Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
SQ Flight Lands In CCU After Bomb Scare  
User currently offlinevivekman2006 From India, joined May 2006, 542 posts, RR: 3
Posted (4 years 1 month 3 weeks 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 5949 times:

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/c...bomb-scare/articleshow/6680268.cms

Quote:
KOLKATA: A Singapore Airlines flight carrying 250 passengers and 15 crew members made an emergency landing at Kolkata airport at 11.39 pm on Sunday, following a bomb threat mid-air. The Houston-Moscow-Singapore flight was in its second leg when the incident occurred.

The plane was somewhere over Amritsar when the captain was informed about a threat that there was a bomb on board. The pilot immediately contacted air traffic control at Delhi airport.

However, the Delhi ATC denied permission to land and directed the flight to Kolkata as a notice to airmen (NOTAM) had been enforced, disallowing any unscheduled stopovers in the capital in view of the Commonwealth Games. Sources said the NOTAM had been issued to ensure that there was no panic among foreign participants and delegates at CWG due to such situations.

The aircraft then proceeded towards Kolkata and contacted the ATC here for permission to land. Airport officials said permission was granted and Singapore Airlines staff in the city were alerted and asked to prepare for evacuating passengers from the aircraft. As there was no Singapore Airlines flight from the city on Sunday, the staff had to rush to the airport on getting the alert.

Arrangements were made for the aircraft to be parked in an isolation bay after landing. This was done to ensure that if the threat proved to be true, other aircraft parked during the night were not affected.

As soon as the aircraft landed, it was taken to the isolation bay. Passengers were promptly deplaned and the bomb detection and disposal squad was pressed into service. Till reports last came in, no suspicious objects had been found.


24 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlinebrenintw From Taiwan, joined Jul 2006, 1708 posts, RR: 1
Reply 1, posted (4 years 1 month 3 weeks 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 5872 times:

Interesting ... article doesn't say, but it appears that DEL was the closer airport. Any ideas how much longer the aircraft had to stay in the air to reach CCU?

Surely a situation warranted the NOTAM being waived and the plane allowed to land ASAP? What would have happened if there had, indeed, been a bomb on board and the difference in time meant getting down safely and exploding mid-air?



I'm tired of the A vs. B sniping. Neither make planes that shed wings randomly!
User currently offlineAR385 From Mexico, joined Nov 2003, 6471 posts, RR: 32
Reply 2, posted (4 years 1 month 3 weeks 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 5723 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

[quote=brenintw,reply=1]Surely a situation warranted the NOTAM being waived and the plane allowed to land ASAP? What would have happened if there had, indeed, been a bomb on board and the difference in time meant getting down safely and exploding mid-air?[/quote

According to Great Circle Mapper, link here:

DEL-CCU%0D%0A&RANGE=&PATH-COLOR=&PATH-UNITS=mi&PATH-MINIMUM=&SPEED-GROUND=&SPEED-UNITS=kts&RANGE-STYLE=best&RANGE-COLOR=&MAP-STYLE=" target="_blank">http://gc.kls2.com/cgi-bin/gc?PATH=D...STYLE=best&RANGE-COLOR=&MAP-STYLE=

The distance is 816 mi. So that is around a 2hr. flight time to CCU from DEL. Assuming they wre expedited, they may have reduced that flight time to 1 hr and 20 mins. So, I find it pretty scandalous that ATC at DEL refused the plane permission to land.
However, I have to admit at the same time that we don´t know all the facts yet. Could there have been more compelling reasons for DEL to refuse landing clearance? Maybe all the bomb squads in the city were at the inauguration ceremony and could not leave their duties? What are the ICAO regulations regarding aircraft in this type of distress?


User currently offlineBoeing747_600 From United States of America, joined Oct 1999, 1295 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (4 years 1 month 3 weeks 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 5693 times:

Quoting AR385 (Reply 2):
Could there have been more compelling reasons for DEL to refuse landing clearance?

As mentioned in the article, the Commonwealth Games are on and since a NOTAM to the effect of no diversions to DEL was in effect, this is a moot point. A far more compelling question is why ATQ was not selected and approved as the diversion airport, since the article mentions that the aircraft was somewhere over Amritsar.


User currently offlinecpd From Australia, joined Jun 2008, 4880 posts, RR: 37
Reply 4, posted (4 years 1 month 3 weeks 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 5522 times:

Quoting brenintw (Reply 1):
What would have happened if there had, indeed, been a bomb on board and the difference in time meant getting down safely and exploding mid-air?

Then the people in Delhi would have obviously had blood on their hands. Something seems pretty fishy about this whole episode.

Quoting AR385 (Reply 2):
Maybe all the bomb squads in the city were at the inauguration ceremony and could not leave their duties?

When there is an obvious emergency, you spare one of them and send them on their way - pronto! But as I've said above, something seems very fishy with this. While the obvious conclusion appears rather likely given all the debacles surrounding the Commonwealth Games, I'll reserve judgement.


User currently offlineairvan00 From Australia, joined Oct 2008, 758 posts, RR: 1
Reply 5, posted (4 years 1 month 3 weeks 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 5419 times:

Quoting vivekman2006 (Thread starter):
However, the Delhi ATC denied permission to land and directed the flight to Kolkata as a notice to airmen (NOTAM) had been enforced, disallowing any unscheduled stopovers in the capital in view of the Commonwealth Games.
Quoting brenintw (Reply 1):
Surely a situation warranted the NOTAM being waived and the plane allowed to land ASAP?

If the authorities had decided to issue a NOTAM denying unscheduled landings, why would you wave the NOTAM? Surely before the NOTAM was issued, the possibly of an unscheduled landing (caused by any emergency) would have been considered. I certainly would have considered that circumstance if I had issued that NOTAM.


User currently offlineanshuk From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2009, 486 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (4 years 1 month 3 weeks 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 5110 times:

DEL is on a very, very, VERY high alert. There are over 97,000 armed security personnel throughout the city. You could probably equate it to DEFCON 2, even.

Its perfectly justified that they did not allow the plane down.

Would BOM have been closer by any chance?


User currently offlineMadameConcorde From San Marino, joined Feb 2007, 10925 posts, RR: 37
Reply 7, posted (4 years 1 month 3 weeks 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 5040 times:

I hope they will trace those who initiated the false bomb scare for the SQ flight and will have them heavily punished.  


There was a better way to fly it was called Concorde
User currently offlineAR385 From Mexico, joined Nov 2003, 6471 posts, RR: 32
Reply 8, posted (4 years 1 month 3 weeks 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 4721 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting anshuk (Reply 6):
Its perfectly justified that they did not allow the plane down.

I don´t agree. Unless there was a logistically compelling reason not to let the plane land, DEL´s ATC actions are questionable. Even Iran let a NW DC-10 land in Tehran when it declared emergency. This happened, what? 4 years ago? I can´t think why DEL did not allow the SIA flight to land.


User currently offlineBoeing747_600 From United States of America, joined Oct 1999, 1295 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (4 years 1 month 3 weeks 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 4535 times:

Quoting AR385 (Reply 8):
I don´t agree.

Well, your disagreement is noted but completely irrelevant since you're not in charge of security in the Delhi area, nor obviously are any of us, and we don't have access to the nature of security minutiae involved, so I would defer to their judgement. You may speculate all you like, which is what a forum such as this is for, but if you expect to be taken seriously in matters such as these, in which you have no expertise or useful information, I'm afraid that you're asking for a bit much.


User currently offlineBoeing747_600 From United States of America, joined Oct 1999, 1295 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (4 years 1 month 3 weeks 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 4523 times:

Quoting cpd (Reply 4):
Quoting brenintw (Reply 1):
What would have happened if there had, indeed, been a bomb on board and the difference in time meant getting down safely and exploding mid-air?

Then the people in Delhi would have obviously had blood on their hands. Something seems pretty fishy about this whole episode.

This whole line of thought is ridiculous. And what if the purported bomb on board had been rigged to go off over Delhi resulting in EVEN more casualties?! Whose hands would be "bloody" then?!

The facts in this case are simple.

1) Delhi was NOTAM'd out for diversions.

2) There are at least three other airports that SQ flies to (ATQ, CCU and AMD) that constitute feasible diversion airports.

3) CCU was chosen.

To reiterate what I asked in reply 3, a far more reasonable question is why ATQ was not chosen and approved as the diversion airport, since the article mentions that the aircraft was somewhere over Amritsar.


User currently offlineViscount724 From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 25871 posts, RR: 22
Reply 11, posted (4 years 1 month 3 weeks 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 4523 times:

Quoting AR385 (Reply 8):
Even Iran let a NW DC-10 land in Tehran when it declared emergency. This happened, what? 4 years ago?

June 2005.
http://news.google.com/newspapers?id...lines+emergency+landing+iran&hl=en


User currently offlineBoeing747_600 From United States of America, joined Oct 1999, 1295 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (4 years 1 month 3 weeks 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 4481 times:

Quoting AR385 (Reply 8):
Even Iran let a NW DC-10 land in Tehran when it declared emergency.

Nowhere did I read that THR had a NOTAM against diversions issued at the time. You seem to suggest that such a NOTAM be disregarded because of what you perceive to be the only feasible option available given the bomb threat. This is not the basis for sound policy.

The fact of the matter is that the overwhelming majority of these bomb threats turn out to be hoaxes and while the authorities are enjoined to take each and every one of them seriously, as indeed they did in this case, there is no need to overreact by violating previously established security protocols.

[Edited 2010-10-04 14:39:26]

User currently offlineanshuk From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2009, 486 posts, RR: 0
Reply 13, posted (4 years 1 month 3 weeks 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 4414 times:

Quoting AR385 (Reply 8):
I don´t agree. Unless there was a logistically compelling reason not to let the plane land, DEL´s ATC actions are questionable. Even Iran let a NW DC-10 land in Tehran when it declared emergency. This happened, what? 4 years ago? I can´t think why DEL did not allow the SIA flight to land.

Well, all 71 Nations of the Commonwealth are represented at these Games. There are over 7000 athletes present. The opening ceremony was yesterday, 2 billion people tuned in to watch it, ALL across the world. Imagine a bomb exploding over the city in this atmosphere. Think of the chaos it would cause. Think of the casualties on the ground. Further, DEL is the capital city of India and the seat of power. Besides, as its been said before there was a NOTAM issued beforehand.

I'm sure the NOTAM took into account emergency diversions as most diversions are either weather related or emergency.

I think the security itself is a logistically compelling reason not to let the plane land.

Quoting Boeing747_600 (Reply 9):
Well, your disagreement is noted but completely irrelevant since you're not in charge of security in the Delhi area, nor obviously are any of us, and we don't have access to the nature of security minutiae involved, so I would defer to their judgement.

I am however quite well versed with the security situation in India, having been in BOM during the 26/11 attacks and in BLR during the bomb blasts.


User currently offlineBoeing747_600 From United States of America, joined Oct 1999, 1295 posts, RR: 0
Reply 14, posted (4 years 1 month 3 weeks 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 4383 times:

Quoting anshuk (Reply 13):
I am however quite well versed with the security situation in India, having been in BOM during the 26/11 attacks and in BLR during the bomb blasts.

Experience that (as you have properly demonstrated in your postings) would cause one to defer to the judgement of the authorities involved in security matters.


User currently offlineanshuk From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2009, 486 posts, RR: 0
Reply 15, posted (4 years 1 month 3 weeks 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 4336 times:

Quoting Boeing747_600 (Reply 14):
Experience that (as you have properly demonstrated in your postings) would cause one to defer to the judgement of the authorities involved in security matters.

Fair enough, well noted!

Either way, we obviously have different views! I suppose the authorities knew what they were doing best! And here (and its a rarity, I must add) I agree with them! That's all  


User currently offlineBoeing747_600 From United States of America, joined Oct 1999, 1295 posts, RR: 0
Reply 16, posted (4 years 1 month 3 weeks 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 4309 times:

Quoting anshuk (Reply 15):
Either way, we obviously have different views! I suppose the authorities knew what they were doing best! And here (and its a rarity, I must add) I agree with them! That's all

Not sure that there's any disagreement here at all! In fact we're both saying precisely the same thing!


User currently offlinekiramakora From Argentina, joined Aug 2006, 549 posts, RR: 0
Reply 17, posted (4 years 1 month 3 weeks 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 4309 times:

Quoting cpd (Reply 4):
Then the people in Delhi would have obviously had blood on their hands. Something seems pretty fishy about this whole episode.

Well, the people of Delhi cannot win either way can they? Perhaps, the NOTAM was issued specifically because such a threat was being planned - and they allowed a NOTAM waiver and the flight exploded over the opening ceremony. I am sure several people would be also blaming the people of Delhi again ...

Quoting cpd (Reply 4):

When there is an obvious emergency, you spare one of them and send them on their way - pronto! But as I've said above, something seems very fishy with this. While the obvious conclusion appears rather likely given all the debacles surrounding the Commonwealth Games, I'll reserve judgement.

Perhaps the Indian authorities have learned from the Australian's on this? Remember the zero tolerance of allowing ships filled with humans not being able to reach the Australian shores - and sent to Nauru, etc. - despite emergency health of the people on board. Who knows? I will reserve judgment.


User currently offlineAR385 From Mexico, joined Nov 2003, 6471 posts, RR: 32
Reply 18, posted (4 years 1 month 3 weeks 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 4179 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Boeing747_600 (Reply 9):
Well, your disagreement is noted but completely irrelevant since you're not in charge of security in the Delhi area,

I appreciate your reminder that my disagreement is completely irrelevant. I know that. However, if you read my post correctly, I disagreed to reply 6, where the poster says "It is perfectly justified that they did not allow the plane down" Not with Indian ATC.

Quoting Boeing747_600 (Reply 12):
You seem to suggest that such a NOTAM be disregarded because of what you perceive to be the only feasible option available given the bomb threat. This is not the basis for sound policy.

The fact of the matter is that the overwhelming majority of these bomb threats turn out to be hoaxes and while the authorities are enjoined to take each and every one of them seriously, as indeed they did in this case, there is no need to overreact by violating previously established security protocols.

Yes. They do turn out to be hoaxes. Some do not. This weekend, however, was different, because most of Europe, where the plane took off, was on high alert due to a potential terrorist attack. The US issued a warning to its citizens encompassing the whole of Europe. Another factor is that the point of origin of the flight was Houston. In those circumstances, this particular bomb threat ought not to have been treated as a hoax.

Am I suggesting that a NOTAM be disregarded because of what I perceive as the only feasible option available? Yes. NOTAM´s are not written in stone. I referr you to the following.

http://www.nbaa.org/ops/airspace/reg...outheast/super-bowl-2010-notam.pdf

In any case, sending the plane on its way 816mi is definitely irresponsible. But I´m willing to listen to your other "feasible options" that form the basis of sound policy.

Quoting Boeing747_600 (Reply 9):
if you expect to be taken seriously in matters such as these, in which you have no expertise or useful information, I'm afraid that you're asking for a bit much.

You do not know that. In any case, according to you, I should not participoate in 95% of the threads here if I want to be taken seriously. This is not the technical/ops forum. I would agree with you if this thread was there. And believe me, being taken seriously by you is not my main goal when I participate here.



Quoting anshuk (Reply 13):
Imagine a bomb exploding over the city in this atmosphere. Think of the chaos it would cause. Think of the casualties on the ground.

Spare us the melodrama. The airport is in the outskirts of the city. I am sure it would have been vectored around the densely populated areas and definitely kept far away from anything involving the games. Unless there are more compelling reasons why Indian ATC sent the plane all the way across the country other than a NOTAM, ATC made a bad call.

[Edited 2010-10-04 19:31:10]

User currently offlineflyingalex From Germany, joined Jul 2010, 1019 posts, RR: 0
Reply 19, posted (4 years 1 month 3 weeks 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 3621 times:

Quoting Boeing747_600 (Reply 10):
The facts in this case are simple.

1) Delhi was NOTAM'd out for diversions.

2) There are at least three other airports that SQ flies to (ATQ, CCU and AMD) that constitute feasible diversion airports.

3) CCU was chosen.

To reiterate what I asked in reply 3, a far more reasonable question is why ATQ was not chosen and approved as the diversion airport, since the article mentions that the aircraft was somewhere over Amritsar.

If possible, it is always preferable to divert to an online station.

SQ no longer flies to ATQ, so that may have been a factor in not heading there.

AMD would have been closer than CCU, but not by much.



Public service announcement: "It's" = "it is". To indicate posession, write "its." Looks wrong, but it's correct grammar
User currently offlineojas From India, joined Mar 2008, 2981 posts, RR: 25
Reply 20, posted (4 years 1 month 3 weeks 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 3583 times:

Quoting flyingalex (Reply 19):
AMD would have been closer than CCU, but not by much.

Was KTM closer? While SQ does not fly there but Silk Air does.



A lion does not concern himself with the opinions of the sheep
User currently offlineCricket From India, joined Aug 2005, 2972 posts, RR: 7
Reply 21, posted (4 years 1 month 3 weeks 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 3488 times:

Airspace was a bit crazy over DEL over the past few days, but if the timing is correct, the incident occured bang in the middle of the CWG Opening Ceremony, forget the NOTAM for Emergency Diversions, all Delhi airspace was closed to civilian traffic. There were Sukhoi's patrolling the skies, after what happened in Bombay in 2008, the authorities have the right to be a bit jumpy.

If the pilots thought it demanded immediate action they could have diverted to ATQ, JAI, LKO, IXC, AGR all fields that can support a 777 and with emergency crews, and all a lot closer than CCU



A300B2/B4/6R, A313, A319/320/321, A333, A343, A388, 737-2/3/4/7/8/9, 747-3/4, 772/2E/2L/3, E170/190, F70, CR2/7, 146-3,
User currently offlineBrahmin From United States of America, joined Dec 2007, 83 posts, RR: 0
Reply 22, posted (4 years 1 month 3 weeks 3 days ago) and read 3298 times:

If this happened in the USA and Washington DC airspace was locked down with most of the Government in one spot, would they have let a plane land at the closed airport?

User currently offlineBoeing747_600 From United States of America, joined Oct 1999, 1295 posts, RR: 0
Reply 23, posted (4 years 1 month 3 weeks 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 3155 times:

Quoting Cricket (Reply 21):
If the pilots thought it demanded immediate action they could have diverted to ATQ, JAI, LKO, IXC, AGR all fields that can support a 777 and with emergency crews, and all a lot closer than CCU

Exactly. This notion that just because a pilot asks for Delhi, the entire aviation machinery should kowtow to his wishes is beyond ridiculous.


User currently offlineNimish From India, joined Feb 2005, 3271 posts, RR: 9
Reply 24, posted (4 years 1 month 3 weeks 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 2953 times:

Quoting Brahmin (Reply 22):
If this happened in the USA and Washington DC airspace was locked down with most of the Government in one spot, would they have let a plane land at the closed airport?

Interesting question - would love to find out.

Personally - I'm fine with DEL honoring their published NOTAM - because SQ had good alternatives. LHE/ ATQ etc. were minutes from where the SQ bird was at that time, yet SQ chose to risk the lives of it's passengers by insisting on flying to an "online" station. If it was indeed a bomb threat, I would expect SQ to choose to land immediately - say in 10 minutes or so (not sure if that's technically feasible), and land at ATQ or LHE or any of the nearby airports. Insisting on Delhi was a reckless move from SQ IMO. When there's an emergency, there's no use looking for "conveniences" like online stations!!!

I wonder if SQ will be sued for endangering the lives of it's passengers?



Latest Trip Report - GoAir BLR-BOM-BLR
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...
Australian Detained After Bomb Scare In Russia posted Fri Mar 18 2005 02:56:02 by 777ER
SQ 25 Returns After Bomb Scare posted Mon Sep 17 2001 09:04:27 by Mr.BA
Southwest Flight Lands In ATL Today posted Thu Jun 26 2008 15:08:49 by Mijoatlanta
WN Flight Lands At SEA After A Reported Fire posted Thu Jul 5 2007 17:57:47 by Clickhappy
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
767 Lands In Halifax after an engine problem posted Fri Sep 22 2006 15:18:08 by Legallykev
XLA Plane Diverted After Bomb Scare posted Fri Aug 18 2006 18:05:15 by Sfuk
HV Plane Lands At Bordeaux After Bomb Alert posted Tue Dec 13 2005 13:30:56 by BuyantUkhaa
LH Diverts To Budapest After Bomb Scare posted Sun Aug 15 2004 17:13:03 by Andz