AA Terminal Evacuated At JFK

plateman · Mon Jul 02, 2007 12:35 am

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]

roseflyer · Mon Jul 02, 2007 12:39 am

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]

JGPH1A · Mon Jul 02, 2007 12:39 am

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.

Thorben · Mon Jul 02, 2007 12:40 am

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.

ikramerica · Mon Jul 02, 2007 12:42 am

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...

YYZatcboy · Mon Jul 02, 2007 12:43 am

Just heard on the radio here. Yikes.

Thorben · Mon Jul 02, 2007 12:46 am

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.

747fan · Mon Jul 02, 2007 12:46 am

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!

plateman · Mon Jul 02, 2007 12:47 am

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

nyc2theworld · Mon Jul 02, 2007 12:49 am

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.

JGPH1A · Mon Jul 02, 2007 12:50 am

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.

JGPH1A · Mon Jul 02, 2007 12:53 am

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.

Twistedwhisper · Mon Jul 02, 2007 12:54 am

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.

TreeHillRavens · Mon Jul 02, 2007 12:59 am

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.

JGPH1A · Mon Jul 02, 2007 1:01 am

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.

moo · Mon Jul 02, 2007 1:02 am

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.

Confuscius · Mon Jul 02, 2007 1:05 am

Did Rudy Guiliani disarmed the suspicious package?

ikramerica · Mon Jul 02, 2007 1:08 am

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.

zvezda · Mon Jul 02, 2007 1:12 am

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.

moo · Mon Jul 02, 2007 1:19 am

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.

JGPH1A · Mon Jul 02, 2007 1:19 am

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

YYZatcboy · Mon Jul 02, 2007 1:26 am

False Alarm. Just heard on the news.

TPAnx · Mon Jul 02, 2007 1:31 am

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

6yjjk · Mon Jul 02, 2007 1:34 am

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!

Mir · Mon Jul 02, 2007 1:39 am

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

zvezda · Mon Jul 02, 2007 1:42 am

Quoting TPAnx (Reply 22):
Nice to see your concern for the safety of everyone else ...

JGPH1A and I are being rational. If every unattended bag were immediately reported, every major airport in the world would close down several times per day. Having risked my own life to save others more than once, your insinuations are ill-founded. Evacuating an airport terminal without substantial evidence of risk is not a rational expression of concern for the safety of others. It makes as much sense as throwing oneself in front of a train out of concern that it might derail further down the tracks.

TPAnx · Mon Jul 02, 2007 2:03 am

Quoting Zvezda (Reply 25):
Evacuating an airport terminal without substantial evidence of risk is not a rational expression of concern for the safety of others.

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 ability to assess risk..an ability you seem to feel is lacking in the people who are professionals in the
field.

You may like to play the odds...I don't..'cept at Vegas..where all you can lose is money...
You say you've saved lives..at the risk of your own...well done! Then you should have ..and obviously do..some understanding of the value of life...

TPAnx

bcoz · Mon Jul 02, 2007 2:11 am

Quoting JGPH1A (Reply 14):
Yes but how cautious before caution itself is causing greater disruption than the threat itself ?

I'd rather be over-cautious and delayed rather than under-cautious and dead!

bcoz

zvezda · Mon Jul 02, 2007 2:17 am

Quoting TPAnx (Reply 26):
an ability you seem to feel is lacking in the people who are professionals in the
field.

CYA.

Quoting Bcoz (Reply 27):
I'd rather be over-cautious and delayed rather than under-cautious and dead!

One can just stay in bed.

JGPH1A · Mon Jul 02, 2007 2:22 am

Quoting Bcoz (Reply 27):
I'd rather be over-cautious and delayed rather than under-cautious and dead!

Given the relatively likelihood of a flight delay (ie. absolute and definite) vs actually getting blown up (infinitesimal to the point of non-existence), I'd go for risking the explosion, personally.

TPAnx · Mon Jul 02, 2007 2:33 am

Quoting JGPH1A (Reply 29):
I'd go for risking the explosion, personally.

Err..fine if you are the only person in the terminal at the time. But most likely, you're not.

Quoting Zvezda (Reply 28):
CYA.

Huh?

So how do the two of you feel if, as YOUR non-delayed flight taxis to the runway..and you look over to to terminal. and
see a flash, hear a boom..and the see fire and smoke? Oops..guess I guessed wrong..but at least MY flight won't be delayed????

TPAnx

bcoz · Mon Jul 02, 2007 2:36 am

Quoting JGPH1A (Reply 29):
One can just stay in bed.

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 far between here in the United States. Maybe averaging one to two a month... if that. That, to me, is not crying wolf. It's being prudent.

I don't believe supporting an evacuation one or two times a month when the situation dictates it equates to a "let's stay under the covers" attitude. If it did, I wouldn't have been flying at all post-9/11.

This, I believe, was in an unsecured area. Given the recent events in the U.K., the Port Authority Police and other authorities did what they thought was needed. These are law enforcement professionals (the police, not the TSA) and I'll put my faith in their judgement on these issues over my own any day of the week.

Quoting JGPH1A (Reply 29):
Given the relatively likelihood of a flight delay (ie. absolute and definite) vs actually getting blown up (infinitesimal to the point of non-existence), I'd go for risking the explosion, personally.

We'll have to agree to disagree.

bcoz

JGPH1A · Mon Jul 02, 2007 2:43 am

Quoting TPAnx (Reply 30):
Err..fine if you are the only person in the terminal at the time. But most likely, you're not

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 selfish, but if we all going around being completely paranoid and jumping at shadows, you'd never get anything done, and the bad guys will have won.

Indy · Mon Jul 02, 2007 2:49 am

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. Some people just want to be the center of attention and create scares out of nothing.

EnviroTO · Mon Jul 02, 2007 2:55 am

This now happens every time someone forgets a package, lunch bag, briefcase, etc somewhere. How are the authorities differentiating between a suspicious package versus a accidentally left behind package? I really don't see why someone who accidentally got up and left his package behind should be fined. People forget things all the time. I guess what made the package suspicious is that nobody had stolen it after realizing someone had left it behind.

I'm not sure what authorities need to do to quickly ascertain whether the package is a threat or not but it seems to me that with this kind of response all terrorist need to do is buy boxes and fill them with styrofoam peanuts and leave them all over town. Why would they waste their time committing suicide missions and buying explosives when boxes will incite panick.

[Edited 2007-07-01 20:01:03]

TPAnx · Mon Jul 02, 2007 2:55 am

Quoting JGPH1A (Reply 32):
jumping at shadows

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 century , or see his girlfriend ,,that's all. I'm sure the people who have to make the call are well aware of the expense and frustration that evacuating a terminal create. We , too agree to disagree...
TPAnx

zvezda · Mon Jul 02, 2007 2:57 am

Quoting Bcoz (Reply 31):
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 far between here in the United States.

That's because nearly everyone makes the rational decision to not report unattended packages.

Mikey711MN · Mon Jul 02, 2007 3:19 am

Quoting EnviroTO (Reply 34):
How are the authorities differentiating between a suspicious package versus a accidentally left behind package?

Obviously not by smelling it at first...

Enjoy the delays at JFK this afternoon.

Quoting 6YJJK (Reply 23):
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.

You, sir, were not that far off after all...some chump just left his duty free cologne behind.

-Mike

RIXrat · Mon Jul 02, 2007 3:20 am

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 around the corner to blow up first which would draw a large crowd from the Tiger Tiger out into the street to see what was going on.

And then: Wham! The second Merc would blow up in their faces, including the "easy" women who frequent nightclubs. It could have been a disaster.

But, back to the lonely bag left alone in a terminal. I agree with those posters who say that other bags could have been left in other parts of the terminal and in case of evacuation in trash bins outside the terminal on the pavement. If properly coordinated, they could have been triggered in sequence, or at the same time.

Zvezda, regarding your Semtex shavings, I hope you know the mixture proportions for frying your eggs. Try T-4 and you'll get yourself an omelette in 30 seconds.

Tancrede · Mon Jul 02, 2007 3:23 am

Quoting NYC2theworld (Reply 9):
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.

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 airport. I do not see why I do need to get involve every time someone is farting on the other side of the Atlantic.

ikramerica · Mon Jul 02, 2007 3:28 am

Duty free cologne! They evacuated a terminal because of what was clearly duty free cologne? I stand corrected, because my belief this was an overreaction was obviously false. They were perfectly justified... Sad

Quoting RIXrat (Reply 38):
And then: Wham! The second Merc would blow up in their faces, including the "easy" women who frequent nightclubs. It could have been a disaster.

The target of the three UK car "duds" was young women and families, which was obviously intended to try to sway the UK government to abandon the fight against terrorism. Of course, the UK isn't Spain and it didn't work with the tube bombings, but they thought the new PM might be a wuss.

They'll try again.

EXMEMWIDGET · Mon Jul 02, 2007 3:34 am

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

Can you imagine the lawsuits if the package went off without the authorities clearing the terminal and people were hurt by it?

EA CO AS · Mon Jul 02, 2007 3:49 am

Quoting JGPH1A (Reply 11):
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.

And it's because of the mere possibility of that "1" that you evacuate. Everyone. Full stop.

bcoz · Mon Jul 02, 2007 3:51 am

Quoting Zvezda (Reply 36):

That's because nearly everyone makes the rational decision to not report unattended packages.

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 backpack sitting on the seat next to Gate 28 post-security while she darted after him to try and stop him from running around the terminal. This was on a curb in the front of a terminal.

Second, I can't find any information on it, but it may not have been a civilian who discovered the package and reported it. It may very well have been a Port Authority police officer or another law enforcement officer. If they didn't investigate (which in this case means calling in the bomb squad) and evaucate areas possibly threatened by the situation, they wouldn't be doing their job. If it was a device that went off, not only would lawsuits ensue, but they'ed be fired and would have to live with a kind of emotional pain I can't even imagine for the rest of their lives.

bcoz

n710ps · Mon Jul 02, 2007 4:10 am

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 going to the one built on a dump a few miles north of there.

Jonathan L · Mon Jul 02, 2007 4:19 am

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

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 the 2008 election approaches.

bcoz · Mon Jul 02, 2007 4:28 am

Quoting Jonathan L (Reply 45):
I guess it will only get worse as the 2008 election approaches.

Evacuating or partially evacuating a terminal at JFK because of a suspicious package has nothing to do with politics.

bcoz

Ncfc99 · Mon Jul 02, 2007 4:32 am

Quoting Bcoz (Reply 27):
I'd rather be over-cautious and delayed rather than under-cautious and dead!

Quoting JGPH1A (Reply 32):
Maybe it is selfish, but if we all going around being completely paranoid and jumping at shadows, you'd never get anything done, and the bad guys will have won.

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, then we win.

jutes85 · Mon Jul 02, 2007 4:33 am

Living in fear, lol.

Jonathan L · Mon Jul 02, 2007 4:47 am

Quoting Bcoz (Reply 46):
Evacuating or partially evacuating a terminal at JFK because of a suspicious package has nothing to do with politics.

You are very naive.

Who is online

Popular Searches On Airliners.net