Ryanair & Air Arran Bomb Threat Diversions to PIK (merged)

[old,not bold]

I think you'll find that senior policemen in the UK command junor policemen and no-one else, not you, me, or any aircraft Captain.

The Police powers of arrest and detention of suspects, for which they must have good reasons, and in certain cases powers to restrict entry to certain places or areas.

They have no powers to "command" an aircraft Captain to detain people in an aircraft, especially one which is the subject of an unresolved threat of an IED aboard. Nor does ATC or the airport operator.

Neither, emphatically, do they themselves have the powers to detain people against their will aboard an aircraft in a possibly dangerous condition.

So, fellas, if you are in the unfortunate position of a Captain in that situation, don't ask, just evacuate your passengers and crew asap. If there are no steps then pop the slides. You are the aircraft commander and you can forget all the stuff about "as soon as it parks you are no longer responsible". If you are then arrested ask them what crime you are suspected of committing, precisely, and then sue for unlawful detention when they have trouble finding one.

On the tarmac and well away from the possible danger, the Police can arrest and detain anyone they reasonably suspect of committing a crime. Others may voluntarily stick around to help them with their enquiries, if the Police ask nicely.

What could make me wrong are any new laws we haven't been told about by good ole Tone to remove our remaining civil liberties and create a Police State in the name of prevention of terrorism. But I doubt very much that even those would specifically require a Captain to detain people in an aircraft against their will when asked to do so by Police, especially before anyone knows for sure if the bomb threat is real.

Don't worry about the SAS. They are rather better trained than the Police, a bit less bloodthirsty, and they rarely shoot people by mistake. They have no civil powers whatsoever to detain anyone.

[issi noho]

Just wondered, has anybody ever been in a tube station/shop/night club/hotel etc which didn't evacuate in the event of a Bomb scare?

I'm pretty sure that following last summers London attacks there were numerous false alarms which resulted in evacuation (in every sense). Did anybody notice a policeman ordering people back in?

According to the ANO when an a/c comes to rest after landing it is no longer in flight, it does not say I'm no longer the Capt otherwise any time I required to evacuate an aircraft my authority would be compromised.

The only way to resolve this is if the authorities make it known through the profession (security managers, CEO's and accountable managers) exactly what they were up to. Alternatively if a pax involved or crew were to take lagal action stating that they were endangered by being kept on board, which is an offence and could be tested in court.

[snaga]

Err, without movement Mr Plod is in charge.

wotsyors are you stating that as a fact? Or is it an opinion? (Hint 1: are the doors of the aircraft still closed? Hint 2: who is ultimately charged with the safety of the passengers?).

[Daysleeper]

the moment the captain puts the park brake on the senior police officer present takes over responsibility for the aircraft and its contents.

JW411 you still haven't provided any link to where you get this information


Consider this, had this been the main terminal at PIK , a hotel or train station it would have been immediately evacuated. There is no justification for detaining people in a location subject to a bomb threat, be that an aeroplane or a building.

[click]

We weren't there so I wouldn't go around second guessing our colleagues. They may have had a very persuasive welcoming committee. However, I'd go for the Evac button and pop the slides. Let's sort out the mess a couple of hundred yards away with a nearby coffee machine. In the end, I'd rather be judged by twelve instead of carried by six. Btw.....doors closed, it's my show and I call it!

[Capt Pit Bull]

Well, I'm out of this game now (thank god, the crazy way things are going) but as I recall the SOP was quite unequivocal, for a bomb warning on the ground:

Park where directed (somewhere remote)
Deplane (note: NOT evacuate) (IIRC without pax hand luggage)

I certainly would not expect an evacuation.
I certainly would not expect to remain sitting on the jet either.

CPB

[False Capture]

General theory regarding messages discovered in flight (on UK flights that is) is that they are vague warnings which lack credibility. This is confirmed by two hoaxes (Air Arran and Ryanair) in the last week.

[unwiseowl]

I think Prestwick police have blured the distinction between "bomb on board" and "hijack"!

[old,not bold]

Some you can ignore....

Just seen in the IACA Press review...

Dutch Bomb Scare Man Released
April 13, 2006 Dutch prosecution authorities said on Thursday they had released a 32 year old Spaniard who triggered a bomb alert aboard a plane bound for Madrid last week, and had cleared him of any wrong-doing.
The Iberia flight returned to Amsterdam's Schiphol Airport last Friday after a woman raised the alarm about a fellow passenger she thought was acting suspiciously.
The Spaniard's lawyer said the man had said in Spanish just before take off "we're going up", which the woman took to mean he would blow up the plane, Dutch news agency ANP reported.
All 165 passengers were evacuated and police searched the plane with sniffer dogs.
(Reuters)

[SixDelta]

Having recently been involved in a very realistic airborne "hijack exercise" for a European Airforce, if i'm ever in a situation like that for real I'm going to do exactly what i'm told by whoever assumes control of the situation (be it the authorities on the ground or an airborne interceptor) I will go exactly where i'm ordered to and once i get there i'll do exactly what i'm told. In a hijack or bomb threat situation the crew at the sharp end may not be in possession of all the relevant facts.

[harrogate]

Originally Posted by ExSimGuy

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.

Yeah, come on guys, everyone with an ounce of common sense knows it would be best to have an escort rather than not to have an escort. The RAF pilots can make visual assessments / corroborations of what the folks on the ground know from what they've been told. They can even peek into the cockpit to try to see if there's a 'situation' or if something looks suss. This isn't always possible, of course, but it's best to exercise the means to having that option at your disposal. Situations can escalate, so where initially it may seem an overreaction, events could transpire later into making it a genuine emergency. Better to overreact than underreact.

Besides, if QRAs weren't scrambled in this instance, can you guess at what the big questionthat the media would be posing today...? 10 points for the first person to answer correctly.

This highlights a bigger question, which may warrant a new thread... This often used tactic of a hoaxer could be used by real terrorists to cause a diversion of resources from a genuine and unannounced hijack/bomb situation. They could take advantage of the UKs precautionary measures and divert both QRA units to hoax situations, thus removing a major obstacle that sits in the way of their real objective. Even a half-organised terror group could coordinate this reasonably simple situation. You never know, instances like these (and I'm NOT talking about these specific instances this week!) coud be someone 'trying it on', just to see if the policy to react in this way remains in place after a rash of hoaxes. Could be classic 'prodding' tactics with the aim of drawing certain conclusions. A research exercise.

Please don't call me a scaremonger - I'm adding some thoughts, not saying that there's a big attack looming.

The other question is - it'll only take 2 of these on the same day at the same time (which we were only a few hours away from this week) to cause a situation where both UK QRA units are pre-occupied. Obviously there will be contingency plans to 'stand up' more crews when the QRAs are launched, or at least put other crews on some form of heightened readiness, but bearing in mind Coningsby QRA, for example, is manned by detached units from Leeming in Yorkshire ( which only has 2 aircraft on the detachment at any one time), then there's likely to be some sort of gap in the cover which could be exploited, if the desire was there.

The Typhoon isn't yet declared to QRA, so maybe there's some food for thought on the notion of detaching more Tornado aircraft to CBY?

These are all thoughts that are slightly off topic, but interesting to ponder them nonetheless I think.

[snaga]

I'm going to do exactly what i'm told by whoever assumes control of the situation

SixDelta Are you a licensed aircraft commander? If you are, don't you think that in the event of a bomb being on board it might be an idea to acquaint yourself with the facts or, at a minimum, to determine who exactly IS in control (if you think it isn't you)?

In general, at what point would you give up your responsibilities and to whom do you transfer those responsibilities and how do you determine that they have actually assumed those responsibilities?

Even more to the point, if you were convinced for some reason that there was bomb on board but were being sent to a convenient (to them) airfield 30 mins away from the one below you, would you take the view that (1) you were in charge, or (2) that it was the "somebody" who was sending you elsewhere?

[SixDelta]

Snaga, i understand your point but....

If you have a pair of fighters, one being visually very directive on your left-hand side while his number 2 sits in a one mile trail with his radar locked to you, it's advisable to do as requested and follow. Even on an exercise it's an uncomfortable position to be in.

[snaga]

SixDelta all very well, but it sounds to me that a hijacking or similar situation is being confused with a bomb warning. I am also at a loss to understand why so many professional pilots seem willing to abdicate their responsibilities in circumstances where the justification for their actions might be rather difficult to sustain ex poste. The obvious questions, after the event, would start with "on what basis did you decide that you no longer had the responsibilities with which you started the flight.... ?"

I am also sure you do not mean to imply that the mere presence of "friendly" fighter aircraft should be enough to cause you to lose your wits. And surely a "visually very directive" fighter is in R/T contact with somebody that can be communicated with?

[SixDelta]

were being sent to a convenient (to them) airfield 30 mins away from the one below you

That was the statement i was responding too. You might well have an airfield below you, but if "they" don't want you to go there (because of a bomb-scare, threat of hijack or whatever), you WILL be directed elsewhere be it via R/T backed up by fighter presence or by being intercepted and directed.

I wasn't for a moment suggesting that you might "loose you wits", nor was I suggesting that you have to abdicate command of your aircraft, merely that in the above situation you would be well advised to do as you are told. Even if does tread on your ego.

[snaga]

Even if does tread on your ego

I think you are missing my point. This has nothing to do with ego, but with confused lines of communication and responsibility. Here the responsibility for clarity, and for the passengers, lies with the captain until somebody explicitly takes that from him/her (on grounds that he finds credible and consistent with his or her appraisal of the situation). You clearly do not accept that the captain could declare an emergency, or act in any other way he deems appropriate. Your sole justification is an - implied - threat (from "friendly aircraft" that may or may not know what is going on). None of which washes with me. Anything starting with "I thought..." used after the event is not good enough. "I ascertained that ... and then I .... " would be a better position from which to start.

I think we have both given this a good outing now and I'm happy to leave it at this point. It identifies the issues that need to be clarified as far as I am concerned.

[PPRuNe Radar]

snaga

The commander does not lose his direct responsibility, however, if instructed by the UK Air Defence Authority (either directly or by ATC) to take a course of action and the commander decides not to comply, then his responsibility will also be stretched to include the resultant actions taken by the authorities.

As SixDelta suggests, the urge to not comply with an armed fighter sitting off your wing either displays huge cojones or a complete misunderstanding of the situation you are actually in.

It does however seem that the handling by the authorities once on the ground needs a big shake up.

As a Devils Advocate, for aircraft travelling to an adjacent country then they could perhaps even consider escorting such aircraft clear of UK airspace (remaining clear of densely populated areas) and let some other authority deal with it in the future ??

[snaga]

Well, I did say that I was going to leave this... but I do need respond to the latest comment. I really don't want to reduce this to A,B,C's .... but:

1. You have R/T and you can ask questions - or express an opinion,

2. You can make sure that what you think is conveyed to somebody,

3. You can state your concerns and desires (as commander),

4. You can even declare an emergency and state your intentions ...

and so on. You are NOT impotent. This is not to say that you would be wise to ignore a direct order to comply with a reasonable order or direction, but it is to ask that people stop and think before just following somebody who may be in an even greater state of ignorance.

What I have really been saying is that the appearance that the police are "in charge" and know something you don't know, or that the fighter pilot knows something you don't know may be entirely erroneous. I think it is evident that something very strange took place here leading to an unacceptable outcome.

What are the odds that the police in this case ran the procedure for a hijack, etc. in error, or in the absence of knowing what to do? I don't know, but I find the outcome strange and I find the loss of control of the situation to be "interesting" - not least because I will bet a lot that there was nobody else who felt that they were responsible for the passengers (whatever else they thought they were in charge of).

If the aircraft had been destroyed by an exploding bomb, what would an inquiry have to say about the movement of responsibility, or confused lines of communication?

As far as I am concerned this little spat started solely because of the implication that someone external to the aircraft suddenly becomes the boss, even in circumstances where the crew might know something of relevance or significance.

I still don't see how it is wise to have a "system" that merits a warning as being serious enough to divert an aircraft with a fighter escort, BUT which is not serious enough to have the passengers taken off the aircraft at the earliest opportunity. Am I missing something?

[Idunno]

Regarding this argument about whether you are 'in charge' or not when parked - my own little story might be of interest.

A week or so after 9-11 I had a security 'situation' on the gate in LHR.
I called SB to the a/c, and they concurred that there were valid reasons for my suspicion.
I felt the situation thus warranted an orderly disembarkation of the pax via the jetway. There was no bomb threat - just some suspicious behaviour/ circumstances.
When I told SB that was my decision - they informed me in no uncertain circumstances they would not allow it. And when I pointed out that this was my a/c and I would make such decisions - they told me - NO - you are on the ground in the UK, your park brake is set and your door is open - we're in charge, not you.

I'm interested to hear what the gung-ho types would've done in the situation.
By the way - there were armed police surrounding the a/c and standing on the jetway. My bet is the first guy off would've got a bullet.
Hello RollingThunder.

[issi noho]

Lots of food for thought here, QRA's, exercises and people in charge; loads of stuff. Just worth pointing out that if I were in the market of attacking aeroplanes and had absolutely no knowledge of aviation at all, following this weeks events I would arm myself with a shoulder launched missile and sit on Prestwick beach until fishes swim to me, so to speak.

Well done, don't tell them your name Pike!