Boston pilot threatens to evacuate the aircraft in 60 seconds

TMetzinger said:
It's awful cold up there. Unless they were suited up like a HALO jumper, they would have been useless. Also, I don't know how much available space is in those wheelwells, but I do know that they don't waste space in airplane design.
Click to expand...
There is plenty of room, and I don't really think they would be trying to stay alive for the duration of the flight.
 
Art VanDelay said:
I'm not aware of "Flight" ever being a code word for Hijack. I am aware of the use of the word "Trip" followed by the flight number as having been a code word.
Also most company operations manuals still have a code word and status words for bomb warning situations. My company would have given me an ACARS message with that in there. I guess AA is not up to speed on this.
Click to expand...

You're right... I mis-remembered! Thanks! :cheerswine: :thumbsup:
 
flyingmoose said:
Yes there are still air marhalls, and I bet you cant locate them. But if you know what to look for then maybe.
Click to expand...

I figure someone dressed as a government employee would be dressed, e.g. shirt and tie or even a suit. But, I'm sure they've come a long way and now they likely dress in jeans and a t-shirt even.
 
TangoWhiskey said:
Like the old hijack code word, "American FLIGHT 24"?
Click to expand...
I thought the old hijack code word was "trip". Of course I didn't know that until after 9/11. I also remember getting chastised by a retired airline captain I was flying with when I didn't get the flaps up in a timely manner after landing. He told me that was some other kind of code for hijack. I could only look at him and say "huh"? :confused:
 
Captain said:
I don't think the 'career dissipation light' is blinking. He didn't evacuate after all. I'm just speaking to the concept of threatening an evac. That and that alone is not a tool in the tool belt.

I fully support PIC authority and if any Captain feels its in the interest of safety to blow the slides then by all means take charge and do what you need to do. I'm not going to second guess it.

But when an evac is used as an ultimatum to get your way I think we've left the rails of what PIC authority means.


Again, from the tape, "I'm the Captain of an airliner. I need to know what's going on. (all fine so far) If I'm not told what's going on then I'm going to evacuate the aircraft...you have 60 seconds." (not fine IMO)

My only issue is that last sentence.
Click to expand...

Somebody said that the incident had been going on for twenty minutes by that time. How do you know the captain wasn't running scenarios through his mind, with "bomb on board" being one of the scenarios. Without talking to him, it's total speculation as to what his reasons were.

To me, the biggest issue in all this is that the ONLY person who had the authority to decide whether to evacuate the aircraft was being kept in the dark. That fact alone was ADDING to the hazard, IMO. Does anyone here think that keeping the passengers on the plane made ANY sense, given that there had been a bomb threat? If so, I'd sure like to hear the reasoning.

Given the fact that there was obviously suspicion of a hazard, and that the information that the captain needed to make appropriate decisions relative to that hazard was being kept from him, I think it was totally justified for him to do whatever he deemed necessary to get that information.

If the plane had blown up with the passengers on board, everyone would be pillorying the captain for not evacuating immediately.
 
Agree. The Captain should have been informed. But he wasn't. So with a complete lack of knowledge of what was wrong he used the threat of an evac to demand answers. Maybe the doors were rigged to blow up. Maybe the 'Speed' scenario was at play. Maybe he had a super bug on board. Maybe his tires were all flat.

Point is he didn't know what was wrong. That is an issue and I am upset the PIC wasn't informed of the status of his flight. BUT... that didn't happen. It should have, but didn't. Regardless, the PIC can't fix that problem with threats. Especially threats that endanger the very folks he's sworn to protect.


"Nurse...give me 500cc of aspertrentitium or I'll pinch this nerve and paralyze this guy from the waist down."

The doctor may have full right to demand 500cc of whatever drug and he may even have reason to pinch the nerve in certain circumstances...but to threaten the nurse with hurting the patient unless she complies is wrong.
 
Captain said:
The doctor may have full right to demand 500cc of whatever drug and he may even have reason to pinch the nerve in certain circumstances...but to threaten the nurse with hurting the patient unless she complies is wrong.
Click to expand...

Bad analogy. The patients were on board, not up in the Tower.
 
Ummmmm. Okay. Bad analogy.
 
Palmpilot said:
Given the fact that there was obviously suspicion of a hazard, and that the information that the captain needed to make appropriate decisions relative to that hazard was being kept from him, I think it was totally justified for him to do whatever he deemed necessary to get that information.

If the plane had blown up with the passengers on board, everyone would be pillorying the captain for not evacuating immediately.
Click to expand...

+1

I don't think he was threatening. He was putting the safety of his passengers first. He is responsible, he assesses the risk and determines that without better information, he needs to evacuate the aircraft. He simply stated that his assessment of the risk dictated a near immediate evacuation. If he wasn't provided better information immediately, he would act on the information he had and the conclusion he could draw from that information.

I personally think he handled this almost perfectly. In our world of hind-sight second guessing, maybe he could have said "Given the information I have, I feel my passengers are at risk and will begin evacuating the plane in 60 seconds. If you have information that you can provide that would change my risk assessment, please provide immediately."

If we all had perfect information and a day to consider every decision, we would all do things differently. He had no information and little time. He made a fine decision.
 
Yes, pilots always evacuate...in 60 seconds.

Hey, we're burning. Everybody out...in 60 seconds.
[/crazystupidtalk]


What did he KNOW was wrong? Nothing. That was the point. He wanted to know and they wouldn't say.

Nobody evacuates...later. To suggest that's fine is classic denial.
 
Last edited:
He bluffed. Poker players understand this. The controller could have called his bluff and said, "That's your decision." Pilot read the controller's emotional state perfectly.
 
I'm not so sure it was a bluff. There is a retired airline pilot on the red board who says that he actually did evacuate an aircraft in a similar situation.

He said there were some heated words between him and an FBI agent in the terminal office afterwards!
 
Everskyward said:
a retired airline captain told me that (I didn't get the flaps up in a timely manner after landing) was some other kind of code for hijack. :confused:
Click to expand...

Yuh! I remember that. We used to be taught that back in the 60's and it used to be one of the things posted on the NOTAMs board at the GADO
 
Complainingnabout the flaps not going up fast enough is going way overboard. The code was LOWERING the flaps as a sign that the situation was deteroriating quickly and immeadiate assistance was needed.

Like, the plane was in an isolated spot. FBI and SWAT around the plane and negotiating with the hijackers. They wanted the plane fueled and were going to start killing 1 pax every five minutes unless a fuel truck was provided. Then the hijackers get mad and just start offing people. The flaps going down was a signal to ground forces that they better get in NOW as serious "stuff" is going down and nobody is likely going to be left to save.

They would swarm guns a blazing and peopke were going to die. Thats what the meaning of flaps down meant to the Captain who commanded it. To complain to an FO on the taxi in is stupid. The situation just isnt right.
 
HerrGruyere said:
I figure someone dressed as a government employee would be dressed, e.g. shirt and tie or even a suit. But, I'm sure they've come a long way and now they likely dress in jeans and a t-shirt even.
Click to expand...

On the occasions when I flew armed, I was always introduced to any other armed folk on board. Trust me that you would not be able to spot a FAM on duty unless you were specifically looking for the weapon and knew what to look for. They don't dress like FBI agents, they dress like undercover operators - which is what they are.
 
OPSEC OPSEC - duress words have been compromised, time to change em.
 
Captain said:
Complainingnabout the flaps not going up fast enough is going way overboard.
Click to expand...
Especially when we had never been trained that this was any kind of code and we're talking about a Lear 35 here not an airliner.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top