Easy emergency landing in CGN for security risk

[TBSC]

Easy U2 3246 (LJU-STN, G-EZBW) made an emergency landing in Cologne at 1640 UTC as (according to the first news) a passenger overheard another one talking about a bomb.

[IcePack]

Or talking about a bomba

[TBSC]

The airport is closed since, 10+ diversions so far.

[Herod]

a passenger overheard another one talking about a bomb.

There must be more to it than that. Otherwise it's all too easy.

[safelife]

German media reports aircraft was evacuated via slides :rolleyes:

[Airbubba]

The airport is closed since, 10+ diversions so far.

Looks like the Easy aircraft is parked near A1 on A, the parallel taxiway to 32R. Departures are coming off 32R at A2 but arrivals seem to still be diverting.

[Goe4]

Three passengers have been detained by the police and a rucksack has been detonated. The other passengers are being questioned by the police. This is according to online newspaper reports.

[TBSC]

German media reports aircraft was evacuated via slides1R and 4R slides are definitely deployed on the pictures.

[txl]

According to German media reports, it was an Easyjet flight from Llubjana en route to Stansted. A passenger reportedly overheard two fellow passengers talk about a "bomb" or "explosives" and informed cabin crew which passed this on to the flight deck. The captain then decided to divert to Cologne, where the aircraft was evacuated via slides. A backpack that had been found but could not be accounted for was blown up by police, Bild reports citing "a witness". No information yet on what the backpack contained. According to police sources, three men with a "direct connection" to that backpack have been arrested. The plane is currently being searched for explosives.

(Take this with a grain of salt, some of it has been reported by tabloids. What we can assume as fact from photos is that the plane is in Cologne and has been evacuated via slides).


Express story with pics (http://www.express.de/koeln/drei-festnahmen-bombendrohung-legt-flughafen-koeln--bonn-fuer-stunden-lahm-27771670)

[Joe_K]

(Take this with a grain of salt, some of it has been reported by tabloids. What we can assume as fact from photos is that the plane is in Cologne and has been evacuated via slides).

There's an official statement from the police in Cologne here:
POL-K: 170610-1-K Verkehrsmaschine landet außerplanmäßig in Köln-Bonn - Verdächtige Flugpassagiere festgenommen | Pressemitteilung Polizei Köln (http://www.presseportal.de/blaulicht/pm/12415/3656827)

Basically confirming that passengers alerted cabin crew to conversations with "terroristic content" between 3 men. Captain decided to land in CGN, aircraft evacuated via slides in secured area, 3 men arrested, backpack connected to them examined by bomb disposal personnel who performed a controlled detonation. Backpack (or what remains of it) still being examined, aircraft has been searched with dogs, suspects being interrogated, investigation ongoing.

[G-CPTN]

Who pays?

Easy insurers?

[txl]

Media now reporting that police says they didn't find any explosives or residue thereof. The three men arrested are British citizens without any priors or connections to terrorism. They were on a business trip and are to be released today.

Also, some passengers suffered mild injuries during evacuation, one had to be treated in a hospital.

[TBSC]

Who pays? Easy insurers?

Don't think Easy's insurers will pay all companies for the ~20 diversions and cancellations. Dealing with a bomb threat on a taxiway which is blocking the whole airport seems strange.

[atakacs]

Just wondering, how was the "backpack identification process" performed?

Clearly this was an emergency evacuation using the slides and one would hope most (if not all...) hand luggage remained in the cabin.

Did they then send staff to retrieve them and have people identify their belongings? And detonate the one that was not claimed?! Was is somehow scanned before that?

I am all for caution in aviation matters but this one seems a bit far fetched...

[OldLurker]

"The criminal investigation against them has been halted. No evidence was found," a local police spokesman said. "We now believe that there was never any real danger." ... Nothing dangerous was ultimately found to have been in the bag [that was blown up] or on the aircraft. UK men released by German police after easyJet flight diverted (https://www.reuters.com/article/us-germany-security-airplane-idUSKBN19110Z) – Reuters, Sun Jun 11, 2017 | 1:46pm EDT

[G-CPTN]

Just wondering, how was the "backpack identification process" performed?

Clearly this was an emergency evacuation using the slides and one would hope most (if not all...) hand luggage remained in the cabin.

Did they then send staff to retrieve them and have people identify their belongings? And detonate the one that was not claimed?! Was is somehow scanned before that?


Bild newspaper said passengers told airline personnel they had heard the men using words including "bomb" and "explosive", and said one carried a suspicious backpack.

[Joe_K]

Reuters adds that "the men (...) carried a book entitled "Kill" with a sniper rifle on its cover" and that the backpack contained "potentially suspicious cables".

[oleary]

We are now afraid of our own shadows, bin Laden must be laughing in his grave. :D

[A320ECAM]

Slides deployed for that?

1. Cost of slides being restowed.
2. Cost of diversion.
3. Cost of refuelling.
4. Cost of accommodation for passengers.
5. Cost of police time.

I thought EZY was supposed to be a low-cost carrier? Surely the flight crew must be disciplined for making such an melodramatic decision to evacuate via slides?
Why not a rapid disembarkation? I think there were a few injuries caused by the evacuation as well!

[olandese_volante]

This is what you get when deciding whether or not some random guy might be a "terrorist" is left to the average Daily Mail reader.

[Alsacienne]

I thought EZY was supposed to be a low-cost carrier? Surely the flight crew must be disciplined for making such an melodramatic decision to evacuate via slides?

'Low-cost' in this situation has nothing to do with passenger (and crew) safety. Easyjet runs a tight ship as regards security and whilst it would be an expensive decision particularly in the light of the costs raised by A320ECAM, IMHO the captain made a good call.

[M68]

Surely airlines will now be working on procedures that stipulate what to do in such a case, won't they?

I mean, they can't go on doing emergency landings every time words like "bomb" or "explosives" are spoken aboard an airplane.

[Harry Wayfarers]

We are now afraid of our own shadows, bin Laden must be laughing in his grave. :D

Bin Laden wasn't afforded a grave, the Yanks dumped him over the side of a ship!

[EpsilonVaz]

Indeed, there were no steps available for rapid disembarkation so they followed procedure and used slides. Good call. Imagine what we'd be saying if they had waited for steps and there had been an issue onboard.

As for not taking cost into account during an emergency, I'm amazed that some of you are allowed to hold a license.

[OldLurker]

I wasn't there, so I defer to anyone who was, but ... no steps available? Really? How did the police get onto the aircraft?

To me, something doesn't quite compute. A passenger describes landing at Cologne, waiting for about half an hour while the authorities decide what to do, then police come on board and remove the suspects ('Asian', of course), then also remove the people who'd reported the security risk; then about a quarter hour elapses while this passenger watches from his window as the police 'talk to' the suspects and finally take them away. All this time, the passenger who's speaking seems to have been sitting on the aircraft. Surely by then any competent airport could have produced some sort of steps?

In any case, the emergency slide evacuation (after which 9 people received medical treatment) seems to have taken place only after a long delay. If there was a danger, why not evacuate on landing?

Britons released without charge after Easyjet plane scare (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-40240241) - BBC News, 11 June 2017

[Harry Wayfarers]

What is suspicious about a rucksack?

[Less Hair]

Electrical wires from some laptop or similar loading device.

[Joe_K]

German police said the rucksack contained "potentially suspicious cabling". After controlled detonation these cables where found to be "charging cables with power plug adaptors".

Source: POL-K: 170610-2-K Verkehrsmaschine landet außerplanmäßig in Köln-Bonn - Festgenommene Briten wieder auf freiem Fuß | Pressemitteilung Polizei Köln (http://www.presseportal.de/blaulicht/pm/12415/3657236)

[Harry Wayfarers]

Here in Philippines one can take their laptop but the power cable is illegal.

[Less Hair]

It's legal to carry on in Germany. The whole thing escalated after other passengers reported having heard them talking about bombs repeatedly. Plus those three gentlemen were reading books and newspapers with certain "funny" topics and titles at the same time and had this suspicious backpack on board.

The city of Cologne criminal police has formally declared there has been no real danger at any time. Nobody had sinister intentions.

[Sailvi767]

Slides deployed for that?

1. Cost of slides being restowed.
2. Cost of diversion.
3. Cost of refuelling.
4. Cost of accommodation for passengers.
5. Cost of police time.

I thought EZY was supposed to be a low-cost carrier? Surely the flight crew must be disciplined for making such an melodramatic decision to evacuate via slides?
Why not a rapid disembarkation? I think there were a few injuries caused by the evacuation as well!

So you believe low cost carriers should operate with a lower level of safety?

[M68]

It's legal to carry on in Germany. The whole thing escalated after other passengers reported having heard them talking about bombs repeatedly. Plus those three gentlemen were reading books and newspapers with certain "funny" topics and titles at the same time and had this suspicious backpack on board.

The city of Cologne criminal police has formally declared there has been no real danger at any time. Nobody had sinister intentions.

According to the article from the Cologne police that was linked above it was one female passenger who reported to the cabin crew that she had allegedly heard terrorist content in the conversations of the men.

[Less Hair]

One of the three happened to read a book about snipers titled "Kill".

[M68]

Could have been this one as well.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generation_Kill

[thf]

According to the article from the Cologne police that was linked above it was one female passenger who reported to the cabin crew that she had allegedly heard terrorist content in the conversations of the men.

It will be a fascinating to learn what happened in this "game of telephone" from panicky passenger via flight attendant into the cockpit. A rucksack which went through security control, a book cover with something related to "terrorist content" and three guys chatting about something related to "terrorist content" – these are not indicators for a terrorist attack. Quite the opposite. Neither would be present in case of an attack.

But somebody has to make the call of reason. If neither fight attendants nor pilots are trained and authorised to do it, and the information changes going from one mouth into the ear of another person, and with pervasive fear everywhere, we are bound to have these incidents.

Interesting though that they seem to happen mostly to flights coming from and/or going to US and UK.

[RAT 5]

In terms of recovering costs.....I'd hate to think what might have happened in USA in the aftermath.

A/C delayed and incurred large costs in reconfiguring it for pax flight: plus crew disruption plus fuel & landing/handling fees etc. etc.
Innocent pax delayed and perhaps missed important events/meetings etc. or on-going flights with same consequences.
Innocent pax has benign baggage destroyed including contents.
9 injured pax who had to slide the not so slippery slope perhaps unnecessary. Some who now might be off work & unpaid etc. etc.

Who do you sue? The reporters of unfounded suspicions? The pax who lost their baggage? The airline?

Not that I support in any shape or form the 'suing culture' but some might take umbrage after this event. I understand that in this day & age some people can become paranoid and see sinister shadows everywhere, but life will become very tedious if every sniff & sneeze is construed as a 'terrorist threat'.

As 'thf' alludes to: what if the conversation overheard was between 2 BBC reporters who had been covering a story about terrorist activity. Imagine what words their chit chat would include.
Were the suspicious pax spoken to by the CC's, and was it tried to determine if they posed a threat; or is that a no no? Imagine the scenario of 2 BBC reporters, who might well look like they came from eastern origins and spoke the language fluently: it is easy to imagine eavs-dropping pax conjuring up ideas. An approach by the CC's might reveal the truth before such consequences.
CC's are trained in calming irate pax and averting air-rage. Are they given any training about these scenarios? Crews are trained in assessing possible bomb threats, but that is when they are deemed credible. But rumours......?

[MarcK]

Does the owner of the rucksack get a replacement, plus some new charging cords?

[ExXB]

What is suspicious about a rucksack?

Particularly one that had been scanned at the EU origin airport?

OK, I know things do slip through security. But I find it very hard to believe that a real black hat, with evil intentions, is going to talk to his buddies about 'bombs' and carry instruction manuals on how to be a sniper.

[Harry Wayfarers]

Particularly one that had been scanned at the EU origin airport?

OK, I know things do slip through security. But I find it very hard to believe that a real black hat, with evil intentions, is going to talk to his buddies about 'bombs' and carry instruction manuals on how to be a sniper.

So if one should be on an aircraft, let's say, talking of recent events in London whereas, I read, within 6 seconds of armed police arriving 46 shots were fired with all 3 assailants dead ... Does that constitute a conversation with terrorist content necessitating an emergency diversion and one(s) being arrested etc?

[RAT 5]

So, the question we are asking is, "was this an over reaction?" And if this reaction becomes the norm where will it end?
I can imagine a stag do on board with a few bevies having been consumed, and some bloated chap says, "I'm going to dump a bomb load in the crapper." and wanders off down the back end. What then?
And let's not start a discussion about 'shots of tequila contests' being overheard.

Once this idea takes hold it will take the application of much common sense to prevent utter chaos descending onto every day life. What guidance are companies giving to employees? It's not just airlines; it could be any transport or place of public gathering.

[Harry Wayfarers]

I grew up in the 70's in a Greater London suburb, at the height of IRA activities, then working in a supermarket we regularly received bomb threats, we had to take each threat seriously even though we knew that is was a shoplifting scam, that in the mass exodus through the doors shoplifters were exiting with goods unpaid for.

Several years later my then airline employer went thru a spate of bomb threats, somebody who had a grudge against the airline or our MD in particular, each threat was left to the decision of the commander and eventually the commanders ignored the threats not just receiving the praise and gratitude of our MD but the threats ultimately stopped once they realised they were no longer being taken seriously.

[Joe_K]

It seems like it's only a problem if you're "Asian looking" (which in the UK implies South Asian) or Middle Eastern. Can't recall an incident where passengers of Caucasian appearance where reported by fellow passengers for alleged terrorism.

[Harry Wayfarers]

My wife is Asian ... I could be 'one of them'!

[Less Hair]

Maybe passengers should be made aware that all their talks during air travel, including bomb jokes at checkpoints, might be overheard by third parties, reported and taken as security offence?

I agree that some real terrorist might not act this way but if this is enough to get the general public so concerned why not have a plan for it? One way or the other they disturb the system of air travel by creating those false security alarms.

[Harry Wayfarers]

I haven't read any suggestion that these guys were joking about bombs, from what I've read they were merely having a harmless discussion and, where I come from, to eavesdrop on another's discussion is considered rude.

[Less Hair]

These days official warnings are handed out by the US Department of State and then you have the average joe trying to be cautious and again they are wrong. I'd say we need to be more constructive give guidelines support etc. and not blame people not in the know for reporting stuff they consider mysterious. Sure it's hysteria but we need to handle it.

[olandese_volante]

As far as "bomb jokes at checkpoints" go, the reason you'll get pulled out and held for "special treatment" is not that you might be a terrorist. It's because the security personnel perceives bomb jokes as a lack of respect, and they'll make sure you'll be missing your flight just so you know who's the boss next time.

Anyway, the adjective "explosive" or the verb "to explode", just to take an example, are perfectly legit in conversation, probably even more so when one's talking shop.
Just to make a point: every programmer in the world knows and uses the C function explode(separator, string,[limit]) and you'll find many instances of it in the source code that makes this very forum work - or in the code that flies your plane, for that matter. Should a programmer refrain from reviewing code during a flight on the off chance that some idiot glances at their laptop screen and goes ballistic?

Another few points:
Real terrorist do not ever travel as a group or book their tickets together, and do not ever talk shop when they can be overheard. Not even the terrorist in "24" are that stupid.

[Harry Wayfarers]

Real terrorist do not ever travel as a group

Didn't they on 9/11?

[olandese_volante]

No, they did not.
On AA11 (for example) the five hijackers booked their tickets separately and their seats were on three different rows in business and first class. Only two of the five were assigned adjacent seats but this might well have been by chance.

[Harry Wayfarers]

Then how about the Ethiopian Airlines 961 hijack?

[olandese_volante]

The hijackers of Ethiopian 961 hardly knew what they were doing. They were untrained and out of their heads. The fact that they managed to hijack the plane is only due to the fact that a hijack was completely unexpected in that time/place/context.

[topradio]

Am I the only one who thinks they may have done this on purpose for fun and to cause disruption?
After all we have seen it on other flights (I think that there is even video) where a group of men with a 'certain' appearance deliberately made themselves look suspicious just to upset the other passengers.

[olandese_volante]

deliberately made themselves look suspicious
You mean, they weren't knee walking drunk and obnoxiously loud like a proper British passenger oughta be?