Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Flight Deck Forums > Rumours & News
Reload this Page >

Passenger says she had "surgically implanted bomb"

Rumours & News Reporting Points that may affect our jobs or lives as professional pilots. Also, items that may be of interest to professional pilots.

Passenger says she had "surgically implanted bomb"

Old 23rd May 2012, 05:52
  #21 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: a shack on a hill
Posts: 128
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Twas a decoy. The real bomb has already entered US jurisdiction in a sub chartered from the Cali cartell....
heavy.airbourne is offline  
Old 23rd May 2012, 05:53
  #22 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Somewhere over the Rainbow
Posts: 735
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Missing the point

U guys missing the point here. Every time one of these nut jobs come up with a new bomb solution it makes traveling that much more of a nightmare. Lets look at it in stages

1) 911 -- Any and every sharp object disappears, 1 hour additional security check and a no fly list

2) Shoe bomber: We now need to walk bare foot, un belted thru security

3) Liquid bomber: Little plastic bags with under 100 ml and god help you if you traveling with a kid you will be sucking from a bottle with a nipple at security to make sure it is milk

4) Undie bomber: Body scanners and last week I got a veggie at Amsterdam as the security guy yanked my undies as it seemed there was some metal in it.

5) So now with the implanted bombs what can we expect: A full colonoscopy?

I say bring back the Titanic much easier to sail.
Wannabe Flyer is offline  
Old 23rd May 2012, 06:27
  #23 (permalink)  
Nemo Me Impune Lacessit
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Derbyshire, England.
Posts: 4,091
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
The whole 'shoot down the hijacked airliner' idea it total BS. The idea that we would ever shoot down a 'plane load of innocent people because of what might happen is manifestly perverse and unethical.
Rubbish.

As far back as September 2001 the order was issued to USAF to shoot down any airliner that didn't respond to instructions, they would have done it then and they would do it today.
parabellum is offline  
Old 23rd May 2012, 06:37
  #24 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: England
Posts: 1,389
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Airline security will no doubt be very tight, I suspect they are much more worried about the threat from light aircraft.
cwatters is offline  
Old 23rd May 2012, 06:47
  #25 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Hong Kong
Age: 56
Posts: 1,445
Received 3 Likes on 2 Posts
As far back as September 2001 the order was issued to USAF to shoot down any airliner that didn't respond to instructions, they would have done it then and they would do it today.
So when the terrorists have clearly communicated they are in complete control & are going to crash on a Very Important Building where do you shoot the airliner down & where does it fall? Having been travelling at 300 - 400 odd miles an hour & hit with one or more high explosive AA missiles travelling at supersonic speeds does it just fall in one piece in a convenient empty field?

If it's that far away from the VIB how does the govt decide the threat is going to be carried out successfully anyway.

Utter nonsense.

Let's just replay 9-11 for a second - at what point & where would the jets that hit the buildings have been shot down?

Last edited by Load Toad; 23rd May 2012 at 07:21.
Load Toad is offline  
Old 23rd May 2012, 06:47
  #26 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Out of the pollution.
Posts: 673
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Don't know why they bother with airliners at all.
4 well placed homemade suitcase bombs in a large metropolitan hotel,
can bring down a massive building and kill thousands. No security, no hassles.

I'd do it that way.
AAIGUY is offline  
Old 23rd May 2012, 07:22
  #27 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Planet Earth, mostly
Posts: 467
Received 6 Likes on 3 Posts
The whole 'shoot down the hijacked airliner' idea it total BS. The idea that we would ever shoot down a 'plane load of innocent people because of what might happen is manifestly perverse and unethical.
Unfortunately politicians are often unethical and perverse, and the "we would never shoot down a plane load of innocent people" idea is BS.
etrang is offline  
Old 23rd May 2012, 07:47
  #28 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Stable
Posts: 40
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
As far back as September 2001 the order was issued to USAF to shoot down any airliner that didn't respond to instructions, they would have done it then and they would do it today.
The 'funny' thing is, that the USAF had four opportunities to shot down a legitimate threat on 9 11, and we all saw the result. I agree with Load Toad, the 'shoot down civilian jet' policy is a bunch of BS that won't stop any terrorists (as seen on 9 11) but it does pose a very real threat of an overly confident politician/general ordering the shooting down of a jet, whose pilots switched the frequency a bit to early. It's simply an Orwellian method to remind people that we're at war.
cowhorse is offline  
Old 23rd May 2012, 09:16
  #29 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Slovakia
Age: 65
Posts: 162
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Did she have a bomb?
rennaps is offline  
Old 23rd May 2012, 10:20
  #30 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: US/EU
Posts: 694
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
At this point she appears to just be a nut job.

"At this time, there is no indication the plane or its passengers were ever in any actual danger."

Except, perhaps, from the F-15s.

"It doesn't appear to be any terrorist nexus at this point."

If this were probing, what would be gained by exposing herself?
Mark in CA is offline  
Old 23rd May 2012, 10:46
  #31 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Greystation
Posts: 1,086
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Why do you all assume that the F15's "showed" themselves to the aircraft? More likely to sit behind/above/below unnoticed.
5milesbaby is offline  
Old 23rd May 2012, 11:14
  #32 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Pasadena
Posts: 633
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Why F15s?

Why go and have a look?

I guess the person in charge at North American Air Defense would appreciate a check that Captain X and FO Y look familiar from their passport photos as the aircraft nears his or her jurisdiction.

Should X & Y hear any loud bangs from the cabin and experience unusual handling, they might benefit from some outside eyes to explain what's going on.

And should the flight not arrive as agreed at Bangor, then the F15s will be able to ensure that it doesn't get as far as downtown Boston.

Last edited by awblain; 23rd May 2012 at 11:15.
awblain is offline  
Old 23rd May 2012, 11:29
  #33 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Portugal
Age: 39
Posts: 14
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I had a girl with two huge "bombs" on my aircraft the other day...

we invited her over to the cockpit...=)
CS-DDO is offline  
Old 23rd May 2012, 11:30
  #34 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Malvern, UK
Posts: 425
Received 1 Like on 1 Post

Rubbish.

As far back as September 2001 the order was issued to USAF to
shoot down any airliner that didn't respond to instructions, they would have
done it then and they would do it today.
Actually that is the rubbish. Or at least a great distortion. There may now be a "principle" that the USAF has authority to shoot upon a civilian aircraft in a terrorist situation. Even in America this is a very long way from a standing order that non-responsive aircraft will be shot down!

It is a sad sign of the times, and an example of complete failure to understand and balance risks, that there is now a higher chance of a civilain aircraft being downed due to military screw-up than due to terrorism.

Remember, the US military have downed an innocent airliner before. Don't say it could never happen again. And the UK attitude towards protecting the Olympics is equally worrying and misguided posturing which increases rather than decreases risks.

There is an interesting medical parable for this. You would never create a vaccine to prevent a disease that kills one in a million. Why? Because the risk from the vaccine will invariably be higher than the risk from the disease.

Balance risks or posturing. Unfortunately governments will always chose posturing. They have to be seen to "have done everything possible".
Dont Hang Up is offline  
Old 23rd May 2012, 12:11
  #35 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: fort sheridan, il
Posts: 1,656
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
bahrd

it is the stated position that the USA won't negotiate with terrorists , so trading the gitmo boys wouldn't fly

Last edited by sevenstrokeroll; 23rd May 2012 at 12:12.
sevenstrokeroll is offline  
Old 23rd May 2012, 12:25
  #36 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: USA
Posts: 74
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Wannabe Flyer
Missing the point
U guys missing the point here. Every time one of these nut jobs come up with a new bomb solution it makes traveling that much more of a nightmare. Lets look at it in stages

1) 911 -- Any and every sharp object disappears, 1 hour additional security check and a no fly list

2) Shoe bomber: We now need to walk bare foot, un belted thru security

3) Liquid bomber: Little plastic bags with under 100 ml and god help you if you traveling with a kid you will be sucking from a bottle with a nipple at security to make sure it is milk

4) Undie bomber: Body scanners and last week I got a veggie at Amsterdam as the security guy yanked my undies as it seemed there was some metal in it.

5) So now with the implanted bombs what can we expect: A full colonoscopy?
This is correct. Unfortunately, our respective governments, in their (misguided) mandates to ensure 100% of the population is 100% safe 100% of the time, are dancing to the "terrorists'" tune.

It comes down to the difference between tactics and strategy. Violence and/or the threat of violence is a tactic. The strategy is to disrupt and encumber our way of life, our freedoms and our economy. In that they are succeeding.

Last edited by BobnSpike; 23rd May 2012 at 12:27.
BobnSpike is offline  
Old 23rd May 2012, 13:19
  #37 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Ireland
Posts: 73
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
How would a surgically implanted bomb be detonated... GSM or manual detonation? If its a remotely detonated using GSM then retraining the passenger and sending fighter jets up will do nothing.

If its manual detonation, does the bomb carrier have a cable coming out of their body attached to a trigger?

All very confusing.

Last edited by Andrew R; 23rd May 2012 at 13:19.
Andrew R is offline  
Old 23rd May 2012, 14:34
  #38 (permalink)  
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: On the Beach
Posts: 3,336
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Load Toad:

So when the terrorists have clearly communicated they are in complete control & are going to crash on a Very Important Building where do you shoot the airliner down & where does it fall? Having been travelling at 300 - 400 odd miles an hour & hit with one or more high explosive AA missiles travelling at supersonic speeds does it just fall in one piece in a convenient empty field?
Keep in mind this is America, the former home of the free and the brave. Since 911, that has been replaced by the Patriot Act.

The "government" whatever that is these days, doesn't want a plane flying into the government buildings in DC or any other place some four star general on duty deems important. They could not care less where the wreckage falls as long as it doesn't do what they don't want it to do.

But, as the country rapidly gets poorer this will all come to pass.

Last edited by aterpster; 23rd May 2012 at 14:35.
aterpster is offline  
Old 23rd May 2012, 15:02
  #39 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Ireland
Posts: 73
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
So if an airline was hijacked or there was a suspected terrorist threat onboard over British airspace the RAF wouldn't be sent up? The RAF would just sit back and let whatever was going to happen, happen? Get real. What the yanks did was no different to what the British, French, Germans, Italians, Spanish etc would do if there was a suspected threat.

Don't you all remember what happen a month ago? The RAF sent a Typhoon to intercept a bloody helicopter that squawked the wrong code.

Last edited by Andrew R; 23rd May 2012 at 15:05.
Andrew R is offline  
Old 23rd May 2012, 15:25
  #40 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: 51N 17E
Posts: 34
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by sevenstrokeroll
bahrd
it is the stated position that the USA won't negotiate with terrorists , so trading the gitmo boys wouldn't fly
You're right. "I stand corrected" (too much B-movies).
Thanks.
Bahrd is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.