Hi All,
There was recent incident in Singapore whereby an australian charged after repeatedly saying ‘bomb’ on Perth-bound Scoot flight that had to turn back to S’pore ( The Straight times reported few days ago ).
Bomb threats in aviation are a serious security concern with far-reaching consequences. The prohibition of uttering the word ‘bomb’ in airports is not just a result of regulatory guidelines, but it is a critical component of the broad security measures taken to ensure flight safety.
The mention of a ‘bomb’ in an airport is strictly prohibited due to the significant security risk such a threat poses. Airports are high-security environments, and any threat, even if made in jest, is taken very seriously. The mention of a bomb can trigger panic, disrupt airport operations, and potentially jeopardize lives. It can lead to costly delays, rerouting of flights, and extensive investigations. The prohibition is a preventive measure designed to keep the airport environment as secure as possible and discourage any form of a bomb threat.
When a passenger makes a bomb threat, immediate action is taken. First, law enforcement and security personnel isolate the individual to minimize potential risk to others. The person is then questioned to assess the credibility of the threat. If the threat is deemed credible, a bomb disposal team is deployed to search for the explosive device. The airport may also be evacuated or sections closed off during this time to ensure passenger safety. The individual making the threat can face significant legal penalties, including imprisonment, regardless of whether it was a joke or a genuine threat.
Other than prohibition to utter Bomb, Airlines also has procedure to handle Bomb threats. These follows are procedures to manage them:
Having received a bomb threat, Airlines or its designated representatives shall in coordination assess the details and any other relevant information and classify it as being either a “SPECIFIC THREAT”, in which case the aircraft WILL be searched or a “NON SPECIFIC THREAT”, in which case the aircraft NEED NOT be searched. The Pilot-in-Command assume responsibility for assessment and classification.
Threat Assessment:
- Evaluate bomb Message Report;
- Evaluation of the seriousness of a threat should generally be based on initial information;
- Caution: Supplementary information often lacks objectivity;
- Due cognizance be taken of the local laws.
Classification:
Specific: (Positive identified target)
- The individual giving the warming identifies himself,
- The nature of the warming is specific;
- The airline is specific,
- A specific flight or Vacation is mentioned;
- The exact date and/or time are stated;
- In case of a bomb message regarding an aircraft the origin and/or destination of the flight is given.
Non specific:
- The person giving the warning does not identify himself,
- The airline is not specified;
- The flight or facilities is not specifying;
- The information is general in nature,
The further procedures are established by international aviation standards and commonly include a thorough search of the aircraft by trained personnel, often with the aid of specialized equipment and canines. Pilots follow protocols to land the plane as soon as it is safe to do so if the threat is received mid-flight. Passengers are evacuated, and the aircraft is searched meticulously. Airlines also work closely with law enforcement agencies to investigate the threat and take appropriate action against the perpetrator.
Regrettably, there have been several instances of bomb threats in aviation history. One prominent example occurred in 1971 when a man known as D.B. Cooper hijacked a Northwest Orient Airlines flight, claiming he had a bomb in his briefcase. The plane landed safely, but the hijacker escaped, leaving behind a mystery that remains unsolved to this day. Another instance occurred in 2015, when Air France Flight 463 was forced to make an emergency landing in Kenya due to a bomb scare. The bomb threat turned out to be a hoax, but it highlights the level of disruption and fear such threats can cause.
Eliminating bomb threats in aviation ultimately requires a multifaceted approach. Enhanced security measures, including thorough passenger and luggage screenings, are crucial. In addition, public awareness campaigns about the severe consequences of making a bomb threat can also serve as a deterrent. Technological advances, such as improved detection equipment, can also play a significant role. However, it is also essential to foster a culture of vigilance and responsibility among passengers. Everyone has a role to play in ensuring the safety of air travel.
In short, bomb threats in aviation are a grave matter that requires rigorous preventative measures and swift response protocols. The prohibition of uttering the word ‘bomb’ in airports is a critical element of these security measures, aiming to avert panic, maintain operational efficiency, and deter potential threats. Handling passengers who breach this rule involves immediate isolation, assessment of the threat’s credibility, and potential legal consequences. Airlines adhere to stringent procedures to manage bomb threats, including thorough aircraft searches and cooperation with law enforcement agencies. Eradicating such threats necessitates enhanced security measures, public awareness campaigns, technological advancements, and a collective commitment to vigilance and responsibility in the aviation community. While it may be challenging to entirely eliminate bomb threats, these strategies can significantly mitigate the risk, ensuring the safety and security of all those who rely on air travel.
Salam Sehat Semangat Sukses
Bambang Purnomo , SS-BA, CSCA, CAVM Solution Consultant