Jeez, has it gotten so bad that you really need a smiley on a post like that? OK, here's a few:

:rolleyes: :D :p :)

Couldn't they have flown the extra hour and landed in IAD to avoid all the hassle?

They could have but then the headlines wouldn't have been so big.

If that happened, fewer of the paranoid "terrorist-behind-every-tree" crowd would be able to say (in an Annie Jacobsen voice): "See, they're doing dry runs for a big terrorist attack." :rolleyes:

To which specific post are you referring?? :confused:

^ ^ ^

A show of force was needed to reinforce who is in charge.

Great plan: Terrify some poor souls and then use their natural reaction to justify police state tactics.

Not a single action in the past few days has enhanced security.

Wouldn't it be a good idea for someone who's that claustrophobic to: 1) be medically diagnosed; and 2) alert the crew before takeoff? TG I'm slightly agoraphobic. I only put up a fuss when I have to get *off* the plane onto the tarmac.

Reuters:

Huh?

;) Good one

Update 3 from Bloomberg

"Two F-15 fighter jets escorted the plane to Logan, said Master Sergeant Anthony Hill, a spokesman for North American Aerospace Defense Command. The jets, which were based at Otis Air National Guard Base in Cape Cod, Massachusetts, accompanied the plane in case there were terrorists on board, he said.

United Flight 923 left London at 7:59 a.m. this morning (2:59 a.m. New York time) and was scheduled to arrive at Dulles at 11:10 a.m. New York time. The pilot declared ``a security emergency'' and decided at 9:30 a.m. to divert the aircraft to Boston after consulting air traffic controllers, United spokesman Brandon Borrman said.
...
Hill said the military learned that the flight was being diverted to Boston by listening in on the pilot's communications via the so-called Domestic Events Network system, which links the Pentagon and the U.S. Federal Aviation Administration. "

Indeed. As I write (late evening BST) UK TV news programmes are still running "TERROR!!!" stories. Frankly, it's shameful.
I may be going out on a limb here, but some posters have postulated theories along the lines of a couple of rednecks hassling an ethnic minority granny, with said granny then having a panic attack, exacerbated by her claustrophobia.

What if that were the case and the crew chose to divert so as to minimise what they saw as a real danger to the granny? Perhaps they'd all seen that episode of CSI where the (FC) pax on a (domestic) flight beat anoter pax to death for acting wierd.

Of course, none of this explains the escort. And in any event, we're working off limited, unreliable information. That doesn't mean we won't come up with useful insights - cf "Dreamers Fithp" (Footfall: Niven & Pournelle).

That explanation wouldn't hold water given state and federal law enforcement was called in and she is being charged or threatened with being charged with interference with a flight crew. She wasn't rushed to the hospital. She was rushed over to law enforcement custody.

I have not seen anything to indicate that [up to 3 books of] matches are forbidden?
The hand cream, however, would be.

Interesting, as always, to read the comments made in these forums by the Monday Morning Quarterbacks. Once again, it's all about context and perspective:

1. The flight departed out of London which, in case you haven't noticed, is Ground Zero for this latest terrorist plot. So, of course, the pilots, crew members and authorities are going to be extra sensitive to anything that is remotely suspicious or out-of-the-ordinary on these flights.

2. I don't have any additional insights into the response procedures. However, I assume that because of the slow military response on 9/11, military aircraft are specifically on call to respond as soon as there's any sign of trouble. I don't know what was transmitted or how information was conveyed, but I presume the conventional wisdom was to get the fighters airborne and then recall them if not needed than to wait until a definite need was confirmed before sending them up. To reasonable people, this should make sense.

3. While relying on the media to account for what happened, I think we can safely assume that the flight crew acted professionally and handled this matter accordingly. While the media and overanxious worry warts on the ground were speculating about what was going on in the aircraft, I think what we'll find out is that the crew members had everything under control but followed very specific procedures detailed for flights originating out of the UK.

Had this been on a different flight, say from New Orleans to Atlanta, then perhaps we would be right in expecting a different response. But this flight did originate from London and was flying into Washington DC. It fit the parameters for what the bad guys were trying to do.

Wouldn't the presence of LEOs be SOP regardless? And do we have any reason to believe that she is being charged other than reports via already discredited media sources?
Well put as always Bart. That said, I'm still a little wary of assuming that the granny is, in fact, the focus of the investigation.