Two BA pilots questioned about mobile phone incident
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Europe
Posts: 1,416
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Didn't Monarch have a diversion for a suspicious object a couple of years ago which was revealed to be a vibrator?
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Uk
Posts: 109
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Everyone has a opinion on the rights and wrongs here but as usual the crew on the day had to make a call.
Should they have returned to the stand?, maybe but if it was a explosive then it could have been triggered at any point, so the safest place for it would be off the aircraft asap and away from any buildings etc..
why would ATC not say to the crew to go to a remote part of the airfeild where they could deal with the suspicious item?, did atc not realise the gravity of the potential problem?.
Had anyone claimed the phone ?
Would anyone on here be happy flying with a suspicious item on board?
The crew obviously decided that their " least risk bomb location" was outside of the aircraft.... I agree !!!
Should they have returned to the stand?, maybe but if it was a explosive then it could have been triggered at any point, so the safest place for it would be off the aircraft asap and away from any buildings etc..
why would ATC not say to the crew to go to a remote part of the airfeild where they could deal with the suspicious item?, did atc not realise the gravity of the potential problem?.
Had anyone claimed the phone ?
Would anyone on here be happy flying with a suspicious item on board?
The crew obviously decided that their " least risk bomb location" was outside of the aircraft.... I agree !!!
Surely if it were a bomb, the least appropriate thing would be to find the nearest heavily peopled building, preferably surrounded by aircraft and fuel trucks - and take it there?
That said, if it were a bomb then I imagine some sort of additional search of the aircraft would be in order. Once over from the dogs etc.
I have a question, it's a serious one - if it had been a bottle of water, or a yoghurt - given how seriously those are regarded by airport security, would it have been advisable to delay and return on account of them?
That said, if it were a bomb then I imagine some sort of additional search of the aircraft would be in order. Once over from the dogs etc.
I have a question, it's a serious one - if it had been a bottle of water, or a yoghurt - given how seriously those are regarded by airport security, would it have been advisable to delay and return on account of them?
Many moons ago I was stationed at Brize Norton and I remember the RAF Regiment Officer telling me a great story. A Canadian Armed Forces 707 en route from Germany to Canada made an emergency diversion into Brize when a suspect package was found in one of the rear loos. The package was making a ticking noise.
The aircraft landed safely and was directed to the remote parking stand reserved for the purpose. The steps were put up and the Regiment officer shot up to the top of the steps. The passenger door opened and a crew member handed him the package and then promptly shut the door again!
My chum was left standing there with the ticking parcel in his hands feeling just a little lonely.
It turned out to be a Swiss cuckoo clock!
The aircraft landed safely and was directed to the remote parking stand reserved for the purpose. The steps were put up and the Regiment officer shot up to the top of the steps. The passenger door opened and a crew member handed him the package and then promptly shut the door again!
My chum was left standing there with the ticking parcel in his hands feeling just a little lonely.
It turned out to be a Swiss cuckoo clock!
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Wayne Manor
Posts: 1,517
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
there's also the aspect to the issue in the the mobile phone is actually a mobile phone and not a bomb, dildo or any other sundry device.
so the crew can ignore bugger off down route with the phone and let admin return the phone to the owner or dump it in lost property, while the owner may or may not be standing in the terminal at an unmanned desk with a website address to refer to for assistance.
or drop the phone into the hands of ground crew who can return it to the terminal building where the owner may be waiting, or if not return it to where he or she deplaned. rather than taxi the plane down the runway, back down the taxi way to the terminal to the stand, open the door at the jet way and hand the phone to someone else, providing the operator with additional costs, maybe a missed slot into the destination airport intended, the potential of having to deal with pax that have missed onward connections etc etc.
As contacted opined:
and the costs for these unworkable practises are being met by the carriers which, in a highly competitive market eats into the profit margins day in, day out, which then has effect on the T&C's and working conditions that we all have to deal with.
so the crew can ignore bugger off down route with the phone and let admin return the phone to the owner or dump it in lost property, while the owner may or may not be standing in the terminal at an unmanned desk with a website address to refer to for assistance.
or drop the phone into the hands of ground crew who can return it to the terminal building where the owner may be waiting, or if not return it to where he or she deplaned. rather than taxi the plane down the runway, back down the taxi way to the terminal to the stand, open the door at the jet way and hand the phone to someone else, providing the operator with additional costs, maybe a missed slot into the destination airport intended, the potential of having to deal with pax that have missed onward connections etc etc.
As contacted opined:
Aviation Security, despite best intentions, often lacks one basic element, Common Sense. We are becoming conditioned into irrational behaviour by fear and incorrect application of unworkable procedures.
Guest
Posts: n/a
If this had happened to me I would have:
1. Accepted the phone from the cc.
2. Dismantled it as much as I could, ie battery out, back taken off etc. or if it was an iphone, turned it on to see if it really was an iphone.
If there was any doubt, I'd stop and evacuate the a/c straightaway.
If it was plainly a lost phone, I'd pocket it and say nothing. It would be 'rediscovered' on the next T/R.
Oooooh! Aren't I a devil?
1. Accepted the phone from the cc.
2. Dismantled it as much as I could, ie battery out, back taken off etc. or if it was an iphone, turned it on to see if it really was an iphone.
If there was any doubt, I'd stop and evacuate the a/c straightaway.
If it was plainly a lost phone, I'd pocket it and say nothing. It would be 'rediscovered' on the next T/R.
Oooooh! Aren't I a devil?
..........Aviation Security, despite best intentions, often lacks one basic element, Common Sense...................
Security - such as it was in those days - advised that they had received 3 bomb threats against the aircraft that day, and that even tho' all 3 had been deemed unreliable, nevertheless the flight would be delayed whilst a 'bomb search' took place. No problem with that, seemed a Common Sense decision.
Then " Security " asked what they wanted me to do if they received another threat after we had departed ? How the h*ll would I know ? I told them that I considered them to be the 'experts' and if they deemed the threat to be real then they must order a return via ATC comms. but if considered to be another hoax then don't bother me. Seemed the Common Sense thing to do.
Psychophysiological entity
So if it was a bomb with a detector tab on the back . . . what then?
Phone. Bomb? Possibly.
Bomb? Remote detonation by calling that number. Probably.
Get rid of it, SASPO, and by any reasonable means, cos if they see the aircraft turn around, they won't wait until it's in the air.
Phone. Bomb? Possibly.
Bomb? Remote detonation by calling that number. Probably.
Get rid of it, SASPO, and by any reasonable means, cos if they see the aircraft turn around, they won't wait until it's in the air.
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Wayne Manor
Posts: 1,517
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If this had happened to me I would have:
1. Accepted the phone from the cc.
2. Dismantled it as much as I could, ie battery out, back taken off etc. or if it was an iphone, turned it on to see if it really was an iphone.
If there was any doubt, I'd stop and evacuate the a/c straightaway.
If it was plainly a lost phone, I'd pocket it and say nothing. It would be 'rediscovered' on the next T/R.
Oooooh! Aren't I a devil?
1. Accepted the phone from the cc.
2. Dismantled it as much as I could, ie battery out, back taken off etc. or if it was an iphone, turned it on to see if it really was an iphone.
If there was any doubt, I'd stop and evacuate the a/c straightaway.
If it was plainly a lost phone, I'd pocket it and say nothing. It would be 'rediscovered' on the next T/R.
Oooooh! Aren't I a devil?
what if the phone was a phone and had flat battery.. then, there'd be the red tops screaming 'Airport shut down by mobile phone with flat battery' and there'd be a Pprune thread running about a dumb@ss who evac-ed an aircraft on the 'runway' because a phone with a flat battery was found, probably with the suggestions that it would have been better to drop it out of the window for ground to deal with. N.B: there may, or may not, be TAF's and METAR's posted for the relevant airport at the time.
Guest
Posts: n/a
What if it wasn't a bomb? As is highly likely.
OK. It could be alq uaedas first phone bomb attck, and they've chosen to plant it by cunningly flying with it and then leaving it where it's likely to be found (as it was found).
They've figured that I'll get it and turn it on. Thus wounding myself.
Or maybe one of the pax left his phone by mistake.
The likelyhood of it ACTUALLY being a real phone bomb is about the same as being shot down by a MANPAD on takeoff, IMHO.
Get a GRIP!
OK. It could be alq uaedas first phone bomb attck, and they've chosen to plant it by cunningly flying with it and then leaving it where it's likely to be found (as it was found).
They've figured that I'll get it and turn it on. Thus wounding myself.
Or maybe one of the pax left his phone by mistake.
The likelyhood of it ACTUALLY being a real phone bomb is about the same as being shot down by a MANPAD on takeoff, IMHO.
Get a GRIP!
PPRuNe supporter
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Planet Earth
Posts: 1,677
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Actually this thread has been quite educational, my crew found a hand phone prior to departure a while back, I now see that I totally mishandled the situation. 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Wayne Manor
Posts: 1,517
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What if it wasn't a bomb? As is highly likely.
OK. It could be alq uaedas first phone bomb attck, and they've chosen to plant it by cunningly flying with it and then leaving it where it's likely to be found (as it was found).
They've figured that I'll get it and turn it on. Thus wounding myself.
Or maybe one of the pax left his phone by mistake.
The likelyhood of it ACTUALLY being a real phone bomb is about the same as being shot down by a MANPAD on takeoff, IMHO.
Get a GRIP!
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: London (Babylon-on-Thames)
Age: 42
Posts: 6,168
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Isn't the question really that the chance of the aircraft crashing is statistically quantified and acceptably small where the risk of the package not being a normal mobile phone is also quantifiable, staggeringly small and completely ignored in the current thinking.
Every point about the potential to harm is true but the odds are staggeringly small and unlikely. Like the 95 year old woman who had her incontinence pants examined by the TSA last week as they were taking no chances. It's really difficult to argue against that mantra that to do anything else is taking risks with people's lives, even decades after Lockerbie where bombproof cargo containers are still not widely used due to a risk vs cost analysis.
Every point about the potential to harm is true but the odds are staggeringly small and unlikely. Like the 95 year old woman who had her incontinence pants examined by the TSA last week as they were taking no chances. It's really difficult to argue against that mantra that to do anything else is taking risks with people's lives, even decades after Lockerbie where bombproof cargo containers are still not widely used due to a risk vs cost analysis.
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: uk
Posts: 913
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Having ploughed through this thread with the odd giggle and lots of sympathy for the Captain doing what he did, sadly, in this day and age, in fact, he did do the wrong thing. The odds of the phone being anything bad were beyond remote, but thats where we are, dealing with odds of a million to one against and having to take it seriously. Many would argue that this has made the terrorists the victors and everyone one of us who is abused by intrusive security or affected by nonsensical legislation, a victim. This Capt. is just the latest.
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Wayne Manor
Posts: 1,517
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Many would argue that this has made the terrorists the victors and everyone one of us who is abused by intrusive security or affected by nonsensical legislation, a victim. This Capt. is just the latest.
quite so!
Well just to be sure, they could have found the mobile phone's number using its menu function and then called it. If they got a voice mail they would then know man or woman, heavy accent or not. Of course if the phone was really a bomb calling it would also answer that question.
It's not rocket science logic, all it requires is more snap decision making
It's not rocket science logic, all it requires is more snap decision making
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Norfolk
Posts: 103
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BA mobile 'phone farrago
You are of course presuming the 'phone was already switched on. If it had been off it may have been password protected to prevent its use in case of theft and secondly not everybody records a personal answer 'phone message. An awful lot of people just leave the default message on.