Singapore Airlines diverts due bomb scare
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Stockport
Posts: 662
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Singapore Airlines diverts due bomb scare
SIA026 just diverted into Manchester due bomb scare, was en route FRA-JFK and was at 13W before returning
Manchester operating single runway (24L) at moment delays are building up
Golf India Bravo
Manchester operating single runway (24L) at moment delays are building up
Golf India Bravo
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 7
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A/C now fully evacuated and passengers being held on busses in engine test bay.
A/C due to be towed to stand 80 in next 10 minutes. Both runways due to re-open 12 noon. RWY24L currently only one in operation with arriving A/C back tracking.
A/C now under tow to stand 80.
A/C due to be towed to stand 80 in next 10 minutes. Both runways due to re-open 12 noon. RWY24L currently only one in operation with arriving A/C back tracking.
A/C now under tow to stand 80.
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 7
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A/C landed on RWY 24R
Now being towed to stand 80 with the usual party of fire engines following.
Taken from Sky News Website:
PLANE LANDS AFTER THREAT
A Singapore Airlines plane flying from Frankfurt to New York has been diverted to Manchester Airport following a bomb threat which was probably a hoax, Greater Manchester Police said.
The plane landed safely at 11am without a military escort.
A Greater Manchester Police spokeswoman said: "Early indications are that it could be a hoax but we cannot confirm that one way or another until full checks are carried out."
A spokeswoman for Singapore Airlines confirmed the Boeing 747-400 had landed safely and that no one had been injured in the incident.
She said: "Flight SQ26 departed from Frankfurt at 08.31 local time. It was diverted to Manchester Airport as a security precaution following information received by Singapore Airlines from the German authorities."
She was unable to confirm any further details about the nature of the threat and whether any code words were used.
A Manchester Airport spokeswoman added: "We can confirm that an aircraft landed here.
"It was a Singapore Airlines 747-400 which was flying from Frankfurt to JFK in New York.
"There were 293 passengers on board and 19 crew members. The passengers are disembarking at the moment.
"It was diverted into Manchester over a security precaution."
Now being towed to stand 80 with the usual party of fire engines following.
Taken from Sky News Website:
PLANE LANDS AFTER THREAT
A Singapore Airlines plane flying from Frankfurt to New York has been diverted to Manchester Airport following a bomb threat which was probably a hoax, Greater Manchester Police said.
The plane landed safely at 11am without a military escort.
A Greater Manchester Police spokeswoman said: "Early indications are that it could be a hoax but we cannot confirm that one way or another until full checks are carried out."
A spokeswoman for Singapore Airlines confirmed the Boeing 747-400 had landed safely and that no one had been injured in the incident.
She said: "Flight SQ26 departed from Frankfurt at 08.31 local time. It was diverted to Manchester Airport as a security precaution following information received by Singapore Airlines from the German authorities."
She was unable to confirm any further details about the nature of the threat and whether any code words were used.
A Manchester Airport spokeswoman added: "We can confirm that an aircraft landed here.
"It was a Singapore Airlines 747-400 which was flying from Frankfurt to JFK in New York.
"There were 293 passengers on board and 19 crew members. The passengers are disembarking at the moment.
"It was diverted into Manchester over a security precaution."
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: North West UK
Posts: 390
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And the journo's keep up their consistency, i.e. crap. The Sky news snippet on their web-site shows a picture of Heathrow Airport instead of Manchester Airport
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Earth
Posts: 90
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pax evac on SQ 777's (I know this was a 744), requires the the firing of all fire bottles during evac. In this case, where an evac was initiated due bomb scare, would the Captain fire the bottles as well (an put the engines out of comission)? Or would Command discretion give the Captain authority to skip steps of firing the bottles?
This is the second recent occasion that a full airliner has diverted into a UK airport (STN and Air Portugal is the other one) and has only been given one set of steps to get the pax. off. For christs sake you might have a bloody bomb on the thing and the airport roles out 1 set of steps, truly pathetic. If the threat has been taken seriously enough to divert in the first place I reckon blowing the slides would not be too over top. You are going to feel pretty stupid if you do a textbook diversion and then 50 passengers get killed when the bomb goes off half way through a 20 minute de-plane down one set of steps. Going to be difficult to continue the journey as you now need new slides and you are going to hurt a few people during the evac. but I would prefer that option to collecting body parts from all over the apron. I think airport authorities need to urgently review how they handle these incidents, at the moment the response seem amateurish in the extreme.
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: EGCC
Age: 74
Posts: 979
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Textbook diversion?
Max Angle
Whilst I whole-heartedly agree with you about the question of one set of steps, I do query the 'textbook' diversion statement.
Many Mancunians have questioned why an aircraft turned back from 54N13W to Manchester. Why did an aircraft with a bomb threat overfly Shannon and Dublin? Do SQ consider our security to be better than that in Ireland (tongue in cheek)!
Whilst I whole-heartedly agree with you about the question of one set of steps, I do query the 'textbook' diversion statement.
Many Mancunians have questioned why an aircraft turned back from 54N13W to Manchester. Why did an aircraft with a bomb threat overfly Shannon and Dublin? Do SQ consider our security to be better than that in Ireland (tongue in cheek)!
Rebel PPRuNer
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Toronto, Canada (formerly EICK)
Age: 51
Posts: 2,834
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well, if it were a fully loaded 744 being div-ed, they might have been worried about being about to operate on the shortish runway at EIDW - EINN should have been no trouble though...
(edited to correct incorrect airport designator - doh)
(edited to correct incorrect airport designator - doh)
Last edited by MarkD; 5th Oct 2004 at 17:57.
I didn't mean that the SQ flight was a textbook diversion just that having diverted in time it would be awfull for the bomb to go off with people on board just because an airport can't russle up more than one set of steps and with the slides stowed unused in their doors. If the crew flew over a number of suitable airfields to get to Manchester, they want their heads looking at IMHO.
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: western europe
Posts: 1,367
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
with all the regular 777, 747, AN-124 Traffic and even the occasional AN-225 and C-5 Galaxy popping into EINN, I'm sure a 747-400 could have been accomodated at Shannon without undue stress 