Newsstand - Holiday Pilot Flew On After Bomb Threat

http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/55813/Holiday-pilot-flew-on-after-bomb-threat

A PACKED holiday jet flew almost 5,000 miles across the Atlantic despite a warning that there was a bomb on board.
Three scribbled notes claiming the flight was in danger were handed to cabin crew shortly after the plane took off from the Caribbean.
But the pilot of the Boeing 767, with 292 passengers and crew aboard, decided it was a hoax and continued the trip.

Now it is power triping pilots too. How does some one take THAT kind of risk. I do hope the very least this guy gets is a significant rap over the knuckles then again he may be out of a job.

And look, he was correct in his assessment of the risk. Good call by the pilot!

Good on the pilot. If the passengers were screened and the luggage was screened, then there could be no bomb - right ;)

Maybe the actual bomb was someone brought 3.5 oz of water instead of only 3.4.

If flights were held up for every bomb threat, many more would be cancelled. Airlines, together with police and the authorities make a judgement call on each threat and classify it either as credible or not. I guess this one (correctly so it would appear) was judged not credible.

Also, I am sure that the pilot didn't make that decision on his lonesome....

This is Britain. We don't start running round like headless chickens waving our arms and shouting "Oooooh, Al Qaeda" whenever someone shows ID with a date which expired last week, and we also know how to assess the relative risks of situations professionally. As was done here.

If they had diverted at the stage it was found it would probably be to the US, where the authorities' standard procedure would require an evacuation on the runway down the slides. When you do this you get many cuts and bruises and about 1 in 200 such passengers breaks an arm or leg. As it was all passengers were delivered to their destination completely safe and unharmed.

Now if the know-alls here would care to cite a SINGLE instance where a "bomb note" found on an aircraft turned out to be true instead of a hoax, we would be glad to hear about it.

Now it is power triping pilots too. How does some one take THAT kind of risk. I do hope the very least this guy gets is a significant rap over the knuckles then again he may be out of a job.He can fly me any day ^

Phone call or note = no bomb. Bomb = no warning. Get it now ?

He can fly me any day ^

Phone call or note = no bomb. Bomb = no warning. Get it now ?

Quite right.

Go look it up Amanzimtoti 23 December 1985. Ok it was not on an aircraft but I bet You get the message right! I was THERE - my luck I was behind a concrete pilar and all that because someone ignored the warning call!!! I m sorry but that kind of warning is NOT something to F*** around with and certainly not in a bloodly aircraft over the Atlantic.

What if his call was wrong? Guess what then all those onboard would not be alive to tell the story but spread over the atlantic. Sorry but since the pilot is not a bomb sniffing dog he should not have been able to make THAT call on his own.

This is Britain. We don't start running round like headless chickens waving our arms and shouting "Oooooh, Al Qaeda" whenever someone shows ID with a date which expired last week, and we also know how to assess the relative risks of situations professionally. As was done here.



Thank you. This pilot can fly me anyday. Remember, the pilot's ... is on the line just as yours is. If he didn't feel safe, the plane doesn't leave the gate.

Go look it up Amanzimtoti 23 December 1985. Ok it was not on an aircraft but I bet You get the message right!And I was in Regent's Park 20/7/82. So what ? it was not on an aircraft.

It is interesting none of you asked why he didn't turn back? I would bet with you it had something to do with dumping the fuel. Now that is very likely to be insigated from up the food chain. Carry on thinking if these guys are starting to make this kind of call because they are afraid the bosses will scream blue bloody murder if they dump - then what other kind of risks are being taken that we cannot see and will only hear about when we are left picking up the pieces.

Call me paranoid but I would have prefered him to check that before heading over the atlantic with a potentcial death threat.

Fortunately I don't have to fly these charter / holiday outfits.

By the way Wally Bird did you find a piece of metal the size of a dinner plate in the pole directly infront of your head, did you have to go to hospital to have the glass removed from your body and did you sit hold trying to press offf the bleeding of a 5 year old who had his leg blown off only to basically have him die under your hands by the time help comes???

When you have seen the kind of damage a building sustains during a blast and if you understand that a planes body is under pressure as it is you can start to understand why a plane in the air has absolutely no way of surving a blast.

The pilot must have been sure that it was a hoax - because as you correctly point out, most planes will not survive a blast at altitude (although the recent QF incident does suggest that it is not as clear-cut as that), so he was likely to die if he got it wrong.

So - fear of getting a bollocking, versus risk of death? I think of more concern would be the fact that if he got it wrong he would be dead. And yet despite that, he went anyway. And circumstances showed he made the correct decision.

It was a charter flight. Historically, the number of terrorists incidents involving charter flights has been virtually nil (I'll say virtually because I bet there is one somewhere I don't know about!). The number of terrorist incidents involving UK charter flights is definitely nil. The perceived risk to charter flights is considered to be very low.

WHBM hinted at the fact that we've had a pretty long experience of terrorism in the UK. Part of that means we've had to learn to assess the risks, or let the terrorists have a real impact on our lives - so we don't just go 'IT'S A BOMB!!! IT'S A BOMB!!!!' when someone raises the possibility that there might be a bomb. It's why the IRA had to use code words when giving phone warnings - it let us identify the genuine threats from the hoaxes....

And if he had turned back someone would be on here whining about it....

You know it's true....;)

It's why the IRA had to use code words when giving phone warnings - it let us identify the genuine threats from the hoaxes....

Now they were the gentlemen of terror. ;)

By the way Wally Bird did you find... yadda, yadda I have no intention of swapping "war stories" with you mainly because, as pointed out, they are irrelevant.

The pilot determined there was no bomb after assessing the situation. He may have consulted others to confirm his determination.

He was correct.

End of story.

A hearty Well Done! to the pilot. ^

The pilot must have been sure that it was a hoax - because as you correctly point out, most planes will not survive a blast at altitude (although the recent QF incident does suggest that it is not as clear-cut as that)

A simple rupture of the pressure vessel is not going to take down an aircraft. Witness Aloha Airlines Flight 243 where the entire top of the fuselage ripped clean away yet the aircraft remained controllable and landed safely.

He can fly me any day ^

Phone call or note = no bomb. Bomb = no warning. Get it now ?

This kind of logic, though true, carries risk if followed.

airline X, flight 1, no bomb threat, must evacuate!
airline X, flight 2, also no bomb threat, must evacuate! :p

An AA manual said that in Latin America, late passengers will call a bomb threat. If so, safe to go! No need to delay or evacuate!

[QUOTE=WHBM;10164345]This is Britain. We don't start running round like headless chickens waving our arms and shouting "Oooooh, Al Qaeda" whenever someone shows ID with a date which expired last week, and we also know how to assess the relative risks of situations professionally. As was done here.

.[/QUOT

Right. How long were laptops restricted from flights in GB?

Is anyone thinking of the note-passer? This reminds me of a Woody Allen film, where the bank tellers can't read his note informing them he is sticking-up the place. He keeps telling them the note says he has a gun, but they keep saying no, it says "gub" (or something of that sort)

How deflating to get a "yeah, whatever" attitude after passing your threatening note.

Anyone know what he was charged with? No respect? Being an idiot and causing undue stress and aggravation?

I missed a bomb once because I was late, and also been locked down and evacuated from threats. I cannot begin to imagine the fear of being in the air during this.

The "bomb" aboard notes were found after 20 minutes in flight. So why search the plane upon arrival some 8 1/2 hours later? Obviously because rational authorities there felt that there was a real threat. If one passenger had had chest pains 20 minutes after departure they would have diverted. Here we have a written threat to the entire 290 persons on board and continue on. Just because the crew made a lucky guess doesn't excuse their poor judgment.

Just because the crew made a lucky guess doesn't excuse their poor judgment.It wasn't a guess.

How long were laptops restricted from flights in GB?I don't ever remember them being restricted.

the recent QF incident does suggest that it is not as clear-cut as thatA professional analysis of the explosion of the oxygen cylinder on the Qantas aircraft was it detonated with the same force as 8 kg (16 lbs) of high explosive. Now who could get 8kg through security ? Or dissolve it in one bogus liquor bottle ? And those oxygen cylinders were mounted against the fuselage. It really does put the lie to the old story that any small explosion on a pressurised aircraft would disable it.

I don't ever remember them being restricted.

A professional analysis of the explosion of the oxygen cylinder on the Qantas aircraft was it detonated with the same force as 8 kg (16 lbs) of high explosive. Now who could get 8kg through security ? Or dissolve it in one bogus liquor bottle ? And those oxygen cylinders were mounted against the fuselage. It really does put the lie to the old story that any small explosion on a pressurised aircraft would disable it.

Did anyone see the MythBusters episode where they tried to blow open a scuba tank with a rifle shot? Like the final scene in Jaws with the exploding shark?

They rigged up a remote-controlled rifle in a metal shipping container and put an aluminum scuba tank filled with 80 cubic liters of air at 3,000 psi in front of it.

The first shot went through the bottom of the tank and sent the cylinder careening around like an out of control rocket.

The second shot on a new tank went through the side and had the same effect with sending the tank on a wild ride.

Then they had an FBI explosives expert wire up a 1/4 pound of C4 and blew the crap out of the tank.

Their conclusion, and the FBI's past experience, shows that it's almost impossible for a compressed air cylinder to explode.

The Qantas scenario had something to do with a damaged valve stem, which most likely sent the air tank careening around in the hold, before rocketing out the aircraft's side.