If it was such a threat, why wasn't it put into Shannon ?

If it wasn't such a threat, why the fuss, Typhoon escort, flow restrictions, BA domestics cancelled as a knock-on, etc ?

Sounds like a whoop-de-do opportunity for the "we must have still more security budget" types to strut their stuff.

We must remember that the UK's threat level has been put up in the past few months

Because "we" have no right whatsoever to lumber Ireland with a problem inbound to UK. "We" don't own Shannon, fyi, and haven't done since the time preceeding Cromwell and William III (actually). Also, the Taeosh-thingy Irish PM and all other Irishman would justly be MIGHTY unimpressed at such shoulder-sloping selfishness and arrogance.

To where? Back to USA? As if they had the fuel for that! To do what? Land in the ocean? Pox Nova Scotia with the problem? (We haven't owned them for even longer!) Come on guys!!

And what was a fighter supposed to do? Follow it (can't shoot at it until it does something really blindingly, terminally and obviously horrific) until it was plain that, at 8 miles final and 3000ft over central London it intended to solve all our political problems by incinerating the benefit fraudsters in the Houses of Parliament? And then do what? Make sure of it by shooting it down right into the target? Doh!

This is such a bizarre concept it makes Alice in Wonderland look as logical as the two -times -table!

That armoured door is supposed to ensure this can never happen - at least, that was what they told us. I guess they will now have to admit they don't believe their own rules. Interesting liability issues there...

And once a major alert is triggered they allow a suspect aircraft apparently with fighter escort to continue over central London instead of somewhere more rural. That ought to raise some interesting questions too.

Maybe there's more to this than we've been told, but the situation as described here (distressed pax bangs on closed, locked, bomb-proof armoured flight deck door; pilot cries "hijack" triggering closure of London Terminal airspace and major London airports, plus intereption by fighter(s) yet aircraft carries on to LHR) simply beggars belief.

At least this incidnet was handled more sensibly than the BA243 flight to Mexico City that was turned back in the mid-Atlantic last month.

The world is getting crazier...

--Bill

As I sip my single malt at the end of a very pleasant night in the pub I cannot but think that aviation and alcohol are incompatible bedfellows. I have tried to enjoy both at the same time but one or the other has always come second best.

It seems that some passengers often enjoy too much alcohol and the resultant problems are not only a pain in the backside for their fellow passengers but also cause the odd security scare such as this one (apparently).

Perhaps it is time to protect the many and stop the few from causing trouble. Ban alcohol from passengers from airport arrival to departure at destination.

Surely we can all manage to travel without drinking alcohol.

What happened to Sky Marshalls - are they still carried?

Yes I can, but I don't want to. Why should I and the millions of other adult flyers who can enjoy a drink or two in a controlled manner have to be punished because of a very tiny minority? This school master's attitude of punishing the entire class because of one pupil's transgression is what is making our western society the nanny state misery it is today. Let's just stick to punishing those who transgress and leave the rest of us alone.

This issues caused issues further than london airports i believe it was all UK airports.

<<pilot cries "hijack">>

Really? I'd be incredibly surprised if he had.......

HD. =unlawful interference. Same thing, diferent words. He did, or we wouldn't be discussing it, would we?

until the armoured door is no longer attached to the rest of the aircraft behind it.

FWIW could the assumption be of at least some aviation knowledge by hi-jackers? Therefore an attempt to make it seem like Ops normal by continuing on the usual routing? In this case though it looks like coming in from the other end might have been better, but I have no idea what the surface wind was.

All this speculation is quite amusing...

Every decision made was made for the right reasons.

Please trust those who are trusted with the responsibility for this Operation.

Yeah folks, just because the American government have been pricks, we need to visit the punishment on all American-flagged carriers.

I've encountered this classic "collective guilt" logic before. To be honest, most of the time, the perpetrators were British, although the Danes haven't been far behind.

And let's make it clear: yes, when our countries decide to be asses over issues like security and immigration, us citizens suffer even more than the foreigners. We Americans are not as lucky as you in the UK who have such qualified and zealous security agents that flight crew need not worry that the flavor of cologne being worn, or any high-protein diet issues might inspire someone to forcibly deplane them on suspicion of drink flying. So yeah, turn us back, deny us entry, make us suffer in a way the lawmakers will never know (or care) about.

Threat level.........
 

....... from who, from what?

<<HD. =unlawful interference. Same thing, diferent words. He did, or we wouldn't be discussing it, would we?>>

Agaricus bisporus.... You are, apparently, a pilot so you should know that pilots don't "cry hijack". There are other ways that such events may be communicated to ATC.

I'm sure we are all ears blackpants. Please expand. on these "right reasons"

Suspect security threat: "Land soonest"
Problem resolved: "Proceed as normal"

Where does "proceed towards and across Central London under severe ATC restriction" fit into the response reasoning?

It isn't really necessary to have actual terrorists or hijackers these days. All you need is for someone to "disrupt" a flight, and then the authorities will do the rest. Just arrange for flights to be "disrupted" in a group of major cities, and you can literally bring air traffic to a standstill, with no need for bombs or terrorists or hijackers or anything. Each disruption costs millions and sends people into a hysterical, self-destructive frenzy, so your goal is achieved with minimal risk and expenditure on your part.

It's a classic case of the cure being worse than the disease.

If the Security person in charge had a belief that a terrorist incident was underway, the plane would not have landed at lhr.

So the fighter escort and airspace closure was just for fun then ?

That is what doesn't seem to make snese here - "something" is high enough risk that major disruption to LHR is in order, plus fighters are scrambled, and yet at the same time is low enough risk that the aircraft can still be vectored over london into lhr.

The sort of reaction you get on both sides of the Atlantic these days, in situations like this, leads me to question the wisdom of telling anyone if you have a bit of a problem on board. How is sending up fighters going to help me? (Answer: it isn't.)