Two BA pilots questioned about mobile phone incident
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Perth Western Australia
Age: 57
Posts: 808
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The chances of it being a bomb are that low its, stupid. That said if there was a chance that it was, what would be the best course of action. Keep in mind there have been instances of terrorists remotely activating them before, in fact if I remember rightly one bloke had one up his coight.
I would imagine that a remote activation of a device on a fully laden aircraft clambering into the air over a residential area would be one of the worst places for it to happen. Hence would have thought the if you really thought it was a bomb your first duty was to open a window or door and throw the thing as far away from the aircraft as possible, including the wing. I would imagine you would do this first before notifing ATC.
Why? you don't want any one watching or listening to notice something wrong and just let it go anyway. But as I stated at the begining, it would be the last thing on my mind, and maybe that's just a lack of imagination on my part.
I would imagine that a remote activation of a device on a fully laden aircraft clambering into the air over a residential area would be one of the worst places for it to happen. Hence would have thought the if you really thought it was a bomb your first duty was to open a window or door and throw the thing as far away from the aircraft as possible, including the wing. I would imagine you would do this first before notifing ATC.
Why? you don't want any one watching or listening to notice something wrong and just let it go anyway. But as I stated at the begining, it would be the last thing on my mind, and maybe that's just a lack of imagination on my part.
.
Did that recently when away from home, when I kicked one of the new super -expensive super-phones out of a grass verge, the chances of it being a bomb designed to kill a passing dog - or me - were totally remote, and anyway by now I'd kicked it, but I couldn't work out how to use the darned thing but eventually found a number labelled 'Mum', so rang it and got the owners mother ( not surprisingly) who contacted the owner, who came around to the Starbucks that I had visited for free WiFi and paid for my coffee - with thanks ! ( no comments about drinking Starbucks coffee pls. the WiFi was free. QED )
( used to be a Boy Scout, too, when Good Deeds were restricted to helping Old Ladies across the road - even if they didn't want to cross )
.........could have found the mobile phone's number using its menu function......
( used to be a Boy Scout, too, when Good Deeds were restricted to helping Old Ladies across the road - even if they didn't want to cross )
Psychophysiological entity
It's not a phone until proven to be one. There is room in the battery for some power and an explosive.
It most certainly is a small electrical device, solidly built and heavy for its size. IT APPARENTLY HAS NO OWNER ON BOARD THAT AIRCRAFT.
It is a potential hazard, and it's not up to the crew to assess the odds.
Millions of small actions by the TSA every day find nothing. Just occasionally something is found. The odds are millions to one against, but try telling the TSA to go home.
I was presented with a Dangerous Goods chitty. A small amount of a substance I had no real training in handling was listed. It was decided by the dispatcher I could not take it. I was sorry, cos it was the chemical in the battery of a life-jacket from another aircraft.
There are a horrifyingly large number of people, including children, who have been left with no feet, no hands, and/or no eyes. Devices I read about last week are not much bigger than a mobile phone. One weighs less than my phone.
The odds are against, but the threat is real.
It most certainly is a small electrical device, solidly built and heavy for its size. IT APPARENTLY HAS NO OWNER ON BOARD THAT AIRCRAFT.
It is a potential hazard, and it's not up to the crew to assess the odds.
Millions of small actions by the TSA every day find nothing. Just occasionally something is found. The odds are millions to one against, but try telling the TSA to go home.
I was presented with a Dangerous Goods chitty. A small amount of a substance I had no real training in handling was listed. It was decided by the dispatcher I could not take it. I was sorry, cos it was the chemical in the battery of a life-jacket from another aircraft.
There are a horrifyingly large number of people, including children, who have been left with no feet, no hands, and/or no eyes. Devices I read about last week are not much bigger than a mobile phone. One weighs less than my phone.
The odds are against, but the threat is real.
Guest
Posts: n/a
No loose.
It IS a phone (invariably) and remains a phone until recycled.
Get a (harry blankers) GRIP.
You're right about one thing tho: 'Millions of actions by the TSA everyday, find nothing'.
The only thing that saves us from the terrorists is the fact that they are pish terrorists.
If they had ANY CLUE, we'd be in a world of ****.
And as for the TSA etc?
I think the Girl Guides are capable of more independant thought and therefore, action than the half-wits who work in 'security'.
Anyone care to disagree?
It IS a phone (invariably) and remains a phone until recycled.
Get a (harry blankers) GRIP.
You're right about one thing tho: 'Millions of actions by the TSA everyday, find nothing'.
The only thing that saves us from the terrorists is the fact that they are pish terrorists.
If they had ANY CLUE, we'd be in a world of ****.
And as for the TSA etc?
I think the Girl Guides are capable of more independant thought and therefore, action than the half-wits who work in 'security'.
Anyone care to disagree?
Last edited by BarbiesBoyfriend; 30th Jun 2011 at 00:53.
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: korat thailand
Age: 83
Posts: 137
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The only thing that saves us from the terrorists is the fact that they are pish terrorists.
Gawd save us from the inane mutterings of the righteous.
Join Date: May 2011
Location: FL400
Posts: 398
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In my old job we had a saying: "The biggest threat to security is the perception that there is no threat".
Say what you like about the chances of the phone being suspicious or otherwise, but the Captain had to have the thing removed from the aircraft. The chances of an engine going tits up on takeoff are extremely remote, but we still account for that eventuality in every take off calculation, briefing and sim. Our responsibilities as pilots extend far beyond the flightdeck. Anyone who doesn't take that seriously is not fulfilling their obligations.
Say what you like about the chances of the phone being suspicious or otherwise, but the Captain had to have the thing removed from the aircraft. The chances of an engine going tits up on takeoff are extremely remote, but we still account for that eventuality in every take off calculation, briefing and sim. Our responsibilities as pilots extend far beyond the flightdeck. Anyone who doesn't take that seriously is not fulfilling their obligations.
On being given the phone the Captain's decision to make seems to me to be; is this thing a suspect IED or is it lost property? Now there will be many mobile phones on the aircraft all of which have been security screened and are accompanied by their owners so we're happy with them. This phone is unaccompanied but that should make little difference in this era of suicide bombers? Therefore treating it as lost property seems reasonable to me. If it had been discovered before push back it would undoubtedly have been treated as lost property, not sure how a delay in its discovery makes it an IED but there may be facts we don't know.
However, we could also make the other decision and treat it as a suspect IED. No procedure I know says to return to stand with a suspect IED on board, hand it to the ramp agent who will then carry it through the terminal and hand it to lost property. Nor do I know of a procedure that says chuck the IED out of the DV window either to a waiting ops person or onto the tarmac. Both of those procedures seem to be the "we all know its not really a bomb but we're slightly covering our arses" procedures.
So, decide, IED or lost property. If lost property then treat as if its a lost paperback book or similar and carry out the relevant company procedure. If IED, treat it as if its a stick of dynamite wired to some sort of detonator and carry out the company procedure for that situation. The cobbled together not really sure but bit of both procedure is how we end up in this ridiculous situation.
However, we could also make the other decision and treat it as a suspect IED. No procedure I know says to return to stand with a suspect IED on board, hand it to the ramp agent who will then carry it through the terminal and hand it to lost property. Nor do I know of a procedure that says chuck the IED out of the DV window either to a waiting ops person or onto the tarmac. Both of those procedures seem to be the "we all know its not really a bomb but we're slightly covering our arses" procedures.
So, decide, IED or lost property. If lost property then treat as if its a lost paperback book or similar and carry out the relevant company procedure. If IED, treat it as if its a stick of dynamite wired to some sort of detonator and carry out the company procedure for that situation. The cobbled together not really sure but bit of both procedure is how we end up in this ridiculous situation.
Having read this through I'm left thinking that everyone has become fixated on the object (the phone) and what was done with it.
Is it not entirely possible that the "security issue" was not the phone itself being a risk as such but that it indicated the a/c had not been properly secured or checked.
In years gone by I've certainly accepted "lost & found" items dropped out the window to me after doors closed and saw no problem with that.
In this particular situation it may be that someone decided that it suggested the a/c may not have been either secured overnight or an acceptable cabin check carried out prior to boarding.????
Is it not entirely possible that the "security issue" was not the phone itself being a risk as such but that it indicated the a/c had not been properly secured or checked.
In years gone by I've certainly accepted "lost & found" items dropped out the window to me after doors closed and saw no problem with that.
In this particular situation it may be that someone decided that it suggested the a/c may not have been either secured overnight or an acceptable cabin check carried out prior to boarding.????
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: London, New York, Paris, Moscow.
Posts: 3,632
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Is it not entirely possible that the "security issue" was not the phone itself being a risk as such but that it indicated the a/c had not been properly secured or checked.
and of course it could have been one of those dry runs......?
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: England
Posts: 1,389
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's quite possible for a phone to be used as part of a bomb without it being physically connected to it by wires. If you find an unclaimed phone perhaps you should double check for an unclaimed bag nearby. If I remember correctly one terrorist incident (reported in the media at the time) even involved the bomber swallowing the explosive device and using a mobile to communicate with it.
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Manchester
Age: 45
Posts: 615
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As the phone was in a "sterile" area, it would have been security screened, and even the worst security bloke in the world wouldn't miss a phone which has organic matter in it! Big orange rectangular thing with some green around it, do me a favour, it would have been flagged up ASAP.