Irish Govt questions UK Govt over bomb threat handling
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: london/UK
Posts: 499
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Too Few Stripes
I gave you a reason why pax may have been contained on an aircraft. And as I said, unpalatable though it may be, thats a valid reason. Why? Because its better then a possible alternative. You really ought to realise, that what ever the Police 's reasons in the 2 cases recently, they probably arn't happy about it either, but, they were the ones in possession of the available facts, or were gathering them, not us.
Another alternative is, either the Police, or the airlines threat assessors considered there not to be a threat or danger. But again, we don't know that is, or is not the case.
The issue here isn't what happened, because it's over now, but isn't it about time that the Mil, airlines and Police got together and sorted out who does what and why? That way, we wouldn't have to have this discussion again.
I gave you a reason why pax may have been contained on an aircraft. And as I said, unpalatable though it may be, thats a valid reason. Why? Because its better then a possible alternative. You really ought to realise, that what ever the Police 's reasons in the 2 cases recently, they probably arn't happy about it either, but, they were the ones in possession of the available facts, or were gathering them, not us.
Another alternative is, either the Police, or the airlines threat assessors considered there not to be a threat or danger. But again, we don't know that is, or is not the case.
The issue here isn't what happened, because it's over now, but isn't it about time that the Mil, airlines and Police got together and sorted out who does what and why? That way, we wouldn't have to have this discussion again.
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Prestwick, Scotland
Posts: 180
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Don't think for one minute that in diverting to Prestwick hundreds of Police officers will suddenly appear from no-where. I understand that one of the reasons why the Ryanair pax were held aboard for 2 hours + was that Police could still be seen coming down the M77 from Glasgow in those two hours. Meanwhile the airport was shut for the 2.5 hours, 4 flights diverted, and 6 completely cancelled, with those pax receiving standard Ryanair treatment. Don't know of any aviation professionals around PIK who don't believe the aircraft should have landed at the nearest suitable airport and the pax immediately taken off. And the facilities...runway 21 and the grass around.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: southampton,hampshire,england
Posts: 868
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Were the pax told of the exact nature/reason for the diversion? I'm not sure what my own reaction would be if I was told to sit on the aircraft for anything much over a minute. With hindsight I might sue for unnecessary trauma.
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Almost horizontal
Posts: 123
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
bjcc,
You ignored my point, would they have handled a building bomb threat the same way ie. lock evryone inside a building. Of course they wouldn't, so why should this aircraft have been treated any different? Put yourself in the shoes of the pax and crew of this aircraft and now tell me that what was done was perfectly ok - I bet you can't.
Not sure why you're so blindly defending a disastrously handled situation? This incident comes up in conversation on most flights I do and I haven't met another pilot who can even begin to agree with what was done.
TFS
You ignored my point, would they have handled a building bomb threat the same way ie. lock evryone inside a building. Of course they wouldn't, so why should this aircraft have been treated any different? Put yourself in the shoes of the pax and crew of this aircraft and now tell me that what was done was perfectly ok - I bet you can't.
Not sure why you're so blindly defending a disastrously handled situation? This incident comes up in conversation on most flights I do and I haven't met another pilot who can even begin to agree with what was done.
TFS
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Almost horizontal
Posts: 123
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Also, my understanding of the threat assessment process is that threats directed at a specific flight or airframe are classified as red. If the assessment was green or amber there would have been no need to divert at all!
TFS
TFS
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: essex
Age: 76
Posts: 73
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
OK so the pax were kept on the craft until a security cordon could be set up, are the authorities saying therefore that it is more important to catch the terrorist than it is to save possibly 200+ peoples lives I sincerely hope not, ok I accept that if the terrorist(s) escape they could threaten another plane but at least all the pax would be alive
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: london/UK
Posts: 499
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Too Few Stripes
Suprising as it may be, there are a large number of bomb threats to buildings where the biulding is not evacuated. Usually, because it would not achieve very much, for instance in the case of a large building, the occupants may well be safer in it than out side in the way of flying glass, bricks etc.
Ok, so you can't see the logic of keeping people on board. I can, that doesn't mean I don't accept that the situation isn't ideal.
The instruction to land wasn't made by a threat assessor as far as I can make out, it was made by the Mil. I goi back to what I said, which is sort out who does what and why, and explain it to everyone else involved before it happens.
Mikip
Its not a matter of catching the 'terrorist' its preventing more harm if possible. Everyone on the aircraft will be suspect, including the crew, until proven otherwise.
Suprising as it may be, there are a large number of bomb threats to buildings where the biulding is not evacuated. Usually, because it would not achieve very much, for instance in the case of a large building, the occupants may well be safer in it than out side in the way of flying glass, bricks etc.
Ok, so you can't see the logic of keeping people on board. I can, that doesn't mean I don't accept that the situation isn't ideal.
The instruction to land wasn't made by a threat assessor as far as I can make out, it was made by the Mil. I goi back to what I said, which is sort out who does what and why, and explain it to everyone else involved before it happens.
Mikip
Its not a matter of catching the 'terrorist' its preventing more harm if possible. Everyone on the aircraft will be suspect, including the crew, until proven otherwise.
If I may comment on the original post I think Mr Cullens "letter" was naive in the extreme, asking his UK counterpart to share information on security procedures through a medium (official letter) that is essentially public - i.e. available to Irish newspapers through the Freedom of Information Act is almost laughable. Whatever the issues raised by the handling of this incident, detaining passengers on board, captains authority vs responsibility etc. It would seem that this is yet another miserable populist tirade by a most inept politician.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 1999
Posts: 182
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sorry Mini, thats not the way it works. Protocol demands that one minister makes a request to his/her counterpart on the other side. Then if that minister agrees the response states that they will facilitate the request and the appropriate civil servant has been instructed to do so. Then the junior boys contact each other and thats when the sharing of detail occurs. Mr cullen (i'm not a fan of his all the same) is just following protocol here.
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: NZ
Posts: 57
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
mini I think that Bomber Harris has been rather polite to you. You said
- but you don't even know what was in it. The facts of this matter speak for themselves and the issues of relevance are reasonably clear. Not least relevant is U.K. policy and police procedures in respect of aircraft with bomb warnings. Nothing naive about asking about that - not least because every aircraft commander is entitled to know (and the travelling public too). They are also entitled to know about the kind of reasoning which declares a bomb warning of sufficient seriousness to lead to a diversion/fighter escort - but not the immediate evacuation of the aircraft.
I think Mr Cullens "letter" was naive in the extreme
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: London
Age: 58
Posts: 73
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Had I been a passenger on either of these flights and aware that there was some sort of potential bomb threat, I would not have sat calmly in my seat waiting to either blow up or for someone to get around to bringing stairs to the plane.
I would have evacuated myself, via the slide if necessary, and I am sure that other passengers would have joined me. Who would have stopped me?
I am amazed that passengers didn't take things into their own hands. Either they didn't have any idea whatsoever why they had quickly landed at Prestwick (I find this hard to believe) or something was said to them to keep them quietly in their seats, but what?
I would have evacuated myself, via the slide if necessary, and I am sure that other passengers would have joined me. Who would have stopped me?
I am amazed that passengers didn't take things into their own hands. Either they didn't have any idea whatsoever why they had quickly landed at Prestwick (I find this hard to believe) or something was said to them to keep them quietly in their seats, but what?
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: essex
Age: 76
Posts: 73
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by bjcc
Mikip
Its not a matter of catching the 'terrorist' its preventing more harm if possible. Everyone on the aircraft will be suspect, including the crew, until proven otherwise.
Its not a matter of catching the 'terrorist' its preventing more harm if possible. Everyone on the aircraft will be suspect, including the crew, until proven otherwise.
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: london/UK
Posts: 499
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
mikip
No. Thats not what I am saying. I am pointing out that everyone on board is a suspect, therefore everyone has to be secured when they get off. The alternative is maybe a terrorist running round airside, where much more harm could be done.
I also said, police probably arn't happy about it, but have to balance one problem against another.
No. Thats not what I am saying. I am pointing out that everyone on board is a suspect, therefore everyone has to be secured when they get off. The alternative is maybe a terrorist running round airside, where much more harm could be done.
I also said, police probably arn't happy about it, but have to balance one problem against another.
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: london/UK
Posts: 499
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
DickChomh
You are missing the point. The safety of all pax, not just on the suspect aircraft is the concern. The idea of containg all those on the aircraft is not just to catch a terrorist, it is to minimise harm and damage. Yes, it puts one group in danger, but keeps many others safe.
You are missing the point. The safety of all pax, not just on the suspect aircraft is the concern. The idea of containg all those on the aircraft is not just to catch a terrorist, it is to minimise harm and damage. Yes, it puts one group in danger, but keeps many others safe.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Not telling
Posts: 6
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A question for Captains in this situation
Would you evacuate the aircraft when the authorities have requested you keep passengers on board and the aircraft is surrounded with armed police?
It is perhaps not as easy as it first seems to expedite passenger evacuation whilst UK police continue with their "containment" policy.
It is perhaps not as easy as it first seems to expedite passenger evacuation whilst UK police continue with their "containment" policy.
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: NZ
Posts: 57
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
bjcc with the greatest of respect you are coming close to talking absolute tosh. I accept that, in very particular circumstances, there could be an argument for wishing to contain passengers on an aircraft that was going to be blown up by a bomb.
But that would require specific knowledge in a particular case. You are now turning this into some form of a general argument about "The safety of all pax". Evacuating all passengers at a remote part of an airfield does not come under that heading. Remember, the police behaviour in this case occurred on two separate occassions, involving two separate airlines.
You are, apparently, saying that retention of passengers on an aircraft with a bomb warning is not only sensible, but highly justifiable. It is an utterly disproportionate argument in which you maximise the risk to one group to protect another group that is not directly at risk.
I say to that contention one word: "NUTS".
Hoiliday Pay it is not that hard to blow the slides and give the passengers either an order to evacuate or to give them the choice of evacuating. Back to the same issue: who is in charge? - hence the need to clarify policy on these occasions.
But that would require specific knowledge in a particular case. You are now turning this into some form of a general argument about "The safety of all pax". Evacuating all passengers at a remote part of an airfield does not come under that heading. Remember, the police behaviour in this case occurred on two separate occassions, involving two separate airlines.
You are, apparently, saying that retention of passengers on an aircraft with a bomb warning is not only sensible, but highly justifiable. It is an utterly disproportionate argument in which you maximise the risk to one group to protect another group that is not directly at risk.
I say to that contention one word: "NUTS".
Hoiliday Pay it is not that hard to blow the slides and give the passengers either an order to evacuate or to give them the choice of evacuating. Back to the same issue: who is in charge? - hence the need to clarify policy on these occasions.
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: london/UK
Posts: 499
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
snaga
I bow to your obviously far greater knowladge of policing, security at airports, police deployments, and of course terrorist ability.
I made my point in a general context, not in these 2 particular ones. Those comments come from doing it for real, at another airport, with plenty of police, in full possession of the facts, full knowladge of the security situation and terrorist ability...............
You ask who's in charge. The senior Police Officer on scene is. Police being the designated authority for terrorist incidents.
I bow to your obviously far greater knowladge of policing, security at airports, police deployments, and of course terrorist ability.
I made my point in a general context, not in these 2 particular ones. Those comments come from doing it for real, at another airport, with plenty of police, in full possession of the facts, full knowladge of the security situation and terrorist ability...............
You ask who's in charge. The senior Police Officer on scene is. Police being the designated authority for terrorist incidents.
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: EIDW
Posts: 271
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
OK Men (& ladies) ...
Lets assume you are the PIC of an aircraft that has been diverted to Prestwick, you are sitting on the ground for 10 minutes, knowing (obviously) that a bomb threat has been made against your aircraft. Security people, on the ground have refused you permission to allow your PAX off, you can see armed police / soldiers on the ramp
, then a few PAX demand to exit the aircraft, get boistrous, start getting angry with your cabin crew, the situation may get out of control, they allege your crew are putting them in danger and demand to get out of the aircraft....bearing in mind that all they want to do is get off your potential ticking time bomb.... what do you do
Lets assume you are the PIC of an aircraft that has been diverted to Prestwick, you are sitting on the ground for 10 minutes, knowing (obviously) that a bomb threat has been made against your aircraft. Security people, on the ground have refused you permission to allow your PAX off, you can see armed police / soldiers on the ramp
, then a few PAX demand to exit the aircraft, get boistrous, start getting angry with your cabin crew, the situation may get out of control, they allege your crew are putting them in danger and demand to get out of the aircraft....bearing in mind that all they want to do is get off your potential ticking time bomb.... what do you do