United 767 emergency at EGPF
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: the dark side of the moon!
Posts: 129
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
United 767 emergency at EGPF
Aircraft departed again at 1450, but by all accounts was surrounded by AFS at one point - does anyone know nature of problem or just a precautionary div?
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: EDI, LHR, NQY
Posts: 402
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This is copy from one of my reporters for tomorrow's newspaper; I'll probably not bother running it because it is fairly unexciting, but if anyone in the know can spot factual errors, let me know.
One line headg
A BOMB scare forced a passenger jet bound for Washington to make an emergency landing at Glasgow Aiport yesterday.
The pilot of United Airlines flight 923 from Heathrow took the decision to land his plane after 80 minutes in the air when a suspect package was discovered.
Shortly after 10am, the Boeing 767 landed at Glasgow Airport and was taken to a holding area at the end of the runway where all 163 passengers and 13 crew were led to the terminal building.
Police later gave the plane the all-clear before the flight resumed.
Fire tenders, ambulances and police vehicles surrounded the jet as specialist officers searched the aircraft with sniffer dogs.
The airport remained open to national and international traffic throughout, despite the security operation.
One holidaymaker, who witnessed the police operation, said: “It was quite worrying. We saw the fire engines and police heading out to meet the plane.
“Some of the passengers who came down the stairs seemed really shaken by it all.
“Thank goodness it wasn’t something more serious.”
A spokeswoman for Glasgow Airport said: “The captain made a decision that it was unsafe to continue the journey and decided to divert to Glasgow.
“We do not yet know what was believed to have been in the package but investigations are ongoing.
“The flight was been taken off the main runway and there was no danger to other passengers or personnel.”
A spokesman for United Airlines refused to be drawn on what had caused the incident, but confirmed that there was no suggestion that they feared a security breach by one of the passengers.
He added that after the events of 11 September, the airline would take no chances with passenger safety.
The United spokesman said: “Flight 923 from Heathrow to Washington Dulles was diverted to Glasgow Airport to allow for an additional security check as a precautionary measure.
“We are continually adapting our security, which has been a priority since 11 September.
“We have more than 300 flights a day and the safety of passengers and crew is something we take exceptionally seriously.”
More than five hours after the scare, passengers were escorted back to the aircraft before it took off around 3.15pm for Washington.
A spokesman for Strathclyde Police said a thorough search of the plane failed to reveal anything which threatened its security.
ends
One line headg
A BOMB scare forced a passenger jet bound for Washington to make an emergency landing at Glasgow Aiport yesterday.
The pilot of United Airlines flight 923 from Heathrow took the decision to land his plane after 80 minutes in the air when a suspect package was discovered.
Shortly after 10am, the Boeing 767 landed at Glasgow Airport and was taken to a holding area at the end of the runway where all 163 passengers and 13 crew were led to the terminal building.
Police later gave the plane the all-clear before the flight resumed.
Fire tenders, ambulances and police vehicles surrounded the jet as specialist officers searched the aircraft with sniffer dogs.
The airport remained open to national and international traffic throughout, despite the security operation.
One holidaymaker, who witnessed the police operation, said: “It was quite worrying. We saw the fire engines and police heading out to meet the plane.
“Some of the passengers who came down the stairs seemed really shaken by it all.
“Thank goodness it wasn’t something more serious.”
A spokeswoman for Glasgow Airport said: “The captain made a decision that it was unsafe to continue the journey and decided to divert to Glasgow.
“We do not yet know what was believed to have been in the package but investigations are ongoing.
“The flight was been taken off the main runway and there was no danger to other passengers or personnel.”
A spokesman for United Airlines refused to be drawn on what had caused the incident, but confirmed that there was no suggestion that they feared a security breach by one of the passengers.
He added that after the events of 11 September, the airline would take no chances with passenger safety.
The United spokesman said: “Flight 923 from Heathrow to Washington Dulles was diverted to Glasgow Airport to allow for an additional security check as a precautionary measure.
“We are continually adapting our security, which has been a priority since 11 September.
“We have more than 300 flights a day and the safety of passengers and crew is something we take exceptionally seriously.”
More than five hours after the scare, passengers were escorted back to the aircraft before it took off around 3.15pm for Washington.
A spokesman for Strathclyde Police said a thorough search of the plane failed to reveal anything which threatened its security.
ends
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 2,044
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Can anyone (F70?) even confirm it was a 763? UA have some 762s doing the transatlantics I think.
I dispute it should be standing room only, on a "high frequency" business route (how many UA LHR-IAD a day?). This is exactly the problems BA ran into where they would sell seats in advance at any price. When the high paying business man wants a last minute seat, if it was sold 6 months ago to a back packer, you are well down on the deal, and maybe lost the customer for some time.
If the LF is 80%+ I'd say that was OK. 90%+ ideal. 100%, and people left in the terminal - the sales team have got it wrong... And as said before, the crucial thing is what type of seats they paid for. Different model to charter / LCA...
NoD
I dispute it should be standing room only, on a "high frequency" business route (how many UA LHR-IAD a day?). This is exactly the problems BA ran into where they would sell seats in advance at any price. When the high paying business man wants a last minute seat, if it was sold 6 months ago to a back packer, you are well down on the deal, and maybe lost the customer for some time.
If the LF is 80%+ I'd say that was OK. 90%+ ideal. 100%, and people left in the terminal - the sales team have got it wrong... And as said before, the crucial thing is what type of seats they paid for. Different model to charter / LCA...
NoD
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Berkshire, UK
Age: 79
Posts: 8,268
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mr (?) Jamieson wrote: "I'll probably not bother running it because it is fairly unexciting"
Good for you Mr J.. Let's have something REALLY exciting... have you investigated the colour of the wallpaper in the aeroplane toilet for example?
Good for you Mr J.. Let's have something REALLY exciting... have you investigated the colour of the wallpaper in the aeroplane toilet for example?
HD
When you comment on ATC matters, especially in relation to EGLL, you talk a lot of sense. However, you do seem to have become unnecessarily caustic to contributors on other topics of late.
Chill out a bit. Think before you post. Otherwise you'll be another ATCO off sick with stress-related illness before the summer is out.
Regards
NN
When you comment on ATC matters, especially in relation to EGLL, you talk a lot of sense. However, you do seem to have become unnecessarily caustic to contributors on other topics of late.
Chill out a bit. Think before you post. Otherwise you'll be another ATCO off sick with stress-related illness before the summer is out.
Regards
NN
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: underground
Posts: 227
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hear, hear.........well said.
I always look forward to HD's comments regarding ATC, especially when it concerns that madhouse EGLL. It probably just goes to show how the job can make you a bit 'snappy'
Take a short nap, have a cup of coffee, and then we can welcome you back to the aviation 'debate'
I always look forward to HD's comments regarding ATC, especially when it concerns that madhouse EGLL. It probably just goes to show how the job can make you a bit 'snappy'
Take a short nap, have a cup of coffee, and then we can welcome you back to the aviation 'debate'
Alba Gu Brath
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Merseyside
Age: 55
Posts: 738
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quite commendable of Mr J to seek out the opinions of the aviation community prior to running a story. Every aviation item in the national press gets slated on this bulletin board for inaccuracies. Yet, when some initiative is shown for seeking out facts, the request is derided. Is it any wonder that reporters don't bother checking things out if that is the attitude they face! 
Chief PPRuNe Pilot
Join Date: May 1996
Location: UK
Age: 68
Posts: 16,640
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hey, can we cut some slack to Mr Jamieson here. He has gone to the trouble of asking for our comments before he submits an article for publication in a newspaper, even though he admits that is probably a non-event and all I can see is some discussion about UA load factors and a snipe at him for his efforts.
As far as I can see it is a well written article trying to make something out of a low priority news story. If there has to be anything written about a non-event such as this then at least let us praise Mr Jamieson for at least making the effort to ask our opinion. It has been reported and that is that.
If only more reporters were as considerate and careful about their reporting.
As far as I can see it is a well written article trying to make something out of a low priority news story. If there has to be anything written about a non-event such as this then at least let us praise Mr Jamieson for at least making the effort to ask our opinion. It has been reported and that is that.
If only more reporters were as considerate and careful about their reporting.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: the dark side of the moon!
Posts: 129
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Here, Here Capt PPrune
Couldn't agree more Danny, firstly ATC got dragged into it and then as you rightly say, so do the press - not really alot to do with my original question!!
In reply to Mr Jamieson, I found out today, (cannot confirm) that the suspect package was an aircraft pax lifejacket - how this came to be found on an aircraft who knows!! I dont know where it was found i.e it may not have been where it should have thus raising suspicon. I am led to believe that the crew dis-armed a rear pax door slide, put the "package" by the door and covered it with wet cloth's/curtains etc as a precaution. This is what I heard this morning and like I say I cannot guarentee this to be the truth.
As Danny said it is refreshing to see the truth being sought - hope this info helps the cause
In reply to Mr Jamieson, I found out today, (cannot confirm) that the suspect package was an aircraft pax lifejacket - how this came to be found on an aircraft who knows!! I dont know where it was found i.e it may not have been where it should have thus raising suspicon. I am led to believe that the crew dis-armed a rear pax door slide, put the "package" by the door and covered it with wet cloth's/curtains etc as a precaution. This is what I heard this morning and like I say I cannot guarentee this to be the truth.
As Danny said it is refreshing to see the truth being sought - hope this info helps the cause
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Berkshire, UK
Age: 79
Posts: 8,268
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm honestly sorry if I have upset anyone. I thought it was a reasonable report.. but when I re-read the line: "I'll probably not bother running it because it is fairly unexciting" I thought it must all be a big wind up. What's wrong with the story as is? Why would it have to be "exciting" to get a chance of publication? Can't we have some straightforward reporting of aviation matters for once?
Numpo, baby.. Don't worry about the stress bit with me... it's almost under control now: I shall take my usual two dozen Valium tablets before mixing the big jets around London tomorrow morning. (Nurse - the screens quickly!).
Numpo, baby.. Don't worry about the stress bit with me... it's almost under control now: I shall take my usual two dozen Valium tablets before mixing the big jets around London tomorrow morning. (Nurse - the screens quickly!).
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: underground
Posts: 227
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Glad to hear you're still on the Valium HD, I'll be arriving LL tomorrow, puffing serenely on a fat waccy baccy spliff.
It's legal now
coolsign only, man.
It's legal now
coolsign only, man.
Last edited by moleslayer; 12th Jul 2002 at 16:21.
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: At the foot of the Lammermuirs
Posts: 344
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I thought it was a reasonable report.. but when I re-read the line: "I'll probably not bother running it because it is fairly unexciting" I thought it must all be a big wind up.
The Scotsman did run the article today in an abreviated form in the news digest section. No sensationalism, just an accurate report of an aircraft diverting to GLA after a suspected bomb scare. Thank god that for once there was no mention of hysterical passengers saying they thought they would die!
Article copied below
Bomb scare grounds jet
A BOMB scare forced a passenger jet bound for Washington to make an emergency landing at Glasgow Airport yesterday.
The pilot of United Airlines flight 923 from Heathrow Airport took the decision to turn his plane around after 80 minutes in the air when a suspect package was discovered. Shortly after 10am, the blue and grey Boeing 767 landed at Glasgow and was shepherded to a holding area at the end of the runway where all 163 passengers and 13 crew were evacuated to the terminal building.
Police later gave the flight the all-clear before it resumed its journey
A BOMB scare forced a passenger jet bound for Washington to make an emergency landing at Glasgow Airport yesterday.
The pilot of United Airlines flight 923 from Heathrow Airport took the decision to turn his plane around after 80 minutes in the air when a suspect package was discovered. Shortly after 10am, the blue and grey Boeing 767 landed at Glasgow and was shepherded to a holding area at the end of the runway where all 163 passengers and 13 crew were evacuated to the terminal building.
Police later gave the flight the all-clear before it resumed its journey
Last edited by Gaza; 12th Jul 2002 at 22:30.
united diverting
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Glasgow Scotland UK
Age: 76
Posts: 66
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A light note on this serious subject.
A colleague in our newsroom asked me if I was aware of the transatlantic flight that had diverted to Glasgow the previous day due to a bomb scare. He told me the aircraft was on a flight out of London and belonged to "Ted Airlines".
Now I consider myself resonably knowledgable on the names of transatlantic carriers but I'd never heard of Ted Airlines so I asked him for more details.
He told me to look at the picture in the morning paper - and there it was. Clear as anything. "TED AIRLINES". Strange what can can happen when door 1L is open and obscures part of the company name.
A colleague in our newsroom asked me if I was aware of the transatlantic flight that had diverted to Glasgow the previous day due to a bomb scare. He told me the aircraft was on a flight out of London and belonged to "Ted Airlines".
Now I consider myself resonably knowledgable on the names of transatlantic carriers but I'd never heard of Ted Airlines so I asked him for more details.
He told me to look at the picture in the morning paper - and there it was. Clear as anything. "TED AIRLINES". Strange what can can happen when door 1L is open and obscures part of the company name.
Last edited by John MacCalman; 13th Jul 2002 at 19:52.
