Air Pacific Pilot broke rules, says airport controller
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Melbourne
Age: 49
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Air Pacific Pilot broke rules, says airport controller
From Fiji Times:
Pilot broke rules, says airport controller
Monday, April 21, 2008
THE pilot that captained the Brisbane-bound Air Pacific flight that was forced to return to Fiji after a bomb threat on Friday night has been accused of ignoring safety procedures.
While the threat turned out to be a hoax, air traffic controllers claim that the impact would have been devastating if proven otherwise because of the decision made by the pilot.
According to an air traffic controller on duty, when the request was made for the aircraft to return to Nadi International Airport, the pilot lied to traffic control on the reasons for returning.
"When we queried as to why he wanted to return to Nadi, the pilot said they were returning for operational requirements.
"He did not inform traffic control that there was a bomb threat. Due to this misinformation, air traffic controllers guided the aircraft to Gate 8 at the international airport," said the air traffic controller.
"But once the aircraft had landed and passengers were rushed off, we found out from Airports Fiji Limited security personnel that there was a bomb threat.
"This was a huge flaw on the part of the pilot not to inform us of the bomb threat because at that time, it was still active and he had not only endangered the lives of his passengers but everyone at the international terminal."
The controller said if they were informed of the threat while the aircraft was enroute to the airport, they would have directed the aircraft to an area that is located at the far-end of the runway to ensure minimal damage or casualties.
He said due to the pilot withholding information, air traffic control had not put in place emergency response strategies to assist the passengers and defuse the situation.
He said the pilot's decision not to inform air traffic control and bring the aircraft to the terminal had endangered hundreds of lives.
A flight attendant that was onboard the aircraft confirmed they disembarked at gate 8 of the airport terminal.
She said they were all scared when they were informed that they were returning to Nadi because of the possibility of explosives being onboard.
Questions sent to Air Pacific Managing Director, John Campbell remained unanswered.
When contacted yesterday, Transport Minister, Timoci Lesi Natuva referred questions to Civil Aviation Minister, Ratu Epeli Nailatikau, who could not be contacted.
Numerous attempts to contact AFL chief executive, Ratu Timoci Tuisawau yesterday were also unsuccessful.
Fiji Police Force's assistant public relations officer, Corporal Josaia Weicavu said he was yet to receive any report of the incident.
Cpl Weicavu said only the Fiji Police Force's and military's arms experts had the necessary expertise to clear any aircraft or building of bomb threats.
From Fiji Times:
http://fijitimes.com/story.aspx?id=86943
Anyone heard about this?
Pilot broke rules, says airport controller
Monday, April 21, 2008
THE pilot that captained the Brisbane-bound Air Pacific flight that was forced to return to Fiji after a bomb threat on Friday night has been accused of ignoring safety procedures.
While the threat turned out to be a hoax, air traffic controllers claim that the impact would have been devastating if proven otherwise because of the decision made by the pilot.
According to an air traffic controller on duty, when the request was made for the aircraft to return to Nadi International Airport, the pilot lied to traffic control on the reasons for returning.
"When we queried as to why he wanted to return to Nadi, the pilot said they were returning for operational requirements.
"He did not inform traffic control that there was a bomb threat. Due to this misinformation, air traffic controllers guided the aircraft to Gate 8 at the international airport," said the air traffic controller.
"But once the aircraft had landed and passengers were rushed off, we found out from Airports Fiji Limited security personnel that there was a bomb threat.
"This was a huge flaw on the part of the pilot not to inform us of the bomb threat because at that time, it was still active and he had not only endangered the lives of his passengers but everyone at the international terminal."
The controller said if they were informed of the threat while the aircraft was enroute to the airport, they would have directed the aircraft to an area that is located at the far-end of the runway to ensure minimal damage or casualties.
He said due to the pilot withholding information, air traffic control had not put in place emergency response strategies to assist the passengers and defuse the situation.
He said the pilot's decision not to inform air traffic control and bring the aircraft to the terminal had endangered hundreds of lives.
A flight attendant that was onboard the aircraft confirmed they disembarked at gate 8 of the airport terminal.
She said they were all scared when they were informed that they were returning to Nadi because of the possibility of explosives being onboard.
Questions sent to Air Pacific Managing Director, John Campbell remained unanswered.
When contacted yesterday, Transport Minister, Timoci Lesi Natuva referred questions to Civil Aviation Minister, Ratu Epeli Nailatikau, who could not be contacted.
Numerous attempts to contact AFL chief executive, Ratu Timoci Tuisawau yesterday were also unsuccessful.
Fiji Police Force's assistant public relations officer, Corporal Josaia Weicavu said he was yet to receive any report of the incident.
Cpl Weicavu said only the Fiji Police Force's and military's arms experts had the necessary expertise to clear any aircraft or building of bomb threats.
From Fiji Times:
http://fijitimes.com/story.aspx?id=86943
Anyone heard about this?
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: uk
Posts: 131
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why on earth would you not have told ATC?
Am I missing something?
Surely ATC being in the loop for a situation like this is a must. I am sure they would have considered not letting the aircraft fly over densely populated areas, would have kept other traffic away and directed the aircraft to a remote part of the airfield after landing ....?
Taxiing the aircraft to the gate and then allowing all of the associated ground handling staff to approach it as it was returning for ops reasons is beyond comprehension.....
Total disregard for SOP's I would have thought.
Am I missing something?
Surely ATC being in the loop for a situation like this is a must. I am sure they would have considered not letting the aircraft fly over densely populated areas, would have kept other traffic away and directed the aircraft to a remote part of the airfield after landing ....?
Taxiing the aircraft to the gate and then allowing all of the associated ground handling staff to approach it as it was returning for ops reasons is beyond comprehension.....
Total disregard for SOP's I would have thought.
You can't win.
When I had a bomb threat inbound to Gothenberg, after landing I was directed to the terminal. I queried ATC as to whether or not they were aware of our situation. To which they replied yes, and confirmed that I was to go to the terminal. Aircraft either side of our parking point but thankfully no pax as it was about 0200 dark.
Different hemisphere different standards? Go figure.
M
When I had a bomb threat inbound to Gothenberg, after landing I was directed to the terminal. I queried ATC as to whether or not they were aware of our situation. To which they replied yes, and confirmed that I was to go to the terminal. Aircraft either side of our parking point but thankfully no pax as it was about 0200 dark.
Different hemisphere different standards? Go figure.
M
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 45
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dont blame him. I wouldnt have told ATC either. Although I wouldnt have parked next to the terminal.
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Switzerland
Age: 55
Posts: 386
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
While there are good arguments for NOT broadcasting a bomb threat over an open ATC frequency, I imagine that most airliners are nowadays equipped with satphone... A quick call to the company, and let the head of security figure out, together with the airport, what the proper procedure on ground should be.
But then maybe time was short, and an inflight return makes everyone very busy...
But then maybe time was short, and an inflight return makes everyone very busy...
I Have Control
Join Date: May 2004
Location: North-West England
Posts: 49
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Codswallop!
CRM means what exactly? Informing ATC of a bomb threat is nothing to do with it.
And as for SOP's, well bomb threat actions are not in any carrier's SOP manuals (can be located in QRH or equivalent and detail nothing concerning ATC communication). A lot of other on-board actions need performing, which take time and effort for both FD and CC, along with flying the aircraft and preparing for approach and subsequent overweight landing.
Communicating with excitable ATC can bring about a dramatic increase in unnecessary workload, as I've experienced when issuing PAN calls in Southern Europe. Best stay quiet and concentrate on the priority tasks.
Once landed, and before taxi-ing onto stand, a call to ATC would then have been in order, I reckon. As for ground preparations prior to landing, emergency services would do nothing extra in such a case; they are on full standby for an accident at any given moment. Well at some airports anyway....
Finally, bombs are usually activated by pressure devices or timers, and are intended to go off in flight.
Some of the previous comments are evidently from non-pro pilots, as per usual.
And as for SOP's, well bomb threat actions are not in any carrier's SOP manuals (can be located in QRH or equivalent and detail nothing concerning ATC communication). A lot of other on-board actions need performing, which take time and effort for both FD and CC, along with flying the aircraft and preparing for approach and subsequent overweight landing.
Communicating with excitable ATC can bring about a dramatic increase in unnecessary workload, as I've experienced when issuing PAN calls in Southern Europe. Best stay quiet and concentrate on the priority tasks.
Once landed, and before taxi-ing onto stand, a call to ATC would then have been in order, I reckon. As for ground preparations prior to landing, emergency services would do nothing extra in such a case; they are on full standby for an accident at any given moment. Well at some airports anyway....
Finally, bombs are usually activated by pressure devices or timers, and are intended to go off in flight.
Some of the previous comments are evidently from non-pro pilots, as per usual.
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Sunny Scotland
Posts: 206
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
excitable atc?? your honour, i object!! 
so for example you would just return to heathrow and not tell anyone until you were approaching the airport?? i submit that you would not be welcomed with open arms. As has been mentioned, you need not tell us over the r/t, however i would expect to hear from your company informing us of the situation, as this could greatly effect the routing that you are given and the choice of destination, as well as where you will be parked once you landed.
i realise that your prime responsibility is to those you have onboard, but i personally would not like to put you over the centre of a large city just incase the worst did occur.
so for example you would just return to heathrow and not tell anyone until you were approaching the airport?? i submit that you would not be welcomed with open arms. As has been mentioned, you need not tell us over the r/t, however i would expect to hear from your company informing us of the situation, as this could greatly effect the routing that you are given and the choice of destination, as well as where you will be parked once you landed.
i realise that your prime responsibility is to those you have onboard, but i personally would not like to put you over the centre of a large city just incase the worst did occur.
Im not sure I would tell ATC fiji either.
Your not dealing with a stable country. Since the military takeover, i wouldnt be confident that they could be trusted.
Plus as mentioned above, its easy enough to monitor radio communications.
But parking on a gate?..
For those that are not aware, Fijian infrastructue is collapsing.
ATC and airports are not in good shape.
Your not dealing with a stable country. Since the military takeover, i wouldnt be confident that they could be trusted.
Plus as mentioned above, its easy enough to monitor radio communications.
But parking on a gate?..
For those that are not aware, Fijian infrastructue is collapsing.
ATC and airports are not in good shape.
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: San Vito dei Normanni
Age: 52
Posts: 41
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CI300 you're a little out of context here, this is about a bomb threat and the criticism which was heaped on the crew for their decision not to infirm ATC directly as a result.
There are valid arguments for both sides but in the end the Skipper will wear it and we'll all learn from it too, hopefully!
By the way, Fiji is not in a state of collapse in the way you think it might be either and if you think the Military are not to be trusted then you know little about the previous Government's achievements/activities.
I think it's best to leave this debate within the realms of aviation and things you understand better than to start making generalised and inappropriate comments about Fiji ok!
There are valid arguments for both sides but in the end the Skipper will wear it and we'll all learn from it too, hopefully!
By the way, Fiji is not in a state of collapse in the way you think it might be either and if you think the Military are not to be trusted then you know little about the previous Government's achievements/activities.
I think it's best to leave this debate within the realms of aviation and things you understand better than to start making generalised and inappropriate comments about Fiji ok!
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 6
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why would the pilot say anything to ATC? (one has to presume that aircraft communications are being monitored by other parties)
The Company would have informed the crew of a problem, and as a matter of course should then inform all the required authorities. The Company and the threat team would then assess the threat and advised the crew as to possible courses of action.
The crew should open the sealed threat and search plan and action as required.
The P in C is the final authority until police or other national authority take control after landing. (I would refuse a terminal park myself but would be careful of annoucing reason on air)
The Company would have informed the crew of a problem, and as a matter of course should then inform all the required authorities. The Company and the threat team would then assess the threat and advised the crew as to possible courses of action.
The crew should open the sealed threat and search plan and action as required.
The P in C is the final authority until police or other national authority take control after landing. (I would refuse a terminal park myself but would be careful of annoucing reason on air)
I Have Control
Join Date: May 2004
Location: North-West England
Posts: 49
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Excitable ATC
Just to be clear, Ayrprox, my posting included a reference to certain areas of the world where ATC can be very excitable, not all ATC. The UK happens to boast one of the coolest and most efficient ATC organisations IMHO, and LHR are very good indeed.
I propose NOT to mention any countries where ATC may get a bit frenetic when faced with words like "Mayday", "Pan" "Bomb Threat" or the like. But believe me, there are centres not a thousand miles from Blighty where verbal panic sets in on the ground, accompanied by loud, frequent and repetitive requests for information, which only serve to make the Flight Crew's job that much harder.
Sorry for the misunderstanding.
I propose NOT to mention any countries where ATC may get a bit frenetic when faced with words like "Mayday", "Pan" "Bomb Threat" or the like. But believe me, there are centres not a thousand miles from Blighty where verbal panic sets in on the ground, accompanied by loud, frequent and repetitive requests for information, which only serve to make the Flight Crew's job that much harder.
Sorry for the misunderstanding.
Join Date: Jun 1997
Location: auckland, new zealand
Posts: 224
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"And as for SOP's, well bomb threat actions are not in any carrier's SOP manuals....."Gutsy call Roy. Misinformed, but gutsy.
BTW, did you re-read that phrase and think " Yep, I know every operator's SOP on this matter?"
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: n/a
Posts: 1,425
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I would suspect that what happened to the Ryanair flight in the UK is seen as a good reason not to tell ATC.
Dont allow the aircraft to land ASAP.
Divert it a couple of hundred miles at gun/missile point
Hold passengers on aircraft for 3 hours after landing.
pprune thread
Dont allow the aircraft to land ASAP.
Divert it a couple of hundred miles at gun/missile point
Hold passengers on aircraft for 3 hours after landing.
pprune thread
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: South Pacific
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Air Pacific management have publicly endorsed the Captain's actions. 
Check out the CEO's statement to the Fiji Times at:
http://www.fijitimes.com.fj/story.aspx?id=87107
And FYI "walu" Fiji is sliding inexorably towards "failed state" status. Not sure how you can make an assesment about the previous government from the wilds of Scotland.
Check out the CEO's statement to the Fiji Times at:
http://www.fijitimes.com.fj/story.aspx?id=87107
And FYI "walu" Fiji is sliding inexorably towards "failed state" status. Not sure how you can make an assesment about the previous government from the wilds of Scotland.
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Arizona USA
Posts: 8,571
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It is clear from some previous comments, apparently emanating from those not so experienced airline pilots (if they are pilots at all...
) that they perhaps have not flown to those parts of the world where, to inform ATC of this sort of threat, only serves to send the folks on the ground into a frenzy, which soon gets out of control, and makes life far more difficult for the operating crew.
It should be realised that airline flying does not begin and end at Heathrow, nor indeed other busy airports in continental Europe.
And, specific threats of this nature that includes actions of the crew (or not) to deal with that threat, are not really the place to discuss, on an open forum.
) that they perhaps have not flown to those parts of the world where, to inform ATC of this sort of threat, only serves to send the folks on the ground into a frenzy, which soon gets out of control, and makes life far more difficult for the operating crew.It should be realised that airline flying does not begin and end at Heathrow, nor indeed other busy airports in continental Europe.
And, specific threats of this nature that includes actions of the crew (or not) to deal with that threat, are not really the place to discuss, on an open forum.
Yeah tell ATC and the whole world too
that's what the company can do BEHIND the scenes.
Go back to Flight Sim fellas and leave the real flying to the REAL Pilot's.
D
s
I suppose you think they should have informed the PAX over the PA too.
that's what the company can do BEHIND the scenes.
Go back to Flight Sim fellas and leave the real flying to the REAL Pilot's.
D
sI suppose you think they should have informed the PAX over the PA too.