Two BA pilots questioned about mobile phone incident

[bingofuel]

As the phone was in a "sterile" area, it would have been security screened

I wouldn't bet on it.

[YorkshireTyke]

As the phone was in a "sterile" area, it would have been security screened

I wouldn't bet on it.

Agreed. ( I believe in Father Christmas, too.)

[wiggy]

I guess by that logic since the aircraft, crew, fuel, passengers, their bags, catering et. al. are in a secure area we can't assume they've been screened either.

[Loose rivets]

Captain's decision to make seems to me to be; is this thing a suspect IED or is it lost property?

To Captain Shrodinger, it's both . . . until he opens the phone.


I'm not being altogether flippant either.

[Chief McFarland]

This discussion is almost getting comical... But, if its true that a mobile phone can be used as a device to trigger an explosive, then, there's no doubt that the phone had to be removed from the aircraft. If its found when the aircraft has left the terminal, then it has to return to the gate and passed on to the authorities by hand. No flight or cabin crew is trained to ascertain that the phone is indeed safe. Similarly, throwing it on the runway is ridiculous for many reasons.

Yes, its extremely inconvenient but necessary, I would think?

[Earl of Rochester]

.

This discussion is almost getting comical ..

I think that may have happened some pages back!

[Bronx]

Most people seem to agree the phone had to be removed from the aircraft.

The real scandal here is that the pilots used some common sense and ended up being questioned by the police.

Breach of the ANO by dropping an article from an aircraft in flight??

[Juan Tugoh]

It would seem to me that it is irrelevant whether or not the phone was or was not an IED. What the phone revealed when it was found was that the security checks had been compromised. That in itself made prudent to return to stand and have the checks completed thoroughly, throwing the phone out of the window was foolish and in no way represented a common sense attitude by the flight crew. Security may be an inconvenience but that is a fact of modern aviation as the captain on this flight should know.

[stuckgear]

What the phone revealed when it was found was that the security checks had been compromised.

in what way ? should a plane return to stand anytime detritus from a previous flight is found ?

[Pukka]

phone call to collect the milk on the way home do tend to frustrate!!

[Juan Tugoh]

in what way ? should a plane return to stand anytime detritus from a previous flight is found ?

Yes, as it shows that the cleaning and security checks have not been done correctly. It shows that there may well be other items that may have been missed, items that may be far more sinister in nature. The biggest threat to security is complacence and people making ill-informed judgements coloured by commercial pressure. This incident may have been nothing but a dry run, an attempt to prove that a small electronic device could be planted aboard an subsequently missed by the checks or it could have simply been a lost mobile phone. The point is that we do not know. Sadly the cost of safety is vigilance, this is sometimes inconvenient but that is the modern world.

[BOAC]

Sitting here in my '20/20 hindsight upholstered' armchair, I see Juan has a valid point. Whether it would have been top of my action list in that situation I doubt. Is it, or should be, in Company procedures?

SG - not a well-phrased post.

[stuckgear]

BOAC, Juan,

I take your point after explanation, however it would be impractical and potentially economically disastrous for a plane to return to stand upon any detritus from a previous flight being found. A paperback ? Could be carved out pages, containing an IED etc etc. However, in this situation it could be considered that what ever has been brought onto the aircraft by passengers had passed security screening. Yes, there is also the scenario that a rogue member of ground crew could have placed the item on board.

There is the issue; there are so many potential holes that to legislate them all out would make the business of operation of aircraft for transportation unviable. As you point out 'vigilance' is important.

If the item 'is' suspected to be an IED then it 'must' be treated that way, of course the aircraft would not return to stand, but be moved to an appropriate location on the field, the pax and crew evacuated and the bomb squad called in to deal with the item.

Did that happen in this instance? Not my knowledge.

The aircraft was instructed to return to stand. Now if this was a requirement in the event that it 'was' a suspect device then, that in itself was a fatal error of judgement of ATC/Ground. To place an aircraft on stand with a suspect device? Evacuate the whole terminal, risk to other aircraft on stand so on and so forth? If it was a suspect device and the request to return to stand was made, then I would contend that the security procedures were written by Coco the Clown and need immediate review.

We can run around this process of 'what if it was bomb' all year long and postulations on what would or wouldn't have been the correct course of action, or not.

The fact is, it wasn't, the phone was a phone, not a bomb, not a dildo, not placed by AQ, Hamas, the PLO, the SNP, the IRA, the TUC, the BBC, Dora the Explorer or anyone else.

I'm going to go out on a limb here and suggest that the security procedures were not drawn up by Coco the Clown and are in fact relevant to the threat process and that an IED would be dealt with in accordance to the procedures set forth. So where does that leave us? The plane wasn't dealt with as host to a security threat from an IED, but was holding a passenger's phone that had been left on the aircraft and rather than incur additional costs and delays for both the operator and the passengers, the captain took a decision to attempt to hand the phone off to ground crew with the added benefit of returning the phone to the passenger.

Alas, ground didn't want to play ball, (despite it seems from the picture previously posted that a ground vehicle was there at the time) if anything BA should be standing by its crew and supporting them and the ground people involved need a hefty kick up the backside to either deal with an IED threat as the procedures dictate (and if they do, then we can determine there was no security threat) or assist aircraft operators in the expeditious flow of traffic.

Sadly the cost of safety is vigilance, this is sometimes inconvenient but that is the modern world

I couldnt agree with you more.

[Juan Tugoh]

stuckgear, you seem to imply that the commercial decision overrides the security implications and you focus on the phone. This is a red herring, the phone is merely evidence that other things may well be on board that should not be there, the phone in itself is irrelevant. Decisions based on what the phone is/was etc are missing the point.

The fact is, it wasn't, the phone was a phone, not a bomb, not a dildo, not placed by AQ, Hamas, the PLO, the SNP, the IRA, the TUC, the BBC, Dora the Explorer or anyone else.

I agree with you and the phone clearly demonstrates that the security procedures had been circumvented or had not been carried out correctly.

the captain took a decision to attempt to hand the phone off to ground crew with the added benefit of returning the phone to the passenger.

No. The captain took the commercial decision not to be inconvenienced by the potential ramifications of the now proven failings in the security procedures.

There is a reluctance in us all to cause a fuss - and this reticence is one area that can be exploited to circumvent security. Remember that both the shoe bomber and the underpants bomber had both been through the security procedures, they are not foolproof but when they have been clearly been insufficient then we must act. Ignoring the potential ramifications because it could cause a delay or lead to some missed connections is irresponsible at best.

Perhaps all this crew need is a little re-education. The worst that happened here is that we have all been afforded the opportunity to reflect upon this incident and consider what may have been. If he did nothing else the captain involved has made us think about the security issues. Very little is black and white and sometimes a small incident can help to define the issues a little better.

[Someone_Else]

Do you know, I came on here looking to see if there where any facts. What do I find? Over 9 pages and 160 posts which mainly contains absolutely mind numbing drivel.

Considering that there is a lot of criticizing the media about their reporting. Don't get me wrong, I fully expect their reporting to be rubbish and sensationalist but the first P in this website stands for 'Professional'. I think I've read less than 10 posts on this thread where the term professional comes close.

Ridiculous.

[stuckgear]

you seem to imply that the commercial decision overrides the security implications and you focus on the phone.

nope, that is not the implication i am making at all and incorrect i am not focusing on the phone, quite the opposite.

and this reticence is one area that can be exploited to circumvent security. Remember that both the shoe bomber and the underpants bomber had both been through the security procedures, they are not foolproof but when they have been clearly been insufficient then we must act.

indeed, and i suggest you re-read my post.

Ignoring the potential ramifications because it could cause a delay or lead to some missed connections is irresponsible at best

That is not what i set forth. Again, quite the opposite. do not put words into my mouth.

Perhaps all this crew need is a little re-education.

perhaps ATC and the appropriate personnel at the airport in question need extensive re-education in dealing with security threats. have you completely missed the whole post i made or are your reading what you want it to say, rather than what it does say.

Very little is black and white and sometimes a small incident can help to define the issues a little better.

that was partly the the point i was making it is not always black and white indeed or did you miss that.

[Loose rivets]

Maybe you're thinking of someone else's post.

[Torque Tonight]

If under 'User CP' you change the setting for number of posts per page from the default 20 to 40, then you'll find it's only 5 pages of drivel, not 9.

Happy to help.

[YorkshireTyke]

I guess by that logic since the aircraft, crew, fuel, passengers, their bags, catering et. al. are in a secure area we can't assume they've been screened either.

Oh, they'll have been 'screened' alright, most of them, anyway.

Define 'screening' tho' ? A total waste of time if anyone thinks that so called 'screening' is actually going to stop the Bad Guys doing what they want, when they want to do it.

Aviation security ? look up oxymoron.

[bubbers44]

Doesn't it seem like priorities for safety of flight items should focus more on flap and trim settings, proper runway selection for takeoff and weather, rather than a cellphone or doll left on an aircraft from the previous flight? What would John Wayne do?

I had a flight attendant try to ground my flight in Honduras because a piece of caulking fell off the ceiling of the forward luggage space and shattered causing chalk dust to get on the floor. I showed her where the caulking fell off, where it hit and she still went to the hospital when we landed at our base to make sure it wasn't a terrorist plot. The chief pilot called me the next morning to get my side of the event because of her report. He saw my logic in not grounding the plane in Honduras when the cause was so obvious.

Hell, I would have thrown it out in the grass too rather than return to the gate with a suspect bomb and hand it to somebody. You have probably all followed the Paris to Miami shoe bomber episode. I knew the captain and he had it brought up to the cockpit so he could look at it. He said it probably wasn't a really good idea.