Rejecting a 7700?
 

Hi guys,

I'm sorry but I always thought that if an aircraft was in distress, he/she could land anywhere? and should, at the nearest aerodrome?

Singapore Airlines plane lands in India after bomb scare - INQUIRER.net, Philippine News for Filipinos

Maybe in this case, the heightened security over ruled the emergency?

Regards,
Johan

Nothing in that report states that the aircaft was squawking '7700'!

If you've been to India, you know this sort of thing is nothing unusual.

Some perspective on the incident from local (well, Marathi) journalists:

Flight 3 hours in air despite bomb alert - The Times of India

Good thing this was a false alarm...

39 crew on board? :)

indeed it is worrying that they had to continue but equally worrying is the fact that any crackpot can call up an airport and make such threats and divert a flight like that. nuisance terrorism and i hope some significant effort is used to catch the moron concerned.

oh and 39 crew... why do you think sq is so popular! :ok:

Not unusual, visa issues dictate that for certain nationals, listing on the GenDec as crew facilitates entry and exit procedures, avoids certain others. Captain's wives have seniority, as I understand it.

Ultimately, it's a shopping trip, bringing flash bling back to the home country, and sold at great profit, in local terms.

That is when you declare a Mayday and say going direct, watch my blip. How many ATC guys have been killed by a bomb going off in an aircraft. I had one false positive bomb threat on my flight to LAX and you can do anything you want. Don't ever let ATC delay your landing.

I agree with P51 guy, declare an emergency, put 7700 in the box, transmit your intensions, if you dont like what ATC says ignore it and press on restating your intensions. It's ours and our passengers lives at stake. If you really think it is a real problem who cares what someone on the ground that will not be effected by the outcome thinks. They will move any traffic once they realize you are serious.

The decision not to grant landing clearance is not in ATC's hands. This is very much a political thing. Should you choose this course of action it is entirely possible that all the runways are blocked by ground equipment. It has happened before.
BTW It isn't mentioned anywhere in the article that New Delhi was actually the closest airfield, just the most suitable; commercial interests at work here? Also, what was the difference in flying time between Going to New Delhi or to Kolkota?

You may want to get out of the US more:ugh::ugh:

In these parts of the world they WILL block runways if they don't want you to land - it's NOT LAX.

So true, unfortunately.

In 1978 a highjacked LH B737 low on fuel wanted to land in Aden / Yemen. The authorities there decided to reject their request and ultimately blocked the runway, forcing the crew to land their airplane on a strip of sand next to the runway instead...:ugh:

Delhi Closed
 

Delhi airspace was closed to all Non Scheduled commercial traffic on the day and time in Question. The sky over Delhi was buzzing with Military aircraft, UAV's. The time in question there was huge fireworks display almost in line with the flight path. IAF had Mig 29's on stand by to shoot down any intruding aircraft.

180,000 troops on the ground for security with multiple threats of sabotage. In the middle of all this if an aircraft with a potential bomb threat requests to land in the city, it could be anywhere in the world they would have still diverted them to the next suitable location. I think it was a wise move to avoid any mis communication that might have led to a sad ending

Not familiar with the flight track of Moscow-Singapore, but I think Calcutta would not have been a 3 hour diversion but rather 45 mins or so.

Just my 2 cents from being on the ground at the site!

PS: If they were over Amritsar, then Lahore is as close if not closer.......Also Amritsar can handle a 777. Seemed like a commercial thought to request DEL as SQ has a large presence there.

" Delhi airspace was closed to all Non Scheduled commercial traffic on the day and time in Question. The sky over Delhi was buzzing with Military aircraft, UAV's. "

Was this NOTAM'd?

" Seemed like a commercial thought to request DEL as SQ has a large presence there. "
Wouldn't it be better to do what you can to lessen the impact on your passengers as much as possible and get them on their way again as soon as possible (after some IDIOT calls in a bomb threat...again!....but the crew didn't know if it's real or if it's Memorex now, did they??).

<<That is when you declare a Mayday and say going direct, watch my blip. How many ATC guys have been killed by a bomb going off in an aircraft. I had one false positive bomb threat on my flight to LAX and you can do anything you want. Don't ever let ATC delay your landing.>>

Has anyone noticed the increase in moronic postings on PPRuNe? If a pilot declares a major emergency ATC will do everything possible to ensure the safety of the flight and get it on the ground ASAP. At least, that's the way we function in the UK.

You do realise this is the security for the Commonwealth Games, right?

You wanna chat to people who operate in the sub-continent, middle and far east!

It's not like the UK!

They did track down the gentleman rather quickly.

thanks vovachan, i did not see that in the news and am delighted to hear it. hope they throw the book at him big time!

Hijackings and bomb threats are political in nature. Therefore, I can see why in some countries in the world, landing permission would be not granted. Not that I agree with that, but, not much one can do about it.

Now, if an aircraft with a mechanical/structural/fire emergency is denied permission to land, that is an entirely different matter. To my knowledge that has never happened. But, if an aircraft in that type of emergency, that is a non-political emergency, has been denied permission to land, I'd like to hear about it.

Not really true for security alerts is it? Ryanair and Prestwick springs to mind.
I