evilwill
Jul 29th, 2004, 6:56 AM
AUSTRALIA'S biggest peacetime air emergency which shut down the nation's busiest airport on Tuesday night could have been the result of a simple misunderstanding, the Federal Government conceded yesterday.
Transport Minister John Anderson made the concession less than 24 hours after Sydney Airport declared its highest state of emergency when a United Airlines flight returned 90 minutes after taking off because of a possible bomb threat.
The threat was sparked when the initials "BOB" were found scrawled on a sick bag in the airliner's toilet, and were interpreted by the crew as meaning "bomb on board".
But flight attendants yesterday said the initials "BOB" were not a common airline reference to "bomb on board", and were in fact an in-joke often used to single out the best-looking passenger on board.
Mr Anderson admitted the mid-air emergency could well have been the result of a simple misunderstanding, but he defended the actions of the pilot, whom he denied had overreacted.
"He (the pilot) would have carefully assessed the risk and he made the decision in the light of the information available to him," Mr Anderson said.
"We cannot run risks – the pilot was right in my view not to run risks."
Prime Minister John Howard also backed the pilot's decision, saying it was the right thing to do in the circumstances.
"The pilot has to make the ultimate call; he or she is ultimately responsible for the safety of the passengers and he did the right thing," Mr Howard said.
"We live in a more dangerous, more stressful period and incidents like this where people are ultra-cautious, and I applaud pilots of aircraft who are ultra-cautious.
"I'd far rather be with a pilot who's ultra-cautious than one who's cavalier, and I think everybody would feel the same way."
Mr Anderson said, however, that there might be a case for reviewing how information about the threat was conveyed to passengers, considering none of the passengers knew of the bomb threat until they were safely inside the terminal.
"I would think that there's not a lot that can be revealed too early, although we always like to share with the public what is happening . . . they have a right to know that their safety is being treated as absolutely of paramount importance," Mr Anderson said.
The Minister said airlines would be consulted about any possible changes to protocols, but his spokesman later said the comments were not meant to signal a policy change.
Mr Anderson also conceded that the circumstances behind the note might never be known, and said it was impossible to estimate at this stage what the incident had cost the airlines or airport and emergency authorities.
"But then the one thing you can know is that you can't put a value on human life and safety either," he said.
_____________
IMO the pilot did overdo it. If it was meant to be a bomb warning, there would be no reason why it wouldn't have said 'bomb'. Everyone is strung so high these days and seem to jump at the most minor things.
Obviously there is a real threat out there, but it's no reason to lose our common sense...
Transport Minister John Anderson made the concession less than 24 hours after Sydney Airport declared its highest state of emergency when a United Airlines flight returned 90 minutes after taking off because of a possible bomb threat.
The threat was sparked when the initials "BOB" were found scrawled on a sick bag in the airliner's toilet, and were interpreted by the crew as meaning "bomb on board".
But flight attendants yesterday said the initials "BOB" were not a common airline reference to "bomb on board", and were in fact an in-joke often used to single out the best-looking passenger on board.
Mr Anderson admitted the mid-air emergency could well have been the result of a simple misunderstanding, but he defended the actions of the pilot, whom he denied had overreacted.
"He (the pilot) would have carefully assessed the risk and he made the decision in the light of the information available to him," Mr Anderson said.
"We cannot run risks – the pilot was right in my view not to run risks."
Prime Minister John Howard also backed the pilot's decision, saying it was the right thing to do in the circumstances.
"The pilot has to make the ultimate call; he or she is ultimately responsible for the safety of the passengers and he did the right thing," Mr Howard said.
"We live in a more dangerous, more stressful period and incidents like this where people are ultra-cautious, and I applaud pilots of aircraft who are ultra-cautious.
"I'd far rather be with a pilot who's ultra-cautious than one who's cavalier, and I think everybody would feel the same way."
Mr Anderson said, however, that there might be a case for reviewing how information about the threat was conveyed to passengers, considering none of the passengers knew of the bomb threat until they were safely inside the terminal.
"I would think that there's not a lot that can be revealed too early, although we always like to share with the public what is happening . . . they have a right to know that their safety is being treated as absolutely of paramount importance," Mr Anderson said.
The Minister said airlines would be consulted about any possible changes to protocols, but his spokesman later said the comments were not meant to signal a policy change.
Mr Anderson also conceded that the circumstances behind the note might never be known, and said it was impossible to estimate at this stage what the incident had cost the airlines or airport and emergency authorities.
"But then the one thing you can know is that you can't put a value on human life and safety either," he said.
_____________
IMO the pilot did overdo it. If it was meant to be a bomb warning, there would be no reason why it wouldn't have said 'bomb'. Everyone is strung so high these days and seem to jump at the most minor things.
Obviously there is a real threat out there, but it's no reason to lose our common sense...