Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
AA Terminal Evacuated At JFK  
User currently offlinePlateMan From United States of America, joined May 2007, 923 posts, RR: 0
Posted (7 years 5 months 3 weeks 5 days ago) and read 15557 times:

Suspicious package found and terminal fully evacuated, Newsday reports. NYPD Bomb Squad in route to the scene.

http://www.newsday.com/news/local/ne...550474.story?coll=ny-top-headlines

Maybe just over-cautious, but they need to be at a time like this

[Edited 2007-07-01 17:36:54]


"Explore. Dream. Discover." -Mark Twain
79 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineRoseFlyer From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 9820 posts, RR: 52
Reply 1, posted (7 years 5 months 3 weeks 5 days ago) and read 15523 times:

I saw that on MSNBC this morning. They are letting people back in the terminal now. They are being extra precautious after the Glasgow incident.

[Edited 2007-07-01 17:40:12]


If you have never designed an airplane part before, let the real designers do the work!
User currently offlineJGPH1A From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 2, posted (7 years 5 months 3 weeks 5 days ago) and read 15523 times:

Quoting PlateMan (Thread starter):
Maybe just over-cautious, but they need to be at a time like this

Or they could just check the package first before overreacting massively.


User currently offlineThorben From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 3, posted (7 years 5 months 3 weeks 5 days ago) and read 15479 times:

Quoting PlateMan (Thread starter):
Maybe just over-cautious, but they need to be at a time like this

Probably the usual paranoia following events in other places. However, who would take the risk of not reacting?

In the long run people will have to ask themselves for how long they are willing to live with thing like this.


User currently offlineIkramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21583 posts, RR: 59
Reply 4, posted (7 years 5 months 3 weeks 5 days ago) and read 15430 times:

Quoting JGPH1A (Reply 2):
Or they could just check the package first before overreacting massively.

where's the fun in that?

move people away from the area, but why the whole terminal? how big was this "package" to evacuate a whole terminal. silliness...



Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
User currently offlineYYZatcboy From Canada, joined Apr 2005, 1093 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (7 years 5 months 3 weeks 5 days ago) and read 15431 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
CUSTOMER SERVICE & SUPPORT

Just heard on the radio here. Yikes.


DHC1/3/4 MD11/88 L1011 A319/20/21/30 B727 735/6/7/8/9 762/3 E175/90 CRJ/700/705 CC150. J/S DH8D 736/7/8
User currently offlineThorben From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 6, posted (7 years 5 months 3 weeks 5 days ago) and read 15340 times:

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 4):
move people away from the area, but why the whole terminal? how big was this "package" to evacuate a whole terminal. silliness...

The thing is that one package might only do a limited damage, but there could always be more than one.


User currently offline747fan From United States of America, joined Jun 2007, 1191 posts, RR: 1
Reply 7, posted (7 years 5 months 3 weeks 5 days ago) and read 15340 times:

Man, JFK is sure getting on the news a lot lately, first there was the foiled terror attempt and now you have a terminal evacuation over a suspicious "bomb-like" package on the curb! At least there wasn't an attack like at Glasgow!

User currently offlinePlateMan From United States of America, joined May 2007, 923 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (7 years 5 months 3 weeks 5 days ago) and read 15341 times:

NY1 now reports that it is at terminal 9 and partial evacuation


"Explore. Dream. Discover." -Mark Twain
User currently offlineNYC2theworld From United States of America, joined Mar 2007, 666 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (7 years 5 months 3 weeks 5 days ago) and read 15305 times:

Quoting JGPH1A (Reply 2):
Or they could just check the package first before overreacting massively.

No. You disturb the package around and it goes off, and (whatever higher being you believe in,if you do) forbid someone gets hurt or even killed? Do you know the firestorm of blame game and lawsuits that will go on?? It makes much more prudent sense when your closest ally is being attacked in a similar manner to evac the terminal, then inspect the package. Loosing a building is a lot less expensive than loosing a innocent human being.

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 4):
move people away from the area, but why the whole terminal? how big was this "package" to evacuate a whole terminal. silliness...

In all seriousness, it doesn't matter how big the item in question is. C-4 plastic explosives pack a very mighty punch in a small package.



Always wonderers if this "last and final boarding call" is in fact THE last and final boarding call.
User currently offlineJGPH1A From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 10, posted (7 years 5 months 3 weeks 5 days ago) and read 15268 times:

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 4):
where's the fun in that?

I was at JFK T9 2 weeks ago, sitting at the gate, there was an empty couple of chairs next to me, and there was a backpack by the chair with no visible owner close by. It occurred to me that I should report it, but then I thought "Hold on, if I do, they'll evacuate the terminal, the plane will be late, I'll miss my connection, I'll never get home" - I weighed the odds of it belonging to someone who had just gone to the newstand across the hall versus the likelihood of the TSA throwing a complete wobbly and shutting down the whole of the East Coast, and sanity won. 10 minutes later, someone turned up and picked up the backpack. As it turns out the flight left 5 hours late anyway, because of a drop of rain falling somewhere near White Plains - so whichever way you turn it, someone will overreact and your flight will be late. Karma.


User currently offlineJGPH1A From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 11, posted (7 years 5 months 3 weeks 5 days ago) and read 15222 times:

Quoting NYC2theworld (Reply 9):
It makes much more prudent sense when your closest ally is being attacked in a similar manner to evac the terminal,

Not exactly similar - if there was a burning Jeep Cherokee on the curb at T9, by all means evacuate. 10-1 this was someones packed lunch.


User currently offlineTWISTEDWHISPER From Sweden, joined Aug 2003, 711 posts, RR: 2
Reply 12, posted (7 years 5 months 3 weeks 5 days ago) and read 15195 times:

Quoting PlateMan (Thread starter):

Maybe just over-cautious, but they need to be at a time like this

Maybe, but in the light of recent events in the UK, you never know...

Better safe than sorry, but I think it's too early to say if this was over-cautious or not. If the package was making a distinct tick-tock sound and smelled like almondcake, and then findings reveal that it was an old clock and infact an almond cake, then no, I don't think it was over-cautious.



Read between the lines.
User currently offlineTreeHillRavens From Malaysia, joined Jun 2007, 403 posts, RR: 1
Reply 13, posted (7 years 5 months 3 weeks 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 15112 times:

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 4):
move people away from the area, but why the whole terminal? how big was this "package" to evacuate a whole terminal. silliness...

Just to be safe. Better to be extra cautious than sorry.


User currently offlineJGPH1A From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 14, posted (7 years 5 months 3 weeks 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 15081 times:

Quoting TreeHillRavens (Reply 13):
Just to be safe. Better to be extra cautious than sorry.

Yes but how cautious before caution itself is causing greater disruption than the threat itself ? In theory we could all be so cautious that we never get out of bed - all of life involves some risk, so a balanced approach to mitigating risk is better than jumping at shadows.


User currently offlineMoo From Falkland Islands, joined May 2007, 4089 posts, RR: 4
Reply 15, posted (7 years 5 months 3 weeks 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 15044 times:

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 4):

move people away from the area, but why the whole terminal? how big was this "package" to evacuate a whole terminal. silliness...

Because terrorists are intelligent.

Place one visible package to force a movement of people through either discovery or detonation, then place other devices in the expected direction of movement away from the first package. Much higher casualty rates.

This has been used as a tactic more than once, and it will be used again because it works. So anti-terror activities have to deal with it.

An evacuation makes that movement controlled and you can force people to disperse to smaller crowds in different areas.


User currently offlineConfuscius From United States of America, joined Aug 2001, 3875 posts, RR: 1
Reply 16, posted (7 years 5 months 3 weeks 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 15010 times:

Did Rudy Guiliani disarmed the suspicious package?


Ain't I a stinker?
User currently offlineIkramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21583 posts, RR: 59
Reply 17, posted (7 years 5 months 3 weeks 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 14948 times:

Quoting Thorben (Reply 6):
The thing is that one package might only do a limited damage, but there could always be more than one.

Or there couldn't. The odds are that when a "suspicious package" is found, it's nothing. It's been nothing the hundreds of times in the past. COULD it be something? Sure. But the AA terminal at JFK is huge, and one small package can't destroy the whole thing, so why evacuate the entire place? Maybe they are worried about a poison or something, but even then... (read below)

Quoting Moo (Reply 15):
Because terrorists are intelligent.

But terrorists aren't so intelligent that they won't leave a backpack, force an evacuation, then set off a carbomb (or two) outside where thousands are standing? Or release a toxin?

This is a MUCH more realistic fear than the "one package in open view and many hidden" theory.



Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
User currently offlineZvezda From Lithuania, joined Aug 2004, 10511 posts, RR: 64
Reply 18, posted (7 years 5 months 3 weeks 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 14891 times:

Quoting JGPH1A (Reply 2):
Or they could just check the package first before overreacting massively.

Indeed. The airport police (especially at a place like JFK) should have a sniffer for detecting traces of nitrogen compounds that might be explosive.

Quoting JGPH1A (Reply 10):
I was at JFK T9 2 weeks ago, sitting at the gate, there was an empty couple of chairs next to me, and there was a backpack by the chair with no visible owner close by. It occurred to me that I should report it, but then I thought "Hold on, if I do, they'll evacuate the terminal, the plane will be late, I'll miss my connection, I'll never get home" - I weighed the odds of it belonging to someone who had just gone to the newstand across the hall versus the likelihood of the TSA throwing a complete wobbly and shutting down the whole of the East Coast, and sanity won. 10 minutes later, someone turned up and picked up the backpack.

This happens to me a couple of times a year. I wait some distance away where I can still see it and when the owner returns I explain why it's not a good idea to leave packages unattended in an airport. If the owner were to not return, I might report it to the purser after pushback. Given the practice of overreacting, closing terminals and delaying flights, I certainly would never report an abandoned package before being securely on my flight.

Quoting NYC2theworld (Reply 9):
C-4 plastic explosives pack a very mighty punch in a small package.

That's why C-4 is my favorite camp fuel. It only takes some shavings to boil water for coffee. 10 grams will boil all the water I need for a week in the bush. Better than carrying a kg of kerosene.


User currently offlineMoo From Falkland Islands, joined May 2007, 4089 posts, RR: 4
Reply 19, posted (7 years 5 months 3 weeks 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 14799 times:

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 17):

But terrorists aren't so intelligent that they won't leave a backpack, force an evacuation, then set off a carbomb (or two) outside where thousands are standing? Or release a toxin?

Thats the next fear - but you cant plan for every eventuality and every evacuation plan should not result in everyone being evacuated congregating in one place. Plus the congregation areas should be open and relatively unobstructed allowing for easier access and less chance of injuries from structural failures.

Toxins are too easy to get wrong.

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 17):

This is a MUCH more realistic fear than the "one package in open view and many hidden" theory.

Herding is a tactic used by the IRA before now on several occasions.

The Warrington bombing of 20th March 1993 involved the detonation of the first bomb at one end of a busy highstreet, forcing people to flee directly up the street into the second explosion. It was planned and carried out perfectly, unfortunately.


User currently offlineJGPH1A From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 20, posted (7 years 5 months 3 weeks 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 14799 times:

Quoting Confuscius (Reply 16):
Did Rudy Guiliani disarmed the suspicious package?

Shhhh - don't give away his secret identity !

Quoting Zvezda (Reply 18):
That's why C-4 is my favorite camp fuel. It only takes some shavings to boil water for coffee.

Remind me never to come for tea at your house  Smile



User currently offlineYYZatcboy From Canada, joined Apr 2005, 1093 posts, RR: 0
Reply 21, posted (7 years 5 months 3 weeks 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 14674 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
CUSTOMER SERVICE & SUPPORT

False Alarm. Just heard on the news.


DHC1/3/4 MD11/88 L1011 A319/20/21/30 B727 735/6/7/8/9 762/3 E175/90 CRJ/700/705 CC150. J/S DH8D 736/7/8
User currently offlineTPAnx From United States of America, joined Aug 2005, 1021 posts, RR: 0
Reply 22, posted (7 years 5 months 3 weeks 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 14638 times:

Quoting Zvezda (Reply 18):
, I certainly would never report an abandoned package before being securely on my flight.

Nice to see your concern for the safety of everyone else ...  Yeah sure
TPAnx



I read the news today..oh boy
User currently offline6YJJK From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 23, posted (7 years 5 months 3 weeks 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 14575 times:

Quoting JGPH1A (Reply 2):
Or they could just check the package first before overreacting massively.

Or better yet, do what the security guard in DOH did when I pointed out an unattended bag - give it a hefty kick!  wideeyed 

Some genius in one of the duty-free shops had decided that it would be a great idea to give away a free bag with every purchase of a certain whisky - the kind of free bag nobody actually wants. Apparently this was something like the third abandoned one in a couple of hours. Even so - and even if it's airside - at least let me get away from it before you kick it!


User currently offlineMir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 21866 posts, RR: 55
Reply 24, posted (7 years 5 months 3 weeks 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 14512 times:

Quoting YYZatcboy (Reply 21):
False Alarm. Just heard on the news.

I hope they'll be fining whoever left it the costs for the delays.

-Mir



7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
25 Zvezda : JGPH1A and I are being rational. If every unattended bag were immediately reported, every major airport in the world would close down several times p
26 TPAnx : Don't want to get into a p***ing match...but what your posts seem to say is: 1: God forbid that MY flight should be delayed... 2: You have the abilit
27 Bcoz : I'd rather be over-cautious and delayed rather than under-cautious and dead! bcoz
28 Zvezda : CYA. One can just stay in bed.
29 JGPH1A : Given the relatively likelihood of a flight delay (ie. absolute and definite) vs actually getting blown up (infinitesimal to the point of non-existen
30 TPAnx : Err..fine if you are the only person in the terminal at the time. But most likely, you're not. Huh? So how do the two of you feel if, as YOUR non-del
31 Bcoz : Others can correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe the number of full or partial terminal evacuations due to security concerns are relatively few and
32 JGPH1A : No I'm not, and I would imagine that a number of other observant citizens have observed the same thing and elected to do as I did. Maybe it is selfis
33 Indy : It is my belief that much of this is done for attention. Its like those signs that were posted in Boston that some clowns thought could be explosives.
34 EnviroTO : This now happens every time someone forgets a package, lunch bag, briefcase, etc somewhere. How are the authorities differentiating between a suspicio
35 TPAnx : Think the people who know the difference between reality and "shadows" should make the call..not someone who has to get home, or close the deal of a
36 Zvezda : That's because nearly everyone makes the rational decision to not report unattended packages.
37 Post contains images Mikey711MN : Obviously not by smelling it at first... Enjoy the delays at JFK this afternoon. You, sir, were not that far off after all...some chump just left his
38 RIXrat : In the non-event London bombing fiasco, that's exactly what the terrorists wanted to happen. According to what I have read, they wanted the Merc aroun
39 Tancrede : Overreacting! Fine for me, it is not my problem as I am not there, but over-mediatising the story, yes I do mind as it is only concerning a US airpor
40 Post contains images Ikramerica : Duty free cologne! They evacuated a terminal because of what was clearly duty free cologne? I stand corrected, because my belief this was an overreact
41 EXMEMWIDGET : Can you imagine the lawsuits if the package went off without the authorities clearing the terminal and people were hurt by it?
42 EA CO AS : And it's because of the mere possibility of that "1" that you evacuate. Everyone. Full stop.
43 Bcoz : First, as I mentioned before, it was in an unsecured area. That's not the same as me noticing that Mama Smith left Billy Smith's Winnie-the-Poo backp
44 N710PS : I am headded out on my high chariot for a few days and leaving for a local ny airport as we speak to commute. Hope things are well now though I am goi
45 Jonathan L : Actually, I think they're acting like idiots. This spooky "be afraid" mantra has well worn out its welcome by now. I guess it will only get worse as
46 Bcoz : Evacuating or partially evacuating a terminal at JFK because of a suspicious package has nothing to do with politics. bcoz
47 Post contains images Ncfc99 : NO. if a bomb goes off and innocent people are hurt or killed, then they have won. By reporting suspicious packages and foiling an attempt to kill, t
48 Jutes85 : Living in fear, lol.
49 Jonathan L : You are very naive.
50 AirTranTUS : When do you make the decision that you should report one, if ever? I would never leave my stuff lying around in an airport; not because of security r
51 OtnySASLHR : In the UK airports, it is policy that announcements are made in all terminals every 30mins or so advising everyone to watch out for unattended bags /
52 Moo : While I hate the black and white terms of 'win' and 'lose', the scope of the terror groups 'winning' is a lot larger than the scope of us 'winning'.
53 Zvezda : No. The terrorists win when and only when they convince us to give up real freedoms for imagined security. That's because thieves are smart enough to
54 OtnySASLHR : No not smart - STUPID . They're not thinking of that just how to make a quick and easy buck.
55 AADC10 : They want you to be afraid. It covers up incompetence. All they have to do is shout "national security" and all thinking stops. TSA does not care. The
56 Isitsafenow : I was Hillary's make-up kit. Oh, wait..........she doesn't have one. safe
57 Jonathan L : We "win?" The only thing we have "won" is a constant state of fear, plus massive delays and inconveniences. Our civil liberties are eroding. My 82 ye
58 OtnySASLHR : I cannot believe that anybody from the country that suffered "9/11" can seriously believe that. If we let "fear" govern our lives then "they" have ce
59 Ncfc99 : I am aware of the state we would have to get to to win, I was just trying to answers the quoted post that mentioned that the bad guys would win. Exac
60 Ncfc99 : I couldn't (and didn't) have put it better myself.
61 Moo : I know, I was simply laying it out for the people that don't have any concept of the exact position we are currently in.
62 Mah584jr : To be honest I probably wouldn't even notice a suspicious package because I have no idea what a suspicious package is supposed to look like. I feel th
63 Zvezda : If every passenger noticing an unattended bag were to report it, every terminal at every major airport would be evacuated every day -- probably sever
64 Ncfc99 : I would choose to report an unattended bag to the relevent authorities. I would not gamble.
65 OtnySASLHR : A suspicious package is anything that doesn't have an owner attached with it, or is in a place where common sense says it shouldn't be.
66 DL021 : Why take chances when the safety of hundreds or more is at stake? Complacency and convenience can be deadly. When there is one there may be more, espe
67 GPIARFF : Doesn't anyone remember the backpack bomb that killed 2 and injured 111 people in Atlanta? I agree that alot of our airport security policies are anno
68 Dallasnewark : It came to a point where passenger profiling is necesary, thanks to the "religion of peace".
69 Zvezda : I don't believe that. I believe that an evacuation would be ordered without an attempt to locate the owner.
70 Post contains images Steeler83 : Kudos to you man! I made a post on here about an experience I had on a WN flight from PHL to PIT, and an Indian couple sat next to me; the gentleman
71 Pacallen : Well to reply to this thread I had to restart my FC membership which has been inactive for over a year so here goes :P For the most part, I do agree t
72 DL021 : OK...that's your opinion and I respect that....but I believe that it'd be better to suffer through an unnecessary evacuation than it would be to have
73 Baron52ta : I would just like to put my two pennies worth in on this subject. The objective of a terrorist is merely to make people fear every thing, so when you
74 Tootallsd : I spend a lot of time in air terminals in many parts of the world as a traveler. I have traveled to the UK with coworkers, pre 9/11, and Americans oft
75 Zvezda : Nobody here is disagreeing with that. However, that is not the choice people face when deciding whether or not to report an unattended bag. The choic
76 Post contains images Indy : I recently traveled and forgot to pack my toiletry bag in my suitcase. I put it in my carry on bag my mistake. It had gels and liquids in it. I thoug
77 DL021 : THey don't evacuate every terminal for unattended bags. IF they did they'd evacuate every terminal every other day. They should, though, if they can'
78 EnviroTO : I think it is more akin to reporting all cars out of concern for a potential car accident. Not reporting an accident is very different from not repor
79 Skyguy : Some TSA agent must have left his Dunkin Donut's dozen and coffee in a bag somewhere lying around, it would look suspicious to anyone not acustomed to
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
AA Terminal Evacuated At ORD posted Fri Mar 1 2002 04:09:56 by CcrlR
AA JFK-LHR - Terminal 8 Or 9 At JFK? posted Fri Dec 8 2006 06:05:09 by Nickofatlanta
AA Unveils New Terminal Project At JFK posted Wed Jul 27 2005 19:16:42 by Squirrel83
When Will The Midfield AA Concourse Open At JFK? posted Sun Jun 26 2005 00:25:06 by RJpieces
AA/MQ Update At JFK posted Sat Mar 20 2004 17:40:38 by Flyguy1
History Of Terminal Six At JFK posted Tue Mar 9 2004 07:51:50 by SFOintern
Jetblue Terminal Space At JFK posted Tue Mar 9 2004 07:34:58 by Jfklganyc
United Reacts To B6 AA & HP At JFK/BOS posted Wed Jan 21 2004 14:13:03 by SunValley
Terminal Change At JFK? posted Wed Sep 10 2003 22:12:13 by Ssides
AA Emergency Landing At JFK - The Next Day posted Fri Sep 5 2003 02:16:26 by FrequentFlyKid