United A320 returns to ORD due to a message on a lavatory mirror
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: UK
Age: 65
Posts: 138
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
United A320 returns to ORD due to a message on a lavatory mirror
A United A320 Airbus flying from Chicago O' Hare to Washington Reagan National airport declared an emergency after takeoff and asked to return to O'Hare due to a flight attendant finding a message written on a mirror in a lavatory stating that there was a bomb on board the aircraft.
Now I don't know about United but in my airline if a bomb message was found on a mirror as long as the flight attendants had checked the lavatories before departure it was deemed the message was written by a passenger and after a check with company security the flight would continue to destination. Writing a bomb message on a mirror is a well known hoax perpetrated by attention seekers, similar to making a fake 911 call. Genuine bombers do not advertise their activities. (Statistically you are safer on an aircraft with a bomb message written on the mirror than on an aircraft without a bomb threat on the mirror!.)
So I am surprised the pilots turned back in this situation. However maybe this is United policy?
Details below
https://abc7chicago.com/ohare-emerge...-265/14668533/
Now I don't know about United but in my airline if a bomb message was found on a mirror as long as the flight attendants had checked the lavatories before departure it was deemed the message was written by a passenger and after a check with company security the flight would continue to destination. Writing a bomb message on a mirror is a well known hoax perpetrated by attention seekers, similar to making a fake 911 call. Genuine bombers do not advertise their activities. (Statistically you are safer on an aircraft with a bomb message written on the mirror than on an aircraft without a bomb threat on the mirror!.)
So I am surprised the pilots turned back in this situation. However maybe this is United policy?
Details below
https://abc7chicago.com/ohare-emerge...-265/14668533/
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Auckland, NZ
Age: 79
Posts: 722
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Fairly creative use of “statistics” there I would say. A little bit like Blackadder series 4, the episode where Baldrick thinks that writing his name on the bullet and carrying it in his pocket would keep him safe…😄
A bit like the guy who felt safer when he carried his own bomb on board, because the odds against having two bombs on board were astronomical ...
This is probably an unwelcome comment, but I think if you examine the statistics, as a passenger, you are more likely to be killed by a pilot making a mistake than by a bomb exploding on board your aircraft. I don't have a tin hat but I may need to borrow one!!
Join Date: Apr 2024
Location: Commerce
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Better safe than sorry…
A United A320 Airbus flying from Chicago O' Hare to Washington Reagan National airport declared an emergency after takeoff and asked to return to O'Hare due to a flight attendant finding a message written on a mirror in a lavatory stating that there was a bomb on board the aircraft.
Now I don't know about United but in my airline if a bomb message was found on a mirror as long as the flight attendants had checked the lavatories before departure it was deemed the message was written by a passenger and after a check with company security the flight would continue to destination. Writing a bomb message on a mirror is a well known hoax perpetrated by attention seekers, similar to making a fake 911 call. Genuine bombers do not advertise their activities. (Statistically you are safer on an aircraft with a bomb message written on the mirror than on an aircraft without a bomb threat on the mirror!.)
So I am surprised the pilots turned back in this situation. However maybe this is United policy?
Now I don't know about United but in my airline if a bomb message was found on a mirror as long as the flight attendants had checked the lavatories before departure it was deemed the message was written by a passenger and after a check with company security the flight would continue to destination. Writing a bomb message on a mirror is a well known hoax perpetrated by attention seekers, similar to making a fake 911 call. Genuine bombers do not advertise their activities. (Statistically you are safer on an aircraft with a bomb message written on the mirror than on an aircraft without a bomb threat on the mirror!.)
So I am surprised the pilots turned back in this situation. However maybe this is United policy?
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Location, Location
Posts: 743
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Has there ever been a case of a terrorist notifying those on board that there’s a bomb? How courteous.
And what about the hysteria when passengers are detained for using the ‘b-word’? Has there ever been a case of a terrorist getting as far as security only to be foiled by answering the question ‘Anything suspicious in your luggage today Sir?’, with ‘Oh, just my bomb… Dammit!’.
And what about the hysteria when passengers are detained for using the ‘b-word’? Has there ever been a case of a terrorist getting as far as security only to be foiled by answering the question ‘Anything suspicious in your luggage today Sir?’, with ‘Oh, just my bomb… Dammit!’.
Has there ever been a case of a terrorist notifying those on board that there’s a bomb? How courteous.
And what about the hysteria when passengers are detained for using the ‘b-word’? Has there ever been a case of a terrorist getting as far as security only to be foiled by answering the question ‘Anything suspicious in your luggage today Sir?’, with ‘Oh, just my bomb… Dammit!’.
And what about the hysteria when passengers are detained for using the ‘b-word’? Has there ever been a case of a terrorist getting as far as security only to be foiled by answering the question ‘Anything suspicious in your luggage today Sir?’, with ‘Oh, just my bomb… Dammit!’.
may be true but utterly irrelevant to the topic under discussion.
OH,
It is highly relevant to such a situation. As others have intimated on this thread, how likely is it that there really is a bomb on board when a bomb threat note has been discovered written on a toilet mirror, or for that matter anywhere else in the aircraft? The risk is absoluely negligible. Whereas the risk of crew error can increase (albeit only very slightly) if they decide to divert to an unfamiliar airport in bad weather in what may feel like a stressful situation. You are right to say in this case that returning to ORD was not an issue, I know that, because they knew the airfield well.
My reason for making that statement was to ask readers of this thread to consider very carefully the real balance of risk. In a previous life I was involved in improving the procedures and advice for crews following a bomb threat. We spent a lot of time evaluating the balance of risk between, on the one hand, there really being a bomb on board versus, on the other, the flight risks that might be incurred by diverting to an unfamiliar airfield in bad weather.
Imagine yourself somewhere, say in mid-Atlantic, and such a message is found as in the UAL case. Are you better off continuing calmly to destination, or returning to your departure airfield, as opposed to diverting to an emergency airfield in Greenland or northern Canada?
It is worth sitting down and thinking about this. That is all I ask.
It is highly relevant to such a situation. As others have intimated on this thread, how likely is it that there really is a bomb on board when a bomb threat note has been discovered written on a toilet mirror, or for that matter anywhere else in the aircraft? The risk is absoluely negligible. Whereas the risk of crew error can increase (albeit only very slightly) if they decide to divert to an unfamiliar airport in bad weather in what may feel like a stressful situation. You are right to say in this case that returning to ORD was not an issue, I know that, because they knew the airfield well.
My reason for making that statement was to ask readers of this thread to consider very carefully the real balance of risk. In a previous life I was involved in improving the procedures and advice for crews following a bomb threat. We spent a lot of time evaluating the balance of risk between, on the one hand, there really being a bomb on board versus, on the other, the flight risks that might be incurred by diverting to an unfamiliar airfield in bad weather.
Imagine yourself somewhere, say in mid-Atlantic, and such a message is found as in the UAL case. Are you better off continuing calmly to destination, or returning to your departure airfield, as opposed to diverting to an emergency airfield in Greenland or northern Canada?
It is worth sitting down and thinking about this. That is all I ask.
We had a specific bomb threat in the 70s out of home base, depressurised, returned to Heathrow where we were directed to a remote area near to the perry oaks sewage farm. The ex ww2 skipper decided not to evacuate using our ****e slides because of the risk of injuries to pax but the ground ops couldn’t find anyone brave enough to position steps up to the aircraft for half an hour.
Management lied to us and there were several devices found on our aircraft apparently including one where the aircraft diverted into Manchester. The file on this was till frozen after 40 years. Apparently warnings went through special branch; a time when “snake knife” was working inside the IRA for the security forces; recently it has been suggested that he was responsible for more murders than he saved.
In my last company all pilots had direct access to the company’s security department and briefings; an eye opener and needed. The company had lost one aircraft in flight and another on the ground. We carried armed guards but occasionally some absolute idiot would secretly breach the laws as happened to me with a station manager who allowed some gangster president’s security detail to wear their arms in my aircraft.
There had been a fad during that time especially in fine weather and a Friday lunchtime for UK office workers to phone in spurious warnings to start the weekend early.
There are enough disasters where warnings are ignored as apparently happened in Israel 6 months ago.
Management lied to us and there were several devices found on our aircraft apparently including one where the aircraft diverted into Manchester. The file on this was till frozen after 40 years. Apparently warnings went through special branch; a time when “snake knife” was working inside the IRA for the security forces; recently it has been suggested that he was responsible for more murders than he saved.
In my last company all pilots had direct access to the company’s security department and briefings; an eye opener and needed. The company had lost one aircraft in flight and another on the ground. We carried armed guards but occasionally some absolute idiot would secretly breach the laws as happened to me with a station manager who allowed some gangster president’s security detail to wear their arms in my aircraft.
There had been a fad during that time especially in fine weather and a Friday lunchtime for UK office workers to phone in spurious warnings to start the weekend early.
There are enough disasters where warnings are ignored as apparently happened in Israel 6 months ago.
Clearly important to headline the story with a mention of the aircraft type. This wouldn't have happened if it had been a 737.
Not only safety, but CYA. Suppose something happens to the flight after this warning has been ignored. Imagine the media- and lawyer-fest that would ensue.
