An article I stumbled on should help illustrate the point.

Ummmmm.... shoot the a/c out of the sky if it's determined it has been compromised? Before it could kill thousands of innocent on the ground, or in a tall building? :rolleyes:

I think we've been over this in this very thread already... but does ANYONE honestly believe planes are going to be hijacked and turned into guided missiles anymore?

United 93 alone should prove that incorrect. And with the reinforced cockpit doors, policies not to give in to hijacker threats, pax themselves ready to subdue and attack potential hijackers... well, a plane being rammed into a tall building isn't going to happen.

One question-where is it stated that this was done on the runway? All airports have areas on the tarmac that are specifically designated for emergency situations so there is minimal disruption to airport operations. I HIGHLY doubt that the baggage search and the pax offloaded on the runway.

Wow, Spiff, no offense here, but I hope you are never in the position of having hundreds of passengers lives in your hands. I can't even imagine how the captain felt having to make the descision to declare an emergency after everything that's happened this past week. NObody here knows the whole story, so I ask that people not judge too harshly.

I haven't seen mention in the stories to that effect, but it was stated in post #31 in this thread that photos indicated the evacuation, etc. took place on the runway, so for whatever weird reason, it would seem they closed the runway rather than taxi the plane elsewhere.

Well, then, you'd be mistaken. The live TV coverage of the episode clearly showed the airplane and hundreds of suitcases on a runway.

I'm guessing that it was a shorter, less used runway, but it was a runway.

Here's a photo of the airplane on a runway, with passengers disembarking and walking:

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/17/us...=1&oref=slogin

Looks like 15R, but I'm not certain.

Ummmmm... shooting the a/c out of the sky certainly kills all on board the plane. It's far less certain how many people on the ground, or in a tall building, another military shootdown of a civilian passenger jet saves. And if lives on the ground or in a building was the issue, then why bring the plane to BOS vs going elsewhere? :rolleyes:

The crew and other "authorities" didn't exhibit the best of judgment if saving lives on the ground was the primary concern. (It is self-evident here that saving lives on the ground wasn't the primary concern or the decision to go to BOS reflects poor judgment -- or both of those.) Seems like paranoia taking deeper root and/or an exhibition of poor judgment. Locking down the nutty passenger and continuing on to IAD would have been no less sensible than diverting to BOS. Of course, then there'd be less of a media spotlight to continue the frenzy and further fuel the paranoia.

Okay, I was being a bit sarcastic in response, and of course shooting down the airplane kills all the innocent souls on board. Unfortunately, that is the response that this govt/military are willing to make to prevent another 911. I'm not defending it, but thats the world we live in . If the captain declares a security emergency, fighter jets are usually dispatched to escort the a/c.(It happens a lot more than most people think)

Again, none of us know EXACTLY what transpired onboard that a/c, so I don't think any of us should judge too harshly what decisions were made (hindsight 20/20, etc.), espiacially since everyone survived. Yes, being divirted is always an inconvience, and it is never a decision taken lightly by the crew. Keep in mind, every decision is made w/ your safety in mind.

Runway 15 Right, if I recall - the plane itself was right on the giant zebra stripes , right next to the huge R 15 marking.

It was a runway, alright - beautifully staged.

:rolleyes:

Too bad many people have a completely different idea of what constitutes "safety" from reality.

None taken. :)

There have been way too many instances of people, including airline pilots, overreacting in the name of "security" or "out of an abundance of caution", etc.

I submit that this was yet again one of these instances and too often the person making the poor decision/overreaction is not reprimanded or retrained - they are congratulated for panicing. :( Case in point, today's mindless terminal dump in West Virginia.

If you believe the US Attorney, it seems the crew was really quite restrained. They didn't even handcuff her until 35 minutes after the captain decided she was a threat to the aircraft and diverted to BOS. If she really did everything that's in the affidavit, I would have supported the crew handcuffing her 90 minutes into the flight when she pulled her first stunt.

It appears that she spoke to the FO and the Capitan. I hope UA has three pilots on the flight and they chose to visit with her while they were on crew rest.

This misses the situation entirely. The Captain has responsibility for souls on board as well as to people and property on land. There is a judgment call as to what the situation warrants. If the Captain believes that the situation on board poses a greater threat on the ground than to the people inside (self included), they would need to do something other than take it to any metro-area airport. This clearly wasn't the judgment in this case.

The next judgment call is whether the situation on board warrants a diversion from normal route (whether this is for security or otherwise). The biggest concern the captain would have had in this situation is whether the amount of disturbance on board because of thie actions of this woman warrants a diversion. A diversion is the right thing to do if the ability of the flight crew to handle emergencies (including security issues) is compromised because of this situation. This includes handling of any non-terrorism-related emergency stuation that might arise, effect on the rest of the passengers for the duration of the flight, as well as possible security risks due to pre-occupation with this woman. The SOP in such cases long before 9/11 has been to divert when you have unruly or distraught passengers so as not to endanger people on board. Locking up people in bathrooms is usually not SOP for various reasons including significant liability.

Under these circumstances, if the PR put out by AG is accurate, the diversions seems to have been the right thing to do basically to reduce the amount of time in the air wth the situation in hand.

You are certainly entitled to your opinion that this was a paranoid reaction, of course but I think such an allegation in this case only strengthens the argument of those that condone every level of paranoia and encroachment of civil rights in the name of security dismissing objectors like you as being out of touch with reality.

Pick the right battles.

FYI, since it's at the end of 15R then it obviously landed on 33L (designation in other direction). According to the Massport website 18% of arrivals occur on 33L. But the takeoffs for 15R are something like 1 or 2%.

When the plane is parked right at the end like that is it safe to land on 33L?(Probably not as a precaution but it would be an out of control landing if it uses the entire runway down to the zebra of the other end.)

Also why isn't the runway designated 15-33 when there is no 15L-33R according to the list of runways?