it hit and she still went to the hospital when we landed at our base to make sure it wasn't a terrorist plot. The chief pilot called me the next morning to get my side of the event because of her report. He saw my logic in not grounding the plane in Honduras when the cause was so obvious.

Hell, I would have thrown it out in the grass too rather than return to the gate with a suspect bomb and hand it to somebody. You have probably all followed the Paris to Miami shoe bomber episode. I knew the captain and he had it brought up to the cockpit so he could look at it. He said it probably wasn't a really good idea.

[spo]

It is unfortunately very easy for a competent and experienced individual to lose the plot when they come up against bloody minded and ill educated under achieving idiots such as those at EDI who turned a minor problem in to something much more. Furthermore Who was the prick who called the police?.

[ExSp33db1rd]

Trouble pasting the 'link' , for some reason it scrambles it into something useless, so I will spread it out a bit - type this as a regular URL ...........

www.
nzherald
.co
.nz

and find Sideswipe, ( usually near the bottom of the left hand side ) open the one that starts with a comment about Sideswipe Extra - Something for the Weekend - and scroll down to the Ansett "Keys" advert at the bottom and play that - and yes, I do remember it !

QED. ( Hint - car keys are dropped out of the cockpit window as being All Part Of The Ansett Service - Great !)

If the page has changed, find the Sideswipe section and select this from the list of back numbers, it was posted on Friday 8th July.

[FullWings]

Security has importance: it's currently about No. 79 on my list, below all the other things that are much more likely to kill me and my passengers and which I have some measure of control over.

I agree with previous posters that aeroplanes are failing to blow up in midair not because of super security but because those with the means to make this happen do not wish to make it so at the moment. This may not be particularly comforting but the present state of aviation "security" does not give me a warm and fuzzy feeling.

The same authorities that invent all these rules in the name of safety are trying to increase the duty hours and reduce rest between trips, possibly to as little as seven hours. Does it matter if you're killed by a bomb or by somebody forgetting the flaps, overrunning on a contaminated surface, meeting an unexpected mountain, stalling an aircraft into the ground, etc.? The latter examples are by far the most common causes of death and destruction yet have probably <1% of the money and time spent on training / rectification and the rest goes on the security obsession.

Aviation security has become a massive industry and exponents of it should be treated with the same scepticism normally reserved for oil companies, banks and pharmaceutical manufacturers. They are never going to argue for less security, even if it was warranted.

Coming back the original subject, IMHO the most dangerous part of this whole episode would have been the distraction of dealing with this incident if they had gone flying shortly afterwards. This is when mistakes are most likely to be made and critical errors / omissions by pilots are the things that are most likely to kill you (and I say this as an airline pilot).

[Cattivo]

TT

A gem of a post tucked in amongst the usual backbiting. Made me laugh. Cheers.

[HAWK21M]

Irrespective of a delay.Either The tower should have radioed a vehicle to collect the phone or else asked the Aircraft to return back....There is no question of creating an FOD situation.....especially by a professional sounds dumd......But then this is based on a media report so who knows the facts.

[GearUp CheerUp]

On being given the phone the Captain's decision to make seems to me to be; is this thing a suspect IED or is it lost property? Now there will be many mobile phones on the aircraft all of which have been security screened and are accompanied by their owners so we're happy with them. This phone is unaccompanied but that should make little difference in this era of suicide bombers? Therefore treating it as lost property seems reasonable to me. If it had been discovered before push back it would undoubtedly have been treated as lost property, not sure how a delay in its discovery makes it an IED but there may be facts we don't know.

However, we could also make the other decision and treat it as a suspect IED. No procedure I know says to return to stand with a suspect IED on board, hand it to the ramp agent who will then carry it through the terminal and hand it to lost property. Nor do I know of a procedure that says chuck the IED out of the DV window either to a waiting ops person or onto the tarmac. Both of those procedures seem to be the "we all know its not really a bomb but we're slightly covering our arses" procedures.

So, decide, IED or lost property. If lost property then treat as if its a lost paperback book or similar and carry out the relevant company procedure. If IED, treat it as if its a stick of dynamite wired to some sort of detonator and carry out the company procedure for that situation. The cobbled together not really sure but bit of both procedure is how we end up in this ridiculous situation.

Beakor,

About the best post on this thread. :D

Sums up exactly what is wrong with the whole attitude to security.

Its like all the people arriving at security points with forgotten about bottles of water in their hand luggage. The bottles of water are confiscated because they 'might' be the ingredients to make liquid explosives on board. Then these suspect liquids are all thrown together into a bin near to the scanning point. If we really thought that the bottle might contain explosive ingredients, shouldnt the bomb squad be called each time such an item is discovered in someones bag?

Of course they aren't because everybody knows all along that its really just a bottle of water but we have to 'pretend' that it might be explosive.

Full Wings,

Your post runs a very close second.

I quite agree that the distraction caused by the harrassment of pilots by security staff as they attempt to get to their place of work represents a flight safety hazard. This screening of pilots (shoes, belts, watches off, search my bag, check inside my tie, click my pen to see if its real, etc, etc, etc) achieves, as we all know, precisely nothing.

[A and C]

Oh what a sad situation we have come to, hours of police time wasted, news story's, passengers delayed without good cause and all for a situation that should have been handled with a little common sense and required one line on the bottom of the ops report.

I can't help asking of those who responded to this incident and having had time to consider in the cold light of day their actions if they think their response reflects any credit on them ?

[suninmyeyes]

On the first anniversary of the American bombing of Libya, so 1987 I think, our company put a warning out to all staff to be extra vigilant.

A BAC 111 had pushed back from either Edinburgh or Glasgow, I forget which, when the cabin crew noticed a duffle bag placed in a stowage near the galley. Despite several PA's noone claimed it. The Captain was informed and she walked back in to the pax cabin, took the bag up to the flight deck, threw it out of her window to the ground staff and taxied off.

It was during the cruise that a passenger asked one of the cabin crew if they had moved the duffle bag he had carefully stowed. He said he had put it there because it contained fragile pottery samples which he was taking to London and he thought it would be safer there than in an overhead locker. He had been having a nap during the public address announcements........

The difference between that incident and the recent one is that in those days the Captain was in charge of the aircraft and made decisions accordingly which were not normally questioned. These days the security aspect has been taken out of his/her hands and given to some jobsworths who inevitably employ a bureaucratic solution that causes great inconvenience and does little to enhance safety.

[HowlingMad Murdock]

'fragile pottery samples' heh,heh,heh 'cracked pots' - hope they were not ming dynasty!:)