Wonder if they searched the crew??

Small CCTV cameras, discreet, aimed to cover toilet, movement-sensitive , comes complete with SD memory-card slot and battery-power........attached by clips or suckers, could be placed by CC before boarding.
As it's not a fixture,no need for certification and all the crap attached to that......cost~£100-£300 each....less than a month's wage for a Hostie, to cover all the toilets and probably most of the cabin.
In case of incident.....review footage for last entry or two , to the bog.....99.5+ of pax immediately eliminated from enquiry.

Cheap, simple, cost effective....Oh, and like a CVR, they automatically overwrite the card, so you have a rolling record of last few hours, depending on frame-rate and trigger-threshold.

but that's too easy, isn't it....no jobs for the boys there.

Antisocial pax could always be shown the door at 10K feet, before resuming cruise:}

Ironb.... very very good point - no one as yet has suggested that it could have been a disgruntled crew member ( including flight deck).

A large proportion of airline incidents these days seem to be lavatory related ;-)
Wasn't there a FA airworthiness directive to remove the emergency oxygen tanks in certain aircraft lavatories or did they decide against?

Best of my knowledge and experience the MEL security goes thru great lengths to check and confiscate liquid, lighters and matches.

I think there could be some weight age to post #48. Seems to be some time delay inflammable device dropped into the bin. What is scary is that this device seems to have made it thru at least 3 screenings of which 2 were specifically looking for it.

I seriously doubt it is a smoker as the alarm would have gone off a few puffs after he lit up and before he exited the lavatory.

Wonder if some forensic analysis was done on the bins to see what was the source of the ignition?

@cockney steve

Not every nation is as gung ho about CCTV as the UK and in some there are very strict regulations as to how they may be used; much more strict that the slap happy system the brits languish under.
In Spain for instance you may have a CCTV system showing people entering your shop but it may not show the faces of anyone passing by on the street; nor the faces of people once they have entered your shop.
That is the reason you will see security guards in Spanish supermarkets and shops; covert security is not allowed. The country has suffered enough from that in the past.

Lacking any news of follow-up investigation makes me think the carrier has forgotten all about the incident and wishes we would to.

Say what you will about US's Bad Ol' TSA, if the diversion had been to a US port the re-clearing process would have been a lot more intensive. Not saying that was do-able.

Cockney Steve

I read

...and for one horrible moment I thought you were serious! Then I read...

:D :D

@ D.H.U. Freudian slip :}:ok: "cover entry to toilet":E
@ Gcal.....But an aircraft, like a ship, is "stateless"...hence Duty free liquor etc..
Covert surveillance in public areas, has, afaik, to be signed by clearly-visible public notices....then it's up to you if you want to enter that "zone" or not.

I'd suggest the Spanish economy is doing badly, partly through the artificial increase in overheads by employing security staff where cameras would suffice.

Given time, even if there were signs aboard, announcing CCTV surveillance, most people soon ignore them....the ones to target , are the furtive lookers -around. I see little difference to protecting over 99.5 %of Pax on a flight, this way, than the intrusive, timewasting charade that currently masquerades as "security"....you accept that , or don't fly.....and the drop in airline-travel would appear to indicate there are a significant proportion of the populace who will not tolerate this hassle and use alternative travel means.

A lot of arithmetic D.L , distance, wind , ground time :ugh: !! it's simple mate " AUGMENTED crew " , 2 captains, 2 FOs ! Max FDP 22 hrs.