Ryanair & Air Arran Bomb Threat Diversions to PIK (merged)
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Scotland
Posts: 142
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Another Diversion!!
Aer Aaran 508 was escorted into Prestwick tonight by 2 scrambled F3's from Leuchars.Airport closed for about 15mins and then reopened,reason unknown at this time.Happened about 40mins ago.
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: EuroZone
Posts: 35
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SIDSTAR,
The captain was not stopped from doing what he should have done. The authority of the commander cannot be overridden. He took a decision not to evacute the aircraft with a bomb on board threat. The final say in these matters rest solely with the aircraft's commander. He is the one that is legally responsible and accountable. If the situation turned nasty and there was a loss of life, he would have been held responsible.
WHy he failed/ refused to let everyone off the aircraft at this stage is speculation and conjecture, but I would love to know.
Anyone remember the Tristar at Riyadh, with a fire raging on board, where the muppet in charge, after landing taxied slowly off the runway to facilitate the imminent arrival of some rich geyser? Poor decision making cost everyone on board their lives.
I fully agree with Rollingthunder - if I were on board and aircraft with a bomb threat, I would not remain quietly seated whilst the muppet up the front pondered life.
The captain was not stopped from doing what he should have done. The authority of the commander cannot be overridden. He took a decision not to evacute the aircraft with a bomb on board threat. The final say in these matters rest solely with the aircraft's commander. He is the one that is legally responsible and accountable. If the situation turned nasty and there was a loss of life, he would have been held responsible.
WHy he failed/ refused to let everyone off the aircraft at this stage is speculation and conjecture, but I would love to know.
Anyone remember the Tristar at Riyadh, with a fire raging on board, where the muppet in charge, after landing taxied slowly off the runway to facilitate the imminent arrival of some rich geyser? Poor decision making cost everyone on board their lives.
I fully agree with Rollingthunder - if I were on board and aircraft with a bomb threat, I would not remain quietly seated whilst the muppet up the front pondered life.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Edinburgh, Scotland
Posts: 16
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4911296.stm
Another security alert.
Why Prestwick though this time - surely Stansted would have been closer? Unless it was simply to meet the Tornadoes enroute.
Another security alert.
Why Prestwick though this time - surely Stansted would have been closer? Unless it was simply to meet the Tornadoes enroute.
The issue i suggest is this. The Captain is niether trained nor equipped to judge the serousness of a bomb threat.
He is trained to get the aircraft on the ground Asap after a bomb threat.
He is not trained to deal with a bomb threat on the ground.
Last time I looked, there is nothing anywhere I know of that advises about dealing with a bomb threat by confining people in the vicinity of the threat.
End of story, Unless anyone can provide a logical reason about minimising harm through confining people on board.
Failing that, the pax have the perfect right to take matters into their own hands and deplane any way they can.
My guess would be that the Captain of this aircraft was mindful of the costs associated with an emergency evacuation of the aircraft and decided to take the "low cost" option.
P.S. Thats why I sit by the emergency exit if possible. I'd rather be on the outside helping others leave than on the inside trying to get out behind half a dozen obese clowns.
He is trained to get the aircraft on the ground Asap after a bomb threat.
He is not trained to deal with a bomb threat on the ground.
Last time I looked, there is nothing anywhere I know of that advises about dealing with a bomb threat by confining people in the vicinity of the threat.
End of story, Unless anyone can provide a logical reason about minimising harm through confining people on board.
Failing that, the pax have the perfect right to take matters into their own hands and deplane any way they can.
My guess would be that the Captain of this aircraft was mindful of the costs associated with an emergency evacuation of the aircraft and decided to take the "low cost" option.
P.S. Thats why I sit by the emergency exit if possible. I'd rather be on the outside helping others leave than on the inside trying to get out behind half a dozen obese clowns.
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: NZ
Posts: 57
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
certain types of bomb 'warnings' ought to be ignored
Hence we end up back at the same point - who decides, who is responsible and who has the authority to act. Hence my original post (on which you commented) and the position I took. Several other contributors including Sunfish above have taken a similar line. I see no way that the logic of the situation does not end up (and should not end up) anywhere other than with the captain.
P.S. Not that I am unsympathetic to your point that warnings are invariably false. The temptation to say something along the following lines is considerable: "With modern security methods we no longer consider that a real bomb AND a bomb warning are a credible probability. Accordingly, we will henceforth ignore any bomb warnings that are not sufficiently precise as to be credible". I was just wondering if you were going to make such an argument in a way that I had not anticipated. (While attractive it may have a couple of flaws).
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: EuroZone
Posts: 35
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sunfish,
I agree totally that the captain is not in a position to judge the seriousness of the threat. The upshot of this that he must assume the worst case scenario and act in a manner that protects those he is responsible for. Getting the aircraft on the ground and then sitting there keeping everybody on board is not in keeping with that.
Getting everyone a safe distance away from the aircraft would be the safe thing to do.
In this incident this was not done.
I question as to why the commander did not take a course of action that would have rendered his crew and passengers safe in the event of the threat being real.
Perhaps his course of action might have been influenced by his interpretation of the the Flight Crew Memo issued by FR management that passengers are to be kept on board in the event of a diversion?
I agree totally that the captain is not in a position to judge the seriousness of the threat. The upshot of this that he must assume the worst case scenario and act in a manner that protects those he is responsible for. Getting the aircraft on the ground and then sitting there keeping everybody on board is not in keeping with that.
Getting everyone a safe distance away from the aircraft would be the safe thing to do.
In this incident this was not done.
I question as to why the commander did not take a course of action that would have rendered his crew and passengers safe in the event of the threat being real.
Perhaps his course of action might have been influenced by his interpretation of the the Flight Crew Memo issued by FR management that passengers are to be kept on board in the event of a diversion?
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: somewere
Posts: 55
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
all bomb warnings should be taken seriously as they are alway one step ahead. I know we have stepped up security but the people checking items are only human and mistakes can and will happen, even more so when low cost airlines are increasing hand baggage as a money saving option. This is what bombers look at and spend ages finding ways to get round the systems in place, these people dedicate their lifes to their causes and will research the system till the cows come home.
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Gatwick
Posts: 208
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Aer Arann aircraft in another bomb threat
For the second time in a week a bomb threat was found on board an Aer Arann flight RE508 from luton to galway last nite. Aircraft diverted and escorted by RAF to prestwick after note found on board containing a bomb warning. Details can be found on www.rte.ie.
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Scotland
Posts: 147
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Very much agree Dusty, the move away from checked bags is very bad for security (and queues to get airside).
One thing to get straight, the Captain is trained, entitled and obliged to judge the seriousness of a bomb threat discovered in-flight.
They are not trained nor entitled judge the 'non'-seriousness of a threat discovered in flight.
I've checked the guidance notes about the use of PIK and STN, they only get a mention due to their ability to handle dangerous goods; if these are hoaxes and being treated as such why PIK again.
SIDSTAR just a point to note, you say the Capt was refused permission to do what he was required to do - well that's always going to be the case, there are stock messages laid out for controllers to refuse permission on behalf of HM Gov't. Back in the days of traditional Hijacks (Ah, remember the good old days) you were refused entry to the country, some countries would put obstacles on the runway. As Capt you state your intentions and act on them, squawk the good squawk and land where you see fit.
It would be good to hear from anybody who actually heard the RT during either event to see how it was handled.
One thing to get straight, the Captain is trained, entitled and obliged to judge the seriousness of a bomb threat discovered in-flight.
They are not trained nor entitled judge the 'non'-seriousness of a threat discovered in flight.
I've checked the guidance notes about the use of PIK and STN, they only get a mention due to their ability to handle dangerous goods; if these are hoaxes and being treated as such why PIK again.
SIDSTAR just a point to note, you say the Capt was refused permission to do what he was required to do - well that's always going to be the case, there are stock messages laid out for controllers to refuse permission on behalf of HM Gov't. Back in the days of traditional Hijacks (Ah, remember the good old days) you were refused entry to the country, some countries would put obstacles on the runway. As Capt you state your intentions and act on them, squawk the good squawk and land where you see fit.
It would be good to hear from anybody who actually heard the RT during either event to see how it was handled.
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Outside the EU
Posts: 147
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And what practical function was the pair of F3s there to fulfil. Absorb the shock wave from the explosion and save the good folk of Ayrshire - I think not. I can only think of one reason and it would have (ultimately) involved the use of AIM 9s (or whatever they carry these days).
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 301
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It appears that they were kept on board again, the second time this week.
Taken from RTE
IAPA calls after second Prestwick diversion
15 April 2006 15:05
The Irish Airline Pilots' Association has called on the Department of Transport to clarify what security procedures are being used by airport authorities in Britain.
An Aer Arann flight from London to Galway was diverted to an airport in Scotland last night, and passengers were then forced to wait on board for over an hour.
Flight RE508 took off from Luton airport around 10.30pm last night.
Shortly afterwards staff found the note and raised the alarm.
The plane was escorted to Prestwick airport, near Glasgow, by two RAF Tornado jets and landed just before 11pm.
Officials say the 53 passengers and crew disembarked safely and the plane was searched.
Police have confirmed that the note was a hoax.
It was the second plane bound for Ireland to be diverted to Prestwick airport this week.
On Wednesday, a Ryanair flight from Paris to Dublin was also diverted there, after a steward was passed a note saying there was a bomb on board.
Passengers on that flight had to stay on board for two hours before being allowed to disembark.
Taken from RTE
IAPA calls after second Prestwick diversion
15 April 2006 15:05
The Irish Airline Pilots' Association has called on the Department of Transport to clarify what security procedures are being used by airport authorities in Britain.
An Aer Arann flight from London to Galway was diverted to an airport in Scotland last night, and passengers were then forced to wait on board for over an hour.
Flight RE508 took off from Luton airport around 10.30pm last night.
Shortly afterwards staff found the note and raised the alarm.
The plane was escorted to Prestwick airport, near Glasgow, by two RAF Tornado jets and landed just before 11pm.
Officials say the 53 passengers and crew disembarked safely and the plane was searched.
Police have confirmed that the note was a hoax.
It was the second plane bound for Ireland to be diverted to Prestwick airport this week.
On Wednesday, a Ryanair flight from Paris to Dublin was also diverted there, after a steward was passed a note saying there was a bomb on board.
Passengers on that flight had to stay on board for two hours before being allowed to disembark.
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 160
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Can anyone explain the logic in keeping people on board an aircraft which may have bomb on board? I have been trying to understand this policy ever since the Ryanair incident a few days ago. I can't get my head around it. If I had diverted due to a bomb threat and they wanted us to stay on board I'd be inclined to say tough ****, we're all getting off. 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: Ashbourne Co Meath Ireland
Age: 73
Posts: 470
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
OK, right now I have my SLF hat on, and it's a not happy hat, big time.
It would be bad enough ending up somewhere completely other than where I want to be as a result of the activities of a
neanderthal. What would get me ticking like a meter, and ready to do serious damage to someone would be the concept of FORCING me to stay on an aircraft that has been deemed at risk when it is possible, realistic and appropriate to get the passengers and crew the fcuk out of there as rapidly as is safely possible.
Will someone please justify keeping passengers on an aircraft that is suspected of being dangerous, and deemed sufficiently dangerous that the armed forces of a supposedly friendly neighbour state see fit to "escort" it with aircraft whose ONLY purpose in life is to be hostile when needed. As has been commented prior to this message, the only "advantage" to having 2 or more Tornado aircraft "escorting" an incident aircraft is that they can be hopefully relied on to make an objective report if the unthinkable happens, or they can be used to take executive action if the said suspect is about to do something deemed unacceptable!
Keeping the passengers on the aircraft is without doubt putting all concerned under stress, and may be putting them at serious risk, depending on the circumstances.
If Prestwick or Stansted are designated airports to be used for this type of emergency, then as far as I am concerned, they MUST be required to have the necessary facilities IN PLACE to allow the IMMEDIATE disembarkation of passengers on arrival.
If the passengers then have to be kept in sterile holding until they can be interviewed etc, so be it, but to keep them on the aircraft for the sort of time periods that have been mentioned is unforgivable.
There's security, and there's Insanity, and I know which category the events of the last few days falls in to!
It would be bad enough ending up somewhere completely other than where I want to be as a result of the activities of a
neanderthal. What would get me ticking like a meter, and ready to do serious damage to someone would be the concept of FORCING me to stay on an aircraft that has been deemed at risk when it is possible, realistic and appropriate to get the passengers and crew the fcuk out of there as rapidly as is safely possible.Will someone please justify keeping passengers on an aircraft that is suspected of being dangerous, and deemed sufficiently dangerous that the armed forces of a supposedly friendly neighbour state see fit to "escort" it with aircraft whose ONLY purpose in life is to be hostile when needed. As has been commented prior to this message, the only "advantage" to having 2 or more Tornado aircraft "escorting" an incident aircraft is that they can be hopefully relied on to make an objective report if the unthinkable happens, or they can be used to take executive action if the said suspect is about to do something deemed unacceptable!
Keeping the passengers on the aircraft is without doubt putting all concerned under stress, and may be putting them at serious risk, depending on the circumstances.
If Prestwick or Stansted are designated airports to be used for this type of emergency, then as far as I am concerned, they MUST be required to have the necessary facilities IN PLACE to allow the IMMEDIATE disembarkation of passengers on arrival.
If the passengers then have to be kept in sterile holding until they can be interviewed etc, so be it, but to keep them on the aircraft for the sort of time periods that have been mentioned is unforgivable.
There's security, and there's Insanity, and I know which category the events of the last few days falls in to!
Originally Posted by Irish Steve
Keeping the passengers on the aircraft is without doubt putting all concerned under stress, and may be putting them at serious risk, depending on the circumstances.
...
If the passengers then have to be kept in sterile holding until they can be interviewed etc, so be it, but to keep them on the aircraft for the sort of time periods that have been mentioned is unforgivable.
There's security, and there's Insanity, and I know which category the events of the last few days falls in to!
...
If the passengers then have to be kept in sterile holding until they can be interviewed etc, so be it, but to keep them on the aircraft for the sort of time periods that have been mentioned is unforgivable.
There's security, and there's Insanity, and I know which category the events of the last few days falls in to!
Having said that, I wonder what the crew's and particularly the pic's options are in a case where he is forced to keep pax and crew on board an aircraft which is subject to a bomb scare. Evacuate? Order the disembarkation by authority of the commander of the aircraft? Can the airport authority really denie that?
Catching the low life who has put the threat on the airplane sure has a big priority but not bigger than putting the occupants of the said airplane at risk if a note is not all that the said low life has put on board.
Best regards
AN2 Driver
Has this got anything to do with the fact that both aircraft were headed for Dublin and connected with the latest machinations in Ireland (South and North)?
Certainly, IRA bomb threats in the past were treated with a high degree of interest.
Certainly, IRA bomb threats in the past were treated with a high degree of interest.
Sims Fly Virtually
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Used to be 3rd Sand Dune from the Left - But now I'm somewhere else somewhere else.
Posts: 704
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"Fighter Escort"
I agree wholeheartedly with the above posts that itis ludicrous to keep pax on an aircraft that may have an explosive device on board.
However, regarding the "escort", could it be that at least part of their purpose is in case there is an explosion, so that they can be on hand to assist - either to help a damaged aicraft (loss of some controls, external damage inspection, or maybe nav-aids problem) get down safely. Or in the worst scenario, to ensure that the point of arrival on the ground is marked and quick/easy to locate by the emergency services.
However, regarding the "escort", could it be that at least part of their purpose is in case there is an explosion, so that they can be on hand to assist - either to help a damaged aicraft (loss of some controls, external damage inspection, or maybe nav-aids problem) get down safely. Or in the worst scenario, to ensure that the point of arrival on the ground is marked and quick/easy to locate by the emergency services.
The reason that the F3 Tornados are there is very fundamental. Should the Ryanair 737 or Aer Arran ATR suddenly have veered off course and headed for such an important building as the Boddingtons Brewery in Manchester, the Scottish Assembly, Ibrox Park or the RAFA Club in Prestwick then they would have shot it down without hesitation.
After all, other headbangers had a go at the World Trade Centre and George Bush has been wishing ever since that he had had a couple of F-16s or Tornadoes nearby with properly briefed crews!
After all, other headbangers had a go at the World Trade Centre and George Bush has been wishing ever since that he had had a couple of F-16s or Tornadoes nearby with properly briefed crews!