VS bomb threat - divert STN
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Middlesesx
Posts: 2,075
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BA ramp staff trained a Met Police team to do all the associated ground services activities. In this case the Met asked BA staff to go to STN and oversee the operation, which is a bit rich in that BA gets nothing for this and clearly it would be no lose to BA to see the A340 sit at STN all week with bags stuck on board, albeit not very sociable.
Sadly this load/unload situation in the case of a bomb threat has been unresolved sincethe 70's, still causing all sorts of issues each time a threat occurs besides which it is only tax payers monies.
Sadly this load/unload situation in the case of a bomb threat has been unresolved sincethe 70's, still causing all sorts of issues each time a threat occurs besides which it is only tax payers monies.
Join Date: Dec 1998
Location: .
Posts: 2,997
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
True enough, but as I state if I worked for abc airlines and was contracted to handle xyz airlines, our insurance would not cover us in the event that something did happen until the all clear was given by the relevant authority.
In fact this did happen to us and the crew did the necessary stuff, i.e. gear pins etc until the all clear was given.
In fact this did happen to us and the crew did the necessary stuff, i.e. gear pins etc until the all clear was given.
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Berkshire, UK
Age: 79
Posts: 8,268
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
<<Sounds maybe a little bit stupid but why did they divert to STN?
LHR is not that far away and I assume better prepared for such damm occurances>>
There has been provision for many years for crews of a/c with "problems" to be asked, on behalf of the airport authority, if they would consider diverting a less busy airfield to prevent disruption at a major airport. The final decision is, of course, with the Captain.
LHR is not that far away and I assume better prepared for such damm occurances>>
There has been provision for many years for crews of a/c with "problems" to be asked, on behalf of the airport authority, if they would consider diverting a less busy airfield to prevent disruption at a major airport. The final decision is, of course, with the Captain.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 273
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Seem to remember that LHR (BAA) asked 'china-girl' with the gear-up a few years ago about Manston being available, which was rubbish, LHR management didn't want 27L shut down for the day
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Morton-in-Marsh
Posts: 185
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It is time to stop using Stansted for these bomb threat flights. It won't be long before there are dozens of them. All one has to do is phone up and say there is bomb on board and everyone is BOUND to treat it as a serious threat.
Sadly, it is possible that there might be a flight a day like this, and really Stansted will soon not be suitable. Arguably Manston or Brize Norton might be better. There are other potentially better places than STN, as well.
Wherever it is, there really should be a slick operation set up, dealing with all requirements, so that the passengers and the operator are not too inconvenienced. It was not Virgin's fault that one of their aicrraft became a "bomb threat", and next time it could be BA, bmi, or any other airline.
Britain needs to get its act together on this. It is strong on emergency services, less good on other aspects.
Sadly, it is possible that there might be a flight a day like this, and really Stansted will soon not be suitable. Arguably Manston or Brize Norton might be better. There are other potentially better places than STN, as well.
Wherever it is, there really should be a slick operation set up, dealing with all requirements, so that the passengers and the operator are not too inconvenienced. It was not Virgin's fault that one of their aicrraft became a "bomb threat", and next time it could be BA, bmi, or any other airline.
Britain needs to get its act together on this. It is strong on emergency services, less good on other aspects.
Still behind the curtain
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Arizona, USA
Posts: 245
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I may be wrong of course, but somehow I don't think that these bomb threats are the work of kids. As far as I remember the two Olympic threats were made to Greek media and from the posts above, I'm not clear where the Virgin threat ended up.
Maybe the bad guys are just trying to test our resolve with the cry wolf principle, as someone pointed out earlier, and then when we become lax, whamo! Maybe the suicide bombers are finding it more difficult to get aboard?
In the early 80s I worked in a high office building which was evacuated 13 times because of bomb threats from the Puerto Rican Liberation movement. After the fifth time many of us decided to stay behind at our desks instead of walking down 24 floors and mingle on a cold sidewalk for hours until the cops said it was OK to go back in. You start developing a feeling of fate.
For history purposes, bomb threats and bombs on commercial aircraft started in the U.S. in the l950s when I believe some sick soul bought a million dollar, or something like that, insurance policy for his mother or wife. The plane did blow up but he was caught. However, ever since then, copycats, terrorists, disgruntled emplyees and others with an axe to grind toward a particular airline have used this method.
Some have been very successful, so don't let up on the possibility that it can't be me.
Maybe the bad guys are just trying to test our resolve with the cry wolf principle, as someone pointed out earlier, and then when we become lax, whamo! Maybe the suicide bombers are finding it more difficult to get aboard?
In the early 80s I worked in a high office building which was evacuated 13 times because of bomb threats from the Puerto Rican Liberation movement. After the fifth time many of us decided to stay behind at our desks instead of walking down 24 floors and mingle on a cold sidewalk for hours until the cops said it was OK to go back in. You start developing a feeling of fate.
For history purposes, bomb threats and bombs on commercial aircraft started in the U.S. in the l950s when I believe some sick soul bought a million dollar, or something like that, insurance policy for his mother or wife. The plane did blow up but he was caught. However, ever since then, copycats, terrorists, disgruntled emplyees and others with an axe to grind toward a particular airline have used this method.
Some have been very successful, so don't let up on the possibility that it can't be me.
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: london/UK
Posts: 499
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Riverboat
They don't all end up at Stanstead, dealt with plenty of these at LHR, which is set up to deal with them just as well.
However Stanstead is 'prefered' because obviously its out of the way. Have an A340 stuck on one of the remote blocks at LHR and its not that remote!
Heathrow Director is right the BAA would prefer to get rid to somewhere else, saves thier runways being closed, but I have seen plenty of captains insist on going to LHR.
They don't all end up at Stanstead, dealt with plenty of these at LHR, which is set up to deal with them just as well.
However Stanstead is 'prefered' because obviously its out of the way. Have an A340 stuck on one of the remote blocks at LHR and its not that remote!
Heathrow Director is right the BAA would prefer to get rid to somewhere else, saves thier runways being closed, but I have seen plenty of captains insist on going to LHR.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: in the hills
Age: 68
Posts: 358
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The reason STN is used is not because of LHR or anyone else for that matter not wanting an aircraft potentially closing a runway, nor is it to do with flying over a built up city.
STN is designated for a number of reasons, some which I cannot divulge. However having been involved in Practice Hijacks for the DOT/Police et al I can assure you it is the most well provided for in the situation.
STN is designated for a number of reasons, some which I cannot divulge. However having been involved in Practice Hijacks for the DOT/Police et al I can assure you it is the most well provided for in the situation.
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: N5552.0W00419.0ish
Posts: 87
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Maybe the bad guys are getting smarter. It must take less effort to make our lives more expensive with hoaxes (1 telephone call or so), than it does to get explosives, weapons and people into position for one attrocity.
A main aim of terrorism surely is major disruption? However it is achieved.
A main aim of terrorism surely is major disruption? However it is achieved.
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: uk
Posts: 166
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Often see exercises happening at STN and special forces are not an irregular sight at some of the airports locations.
This is why STN is the designated airport so everybody that needs to be familiar with the possible scenarios,are.
This is why STN is the designated airport so everybody that needs to be familiar with the possible scenarios,are.
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Around
Age: 56
Posts: 572
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Lancelot
Not quite, in my opinion. The aim of terrorism is generally to further a political agenda by causing disruption - therefore the disruption is a mean to an ends and not a goal in and of itself.
Furthering a political agenda, terrorism style, has the biggest impact if the perpretrators make their presence known, or in other words assume responsibility for acts of terror. Secondly, the act has to be significant enough to warrent newspaper headlines, preferably over an extended period of time. Hijacking of passenger aircraft used to be a preferred method as it had all the components of a good "story" for the news media.
Now calling an anonymous bombthreat does very little to further any political agenda, and may therefore not be classified as an act of terror. I would also very much dubt whether a government would be willing to speak to you on the basis of a bomb threat, whereas they'll probably open the lines of communications right quick if you're holding passengers at ransom.
With all this in mind, my sad conclusions is that we're either dealing with bored teenagers, disenfranchised airline staff or simply deranged individuals. In either case, the perceived risk far outweighs the true danger but, and here's the catch, any and all threats must be dealt with correctly. The terrorists only has to get it right once to succeed, we have to get it right all the time.
Furthering a political agenda, terrorism style, has the biggest impact if the perpretrators make their presence known, or in other words assume responsibility for acts of terror. Secondly, the act has to be significant enough to warrent newspaper headlines, preferably over an extended period of time. Hijacking of passenger aircraft used to be a preferred method as it had all the components of a good "story" for the news media.
Now calling an anonymous bombthreat does very little to further any political agenda, and may therefore not be classified as an act of terror. I would also very much dubt whether a government would be willing to speak to you on the basis of a bomb threat, whereas they'll probably open the lines of communications right quick if you're holding passengers at ransom.
With all this in mind, my sad conclusions is that we're either dealing with bored teenagers, disenfranchised airline staff or simply deranged individuals. In either case, the perceived risk far outweighs the true danger but, and here's the catch, any and all threats must be dealt with correctly. The terrorists only has to get it right once to succeed, we have to get it right all the time.
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: london/UK
Posts: 499
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Flip Flop Flyer
Yes they do want to cause disruption, and the more the embuggerence factor the more the population will lobby Goverment to do something about it.
The examples of this seem to be forgotten, or not known about, the IRA used to make threats all the time, using recognised code words, not that many resulted in a bomb going off. But the disruption was there just the same. Roads or airports were closed, flights diverted and time was taken to search premises, which obvioulsy remained shut while that was happening. That has an economic as well as phycological effect.
Yes, you are probably right about the recent 'threats', probably do come from the groups of people you mention, but other threats don't. Just look at the number of times the US has gone onto 'red alert' recently. Nothing happened, maybe nothing was ever going to happen, maybe it was, but the general effect worked for the terrorists they induced terror, which is the name of the game.
Yes they do want to cause disruption, and the more the embuggerence factor the more the population will lobby Goverment to do something about it.
The examples of this seem to be forgotten, or not known about, the IRA used to make threats all the time, using recognised code words, not that many resulted in a bomb going off. But the disruption was there just the same. Roads or airports were closed, flights diverted and time was taken to search premises, which obvioulsy remained shut while that was happening. That has an economic as well as phycological effect.
Yes, you are probably right about the recent 'threats', probably do come from the groups of people you mention, but other threats don't. Just look at the number of times the US has gone onto 'red alert' recently. Nothing happened, maybe nothing was ever going to happen, maybe it was, but the general effect worked for the terrorists they induced terror, which is the name of the game.
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: North of London
Posts: 18
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"if they would consider diverting a less busy airfield to prevent disruption at a major airport"
Heathrow Director, I don't think that an airport with 600 movements a day can be considered a minor airport. We still have to deal with a lot of crap at SS and move a good chunk of the SE's movements. If the Virgin had diverted in at 0630(L) it would have disrupted the airport for the rest of the day (Mr O'Leary would not have been too pleased!!!). Anyway makes for a more interesing night shift!?!?!?
Heathrow Director, I don't think that an airport with 600 movements a day can be considered a minor airport. We still have to deal with a lot of crap at SS and move a good chunk of the SE's movements. If the Virgin had diverted in at 0630(L) it would have disrupted the airport for the rest of the day (Mr O'Leary would not have been too pleased!!!). Anyway makes for a more interesing night shift!?!?!?
