Easy emergency landing in CGN for security risk
 

Easy U2 3246 (LJU-STN, G-EZBW) made an emergency landing in Cologne at 1640 UTC as (according to the first news) a passenger overheard another one talking about a bomb.

Or talking about a bomba

The airport is closed since, 10+ diversions so far.

There must be more to it than that. Otherwise it's all too easy.

German media reports aircraft was evacuated via slides :rolleyes:

Looks like the Easy aircraft is parked near A1 on A, the parallel taxiway to 32R. Departures are coming off 32R at A2 but arrivals seem to still be diverting.

Three passengers have been detained by the police and a rucksack has been detonated. The other passengers are being questioned by the police. This is according to online newspaper reports.

1R and 4R slides are definitely deployed on the pictures.

Developing story
 

According to German media reports, it was an Easyjet flight from Llubjana en route to Stansted. A passenger reportedly overheard two fellow passengers talk about a "bomb" or "explosives" and informed cabin crew which passed this on to the flight deck. The captain then decided to divert to Cologne, where the aircraft was evacuated via slides. A backpack that had been found but could not be accounted for was blown up by police, Bild reports citing "a witness". No information yet on what the backpack contained. According to police sources, three men with a "direct connection" to that backpack have been arrested. The plane is currently being searched for explosives.

(Take this with a grain of salt, some of it has been reported by tabloids. What we can assume as fact from photos is that the plane is in Cologne and has been evacuated via slides).


Express story with pics

There's an official statement from the police in Cologne here:
POL-K: 170610-1-K Verkehrsmaschine landet außerplanmäßig in Köln-Bonn - Verdächtige Flugpassagiere festgenommen | Pressemitteilung Polizei Köln

Basically confirming that passengers alerted cabin crew to conversations with "terroristic content" between 3 men. Captain decided to land in CGN, aircraft evacuated via slides in secured area, 3 men arrested, backpack connected to them examined by bomb disposal personnel who performed a controlled detonation. Backpack (or what remains of it) still being examined, aircraft has been searched with dogs, suspects being interrogated, investigation ongoing.

Who pays?

Easy insurers?

Update
 

Media now reporting that police says they didn't find any explosives or residue thereof. The three men arrested are British citizens without any priors or connections to terrorism. They were on a business trip and are to be released today.

Also, some passengers suffered mild injuries during evacuation, one had to be treated in a hospital.

Don't think Easy's insurers will pay all companies for the ~20 diversions and cancellations. Dealing with a bomb threat on a taxiway which is blocking the whole airport seems strange.

Just wondering, how was the "backpack identification process" performed?

Clearly this was an emergency evacuation using the slides and one would hope most (if not all...) hand luggage remained in the cabin.

Did they then send staff to retrieve them and have people identify their belongings? And detonate the one that was not claimed?! Was is somehow scanned before that?

I am all for caution in aviation matters but this one seems a bit far fetched...

UK men released by German police after easyJet flight diverted – Reuters, Sun Jun 11, 2017 | 1:46pm EDT

Bild newspaper said passengers told airline personnel they had heard the men using words including "bomb" and "explosive", and said one carried a suspicious backpack.

Reuters adds that "the men (...) carried a book entitled "Kill" with a sniper rifle on its cover" and that the backpack contained "potentially suspicious cables".

Really?
 

We are now afraid of our own shadows, bin Laden must be laughing in his grave. :D

Slides deployed for that?

1. Cost of slides being restowed.
2. Cost of diversion.
3. Cost of refuelling.
4. Cost of accommodation for passengers.
5. Cost of police time.

I thought EZY was supposed to be a low-cost carrier? Surely the flight crew must be disciplined for making such an melodramatic decision to evacuate via slides?
Why not a rapid disembarkation? I think there were a few injuries caused by the evacuation as well!

This is what you get when deciding whether or not some random guy might be a "terrorist" is left to the average Daily Mail reader.

'Low-cost' in this situation has nothing to do with passenger (and crew) safety. Easyjet runs a tight ship as regards security and whilst it would be an expensive decision particularly in the light of the costs raised by A320ECAM, IMHO the captain made a good call.

Surely airlines will now be working on procedures that stipulate what to do in such a case, won't they?

I mean, they can't go on doing emergency landings every time words like "bomb" or "explosives" are spoken aboard an airplane.

Bin Laden wasn't afforded a grave, the Yanks dumped him over the side of a ship!

Indeed, there were no steps available for rapid disembarkation so they followed procedure and used slides. Good call. Imagine what we'd be saying if they had waited for steps and there had been an issue onboard.

As for not taking cost into account during an emergency, I'm amazed that some of you are allowed to hold a license.

I wasn't there, so I defer to anyone who was, but ... no steps available? Really? How did the police get onto the aircraft?

To me, something doesn't quite compute. A passenger describes landing at Cologne, waiting for about half an hour while the authorities decide what to do, then police come on board and remove the suspects ('Asian', of course), then also remove the people who'd reported the security risk; then about a quarter hour elapses while this passenger watches from his window as the police 'talk to' the suspects and finally take them away. All this time, the passenger who's speaking seems to have been sitting on the aircraft. Surely by then any competent airport could have produced some sort of steps?

In any case, the emergency slide evacuation (after which 9 people received medical treatment) seems to have taken place only after a long delay. If there was a danger, why not evacuate on landing?

Britons released without charge after Easyjet plane scare - BBC News, 11 June 2017

What is suspicious about a rucksack?

Electrical wires from some laptop or similar loading device.

German police said the rucksack contained "potentially suspicious cabling". After controlled detonation these cables where found to be "charging cables with power plug adaptors".

Source: POL-K: 170610-2-K Verkehrsmaschine landet außerplanmäßig in Köln-Bonn - Festgenommene Briten wieder auf freiem Fuß | Pressemitteilung Polizei Köln

Here in Philippines one can take their laptop but the power cable is illegal.

It's legal to carry on in Germany. The whole thing escalated after other passengers reported having heard them talking about bombs repeatedly. Plus those three gentlemen were reading books and newspapers with certain "funny" topics and titles at the same time and had this suspicious backpack on board.

The city of Cologne criminal police has formally declared there has been no real danger at any time. Nobody had sinister intentions.

So you believe low cost carriers should operate with a lower level of safety?

According to the article from the Cologne police that was linked above it was one female passenger who reported to the cabin crew that she had allegedly heard terrorist content in the conversations of the men.

One of the three happened to read a book about snipers titled "Kill".

Could have been this one as well.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generation_Kill

It will be a fascinating to learn what happened in this "game of telephone" from panicky passenger via flight attendant into the cockpit. A rucksack which went through security control, a book cover with something related to "terrorist content" and three guys chatting about something related to "terrorist content" – these are not indicators for a terrorist attack. Quite the opposite. Neither would be present in case of an attack.

But somebody has to make the call of reason. If neither fight attendants nor pilots are trained and authorised to do it, and the information changes going from one mouth into the ear of another person, and with pervasive fear everywhere, we are bound to have these incidents.

Interesting though that they seem to happen mostly to flights coming from and/or going to US and UK.

In terms of recovering costs.....I'd hate to think what might have happened in USA in the aftermath.

A/C delayed and incurred large costs in reconfiguring it for pax flight: plus crew disruption plus fuel & landing/handling fees etc. etc.
Innocent pax delayed and perhaps missed important events/meetings etc. or on-going flights with same consequences.
Innocent pax has benign baggage destroyed including contents.
9 injured pax who had to slide the not so slippery slope perhaps unnecessary. Some who now might be off work & unpaid etc. etc.

Who do you sue? The reporters of unfounded suspicions? The pax who lost their baggage? The airline?

Not that I support in any shape or form the 'suing culture' but some might take umbrage after this event. I understand that in this day & age some people can become paranoid and see sinister shadows everywhere, but life will become very tedious if every sniff & sneeze is construed as a 'terrorist threat'.

As 'thf' alludes to: what if the conversation overheard was between 2 BBC reporters who had been covering a story about terrorist activity. Imagine what words their chit chat would include.
Were the suspicious pax spoken to by the CC's, and was it tried to determine if they posed a threat; or is that a no no? Imagine the scenario of 2 BBC reporters, who might well look like they came from eastern origins and spoke the language fluently: it is easy to imagine eavs-dropping pax conjuring up ideas. An approach by the CC's might reveal the truth before such consequences.
CC's are trained in calming irate pax and averting air-rage. Are they given any training about these scenarios? Crews are trained in assessing possible bomb threats, but that is when they are deemed credible. But rumours......?

Does the owner of the rucksack get a replacement, plus some new charging cords?

Particularly one that had been scanned at the EU origin airport?

OK, I know things do slip through security. But I find it very hard to believe that a real black hat, with evil intentions, is going to talk to his buddies about 'bombs' and carry instruction manuals on how to be a sniper.

So if one should be on an aircraft, let's say, talking of recent events in London whereas, I read, within 6 seconds of armed police arriving 46 shots were fired with all 3 assailants dead ... Does that constitute a conversation with terrorist content necessitating an emergency diversion and one(s) being arrested etc?

So, the question we are asking is, "was this an over reaction?" And if this reaction becomes the norm where will it end?
I can imagine a stag do on board with a few bevies having been consumed, and some bloated chap says, "I'm going to dump a bomb load in the crapper." and wanders off down the back end. What then?
And let's not start a discussion about 'shots of tequila contests' being overheard.

Once this idea takes hold it will take the application of much common sense to prevent utter chaos descending onto every day life. What guidance are companies giving to employees? It's not just airlines; it could be any transport or place of public gathering.