View Full Version : Explosion and shots fired at Istanbuls Ataturk Airport

His dudeness
28th Jun 2016, 19:21
reported by German magazin "Der Spiegel"... no further details at this time.

Capt Ecureuil
28th Jun 2016, 19:35
Turkey Istanbul: Explosions and gunfire rock Ataturk airport - BBC News (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-36658187)

At least two explosions and gunfire have rocked Istanbul's Ataturk airport, with reports of "multiple" people injured.
Gunfire was directed from an airport car park, according to a witness quoted by Reuters news agency.
Taxis were ferrying wounded people from the airport, the witness added.
In December, a blast on the tarmac at a different Istanbul airport, Sabiha Gokcen, killed a cleaner.

28th Jun 2016, 19:48
Turkish press are reporting suspension of flying ops. If that is in fact the case expect major disruptions ahead.

28th Jun 2016, 19:57
South Africa News 24 reports "The official said on Tuesday it was unclear whether the explosions were caused by bombs or a suicide attack." same thing!

Kirks gusset
28th Jun 2016, 19:57
Sadly it was only a matter of time... security at these airports in terms of vehicle access is non-existent, parked cars, empty cars, Police just shouting through speakers in cars, generally no precautions whatsoever. Couple this with a wide spread personal gun culture and the sleepiness starving Police etc because of ramadan it was always on the cards. Glad to be out of it but feel for my former colleagues still there..

28th Jun 2016, 19:57
Explosions And Gunfire At Istanbul Airport (http://news.sky.com/story/1718871/explosions-and-gunfire-at-istanbul-airport)

28th Jun 2016, 20:00
10 dead according ccn...

28th Jun 2016, 20:27
Looking at flight radar a lot of flights are diverting, some of which are returning to origin (SVO/LHR/AMS to name a few). Appears some flights are still landing at IST though.

28th Jun 2016, 20:47
Ten killed, many wounded in suicide attack at Istanbul airport | Reuters (http://www.reuters.com/article/us-turkey-blast-idUSKCN0ZE2J1)

28th Jun 2016, 21:17
Explosions at Istanbul Ataturk airport ?kill at least 28, and wound as many as 60? ? officials | euronews, world news (http://www.euronews.com/2016/06/28/two-explosions-hit-istanbul-s-ataturk-airport-multiple-injuries-turkish-official/)

28th Jun 2016, 21:25

Brussels International remake !

28th Jun 2016, 21:43
Latest casualty figures 28 dead, 60+ injured (from Turkish official sources reported on major media channels.) All US-Turkey flights suspended. Reports are confused but it's said that three attackers used AKs before three suicide explosions. The timing of the attack is interesting.

28th Jun 2016, 22:26
i am writing this as a one of the worker of IST airport and im on duty now. 3 bomb has been exploded at international terminal one of it exploded at departure side otherone was arrival side.

Terorrists are attacked firstly shootguns and than suicide bomb same persons. we have pictures and videos about explosions.

28 person killed so far but as i get information from my friends they say there is around 50 person has been killed but not officially recorded yet.

and also notam has been published for LTBA airport.

A2858/16 NOTAMN
Q) LTBB/QFALC/IV/B/A/000/999/
A) LTBA B) 1606282045 C) 1606291700

28th Jun 2016, 22:49
50 killed according to senior turkish official, and it was considered a safe airport (for that part of the world at least)

29th Jun 2016, 00:09
News channels reporting that IST is considered one of the safest airports in Europe thanks to its high levels of security. I have passed through this airport many times as crew and I can't say I agree with these statements.

I recently travelled through the new Brussels airport, heavy military presence and lots of pre screening of passengers before you reach the check in areas. Is this going to become the new normal for aviation? I sincerely hope not.

29th Jun 2016, 00:10
It was a safe airport. I have been regularly flying in/out to either IST or SAW as SLF for over 10 years, 4-20 times per year. Everyone gets a security check as you enter the airport, before getting to the check-in desk. After Check-in and immigration (Turks record people in and out) you get another security check before access to the lounge/duty free shops etc. On occasions, you get a third check as you enter the departure gate area. On Saturday 25 June, I was returning to the UK with an unusual electronic device. It was picked up and given extra security checks by both security points in use that day.

While facts are sparse at the moment, I don't think you can stop suicide people, they could have easily been attacking a bus or train station, with similar results. Bit strange they done it during Ramadan, when I understand Muslims are meant to refrain from fighting (as well as no food/drink in daylight hours etc). My thoughts and prayers to the relatives of the people killed/injured.

29th Jun 2016, 00:15
PM says 3 terrorists opened fire then blew themselves up and says ISIS are to blame.

One video shows people beginning to run followed 5 seconds later by an explosion.

Another video below, shows an internal area with the public fleeing, a policeman shooting a terrorist, who falls to the floor, 10 seconds later he explodes as the policeman retreats out of frame.

Still photos show victims laying where they were shot or injured by bomb blast outside the terminal.

Eyewitness says terrorist opened fire near him inside departures hall, then took escalator down stairs when he head more gunshots and an explosion. (possibly it was that explosion caught on camera in the above link)


29th Jun 2016, 00:21
Must say, security seemed pretty tight at IST recently, at least once in the terminal. Checks entering the building, then twice more as people go through the terminal. We had a security escort to the gate (actually we were also escorted through upon arrival). Our aircraft was also being protected by five security guards, three of which checked my ID while doing the walkaround. However far back you take the security perimeter, there's always going to be something to attack and somewhere people will congregate before getting through the first security checkpoint.

Anyway, terrible news. It's a pretty horrendous situation.

Espada III
29th Jun 2016, 06:03
I have never flown through IST but arriving at TLV by car, bus or taxi involves a brief vehicle check as you enter the airport precincts so you get nowhere near a terminal building without a check. Whether this would and could stop a similar attack I don't know, but it is comforting to see some cars given a good going over at this initial checkpoint.

SMT Member
29th Jun 2016, 06:27
There is an advanced check-point on the road leading up to Atatürk airport. Problem is, as with many things in Turkey, that it's mainly there for show. I've lost count of how many times I've passed that security check-point, but it's in the double dozens, and I've never, ever, been anything than waved through - often without so much as a quick glance inside the vehicle. Whether arriving by taxi or private car made no difference.

Then there's the security check at the doors leading into the terminal. Manned by staff who visibly don't give a toss, and/or haven't a clue how to operate a scanner, and/or wouldn't know what bomb looked like on an x-ray if their lives depended on it.

In short, IST has a lot of 'security', trouble is that it's about as much use as a chocolate fireguard.

Metro man
29th Jun 2016, 10:40
Now that enhanced security has made hijacking an aircraft extremely difficult, a quick, cheap and simple alternative is to attack the airport instead. The number of potential casualties is greater, the level of publicity is similar and the disruption is longer lasting and costlier.

Any halfwit can drive up to the terminal, spray off a few magazine loads of ammunition and press the detonator button on his suicide vest.

The next step will be security checks on all vehicles approaching an airport, screening of passengers and baggage prior to entry, and access only granted to those actually travelling.

The sterile area is going to end up being moved back from the departure lounge to the airport perimeter fence.

29th Jun 2016, 10:55

I don't think that will happen. Even if it did, they would just turn attentions to the central railway station, the big shopping centre, the supermarket.....

Sadly people will never be completely safe, unless all liberty to move freely is removed and we barely leave our homes.

Dont Hang Up
29th Jun 2016, 11:16
The sterile area is going to end up being moved back from the departure lounge to the airport perimeter fence.

The sterile area is ultimately going to get moved back to everone's own front door. Every movement, every email, every text and every phone call.

But it's all for our safety, so that's just fine.

29th Jun 2016, 12:50
Don't Hang Up absolutely spot on. The idea of moving checkpoints further and further back is missing point entirely and just moving the existing problem somewhere else. Any place there are congregations of people they will attack. It makes no difference where you have the checkpoint.

29th Jun 2016, 15:08
Aviation Security's primary task is to deter against unlawful acts targeted at aviation.

29th Jun 2016, 16:21
Aviation Security's primary task is to deter against unlawful acts targeted at aviation.
To be a bit more specific, here is what it says in the Act of Parliament.

Aviation Security Act 1982

10. Purposes to which Part II applies.

(1)The purposes to which this Part of this Act applies are the protection against acts of violence—

(a)of aircraft, and of persons or property on board aircraft;

(b)of aerodromes, and of such persons or property as (in the case of persons) are at any time present in any part of an aerodrome or (in the case of property) forms part of an aerodrome or is at any time (whether permanently or temporarily) in any part of an aerodrome; and

(c)of air navigation installations which do not form part of an aerodrome.

(2)In this Part of this Act act of violence means any act (whether actual or potential, and whether done or to be done in the United Kingdom or elsewhere) which either—

(a)being an act done in Great Britain, constitutes, or

(b)if done in Great Britain would constitute,

the offence of murder, attempted murder, manslaughter, culpable homicide or assault, or an offence under section 18, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 28 or 29 of the Offences against the M1Person Act 1861, under section 2 of the M2Explosive Substances Act 1883 or under section 1 of the M3Criminal Damage Act 1971 or, in Scotland, the offence of malicious mischief.

29th Jun 2016, 19:15
Quite why we have ventured into the technicalities and legalities involved baffles me. Are we about to get into diagrams and explanations of the aeronautical part versus the restricted zone versus the sterile area ad infinitum?? If you have an attack on a checkpoint associated with airport security which is 10 yards, 100 yards or even a hundred miles away from the airport it's still an attack on the sodding airport!

So it seems some on here have huge difficulty in grasping such a simple point. That regardless of who or what this is an attack upon, the fact remains that it is an attack designed to take human life on a large scale and that people have died.

My point is wherever you have a congregation of people you will have a soft target, it's inevitable unless we are all about to be put under home curfew under lock and key. Moving any security checkpoint outside the terminal just moves that same amount of people - who would have been trying to enter through the checkpoint in its previous location - out into the open where they are now sitting ducks for a Kalashnikov attack. IT MAKES ABSOLUTELY NO DIFFERENCE.

There is no fix for this situation. Unless we're about to lock ourselves away we are completely vulnerable in large groups, wherever those groups are. That's exactly why Isis are employing this as a method of killing.

29th Jun 2016, 21:02
Passed through IST last evening, took of just an hour before the events, only heard about it eight hours later from the immigration officer at the other end.

From what I gather the attacks were NOT in the terminal building, but in the adjacent parking building (which is connected to the terminal on both levels). Absolutely agree with Rex above, in this case security arrangements worked as planned, they never got inside the terminal. This could have happened at any other crowded place in Istambul (as it did, several times...), or at any other major city. The only effective defence is intelligence, to pick out the rotten ones before they do anything, but yes that does involve tracking communications.

29th Jun 2016, 22:36
ABC Australia reporting:
Terrorists arrived by taxi.
One went into arrivals hall on the ground floor and initiated the attack, the second to the departures level on second floor where he initiated a follow-up, this produced a flow of people outside, where the third terrorist had hung back.

However, CNN reporting that attack initiated outside, this gave two other terrorists opportunity to enter terminal.

From what I gather the attacks were NOT in the terminal building, but in the adjacent parking building (which is connected to the terminal on both levels).

I note in the two cctv pictures where bombs were seen going off, the majority of public do not have luggage, even hand luggage, perhaps these are non travelling public in and around the car park and arrivals area.


Metro man
30th Jun 2016, 01:32
At Manila's Ninoy Aquino Airport, there is a security check on the road leading to the terminal. At the entrance there is a check of ticket and passport and only those actually travelling are allowed through the door. Once through the door, all baggage is X-rayed and passengers go through a metal detector/hand held wands before proceeding to the check in counters. No one is allowed into the arrivals hall to meet incoming passengers, there is an area across the road where you line up under a sign with the first letter of the surname of the person you are meeting on it.

Third world countries employ this level of security for crime prevention as much as protection from terrorism. Travellers usually have money and valuables on them and make an attractive target for pickpockets and con artists.

An airport attack gives a lot of bang for buck, even an amateur effort is likely to succeed to some degree, and can be undertaken easily at short notice with little planning involved and not much money required. A hijack attempt is most likely to fail and requires a higher grade of terrorist to undertake it in the first place. Any illiterate nutter can be brought into the country and used in a suicide attack.

Karachi, Glasgow, Beijing, Moscow, Madrid, Brussels and now Istanbul.

Are travellers safe? From Istanbul to Glasgow and Brussels - 10 airport attacks that shook the world - Mirror Online (http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/travellers-safe-istanbul-glasgow-brussels-8307934)

30th Jun 2016, 05:20
Metro Man,

that mght be the case at Terminals 1 & 2 at Manila but not at Terminal 3 where meeters and greeters are allowed into the terminal.

Metro man
30th Jun 2016, 05:57
Yes, I was referring to terminal 1. In the Philippines expect inconsistency.

30th Jun 2016, 08:30
Now that enhanced security has made hijacking an aircraft extremely difficult, a quick, cheap and simple alternative is to attack the airport instead. The number of potential casualties is greater, the level of publicity is similar and the disruption is longer lasting and costlier.

Presumably you were in cryogenic stasis during the attacks of September 11th 2001 and have only recently been awakened. 3000 people died, the attack itself was highly spectacular, media coverage was wall to wall and saturated for weeks afterwards and you couldn't imagine a longer lasting and costlier clean up than the recovery operation at Ground Zero.

I take the point that it's easier to do, absolutely correct but let's not go around making crazy claims that the effects are somewhat comparable. They're not whatsoever.

30th Jun 2016, 13:48
Having had a little COunter INsurgency experience, I have to say that I thought, in the circumstances, the Turkish Authorities did a reasonable job in closing down this attack. It could have been much worse.


Metro man
30th Jun 2016, 17:52
Not every hijacker wants to fly into a building, release of imprisoned comrads, ransom money or political concessions such as troop withdrawals are also on the agenda. With increased security all round, another 11/09/2001 is highly unlikely ever to occur again. A hole was found, full advantage was taken, they succeeded and the stable door was bolted afterwards.

An airport terminal is a soft target which can be attacked by lunatics who would be unable to get through security to board an airliner but who can stroll through the door into the check in area unnoticed, until they open fire.

30th Jun 2016, 20:22
I miss the days when hijackings were used primarily for trips to Cuba.

30th Jun 2016, 20:50
I miss the days when hijackings were used primarily for trips to Cuba.BTW this type of run, gun & bnag type attack has a longer history than most people realise:
CF: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lod_Airport_massacre