Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
EL AL 767 Lands Safely In TLV After A Bomb Scare  
User currently offlineAmirs From Israel, joined Dec 2003, 1333 posts, RR: 3
Posted (5 years 11 months 4 weeks 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 3231 times:

An LY 767 from Paris landed safely in TLV. It was reported that the a/c was escorted by French, Greek and Israeli AF planes enroute to TLV.

No bomb was found in the aircraft after it landed.

http://www.reuters.com/article/marketsNews/idUSLO37428320080924

22 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineGabo787 From United Kingdom, joined Sep 2006, 157 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (5 years 11 months 4 weeks 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 3203 times:

Sorry if this is a dumb question, but what is the point of having fighters from 3 countries escorting the jet?  
I mean if the aircraft was still in french airspace why shouldn't it landed back in Paris, or in Greece. I just think that is a waist of time, money and at the same time put at risk the lives of everybody on board, if there was a bomb possibility they were supoposed to evacuate the airplane ASAP.

[Edited 2008-09-24 11:27:34]

User currently offlineLY4XELD From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 857 posts, RR: 15
Reply 2, posted (5 years 11 months 4 weeks 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 3133 times:

It's in the article. Each country escorted the plane when they were over their airspace:

"A Greek defence ministry official said two Greek F16 fighters escorted the plane while it was in Greek airspace."



That's why we're here.
User currently offlineQ120 From Canada, joined Aug 2008, 279 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (5 years 11 months 4 weeks 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 3108 times:

Glad to hear everything worked out, and bravo for the countries involved doing an excellent job.


However beautiful the strategy, you should occasionally look at the results
User currently offlineLXA340 From Switzerland, joined Nov 2006, 2122 posts, RR: 3
Reply 4, posted (5 years 11 months 4 weeks 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 3108 times:

There were departure delays this afternoon of over an hour or so at TLV this explains what caused it.

User currently offlineAmirs From Israel, joined Dec 2003, 1333 posts, RR: 3
Reply 5, posted (5 years 11 months 4 weeks 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 3070 times:



Quoting LXA340 (Reply 4):
There were departure delays this afternoon of over an hour or so at TLV this explains what caused it.

No, the delays were because of a mini strike.


User currently offlinePlunaCRJ From Uruguay, joined Nov 2007, 574 posts, RR: 2
Reply 6, posted (5 years 11 months 4 weeks 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 2975 times:

I don´t understand how the escorting jets would have helped in case the bomb went off. Why didn´t the aircraft just land at the nearest airport immediately after the bomb threat was made?

Why continue all the way to TLV with a bomb threat? I don´t get it.


User currently offlineLXA340 From Switzerland, joined Nov 2006, 2122 posts, RR: 3
Reply 7, posted (5 years 11 months 4 weeks 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 2941 times:



Quoting Amirs (Reply 5):
No, the delays were because of a mini strike.

Oh I see, thanks


User currently offline413X3 From United States of America, joined Jul 2008, 1983 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (5 years 11 months 4 weeks 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 2939 times:

because a bomb on board could also mean a hijacker on board, who could take control of the airplane and fly it into a building or somewhere else. That is why there is an escort

User currently offlinePiskoto From Cyprus, joined Nov 2006, 127 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (5 years 11 months 4 weeks 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 2930 times:



Quoting Gabo787 (Reply 1):



Quoting PlunaCRJ (Reply 6):

Same question. Would the F-16s save it if the bomb had exploded?


User currently offline777 From Italy, joined Sep 2005, 515 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (5 years 11 months 4 weeks 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 2881 times:



Quoting Gabo787 (Reply 1):
Sorry if this is a dumb question, but what is the point of having fighters from 3 countries escorting the jet?

Add a fourth one: Italian AF was involved as well

(news only in italian)
http://www.ansa.it/site/notizie/awnp...ndo/news/2008-09-24_124251886.html


User currently offlineTodaReisinger From Switzerland, joined Mar 2001, 2806 posts, RR: 1
Reply 11, posted (5 years 11 months 4 weeks 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 2785 times:

As already stated by many...it's obvious that a military plane, or even 10 of them, could be of NO HELP whatsoever if there was really a bomb scare on that flight.

So there must be something missing in the news. Either it was not a bomb scare, but a hijacking alarm of a kind or another, or it was an exercise and not a real threat, or who knows what. But in case of a bomb scare, a plane lands asap, there's no other adequate reaction...! An LX flight from Zurich to Spain also had a bomb scare a few weeks ago, and the plane immediately landed in GVA. The passengers were evacuated through the emergency chutes while the Airbus was still on the runway... http://cdn-www.airliners.net/aviatio...eneral_aviation/read.main/4118050/ (which meant closing the airport because there's only one runway here...)


Here are the links to articles in The Jerusalem Post and Haaretz:


http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satelli...ename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull


http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1024168.html


It seems that threats against this specific flight were known to the security establishment already before its take-off. Quite weird in my opinion.

Let's really hope everything will continue to be under control around El Al's security. There's a higher tension because of Hezbollah's "big surprise" attack threats



I bitterly miss the livery that should never have been changed (repetition...)
User currently offlineAvi From Israel, joined Sep 2001, 943 posts, RR: 6
Reply 12, posted (5 years 11 months 4 weeks 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 2769 times:

There are so many bizarre things around this story that I don't know where to begin with.
I'll spare you all the "dramatic" first details which I'm sure when all the facts will get clear few of them will remain but at the end of channel 2 news tonight in Israel they said that an e-mail was sent to NATO headquarter with a threat on that flight few days ago, so there was higher security around this flight.
Something tells me that the crew knew about it in advance since, as already said, you don't fly from Paris to Tel Aviv without landing ASAP if you get such a warning short time after departure. I don't buy this story as it is.



Long live the B747
User currently offlineTodaReisinger From Switzerland, joined Mar 2001, 2806 posts, RR: 1
Reply 13, posted (5 years 11 months 4 weeks 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 2742 times:



Quoting Avi (Reply 12):
so there was higher security around this flight.

There should be the highest security around each and every Israeli flight... and this, even more specially now.

Btw, it would be quite interesting to know what "higher security" means.



I bitterly miss the livery that should never have been changed (repetition...)
User currently offlinePlunaCRJ From Uruguay, joined Nov 2007, 574 posts, RR: 2
Reply 14, posted (5 years 11 months 4 weeks 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 2739 times:

It would be interesting to hear what the passengers think about being flown on such a flight. I can only imagine what went through their minds when they saw through their fighter jets from now four nations escorting them to protect them from an apparently known bomb threat.

User currently offlineTodaReisinger From Switzerland, joined Mar 2001, 2806 posts, RR: 1
Reply 15, posted (5 years 11 months 4 weeks 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 2708 times:



Quoting PlunaCRJ (Reply 14):
escorting them to protect them from an apparently known bomb threat.

I still don't see how those fighter jets might have protected the passengers in any way...but of course, there's the big issue of whether the passengers had the right to be updated about the situation before the flight or whether the flight should have been cancelled, or rescheduled and so on.....



I bitterly miss the livery that should never have been changed (repetition...)
User currently offlineLXA340 From Switzerland, joined Nov 2006, 2122 posts, RR: 3
Reply 16, posted (5 years 11 months 4 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 2569 times:



Quoting TodaReisinger (Reply 15):
I still don't see how those fighter jets might have protected the passengers in any way...

To be fair the fighter jets would not be there to protect the passengers on board in the worst case however incase of hijacking they would've mostlikely been there to protect people on the ground and shot the plane down incase somebody tried to take controls of the plane and crash it lets say in central Tel Aviv


User currently offlineCastropRauxel From Germany, joined Sep 2008, 467 posts, RR: 0
Reply 17, posted (5 years 11 months 4 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 2542 times:



Quoting Gabo787 (Reply 1):
Sorry if this is a dumb question, but what is the point of having fighters from 3 countries escorting the jet?

I see many people in this thread missing the purpose of an F16 escort: as 413X3 wrote,it was not about saving the LY aircraft in case it explodes, but each country was defending their own airspace in case there is a hijacker onboard that would take over the aircraft and try to bring it down, dangering people on the ground as well. in this case, it would have been shut down by the respective air force.

Quoting PlunaCRJ (Reply 6):
Why didn´t the aircraft just land at the nearest airport immediately after the bomb threat was made?

According to today's papers, the threat was accepted at the Israeli ministry of transportation already a few days ago regarding the specific flight (LY324/24SEP). apart from the usual strict LY security, this spesific flight and aircraft have been thoroughly checked and there was no reason to cancel the flight as nothing was found. so basically to begin with, it was allowed to take off - it's not that the threat was accepted after take off so no need to make it land .

Quoting TodaReisinger (Reply 15):
there's the big issue of whether the passengers had the right to be updated about the situation before the flight or whether the flight should have been cancelled

To be honest, as harsh as I may sound - I don't see the point. the truth of the matter is, that every LY flight is under threat (and nowadays maybe even safe to say that every flight, period) - hence the very strict security, from questioning passengers personally to guarding the aircraft while on the ground. what good would it do to inform the passengers? if according to the Israeli security everything was checked - aircraft, luggage, cargo, passengers - and no threat seem to be possible, why scare the living shit out of the passengers? it was obviously a prank. moreover - I really don't think that anyone that would want to bomb an LY aircraft, would bother to send a notice ahead...


User currently offlineGabo787 From United Kingdom, joined Sep 2006, 157 posts, RR: 0
Reply 18, posted (5 years 11 months 4 weeks 19 hours ago) and read 2463 times:



Quoting CastropRauxel (Reply 17):
if according to the Israeli security everything was checked - aircraft, luggage, cargo, passengers - and no threat seem to be possible, why scare the living shit out of the passengers?

Then again, why use escort fighters?? I'm sure that something is missing here


User currently offlineCastropRauxel From Germany, joined Sep 2008, 467 posts, RR: 0
Reply 19, posted (5 years 11 months 4 weeks 18 hours ago) and read 2442 times:



Quoting Gabo787 (Reply 18):
Then again, why use escort fighters?? I'm sure that something is missing here

These are two completely different things: 1) a bomb on board, 2) a hijacker on board. as I explained, the fighters were sent by their own countries, not upon LY or Israeli request, to make sure that in case there's a hijacker on board and he will somehow manage to take over the aircraft, the fighters can shoot the aircraft down before the hijacker fly it into some place full of people (re 9/11).


User currently offlineTodaReisinger From Switzerland, joined Mar 2001, 2806 posts, RR: 1
Reply 20, posted (5 years 11 months 4 weeks 13 hours ago) and read 2355 times:



Quoting LXA340 (Reply 16):
Quoting TodaReisinger (Reply 15):
I still don't see how those fighter jets might have protected the passengers in any way...

To be fair the fighter jets would not be there to protect the passengers on board in the worst case however incase of hijacking



Quoting CastropRauxel (Reply 17):
I see many people in this thread missing the purpose of an F16 escort: as 413X3 wrote,it was not about saving the LY aircraft in case it explodes, but each country was defending their own airspace in case there is a hijacker onboard



Quoting CastropRauxel (Reply 19):
as I explained, the fighters were sent by their own countries, not upon LY or Israeli request, to make sure that in case there's a hijacker on board

If there was a "hijacking scare", the fighter jets' presence would be understandable...and every one here clearly understands this... But the articles do not relate any threat of a hijacker onboard LY224. The only threat mentioned is the presence of a bomb and thus, the "escort" by fighter jets makes no sense.

Quoting CastropRauxel (Reply 17):
apart from the usual strict LY security, this spesific flight and aircraft have been thoroughly checked and there was no reason to cancel the flight as nothing was found.

If El Al's security was so strict, "flight and aircraft" should be "thoroughly checked" each time.. I strongly hope it is the case, but I have some doubts and thus never feel totally secure while onboard......



I bitterly miss the livery that should never have been changed (repetition...)
User currently offlineCastropRauxel From Germany, joined Sep 2008, 467 posts, RR: 0
Reply 21, posted (5 years 11 months 3 weeks 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 2194 times:



Quoting TodaReisinger (Reply 20):
The only threat mentioned is the presence of a bomb and thus, the "escort" by fighter jets makes no sense.

But I also said that the initiative was not Israeli nor LY related. if I think about it from a terrorist point of view, when I got to the airport and saw that in no way I can take the bomb planned with me on board, I might have switched to plan B and hijack the plane in order to bring it down. seems only logical that this might have been an option. so those countries have decided not to take any chance that the plane would be hijacked and crash on their territories while endangering people on the ground, and on their own accord sent fighters to escort the aircraft until it's out of sight.
I really don't see what's so complicated about that... each army has those fighters to use as they see fit, and that's not an issue. hell, if they want to escort every LY flight over their territories because that make them feel safer, I say let them knock themselves out.

Quoting TodaReisinger (Reply 20):
If El Al's security was so strict, "flight and aircraft" should be "thoroughly checked" each time

There are obviously several levels of check ups. a passenger can be questioned, or can be forced to unpack every little item and show them to security personnel. sure, the second option is quite foolprrof, but at what cost for both the passengers and the airline?


User currently offlineGabo787 From United Kingdom, joined Sep 2006, 157 posts, RR: 0
Reply 22, posted (5 years 11 months 3 weeks 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 2119 times:



Quoting CastropRauxel (Reply 21):
if I think about it from a terrorist point of view, when I got to the airport and saw that in no way I can take the bomb planned with me on board, I might have switched to plan B and hijack the plane in order to bring it down

I'll bet that all LY flight have armed security personal onboard, I think that take over the plane could be even more difficult that to put a bomb on board.

Quoting CastropRauxel (Reply 19):
the fighters were sent by their own countries

I guess nowadays nobody wants to take any chance. but I still believe that something is missing here


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...
El Al 767 In JFK? posted Wed Jul 14 2004 21:01:27 by 4xRuv
EL AL Emergency Landing Smoke In Cabin posted Tue Jun 5 2007 18:23:58 by JFK787NYC
MIA Reopens After Bomb Scare posted Tue Sep 26 2006 22:03:53 by Mdaddy
MIA Reopens After Bomb Scare posted Tue Sep 26 2006 21:54:57 by Mdaddy
XLA Plane Diverted After Bomb Scare posted Fri Aug 18 2006 18:05:15 by Sfuk
El Al 767 At IAD posted Mon May 22 2006 05:41:38 by RJpieces
New El Al 767 Arrives posted Wed May 17 2006 20:06:36 by RobK
Aircraft Lands Safe In BAQ After Emergency Landing posted Wed Jan 25 2006 06:04:51 by MATURRO727
EL AL To Get 2 777's In 2007 posted Thu Sep 1 2005 17:20:09 by Amirs
LH Diverts To Budapest After Bomb Scare posted Sun Aug 15 2004 17:13:03 by Andz