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

CX -400 returns to LHR with security scare, any info?

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

CX -400 returns to LHR with security scare, any info?

Old 8th Jan 2003, 12:43
  #21 (permalink)  
Tan
 
Join Date: Aug 1998
Location: The World
Posts: 388
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Hand Solo

No it has to be treated just like any MEL situation. Once the aircraft is in the air many parts of the MEL do not apply. Common sense which is equated to good airmanship runs the operation. That's why some pilots are good operational pilots and others are not. The same applies to any airline, the good operational ones stay in business, the others go broke...

IMHO with the facts known to this forum this was not a good operational decision by whoever was responsible...
Tan is offline  
Old 8th Jan 2003, 13:00
  #22 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: southern england
Posts: 1,650
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Question

VR, you are right, I had misread the situation, thinking the unaccompanied bags were on BA not CX. Of course, no point CX shedding them at DXB, with no BA onward flight! However, if they wanted them off regardless, DXB still as good as any!

By the way, are you trying to increase your post count? Posted after VR-HFX had posted same message twice, now he's gone and deleted both!!

Last edited by newswatcher; 8th Jan 2003 at 13:25.
newswatcher is offline  
Old 8th Jan 2003, 13:03
  #23 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 113
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
The whole policy on unaccompanied baggage seems to me to be illogical.

We now know that the determined terrorist is prepared to martyr himself for the cause. Therefore the presumtpion that bags in the hold belonging to a passenger on board are safe no longer applies.

Should we not consider screening all baggage?
Charlie32 is offline  
Old 8th Jan 2003, 13:16
  #24 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
Posts: 330
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Charlie,

You ask:
Should we not consider screening all baggage?

That's now being done in the USA.

Rockhound
Rockhound is offline  
Old 8th Jan 2003, 14:37
  #25 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 13
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
A little bit more inside information.

Pax had travelled from Portugal with BA and bags were checked through to HKG.

LHR to HKG was on CX. So if the passengers knew they were going to fly a different carrier, surly alarm bells tell you, "what about my bag"its not on my flight.

This problem was discovered about 2hrs out of LHR. By now it was 0100am in LHR so not alot of ground staff to help out as to were pax were. Eventualy found out pax were on BA.

Even 1 percent of doubt as to why pax on 1 airline and bags on another is suffice to make the correct decision.(was this a planned mistake)

However much people Knock both CX and BA, there probably 2 off the best airlines in the world.

By the way the aircraft was abeam SVO when decision was taken to turn back.

SVO is hardly suitable alternate for CX at about 0400am in the morning.

At least LHR had time to sort out hotels, and suitable facilities.

At the end of the day. if your the driver and your carrying dodgy bags, would you rather get home,or return back to a suitable port.
Wanchai Butterfly is offline  
Old 8th Jan 2003, 14:44
  #26 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: southern england
Posts: 1,650
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Post

Thanks for that WB, I was not aware that the flight path was so far North.

newswatcher is offline  
Old 8th Jan 2003, 17:42
  #27 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Wet Coast
Posts: 2,335
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
SVO is hardly suitable alternate for CX at about 0400am in the morning.
But emminently suitable in an emergency, one assumes. Either the situation warranted an emergency landing or it didn't - apparently the latter.

I doubt anybody disagrees with the policies of not accepting (CX) or departing with (DTLR) unaccompanied bags. The mere existence of such policies does not prevent it from happening, clearly. Turning around just for the sake of policy (absent real threat) seems over-amping things a bit on the face of it.
PaperTiger is offline  
Old 8th Jan 2003, 18:00
  #28 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: S.E England
Posts: 118
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
We now know that the determined terrorist is prepared to martyr himself for the cause. Therefore the presumtpion that bags in the hold belonging to a passenger on board are safe no longer applies.
Charlie, u are right of course.
I dont think anybody would say that just because a bag in the hold corresponds to a pax in the cabin that this means it is definately safe.

However an unchecked unaccompanied bag is still definately more of a risk.

At least the b**tards know that they have to travel with the bomb now!

You splitter is offline  
Old 8th Jan 2003, 20:25
  #29 (permalink)  
Tan
 
Join Date: Aug 1998
Location: The World
Posts: 388
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Wanchai Butterfly


I don't believe anyone on this thread was knocking either carrier. I have great respect for both. However the decision making in this particular incident, well I wasn't there but the "A" team certainly wasn't there either...
Tan is offline  
Old 8th Jan 2003, 22:14
  #30 (permalink)  
I had an arsehole transplant but the arsehole rejected me, which is why I write such rubbish
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: New York, NY, USA
Posts: 113
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
USA Baggage Sceening

Rockhound;

You state that:

"Should we not consider screening all baggage?

That's now being done in the USA"



In response to that I say 'somewhat'. If airports couldn't install the necessarry equpment by 2003 they actually received the equivalent of a free pass until 2004.

I'm not to name many of the offending airports for security reasons, but many still do exist...

Andy
whatshouldiuse is offline  
Old 8th Jan 2003, 23:13
  #31 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: London,England
Posts: 1,385
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
The UK has had 100% hold baggage screening for years.

I don't know if bags that come in from outside the UK are all screened before being transferred or just the ones that come from countries that do not x-ray all bags. Bags that are flown unaccompanied are x-rayed from 3 directions and it happens all the time, day in, day out.

I have actually been in the same sort of situation though only on a short haul flight. I decided, along with the guy on the ground, that the damage had been done and there was no point turning around and going back.

Would I make the same decision now post 9/11 ?. Well I have always felt that there is no half-way house in these situations. There is either a security threat, in which case you land ASAP and get everyone off, or there is no threat and you carry on as normal.
Max Angle is offline  
Old 9th Jan 2003, 01:01
  #32 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: SE Asia
Posts: 141
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Yes ALL Baggage is screened in the UK including transfer baggage, wherever it has originated from. Since the screening methods at LHR for all types of baggage is extremely stringent, and advanced there is actually very little risk from an unaccompanied bag that has been through the regular x ray procedures. This being the case the return to LHR decsion seems a little strange since it is either an immediate risk requiring an immediate diversion or a minimal risk whereby if its safe to fly for abother 4 hours back to LHR how much extra risk is there in continuing on to HKG? If it was thought the bag had not been through LHR X ray procedures I believe that would be sufficient reason to want the bag off the flight ASAP.
View From The Ground is offline  
Old 9th Jan 2003, 01:54
  #33 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Australia
Age: 68
Posts: 714
Received 8 Likes on 3 Posts
Newswatcher

Sorry was having probs with my computer and easier to delete the lot rather than make a mess.

Think WB has covered most of the detail and use of northern airways.

Murphy's Law decrees that his sort of thing usually happens in the middle of the night when there a very few hands on the pump.

That having been said there were two hours between discovery and the decision to return and join the 0600 stack at LHR. Plenty of time to talk to the PAX on the BA a/c and better ascertain the risk. This may have been done.

As someone stated, the inmates are running the asylum when it comes to security and most drivers now leave their commonsense at home and follow SOP's to the letter...even if it is gobbleygook. What's USD 100,000 when you can get hauled over the coals for exercising commonsense but not the letter of the SOP's??

As to how the bags got on one flight and the PAX another, only time will tell but if the CX flight was full and the PAX was on a subload ticket....

End result was probably 400 glum faces at LHR plus one unhappy soul waiting at the carousel at CLK.

Predictable result in this day and age methinks.
VR-HFX is online now  
Old 9th Jan 2003, 12:00
  #34 (permalink)  
Tan
 
Join Date: Aug 1998
Location: The World
Posts: 388
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
According to Airbus a typical long range diversion costs between $1-3 Million US
Tan is offline  
Old 9th Jan 2003, 13:55
  #35 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Australia
Age: 68
Posts: 714
Received 8 Likes on 3 Posts
Tan

That's a lot of money Tolouse on one diversion!!

Maybe that's why the Airbus is cheap to buy and expensive to operate. 5 diversions in 10 years and that's USD15m.

Between USD1m and USD 3m.....show me spreadsheet. I assume the USD1m is for a diversion to Tehran and the USD 3m is for Bahgdad....USD10,000 for the landing fees and the rest to buy the a/c back.

Someone is having a lend of you mate.
VR-HFX is online now  
Old 9th Jan 2003, 14:18
  #36 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: southern england
Posts: 1,650
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Tan, not sure about that cost figure, extract from the Airbus site for A340 has - "The four-engined A340 is free of the extra costs and complications which apply to all ETOPS flights for its two-engined competitor: extra equipment and maintenance, training and spares, a more stringent Minimum Equipment List and pre-flight check. To these must be added the risk of a commercially damaging diversion to an isolated airfield, with repairs and passenger assistance costing up to $1 million"

My italics.
newswatcher is offline  
Old 9th Jan 2003, 14:32
  #37 (permalink)  
Tan
 
Join Date: Aug 1998
Location: The World
Posts: 388
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
VR-HFX & newswatcher

This is the link it's pretty heavy reading or is it the small print whatever, enjoy...

http://www.airbus.com/pdf/customer/fast28/lrops.pdf
Tan is offline  
Old 9th Jan 2003, 15:21
  #38 (permalink)  
jeremy
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Why there is a such a furore about unaccompanied x'rayed bags when many tons of cargo are routinely carried on pax ac
 
Old 9th Jan 2003, 15:37
  #39 (permalink)  
Tan
 
Join Date: Aug 1998
Location: The World
Posts: 388
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
jeremy

Because it's all part of the window dressing that passes for security..

Personal baggage makes the headlines making the politicians look good, cargo doesn't...
Tan is offline  
Old 9th Jan 2003, 16:14
  #40 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Outer Space
Posts: 273
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
All baggage irrespective of origin is xrayed using the latest in technology and the bar code number is scanned into a system known as BRS. If it's not in the BRS, it's not on your aircraft. If it's on your aircraft and not on the BRS, a problem is there. But how do we know, we have to trust our ground staff implicitly. (that goes down to security screening - but thats another story)
Cargo is either screened by xray if small enough or held pending a detection procedure or a prescirbed time limit prior to loading.

The DTlr here in the UK, have very stringent regulations on un-checked and unaccompanied baggage on aircraft. If they believe and operator knowingly allowed such items on board an aircraft and failed to resolve the situation immediately, they do have the power to impound aircraft, levy very hefty fines and finally suspend an operators AOC licence for UK airspace. Draconian I admit but why risk even the slightest wrath of the authorities even if you can be sure that the bag is safe and has been xrayed.

Having just completed an audit with an inspector, I can tell you human they are in appearance but god like in wrath.
slingsby is offline  

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


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.