Takes off from Cairo, en route to NYC. After note found in bathroom diverted to Scotland accompanied by two British figher planes into Scotland**.
Passengers kept in plane for hours***.
**This is not the first bomb threat on a plane where fighters accompanied the plane. What is the point of that? Do they think the pilot is going to fly off somewhere else, and do they plan to shoot the plane down if he does? Or are they just going to follow him? Is the pilot a suspect?
***If there really is a bomb, shouldnt' they get the passengers OFF the plane? They don't have to let them go free, assuming one of them placed the bomb, but why should all the passengers die when the bomb goes off?
If a hijacker actually takes over the plane and tries to fly it into a building or other populated area, yes, they will shoot it down. Better to lose 250 on an airplane than 5000 in a stadium.
But considering that so many bomb scares are hoaxes, the practical thing to do is to get the plane on the ground quickly, check it for bombs with a dog sniffing for explosives, and get it back in the air ASAP to minimize the inconvenience to everyone.
That is, after your 100th bomb hoax, it's hard to take #101 seriously. People get complacent and just go through the motions, but don't take #101 nearly as seriously as #1.
If there is a bomb and the bomb goes off they are dead anyway. So the plane is diverted to an airport where they can deal with this sort of thing, flying over unpopulated areas. They will find the hoaxer (if it is one) by means of cameras.
I hope so--- I would not want to be the military pilot, though from here it is a cut and dry decision.
And if a passenger *is* the bomb, they just offloaded a bomb into an airport. First locate [or determine that it isn't there] the threat-- *then* do something.
You haven't followed many of these, have you? Getting the plane back up in the air as quickly as possible, isn't much of a priority. Once you have an incident like this, if you're a passenger, you can pretty much expect to lose a day, while everyone is questioned, all the luggage, both carry on and that in the hold is searched, the plane is checked for bombs, and they try to figure out who could have been involved.
And in this case, as Micky pointed out, the passengers were kept on the plane for several hours and only then allowed to finally get off the plane. Like Micky says, that makes zero sense to me. If there is potentially a bomb on the plane, that could still go off at any time, why in the world would you leave passengers on that plane for HOURS?
I'd buy that if they were all hoaxes, but they are not. Just a few years ago we had the underwear bomber for example on the plane to Detroit. Plus the same folks who are motivated to do this demonstrate every day their capacity to carry out a variety of attacks.
One thing that would be very useful would be for new planes to have security cameras installed in the aisles, showing who went into or out of a bathroom, etc. With that, a case like this would be quickly solved. And it also would deter the idiots trying to pull a hoax.
Nonsense. Airports have procedures for dealing with this that don't involve bringing passengers off a plane with a bomb threat into the passenger terminal. They take the plane to a remote section of the airport grounds. From there, there is no reason you can't quickly evacuate the plane, getting people off the plane and away from it so that if it does blow up, they won't be killed. And then you can walk them or bus them in small groups to an empty hanger or similar until they can be processed and questioned. Leaving them on a plane like that for several hours is about as dumb as it gets. Inconsiderate too.
Exactly. And the news reporter interviewed a passenger, who said they were on the plane for hours. It's bad enough to sit on a plane that's waiting for clearance, let alone one that's waiting for a bomb to go off.
I'd be afraid to be an underwear bomber. I'd be afraid the bomb would go off, but only a little bit, and it would blow off my organs but not hurt the plane. I wouldn't want to be a shoe bomber either for the same reason. And by gosh, neither bomb worked right.
You would think they would do something like that by now. So many of the bomb threats center around the bathrooms.
For new planes you would think it would be on the list of important gear by now. For a little cost they could keep track of who goes into the bathrooms. In many cases one camera pointed down the aisle could cover the bathroom and the aisle for a good length of the plane.
But to add it to existing planes, unless it's a complete cabin overhaul, probably not worth it in terms of cost/benefit to the airline. I guess they could put up a fake one. Even that would probably discourage some people, because they don't know if it's real or not. But then you have to be so dumb or insane to do anything on an airplane today that maybe it wouldn't discourage them either....
The cabins are all hardened, I thought. and it's been so long since a hijacker made itinto the cabin, I forgot about that.
Trying to learn more about this part, I found " One passenger later told NY1 travelers were not allowed to evacuate the plane in Glasgow for an agonizing amount of time while authorities investigated the threat.
?To be sitting on the plane for four hours thinking at any given time the whole plane could blow up and not knowing whether or not, the first thing that one wants to do is get off the plane, but we couldn't get off the plane," said one passenger who was not identified by name.
Read more:
formatting link
"
I also learned that the big news today is that 5 of the passengers are seeking asylum. Syrians.
Nonsense. Airports have procedures for dealing with this that don't involve bringing passengers off a plane with a bomb threat into the passenger terminal. They take the plane to a remote section of the airport grounds. From there, there is no reason you can't quickly evacuate the plane, getting people off the plane and away from it so that if it does blow up, they won't be killed. And then you can walk them or bus them in small groups to an empty hanger or similar until they can be processed and questioned. Leaving them on a plane like that for several hours is about as dumb as it gets. Inconsiderate too.
Maybe. But many airports don't have a secure area where hundreds of people can be kept until they're screened and examined and the airports don't have staff at the ready to do that either. Keeping everyone on the plane for four hours where there's likely to be food/water/toilets may also be the safest thing to do considering the potential risk to others using the airport.
There shouldn't be a maybe. Any international airport, like the one in Scotland should have such procedures in place. And clearly those procedures should not include leaving people on a plane that might have a bomb for several hours. If a bomb had gone off an hour after the plane landed, killing 100 people, what would everyone be saying then? When there is a bomb threat at a building, what do they do? Keep everyone inside because that's where the toilets and water are?
But many airports don't have a secure area where hundreds of people
Give me a break. When one of these jetliners with a bomb is coming in, you almost always have hundreds of police, feds, bomb squad, fire rescue responding and waiting for the plane. I can't think of one where that was not the case. How could they possibly not be able to get 250 people off a plane and then into a hanger or some other area to hold them? They don't need any staff to screen and examine them right away. Just get them off the plane that might have a BOMB.
Keeping everyone on the plane for
Safest thing to do when there may be a bomb on a plane loaded with fuel and you have 250 people in it? Give me a break. Who says there has to be any risk to others using the airport? As I said, the procedure they follow isn't rocket science. The plane is not taken to the terminal. It's take to a remote area of the airport. From there you de-plane the passengers and take them somewhere where they can be kept seperate. You can just move them a few hundred feet from the plane and leave them standing there, to start.
The risk as Micky pointed out, is keeping all those passengers on an airplane for HOURS that might have a bomb or similar device on it. As for planes sitting on the ground for 4 hours and how pleasant it is to be on them with toilets, food, etc you apparently haven't paid attention to all the horror stories from passengers that have experienced that. Or of laws Congress has passed, proposed, etc to deal with the problem. How would you like to be sitting their on that plane, full of fuel, potentially a bomb on board, for 3 hours?
If there really is a bomb, shouldnt' they get the passengers OFF the plane? They d> Airports have procedures for dealing with this that don't involve
The truth is that we humans impliment efficient systems for things we do often. That goes for factory workers building cars, fire-fighters responding to a blaze, paramedics responding to accidents, doctors performing surgery - you name it.
People who work at airports have well-defined jobs and tasks (that they carry out every day) that in theory include how to deal with a potentially dangerous plane or passenger, but the truth is that unless they do something at least once a day or once a week, these seldom-performed tasks are met with confusion and uncertainty.
In short - land the plane, make it park somewhere distant from the terminal, make lots of phone calls and try to figure out who is in charge and what the plan is.
I'm starting to think like a conspiracy nut when all these wild events start happening when too much attention is paid to the wrongdoing going on in government. I often think of wild news stories of attention grabbing behavior as "How convenient!". Yesterday, all the headlines were about X politician or government agency committing X crimes. It does make me suspicious. o_O
HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.