Ryanair & Air Arran Bomb Threat Diversions to PIK (merged)
Do a Hover - it avoids G
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Chichester West Sussex UK
Age: 91
Posts: 2,206
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Given that the airfield for this landing was chosen by the authorities as one that has certain advantages for dealing with this sort of emergency (whatever the eventual outcome) I am extremely surprised that steps were not waiting where the aircraft was directed to park.
I suspect something went pretty wrong with this operation and if a similar event happened next week it would be handled quite differently
I suspect something went pretty wrong with this operation and if a similar event happened next week it would be handled quite differently
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 146
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well said Pigsfly.The threat was considered serious enough to block off all roads surounding Pik for several hours.Not to mention the origional diversion and escort.There was a considered and real possibility ,regardless of how small that this was a genuine threat. Hence the afformentioned actions. As commander I would have informed the authorities that on reaching a stop I would evacaute the aircraft asap.Preferably by steps.If "they"refused steps I would bang the slides and get out.Some broken ankles I could live with. If there is a possibility of a bomb on board I'm sure not going to sit around while the police conduct a risk assesment.Go ahead and sue me.
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: western europe
Posts: 1,367
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I hear that an Irish Pilots Union rep has expressed great concern over failure to evacuate the aircraft as soon as reasonable, despite the crews request, and has called for an investigation ....
Assuming this is not a total media beat up and on the basis of the information provided, as a humble passenger, If I find out that a bomb threat has been made and you do not evacuate me immediately on the ground, then I'm either going to evacuate myself or sue you for every last dollar for needlessly exposing me harm, imaginary or not.
There is a law enforcement doctrine that treats the possession of a replica weapon exactly the same as a real weapon. I suspect that this principle would be easily extended by the Courts to apply to "replica" or imaginary bombs.
For example, if someone threatens you with what appears to be a firearm, you are entilted to believe it is real and act accordingly, including killing the person holding it, without any further action to ascertain if the threat is real or imaginary. The fact that the weapon is a "replica" or "Toy" is regarded as irrelevent. If you would like to test this hypothesis, try taking a plastic toy gun through screening and see what happens to you.
No one looks at a replica and gives it a "figure of merit" as to its accuracy of depiction. The idea that you can give a "figure of merit" to a bomb threat and safely ignore some of them is therefore patently absurd. The pilot would be quite within his rights to order an emergency evacuation.
Translation: No one is entitled to expose myself or anyone else to the slightest risk without my express permission and certainly not to "smoke out" a culprit as part of a law enforcement activity.
There is a law enforcement doctrine that treats the possession of a replica weapon exactly the same as a real weapon. I suspect that this principle would be easily extended by the Courts to apply to "replica" or imaginary bombs.
For example, if someone threatens you with what appears to be a firearm, you are entilted to believe it is real and act accordingly, including killing the person holding it, without any further action to ascertain if the threat is real or imaginary. The fact that the weapon is a "replica" or "Toy" is regarded as irrelevent. If you would like to test this hypothesis, try taking a plastic toy gun through screening and see what happens to you.
No one looks at a replica and gives it a "figure of merit" as to its accuracy of depiction. The idea that you can give a "figure of merit" to a bomb threat and safely ignore some of them is therefore patently absurd. The pilot would be quite within his rights to order an emergency evacuation.
Translation: No one is entitled to expose myself or anyone else to the slightest risk without my express permission and certainly not to "smoke out" a culprit as part of a law enforcement activity.
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 185
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Playing devils advocate here, but if a bomb threat has been received and with no further information available, assumptions could well be :
1) Bomb on board
2) One of the pax took bomb on board
3) Pax may have bomb on their person
Would you then want all pax heading for the terminal possibly with bomb?
Could this be why all were held on board, until provisions were in place for control of pax? Surely everyone has to be a suspect in this situation until more is known?
1) Bomb on board
2) One of the pax took bomb on board
3) Pax may have bomb on their person
Would you then want all pax heading for the terminal possibly with bomb?
Could this be why all were held on board, until provisions were in place for control of pax? Surely everyone has to be a suspect in this situation until more is known?
More than just an ATCO
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Up someone's nose
Age: 75
Posts: 1,768
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
With Strepsils on this. Until it's known who the possible terrorists are, and how many of them there are - worst case scenario; everyone on the a/c, including crew, is involved - it is much better to contain them. If the bomb could be remotely detonated then there is a chance that the person with control over it may have second thoughts.
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Near 50 West
Posts: 13
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It was a bomb threat serious enough to make a diversion to PIK. If the Captain decides to advise ATC then that is his decision. Once on the ground the aircraft was directed to a remote stand. If the flt crew decided not to advise ATC then they could very easily have done so on landing and remained on the runway or taxiway. Personally I would have then evacuated the aircraft using the slides if necessary. Diverting to the nearest suitable airport due to any serious threat, fire, bomb, hijack etc would necessitate the immediate evacuation of pax and crew by whatever means possible. Keeping them on for two hours having decided to divert is a contradiction.
Do a Hover - it avoids G
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Chichester West Sussex UK
Age: 91
Posts: 2,206
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Naturally the threat had to be treated as real. Get them off. Out in the open. In groups. Questioned, searched, then for those individuals cleared off to the terminal for a bit of hospitality. Like I said earlier I do not believe the operation went according to any reasonable plan. But it would next week.
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: cheshire
Posts: 7
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RYR security threat
"Security threat" is what the crew reported, and requested diversion to Liverpool - they were over Manchester at the time. Diversion to Prestwick was instucted by military. F3's arrived very quickly from SW.
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: EuroZone
Posts: 35
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As far as I can see, the safety of all persons on board the aircraft is the commander's responsibility, and as such is enshrined in law. In the case of a bomb on board threat, or in any other emergency situation in the air, the responsibility of the captain is to try and get the aircraft safely on the ground. Once on the ground the risk does not automatically disappear, and neither does the captains responsibility for the safety of all on board.
The captain has the authority to take whatever course of action necessary in the event of an emergency to ensure the safety of all on board. If the captain believed that there was a device on board likely to cause harm to any of those on board it would be his responsibility to ensure that all persons were removed as far as possible from the threat as soon as possible. It would appear in this case that the aircraft's commander decided that there was no risk to all those on board and deemed it safe for all to remain on board for a prolonged period.
Acquiescing to the wishes of others, whether they be Air Traffic Controllers, marshallers, Police Officers or Politicians is the captains pejorative, however it does not relieve him of his responsibility of ensuring the safety of those on board.
Worst case example: If a device really was on board and it was to detonate some time after landing with all the passengers still on board, the aircraft commander would be responsible for the outcome, not those who would have persuaded him to keep everyone there.
The captain has the authority to take whatever course of action necessary in the event of an emergency to ensure the safety of all on board. If the captain believed that there was a device on board likely to cause harm to any of those on board it would be his responsibility to ensure that all persons were removed as far as possible from the threat as soon as possible. It would appear in this case that the aircraft's commander decided that there was no risk to all those on board and deemed it safe for all to remain on board for a prolonged period.
Acquiescing to the wishes of others, whether they be Air Traffic Controllers, marshallers, Police Officers or Politicians is the captains pejorative, however it does not relieve him of his responsibility of ensuring the safety of those on board.
Worst case example: If a device really was on board and it was to detonate some time after landing with all the passengers still on board, the aircraft commander would be responsible for the outcome, not those who would have persuaded him to keep everyone there.
Starting to look like the crew thought it was a bomb threat and the authorities thought it was unlawful interference. I have to say that on receipt of a confirmed bomb threat, near 100% of pilots would land ASAP and get the passengers off without delay. All the talk of searches and LRBLs is for when you can't get back on the ground immediately due lack of suitable airfields.
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Switzerland, Singapore
Posts: 1,309
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Amazing what some people post here! "Containing the passenger to avoid"??? 
Avoiding what? That the bomb explodes? That there are only passengers dying??
I'm absolutely sure, every CMD would start evacuation. I only guess that the FR CMD had information to come to another decision (maybe he had evidence that it was a hoax).
One other thinking error: 737 have built-in retractable stairs. You can do an "rapid disembarcation" without slides. That's what you most probably would do. JW411, nobody dies in a 737 ecavuation!
Avoiding what? That the bomb explodes? That there are only passengers dying??I'm absolutely sure, every CMD would start evacuation. I only guess that the FR CMD had information to come to another decision (maybe he had evidence that it was a hoax).
One other thinking error: 737 have built-in retractable stairs. You can do an "rapid disembarcation" without slides. That's what you most probably would do. JW411, nobody dies in a 737 ecavuation!
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Scotland
Posts: 147
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In the case of the failed London bombs (note: real bombs) Security forces were happy to let a suspect travel by train to Italy; In this case, Bomb threat, they keep everybody on the aircraft, despite the fact that PIK has a good fence round it (enough to stop anybody getting in during last years G8 summit-although they had a few thousand police then).
Obviously not an expert but I don't recall any extremist terrorist group issuing warnings, so was this just an over reaction to let idiots know what will happen if they start up this sort of thing again, hence leaving security forces to only worry about real terrorist threat?
for years companies have had bomb threat assessment techniques and procedures to deal with them; it looks like these were not followed but there was 'legal' interference by the authorities which forced the diversion.
The truth will come out probably when one of the passengers takes legal action.
Obviously not an expert but I don't recall any extremist terrorist group issuing warnings, so was this just an over reaction to let idiots know what will happen if they start up this sort of thing again, hence leaving security forces to only worry about real terrorist threat?
for years companies have had bomb threat assessment techniques and procedures to deal with them; it looks like these were not followed but there was 'legal' interference by the authorities which forced the diversion.
The truth will come out probably when one of the passengers takes legal action.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Thrid rock from the sun
Posts: 54
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
JW411
I would expect the Steps to appear immediately at PIK, seeing as it is a major FR HUB. The danger of a Bomb far outweighs a sprained ankle. No I cannot step out of my Airplane. Risk assessment.......I am afraid I would not trust the assessors. Yes I have been involved in a bomb scare.
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: gatwick
Posts: 76
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by FullWings
All the talk of searches and LRBLs is for when you can't get back on the ground immediately due lack of suitable airfields.
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: the edge of my seat
Posts: 79
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Interesting to note that the FR spokesperson said "the safety of our passangers and aircraft are our number one priority" NOT a mention of the safety of the crew! Shouldn`t be surprised I suppose
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 62
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think that you are missing the point here. The passengers were not detained to contain any explosion risk. They were detained because they were suspects in a criminal investigation. If it were a hijack then not only would the pax be detained but plasti cuffed and unceremoniously and forcibly removed from the aircraft, laid on the grass and treated as terrorists until positively identified.
In the case of a bomb threat like this, where I am sure the authorities knew with some degree of certainty that it was a hoax, the pax would be retained in their seats, photographed and interviewed in place. There are no allocated seats on Ryanair flights. You have to identify who was sitting where. They may even have had to make some written statement for hand writing analysis.
In the case of a bomb threat like this, where I am sure the authorities knew with some degree of certainty that it was a hoax, the pax would be retained in their seats, photographed and interviewed in place. There are no allocated seats on Ryanair flights. You have to identify who was sitting where. They may even have had to make some written statement for hand writing analysis.
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Scotland
Posts: 147
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If they knew it was a hoax why go to all the trouble of flying it to Scotland?
PIK really isn't overflowing with police of any kind, LHR,STN,LGW,MAN (maybe TB reads pprune and decided agaist the extra publicity) even GLA are better policed. If you'd seen the number of police cars screaming down the M77 you'd have some idea of how caught out they were.
Chances are this is a cock up, which will give every passenger the right to a wad of government compensation.
PIK really isn't overflowing with police of any kind, LHR,STN,LGW,MAN (maybe TB reads pprune and decided agaist the extra publicity) even GLA are better policed. If you'd seen the number of police cars screaming down the M77 you'd have some idea of how caught out they were.
Chances are this is a cock up, which will give every passenger the right to a wad of government compensation.
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Ireland
Posts: 13
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Heard David Learmont of Flight International on the Radio this morning and he said that it was the biggest cock up of all times not to take the passengers off the aircraft. He said the police or who ever was in charge did not appear to have a clue as to what they were doing or how to deal with the incident. The Radio interviewer said that they have been unable to get the police to comment on the reason for leaving the passengers on the plane for over two hours.