Ryanair & Air Arran Bomb Threat Diversions to PIK (merged)
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: NZ
Posts: 57
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Idunno, thank God for a simple one:
They were right and you were wrong (the fact that they had guns is an entirely separate matter, though I do accept it has a tendancy to concentrate the mind ....). But, legally speaking, that is an "open and shut" example.
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.
Eight Gun Fighter
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Western Approaches
Posts: 1,126
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Idunno
I take your point but according to info supplied on that other situation, the idiots were likely running around trying to arrange ground stairs (will be 1/2 an hour sir) or buses (will be a couple of hours sir before they can get here, Stagecoach says). Who the hell has the authority to keep a plane full of pax on board when there is a bomb threat to the aircraft and the threat cannot be dismissed by any COMPETANT authority?
Doubt they could organize the sharpshooters in less time than the buses.
I am a cynic. It has saved ny life before.
I take your point but according to info supplied on that other situation, the idiots were likely running around trying to arrange ground stairs (will be 1/2 an hour sir) or buses (will be a couple of hours sir before they can get here, Stagecoach says). Who the hell has the authority to keep a plane full of pax on board when there is a bomb threat to the aircraft and the threat cannot be dismissed by any COMPETANT authority?
Doubt they could organize the sharpshooters in less time than the buses.
I am a cynic. It has saved ny life before.
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Planet Claire
Age: 63
Posts: 587
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I would have evacuated and bollocks to the police. So would most folk, I'll wager.
Just imagine if there really was a bomb and it went off 90mins after they'd landed. Fuxxackes!
Just imagine if there really was a bomb and it went off 90mins after they'd landed. Fuxxackes!
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Dublin
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
PPRuNe Radar
consider escorting such aircraft clear of UK airspace? Surely this is not an option w/ Ireland because the Irish Air Corps have no interceptors?
Last edited by ollopa; 16th Apr 2006 at 22:07. Reason: Font error
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Location, Location
Posts: 642
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by brain fade
Just imagine if there really was a bomb and it went off 90mins after they'd landed.
What I'm trying to say is that the risk that the captain (or whoever is responsible) has the unenviable task of balancing may not be the loss of all souls on board, but 'only' a few - set against an evacuation that may result in injury or even some over-reaction from armed police/soldiers outside the aircraft.
As a mere pax, I'm sure I'd be most uncomfortable being held on board in such a situation - but it may not be quite as unreasonable as is being suggested by some commentators.
Apologies if my lack of technical knowledge is causing me to spout complete nonsense (wouldn't be the first time).
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Scotland
Posts: 147
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm trying so hard to see this from another angle but it isn't coming to much.
best case, its a hoax and we're trying to find either idiot hoaxer or terrorist testing the mechanisms - either way I'm not landing in a field where the pax can run off into the undergrowth. Every airport where you're likely to divert a reasonable sized aircraft has excellent security and some have their own police forces, I'm not thinking about letting the matter drop just taking people/suspects off the aircraft incase it is not a hoax and the unthinkable happened.
P Vscum - imagine it was the tiniest amount of explosives, say you just lost a foot - would that be OK. How about you're 'happy' that you die because " whats being suggested by commentators is not so unreasonable" Would your wife/husband/dependants see it that way? Do they go after plod or airline, does the airline hang the Capt out to dry (If you can tell one thing from this thread its that we are not given sufficient information about this topic). And why do you assme the device would be in the hold? There are many ways to get things on aircraft and hold baggage is not the highest risk.
An evacution of a 737 or ATR really would not be so tough, much bigger and you're correct to assume some injuries. A controlled de-plane would be no problem at all provided the eqpt was available.
Controlling these events isn't an unenviable task, just treat us like any other place of work, empty it of people and allow the appropriately trained to search it after an appropriate amount of time has lapsed.
best case, its a hoax and we're trying to find either idiot hoaxer or terrorist testing the mechanisms - either way I'm not landing in a field where the pax can run off into the undergrowth. Every airport where you're likely to divert a reasonable sized aircraft has excellent security and some have their own police forces, I'm not thinking about letting the matter drop just taking people/suspects off the aircraft incase it is not a hoax and the unthinkable happened.
P Vscum - imagine it was the tiniest amount of explosives, say you just lost a foot - would that be OK. How about you're 'happy' that you die because " whats being suggested by commentators is not so unreasonable" Would your wife/husband/dependants see it that way? Do they go after plod or airline, does the airline hang the Capt out to dry (If you can tell one thing from this thread its that we are not given sufficient information about this topic). And why do you assme the device would be in the hold? There are many ways to get things on aircraft and hold baggage is not the highest risk.
An evacution of a 737 or ATR really would not be so tough, much bigger and you're correct to assume some injuries. A controlled de-plane would be no problem at all provided the eqpt was available.
Controlling these events isn't an unenviable task, just treat us like any other place of work, empty it of people and allow the appropriately trained to search it after an appropriate amount of time has lapsed.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Camel jockey
Posts: 183
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"evacuate evacuate through all available exit's" end of story,, if there was a device on board and it may have been something as simple as was found on a alatalia flight a couple of years back,,, small, simple and easy to get on board but extremally effective. try and do a rapid disembacation once the slides are disarmed and there are vehicle all around the aircraft. good luck.
Last edited by bia botal; 17th Apr 2006 at 00:13.
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 48
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A few points:
1. This is a bollox bomb note NOT a hijack.
2. Land wherever you deam fit by the simple words " Pan Pan Pan Airline Flight 123 request diversion to land at NEAREST THAT TAKES YOUR FANCY due to security".
3. By the time that has been kicked up the chain of command and down again you'll be passing 20,000ft and well underway.
4. If you are concerned about a bang when on the ground then get on the radio to TWR and say " Mayday Mayday, Boeing 123 on Fox 3 Apron request steps in 3 minutes of else will have to evacuate 2 over 80yr wheelchair bound grannies plus 7 under six month old babies plus one paraplegic down the slides.... request ambulances...
Sod the police. You are in charge of the people on board ypur aeroplane. If you want to then evacuate them all at will and let Plod deal with the consequences.
AP
1. This is a bollox bomb note NOT a hijack.
2. Land wherever you deam fit by the simple words " Pan Pan Pan Airline Flight 123 request diversion to land at NEAREST THAT TAKES YOUR FANCY due to security".
3. By the time that has been kicked up the chain of command and down again you'll be passing 20,000ft and well underway.
4. If you are concerned about a bang when on the ground then get on the radio to TWR and say " Mayday Mayday, Boeing 123 on Fox 3 Apron request steps in 3 minutes of else will have to evacuate 2 over 80yr wheelchair bound grannies plus 7 under six month old babies plus one paraplegic down the slides.... request ambulances...
Sod the police. You are in charge of the people on board ypur aeroplane. If you want to then evacuate them all at will and let Plod deal with the consequences.
AP
With the greatest of respect, and assuming the information published so far is approximately correct, I am becoming so deeply disturbed by the apparent behaviours of the security services that I will never willingly fly anywhere in Europe or the UK again.
For the record, I saw an extremely gory documentary some time ago about the bombs and results produced by muslim extremists including a photo of the remains of the poor japanese who had the misfortune to sit in an aircraft seat that had "a very small bomb" planted in it.
The construction of that bomb was also described in some detail and as far as I can tell a similar device, or even a dummy, would be simple to smuggle onto an aircraft. Given the recent tube bombing, I would have thought that an aircraft related bomb incident would have a non zero probability and the authority should err on the side of caution.
The only conclusion I can draw from what has happened is that the British Security services either over react and shoot innocent people or don't react at all when it is obvious that they should.
For the record, I saw an extremely gory documentary some time ago about the bombs and results produced by muslim extremists including a photo of the remains of the poor japanese who had the misfortune to sit in an aircraft seat that had "a very small bomb" planted in it.
The construction of that bomb was also described in some detail and as far as I can tell a similar device, or even a dummy, would be simple to smuggle onto an aircraft. Given the recent tube bombing, I would have thought that an aircraft related bomb incident would have a non zero probability and the authority should err on the side of caution.
The only conclusion I can draw from what has happened is that the British Security services either over react and shoot innocent people or don't react at all when it is obvious that they should.
Snaga,
At the risk of repetition, the Police do not have the powers to detain people aboard an aircraft against their will, regardless of its position, its doors' position and/or its park brake's position. They do not have the powers, either, to order an aircraft commander to detain people against their will.
The SB are Policemen, in civvies with special duties. They have no additional powers.
Faced with a confident police officer, SB or uniform, blocking the door, backed up by a bunch of the usual thugs, it is very understandable that any Captain would back down. But for self-protection he/she should insist that the request, and the assertion that they have the power to make it, should be made in writing and signed. As a back-up, try and get it on the ATC tape if you can, and/or the CVR, and make sure it isn't wiped automatically (30 minutes loop? I don't know.)
If that is refused, it will be simply because it is an unlawful request backed by an untrue assertion, and the police officer knows it only too well. They will be relying, as do most of the Police, on ignorance of the real law when it comes to what they can and cannot do. They are also not necessarily the fount of all wisdom in matters of terrorism in which - apart from those who learned from the PIRA/RIRA etc - they are not necessarily very experienced.
If Tone and his friend Charles C have introduced recent laws to change all that without telling us what's in the small print, then I'm wrong.
Most people on this thread have got it right; don't ask permission, you don't need it. If your judgement says get the crew and pax off now, just do it. You will not have made a mistake.
At the risk of repetition, the Police do not have the powers to detain people aboard an aircraft against their will, regardless of its position, its doors' position and/or its park brake's position. They do not have the powers, either, to order an aircraft commander to detain people against their will.
The SB are Policemen, in civvies with special duties. They have no additional powers.
Faced with a confident police officer, SB or uniform, blocking the door, backed up by a bunch of the usual thugs, it is very understandable that any Captain would back down. But for self-protection he/she should insist that the request, and the assertion that they have the power to make it, should be made in writing and signed. As a back-up, try and get it on the ATC tape if you can, and/or the CVR, and make sure it isn't wiped automatically (30 minutes loop? I don't know.)
If that is refused, it will be simply because it is an unlawful request backed by an untrue assertion, and the police officer knows it only too well. They will be relying, as do most of the Police, on ignorance of the real law when it comes to what they can and cannot do. They are also not necessarily the fount of all wisdom in matters of terrorism in which - apart from those who learned from the PIRA/RIRA etc - they are not necessarily very experienced.
If Tone and his friend Charles C have introduced recent laws to change all that without telling us what's in the small print, then I'm wrong.
Most people on this thread have got it right; don't ask permission, you don't need it. If your judgement says get the crew and pax off now, just do it. You will not have made a mistake.
>Of course the next captain to have such an incident may think twice before telling ATC. I would!<
unwiseowl, yes I am sure you are correct! Sad really that the authority of the aircraft commander has been eroded to an extent that we have to play games to achieve the end game.
Much debate on this thread about who has the authority when the aircraft is on the ground. No doubt in my mind that it's the commander running the show especially whilst the doors are closed but it would be interesting to have a definitive answer from a legal specialist.
unwiseowl, yes I am sure you are correct! Sad really that the authority of the aircraft commander has been eroded to an extent that we have to play games to achieve the end game.
Much debate on this thread about who has the authority when the aircraft is on the ground. No doubt in my mind that it's the commander running the show especially whilst the doors are closed but it would be interesting to have a definitive answer from a legal specialist.
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Mid Atlantic
Posts: 471
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
old,not bold - I told our dispatcher to get our security supremo to the a/c post haste. He duly arrived and much fevered debate went on between him and the SB chappy. The best he could acheive was a MAD suggestion that they'd allow the pax to deplane onto THE RAMP but not INTO the building - no way, no how, never.
I declined their kind offer.
I like your style though - keep it coming.
I declined their kind offer.
I like your style though - keep it coming.
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 53
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
AbeamPoints wrote:
While i agree with the sentiment AP, if you use the phrase "due to security", in the current climate, you will be intercepted whether it's a "bollox bomb note" or not. At that point the choice of divert field MAY be made FOR you not BY you, unless you subsequently upgrade to a MayDay for a non-security related problem.
Land wherever you deam fit by the simple words " Pan Pan Pan Airline Flight 123 request diversion to land at NEAREST THAT TAKES YOUR FANCY due to security".
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: NZ
Posts: 57
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Old,notbold you say
- but I did not say what you think I said. I responded only to the issue of the legal position of the commander.
If you read my previous posts you will see that you and I are cut from the same cloth on this business. However, while I take your point, I am somewhat more cautious than you. When the captain's authority is clear, then he or she can use it appropriately. However, what the police said was - in law - correct. And that FACT should give any captain, no matter how sure he is of himself, serious pause for thought (not least because he might be subsequently judged to have acted or interfered where he had no right to interfere - and possibly to the detriment of those involved).
Furthermore, if the police believe there is a security situation on the ground - when the captain has no formal authority - and determine a suitable course of action then it would be a courageous captain who decided to disagree (unless he had evidence of a "clear and present danger"). I see that case - where the responsibility for what takes place is clearly with the police - as being distinct from a case where the captain is responsible, but has no authority or willingness to act.
By the way, it could be considered fanciful to suggest that the police in such circumstances "do not have the powers to detain people" .. I think I would prefer that you argued that in court than I!
That being said, I agree with the thrust of your observation that:
At the risk of repetition, the Police do not have the powers to detain people aboard an aircraft against their will, regardless of its position, its doors' position and/or its park brake's position.
If you read my previous posts you will see that you and I are cut from the same cloth on this business. However, while I take your point, I am somewhat more cautious than you. When the captain's authority is clear, then he or she can use it appropriately. However, what the police said was - in law - correct. And that FACT should give any captain, no matter how sure he is of himself, serious pause for thought (not least because he might be subsequently judged to have acted or interfered where he had no right to interfere - and possibly to the detriment of those involved).
Furthermore, if the police believe there is a security situation on the ground - when the captain has no formal authority - and determine a suitable course of action then it would be a courageous captain who decided to disagree (unless he had evidence of a "clear and present danger"). I see that case - where the responsibility for what takes place is clearly with the police - as being distinct from a case where the captain is responsible, but has no authority or willingness to act.
By the way, it could be considered fanciful to suggest that the police in such circumstances "do not have the powers to detain people" .. I think I would prefer that you argued that in court than I!
That being said, I agree with the thrust of your observation that:
Most people on this thread have got it right; don't ask permission, you don't need it.
snaga
You are right, we do think the same way..
except..
It is a myth, you know, that the Police have the power simply to take charge of any situation they choose to, and if they do that other people must do what they say. In certain very well specified cases, yes they do, but it is not a general power.
If the aircraft Captain is still in charge, the Police cannot tell him what to do because he is in charge.
If not, he's just another peron in the aircraft with no powers to tell anyone else (including the other crew members) what to do or to stop them leaving if they choose to. He could not prevent passengers or crew taking matters into their own hands.
If the Police then seek to take charge of the aircraft and its passengers, and to prevent anyone from disembarking, they are acting outside their powers and would have to take the consequences, including actions for assault if they act physically, illegal detention etc, forcing people to remain in a dangerous situation etc etc.
The Police cannot detain anyone unless they have reasonable grounds for suspecting that the person has committed an offence or is about to do so..
The only agency with any kind of legal authority to order people to stay on board might be HMRC, or even the airport operator under its byelaws or the Civil Aviation Act, for reasons to do with revenue collection and or Health & Safety. And those powers would be over-ridden by the IED threat.
A bomb warning in a full cinema, discovered by an usher, is a parallel case. The Police do not have the power to prevent the management from evacuating the premises, and if they were to try they would have a riot on their hands.
As I said at the start, the only people that the Police can order about, apart from a few well-defined cases, are other policemen or people they suspect reasonably of an offence.
Unless (the usual caveat) we have just lost our remaining civil liberties without being told by Tone 'n Charlie.
You are right, we do think the same way..
except..
It is a myth, you know, that the Police have the power simply to take charge of any situation they choose to, and if they do that other people must do what they say. In certain very well specified cases, yes they do, but it is not a general power.
If the aircraft Captain is still in charge, the Police cannot tell him what to do because he is in charge.
If not, he's just another peron in the aircraft with no powers to tell anyone else (including the other crew members) what to do or to stop them leaving if they choose to. He could not prevent passengers or crew taking matters into their own hands.
If the Police then seek to take charge of the aircraft and its passengers, and to prevent anyone from disembarking, they are acting outside their powers and would have to take the consequences, including actions for assault if they act physically, illegal detention etc, forcing people to remain in a dangerous situation etc etc.
The Police cannot detain anyone unless they have reasonable grounds for suspecting that the person has committed an offence or is about to do so..
The only agency with any kind of legal authority to order people to stay on board might be HMRC, or even the airport operator under its byelaws or the Civil Aviation Act, for reasons to do with revenue collection and or Health & Safety. And those powers would be over-ridden by the IED threat.
A bomb warning in a full cinema, discovered by an usher, is a parallel case. The Police do not have the power to prevent the management from evacuating the premises, and if they were to try they would have a riot on their hands.
As I said at the start, the only people that the Police can order about, apart from a few well-defined cases, are other policemen or people they suspect reasonably of an offence.
Unless (the usual caveat) we have just lost our remaining civil liberties without being told by Tone 'n Charlie.
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: West of EGKK
Posts: 53
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Old, et al.
Pardon my intrusion. As a pax, I really don't belong here - but I would like to ask if, in the circumstances being discussed, your rights and obligations as a commander are compromised by the prevention of terrorism act?
As I understand it, the police can, and do, use the POTA to make arrests without reasonable evidence. The very fact that you are aboard an aircraft that may be carrying an IED may be sufficient grounds (as far as the police are concerned) to arrest everyone on board.
So, captain says "Get the steps here within 5 minutes, or I'll make my own arrangements", Inspector Plod replies, "Sorry, sonny, You are under arrest - POTA. I'm in charge ..."
Pardon my intrusion. As a pax, I really don't belong here - but I would like to ask if, in the circumstances being discussed, your rights and obligations as a commander are compromised by the prevention of terrorism act?
As I understand it, the police can, and do, use the POTA to make arrests without reasonable evidence. The very fact that you are aboard an aircraft that may be carrying an IED may be sufficient grounds (as far as the police are concerned) to arrest everyone on board.
So, captain says "Get the steps here within 5 minutes, or I'll make my own arrangements", Inspector Plod replies, "Sorry, sonny, You are under arrest - POTA. I'm in charge ..."
Last edited by DG101; 17th Apr 2006 at 16:36.
This is interesting - some people seem to believe that the Police have the power to ARREST everybody on an aircraft. I've read some of the recent terrorism legislation and don't recall seeing anything that specifically permits this.
There is a section on "Detention of Aircraft" in the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001, but as far as I can tell this section allows the police to prevent an aircraft from flying - it doesn't say anything about detaining the passengers and crew.
If anyone does know of legislation that would permit the arrest of everybody on an aircraft in these circumstances could they please post a link to it here?
There is a section on "Detention of Aircraft" in the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001, but as far as I can tell this section allows the police to prevent an aircraft from flying - it doesn't say anything about detaining the passengers and crew.
If anyone does know of legislation that would permit the arrest of everybody on an aircraft in these circumstances could they please post a link to it here?
Join Date: May 2001
Location: uk
Posts: 215
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ladies & Gentleman
Forgive my intrusion onto your rumour and news forum. I normally confine myself to the more grown-up threads, but reading some of the garbage posted on here I felt it necessary to reply. It's difficult to understand how some supposedly professional pilots (at least posing as professional pilots) can see the world from such a narrow view-point.
I really hope that the bright spark who entitles himself Rolling Thunder is not in command of an aircraft with a serious security issue on board. If he over reacts like he does in his posts, an already serious situation is only likely to get worse. I can assure him and others, that the first one through the door/down the slide, in an un-briefed evacuation, faces a better than even chance of getting a 9mm round or two firmly embodied in their centre mass from Mr MP5.
Seriously, if you were involved in an IFE at FL350, you wouldn't expect any input from the SB/UKSF in how to resolve it. Nor would you welcome it. Once on the ground at Prestwick or Stansted, you effectively hand the situation over to the experts, who are trained, equiped and ready to deal with such a situation. At that point, you merely become a conduit for information as the focal point for communication. Any decision making should be well out of your hands. You are neither qualified, nor trained to make decisions in this situation. I would argue that you could be found culpably negligent by making any decisions outwith your remit to operate the aircraft. Any decisions you make outside of this are likely to prolong the situation and potentially make it worse.
I can think of many possible reasons for detaining the passengers on board the aircraft for an extended period. Decisions like this are not taken in isolation from the events on the ground! The security services have every right to treat all passengers on board this aircraft as potential criminals. The decision to detain them would not have been taken if the situation did not warrant it.
With regard to information flow between the BALPA/Airline Reps and the security services, it's really quite simple. You don't get told because you don't need to know.
I'm sure the people on board were mighty upset to be held there for an extended period of time, but there are more chilling scenarios.
Forgive my intrusion onto your rumour and news forum. I normally confine myself to the more grown-up threads, but reading some of the garbage posted on here I felt it necessary to reply. It's difficult to understand how some supposedly professional pilots (at least posing as professional pilots) can see the world from such a narrow view-point.
I really hope that the bright spark who entitles himself Rolling Thunder is not in command of an aircraft with a serious security issue on board. If he over reacts like he does in his posts, an already serious situation is only likely to get worse. I can assure him and others, that the first one through the door/down the slide, in an un-briefed evacuation, faces a better than even chance of getting a 9mm round or two firmly embodied in their centre mass from Mr MP5.
Seriously, if you were involved in an IFE at FL350, you wouldn't expect any input from the SB/UKSF in how to resolve it. Nor would you welcome it. Once on the ground at Prestwick or Stansted, you effectively hand the situation over to the experts, who are trained, equiped and ready to deal with such a situation. At that point, you merely become a conduit for information as the focal point for communication. Any decision making should be well out of your hands. You are neither qualified, nor trained to make decisions in this situation. I would argue that you could be found culpably negligent by making any decisions outwith your remit to operate the aircraft. Any decisions you make outside of this are likely to prolong the situation and potentially make it worse.
I can think of many possible reasons for detaining the passengers on board the aircraft for an extended period. Decisions like this are not taken in isolation from the events on the ground! The security services have every right to treat all passengers on board this aircraft as potential criminals. The decision to detain them would not have been taken if the situation did not warrant it.
With regard to information flow between the BALPA/Airline Reps and the security services, it's really quite simple. You don't get told because you don't need to know.
I'm sure the people on board were mighty upset to be held there for an extended period of time, but there are more chilling scenarios.