Airliner brought down by bottle of water

[mikea]

Notice which end of the plane they're showing.

An AirTran flight from Atlanta to New York’s LaGuardia Airport made an emergency landing in Charlotte on Tuesday night after a flight attendant noticed that a passenger had a bottle of water.

http://www.11alive.com/news/news_article.aspx?storyid=83684

You can't make this stuff up.

 

[SkyHog]

Good God. I am so glad I'm a pilot and I fly GA.

 

[Handsfield]

Here is a relevant link, to the Canadian magazine McLeans, sort of Canada's Time magazine: http://www.macleans.ca/topstories/world/article.jsp?content=20060828_132152_132152

Here is a quote from the article. The Mark Salter quoted is my son-in-law, by the way.

Trying to counter all the ways terrorists could strike -- surgically inserting explosives into their bodies was one possibility raised in the Irish press last week -- is a losing proposition, says Mark Salter, an expert in aviation security at the University of Ottawa. "I don't think we want to chase our own nightmares. We'd only end up restricting our freedom of mobility so much that we wouldn't be able to travel anywhere." Salter says the agencies charged with screening passengers and luggage, like the Canadian Air Transport Security Authority (CATSA), have done a decent job since Sept. 11. At some point, everyone involved -- governments, airlines and passengers -- will have to come to grips with the fact that there is no such thing as risk-free flying. "When you reach the limits of the system's capacity to prevent attacks, I think you have to start telling the public how to protect themselves," says Salter.

Hunter

 

[SkyHog]

**Massive Intelligence**
Hunter

What a concept. Sigh.

 

[Richard]

"When you reach the limits of the system's capacity to prevent attacks, I think you have to start telling the public how to protect themselves," says Salter.

Hunter

I vote for airline-issued sidearms to random pax just before time of boarding.

 

[Dave Krall CFII]

Here is a relevant link, to the Canadian magazine McLeans, sort of Canada's Time magazine: http://www.macleans.ca/topstories/world/article.jsp?content=20060828_132152_132152

At some point, everyone involved -- governments, airlines and passengers -- will have to come to grips with the fact that there is no such thing as risk-free flying. "When you reach the limits of the system's capacity to prevent attacks, I think you have to start telling the public how to protect themselves," says Salter.

Hunter

Not a bad article, too bad it's not in TIME...
when it is, then we'll make some real progress.

 

[Dan Smith]

I vote for airline-issued sidearms to random pax just before time of boarding.

They can't be squirt guns, though; that would be too dangerous.

 

[ScottM]

They can't be squirt guns, though; that would be too dangerous.

Squirt guns are ok as long as they do not have any liquid in them

 

[wsuffa]

Mike, there's been a BUNCH of them.

The best one was Midwest in Milwaukee where the FA spotted a guy with a dirnk, they turned the plane around and went back to the gate, and it was subsequently determined that the TSA agents had let the guy take a bottle of water on the plane to take medication that he had to take. He was allowed back on the plane, and it left about an hour late.

Similar stuff has happened on American, United, NW, and other airlines.

This is one reason that I'm reconsidering whether to sell the plane this fall.

 

[woodstock]

if we held car companies to the same standards we hold airlines, no one would be able to afford a vehicle.

I mean, those race car drivers usually survive some pretty darn spectacular crashes - why can't they make passenger cars like that? and require helmets and 5 point harnesses and so on.

how many people died in commercial flight in the US in the past 5 yrs... versus how many people died on the roads? and do you see the same outcry?

 

[Anthony]

how many people died in commercial flight in the US in the past 5 yrs... versus how many people died on the roads? and do you see the same outcry?

I use this argument with people all the time who call me crazy for flying my own plane. While GA is more dangerous than the airlines, I don't see all the hoopla over the 50K road fatalities we have each year. One little airplane has a forced landing and its big news, evne if nobody is hurt. Drives me nuts.

 

[fgcason]

Squirt guns are ok as long as they do not have any liquid in them

So...If the passenger pees into the squirt gun to load it, does that qualify as a deadly weapon?

I'm just waiting for them to ban fuel since it is a known volatile liquid. Maybe they should arrest the refueling crews for deliberately loading the plane with a deadly liquid.

I wonder what El Al has to say about all this.

GA is the only way to go. You can carry your own gun, water and scissors if you want with no hassles.

 

[Frank Browne]

Squirt guns are ok as long as they do not have any liquid in them

I'd like to see someone try to get an unloaded squirt gun onto an airliner without getting grief.

 

[mikea]

So...If the passenger pees into the squirt gun to load it, does that qualify as a deadly weapon?

I'm just waiting for them to ban fuel since it is a known volatile liquid. Maybe they should arrest the refueling crews for deliberately loading the plane with a deadly liquid.

I wonder what El Al has to say about all this.

GA is the only way to go. You can carry your own gun, water and scissors if you want with no hassles.

Except they're flapping jaws to put a stop to that.

Remember that Chicago would search your plane at Meigs to make sure you didn't have any weapons that would allow you to overpower you and take control of the plane you were controlling. That, and handguns are banned in Chicago. Chicago never has any handgun violence.

 

[wsuffa]

I'd like to see someone try to get an unloaded squirt gun onto an airliner without getting grief.

Permitted items:

Toy Weapons - if not realistic replicas.
--------------------------

http://www.tsa.gov/travelers/airtravel/prohibited/permitted-prohibited-items.shtm

--------------------------

Toy weapons = good.
Water = bad.

Ask for bottle of water on-board, and fill squirt gun.

 

[flyersfan31]

I don't know whether to laugh or cry. A bottle of water?

My wife had to travel to Canada yesterday for business. Life is good for her though -- car and driver to KPHL, flew in company G-V to Toronto, customs comes to you on the tarmac -- what's not to like? Plenty of water bottles on board, too.

She's obviously starting to pay attention to aviation. In the past I'd ask her what kind of plane she flew on and her answer would be "I think it was some kind of jet."

 

[4CornerFlyer]

Seems to me it was the captain of that Air-Tran flight who had his head up his ass. I might expect such tomfoolery from the imbecilic reactionaries who staff airport security, but the captain was the one who decided to turn the plane around. Would any of us have made the same decision? Might he have simply poured the water down the drain? Or asked the passenger to drink it? Ridiculous!
Jon

 

[wsuffa]

In today's idiocy is this:

Ford Airport evacuated for an hour

Updated: Aug 22, 2006 07:36 PM PDT

KENT COUNTY-- The Gerald R. Ford airport was evacuated Tuesday afternoon after a woman got past security.

Around 4:15, the woman was running late and got past a distracted security screener.

The passenger realized she had not been screened and told TSA she had been missed.

Since 15 minutes had passed, TSA decided to evacuate an entire concourse and screen everyone again.

That took about an hour, delaying two Chicago-bound flights, one for half an hour, the other for 54 minutes.

John Mumma, TSA security director at the Ford airport, says that the incident is a good reminder for his organization and will be reviewed for training purposes.

(Original on WOOD-TV website).
-------------------
Or this:

British Muslim pilot forced to leave plane

MANCHESTER, England, Aug. 22 (UPI) -- A British Muslim airline pilot flying out of Manchester as a passenger said he was "demoralized" when he was forced to leave the plane.

Amar Ashraf, who was born in Britain, said he believes he was forced off the Continental Airlines flight, which was headed for Newark, N.J., Monday because he has a "Muslim-sounding name," The Independent reported Tuesday.

"I got out of my seat and noticed the aircraft door was open and the stairs had been moved back to the door. The stewardess told me there were no standby employees allowed to fly that day, but I was sure there were other standby passengers on board the plane. I was demoralized and I had to walk down the stairs, which was really humiliating," he said.

Ashraf said he was interrogated by two armed police officers who asked if he knew why the U.S. government ordered him off the flight.

The pilot, who works for one of Continental's partner airlines, said he plans to file a formal complaint with Continental

http://www.upi.com/NewsTrack/view.php?StoryID=20060822-022534-8171r

------------------------
And finally, what happens when you make passengers dump every contraband item in a big barrel before security?
http://www.startribune.com/467/story/629345.html

------------------------

"Attention, Attention, Common Sense has left the building!!!"

 

[Arnold]

Seems to me it was the captain of that Air-Tran flight who had his head up his ass. I might expect such tomfoolery from the imbecilic reactionaries who staff airport security, but the captain was the one who decided to turn the plane around. Would any of us have made the same decision? Might he have simply poured the water down the drain? Or asked the passenger to drink it? Ridiculous!
Jon

So long as the item is banned as a hazard to the safety of flight, then I can't see where the Capt. has much of a choice.

Let's assume for the moment that the Capt. made a reasonable investigation, determined that the water was really H2O and nothing bad happened on the flight. FA writes in her usual post flight report to the management that she brought this to the CA's attention and that it was a non event, she's got to report it since the pax might complain about the way she treated him so she really has no choice but to put it in her report. Mgt says Wait up there, you brought this to the CA's attention and he did not do anything?

Next thing you know CA is sitting in Chief Pilot's office and his file (before we even start the meeting) shows he's been removed from flight status and is being investigated for a security lapse. (If nothing else happens this will stick with him the remainder of his career).

CP = Chief Pilot
CA = Captain

CP - So CA tell me about flight nnn.
CA - Not much to tell we flew from ATL to LGA.
CP - During the flight did the FA bring to your attention that a bottle of liquid was in the possession of a passenger and had not been distributed by her?
CA - yes she said the guy had a bottle of water he brought on.
CP - what did you do?
CA - I sent the FO back to talk to the pax and see what was up.
CP - and what did he say?
CP - FO said it was a bottle of water, the pax had taken a drink from it while FO watched. The Pax was an average middle aged white guy, slightly over weight and he was travelling from ATL to LGA for a company meeting. Seemed to be it was a harmless security error so I flew on.
CP - Did you notify anybody on the ground that there was an unapproved bottle of liquid on the aircraft?
CA - No
CP - Did you confiscate the bottle?
CA - No
CP - Did you send an ACARS message to dispatch with this information?
CA - No
CP - Did you file an incident report after you landed?
CA - No
CP - Captain you are being suspended for one month without pay for violating the operations manual. I will be issuing a formal letter to you by the end of the week. Please leave your ID with me and when you are back on the payroll you can come to the ticket counter and I will bring it out to you.
CA - What sections of the ops manual did I violate?
CP - First, the ops manual in section xx-xx says that the CA will assure that all security procedures are followed at all times. Since water is a banned substance, you did not comply with that section. Second, the ops manual says that the CA will report any unusual or abnormal occurances at the end of each flight. You did not do that. Third, the ops manual says that no crewmember can leave his station except for physiological needs, or safety of the flight. You sent your FO into a potentially dangerous situation, so you violated that section (by the way its an FAR as well). Fourth the ops manual says that as Captain you will exercise good judgment at all times. WE believe that your failure to declare an emergency and land at the nearest suitable airport was very bad judgment and we may at the end of the suspension demote you to FO, we haven't decided on that one yet.

------------------------------------

That is what happens with a non event, imagine the witch hunt when pilots acutally make mistakes.

No the Captain doesn't have much of a choice in these situations.

-------------------------------------
Also, don't forget the TSA, they might decide that the CA was a security risk simply because he failed to respond to what they perceive as a security risk. This can really get ugly!

 

[wsuffa]

One of the best articles I've seen. This should be required reading by all Americans.

http://www.wired.com/news/columns/0,71642-0.html

 

[flyersfan31]

I've been thinking that Osama must enjoy at least a chuckle when he hears about such things. They really are succeeding in spreading terror - whether they actually pull off any stunts or not. Heck, it would be cheaper and easier for Osama and his buddies just to float ludicrous rumors of attacks-to-come to cause more consternation. "We're going to slip explosives into bags of M&M's" "Tickle-Me Elmo dolls filled with stolen Russian nuclear material are all wired to explode simultaneously on October 1st" "There is a plot to fill aircraft tires with explosive hydrogen" They don't have to do it, they don't even have to intend to do it, they just have to threaten and watch us jump like scared bunny rabbits.

This country has lost ALL sense of perspective and proportionality. Whether it's expelling 6yr olds for bringing advil to school or diverting flights due to a water bottle, the stories are getting sillier and sillier.

 

[Everskyward]

I flew on an airline today and after the doors were shut and we were already taxiing there was an announcement that if we had bought a drink on the concourse and brought it on the plane with us to please leave it in our bags. I'm sure they didn't want to turn back because someone brought out a bottle of water. Out of sight, out of mind, LOL.

Really, the screening didn't seem any different today than it was last month or last year with the exception that were many PA announcements about not bringing liquids. The whole boarding process seemed to go much faster even though it was a full plane because there weren't nearly as many people struggling to stuff carry-ons in the overhead.

 

[tom.]

Notice which end of the plane they're showing.



You can't make this stuff up.

OMG, "the water bearing passenger was allowed to re-board the flight". Talk about living on the edge!

I liked when they interviewed the pax after F-16s escorted a flight and they said they felt safe when the fighters arrived.

 

[Anthony]

I liked when they interviewed the pax after F-16s escorted a flight and they said they felt safe when the fighters arrived.

Yeah, the fighters are there to shoot the airliner down, not protect them from marauding MiGs. Duh....

 

[4CornerFlyer]

Okay, I understand the pressures airline pilots are under, and that airline management practices are arbitrary and devoid of common sense. Furthermore, I understand how precarious an airline career is now. However, if your argument is that pilots should not use their judgement but simply do everything as it says in the book, then you're making a good argument for replacing human pilots with robots. I thought the whole case for experienced pilots is that they are capable of making decisions in unusual circumstances.

We don't have any information on his decsion tree in this case, only that an airline captain chose to land an aircraft unexpectedly, because someone had a bottle of water. With the limited information available, this decision still seems ridiculous to me.

A while back there was a long thread on the 747 that lost an engine (1 of 4) on departure from LA, and that captain chose to continue to England on three engines. Opinions on this board were divided as to whether he did the right thing, but in the end it was a judgement call, and the captin was proven wrong when the plane had to land short of its destination. I would dare say that an engine failure, even on a 747, presents a more significant hazard than a bottle of water.

If you agree with this pilot, be prepared for hundreds more such incidents. The TSA misses a certain percentage of guns, knives and bombs, and most recently dynamite, in their screening as it is. Presumably they will miss a corresponding percentage of toothpaste, water, deodorant and shampoo. Is it really your contention that a plane shpould be immediately landed whenever one of these items is discovered, no matter how innocuous it seems to the professionals on board the aircraft?


Jon

 

[Arnold]

Okay, I understand the pressures airline pilots are under, and that airline management practices are arbitrary and devoid of common sense. Furthermore, I understand how precarious an airline career is now. However, if your argument is that pilots should not use their judgement but simply do everything as it says in the book, then you're making a good argument for replacing human pilots with robots. I thought the whole case for experienced pilots is that they are capable of making decisions in unusual circumstances.

We don't have any information on his decsion tree in this case, only that an airline captain chose to land an aircraft unexpectedly, because someone had a bottle of water. With the limited information available, this decision still seems ridiculous to me.

A while back there was a long thread on the 747 that lost an engine (1 of 4) on departure from LA, and that captain chose to continue to England on three engines. Opinions on this board were divided as to whether he did the right thing, but in the end it was a judgement call, and the captin was proven wrong when the plane had to land short of its destination. I would dare say that an engine failure, even on a 747, presents a more significant hazard than a bottle of water.

If you agree with this pilot, be prepared for hundreds more such incidents. The TSA misses a certain percentage of guns, knives and bombs, and most recently dynamite, in their screening as it is. Presumably they will miss a corresponding percentage of toothpaste, water, deodorant and shampoo. Is it really your contention that a plane shpould be immediately landed whenever one of these items is discovered, no matter how innocuous it seems to the professionals on board the aircraft?


Jon

Jon, I understand your position, it does seem counter intuituve that the pilots with the most experience and training are afforded the least discretion - I've made the same arguments about judges and mandatory sentencing regimes.

However, the ability to apply the rules and manage the task safely and efficiently is a key part of any professional job. The airline pilot is doing his job correctly when s/he is in the middle of the flight envelope, not at the edges, some fighter jocks would call this boring - oh well. A good flight is one that is on time, enjoyed the pax and where no mistakes were made, in other words, the satisfaction is a job well done, not incredible obstacles overcome.

The airline pilot is expected to give the paying passenger a safe, efficient trip. They are expected to take in stride the flight conditions that are the subject of endless discussions on web boards such as this. Wx at mins, icing, thunderstorms, crew member fatigue, maintenance irregularities, passenger health issues, ATC and its often conflicting priorities, plus company management's single minded focus on profits, crew member conflicts, dispatcher priorities that are not the same as his (why do you want more fuel? I gave you legal minimums.Why do you want to delay/re-route/cancel the flight - the pilot before you did <fill in the blank>). But that is just all in a days work. The fun begins when you get a scenario you have never seen before and you must make a decision that is NOT in the book. The decisions the book tells you the answer to are not decisions, they require no judgment, just a good memory and good page turning skills. Examples of non-book scenarios included Al Haynes and then zen of DC-10 flying, Aloha flight crew, and the joys of top down aviating, etc. There is not always a creative solution readily available, there is rarely a situation that requires true creative thought. That is why airline flying is regarded as hours of boredom, punctuated by moments of sheer terror. The saying is trite, but at least the first half is true.

You are not wrong, it does seem that professional pilots are overly constrained, but in the end it is what works best and is a big part of why airline travel is extraordinarily safe -- and a big part of why amateur flown GA flying is not so safe.

Again, I'm not trying to make you wrong, I'm just trying to let you know why it works the way it does.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

company management's single minded focus on profits

Arnold, I would think that the pilot would be in bigger trouble for wasting tens of thousands of dollars on fuel by diverting rather than having the "risky" water consumed, poured down the drain, etc. so it wasn't a "risk" any more, wouldn't he?

 

[wsuffa]

This editorial column sums it up:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14569998/site/newsweek/

 

[jshawley]

We have lost. bin Laden won, at least in spirit. He successfully "terrorized" the federal government, enough so that yes, it is more like being processed into a prison when trying to board an aircraft. Sigh...