Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Friendliest aviation Ccmmunity on the web
  • Modern site for PC's, Phones, Tablets - no 3rd party apps required
  • Ask questions, help others, promote aviation
  • Share the passion for aviation
  • Invite everyone to Flightinfo.com and let's have fun

Lufthansa decides bomb threat not serious - continues flight

Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Modern secure site, no 3rd party apps required
  • Invite your friends
  • Share the passion of aviation
  • Friendliest aviation community on the web

Dumbledore

My Kids' Doormat
Joined
Aug 26, 2004
Posts
113
Anyone who had any doubt about the stupidity of the Germans - you know those folks trying to takeover Europe yet again ... did I say that out loud? I meant to say, vying for the leadership of the EU and the rest of the "civilized" world, can now rest easier knowing that it's been confirmed.

Here's the BBC report link: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3717246.stm

The short story is that Lufthansa got a bomb threat to the flight from Frankfurt to Tel Aviv from a person with an Arabic accent. They did some asking around and decided that the threat wasn't serious. The Israelis decided for the idiots at Luthansa that it was indeed serious and it forced the plane to land in Larnaca, Cyprus.

But hey, they're the Germans and they know better than any of the rest of us what they're doing, right?

Anyone still want to fly on Lufthansa? I sure won't - EVER!!!!!! This had BETTER result in a PR nightmare for them.
 
That plane would have been escorted to an airport by a couple of F-16's in the U.S.:)
 
Well, was there a bomb onboard? All threats should be evaluated, but why do you automatically assume they were wrong to discount the threat?
 
Good point, but would you have to reinact the movie broken arrow to find out? How would you know for sure. There could have been a terrorist on board as well. What would happen if that plane and pax were destroyed and the airline was to blame?
 
Well, if that happened the terrorist would be to blame, not the airline. But that's beside the point. I'm not saying they did the right thing, or not, just that we need more information.
 
I would like to know the context of the phone call with the "Arabic" voice. Was it a tip off call--> or was it a threat.



Somebody calling to warn of a bomb on board after the aircraft has departed seems unlikely, if they had the information and wanted to stop an attack why wait until after departure



Somebody giving a threatening call of a bomb on board sound like a hoax



What terrorist would call and inform authorities of a bomb being on board before the bomb blows up. Why would they call and reveal this information and have the possibility of their plan being halted



Also the airline chose to continue the flight, we don't have the information that they had. Airlines don't routinely fly in conditions under which the aircraft might explode. My guess is the airline had very compelling evidence the phone call was a hoax.



This is my reasoning,
if an airplane blows up in the next couple of weeks after continuing flight, after a bomb threat had been received
Then please disregard the above
 
You've obviously never been through airline security training!

Bluto said:
Well, was there a bomb onboard? All threats should be evaluated, but why do you automatically assume they were wrong to discount the threat?

As it turned out there was no bomb. But that is not the way you approach dealing with a threat of this kind. The deal is this: You ALWAYS take ANY kind of threat notification seriously and act accordingly.

I have a friend who was on a Lufthansa flight over the summer. The flight was immediately turned around and brought back home - to the point where they crew said they thought they'd landed about 45,000# over max landing weight.

I want to know what the pilots were thinking. It's possible they weren't. It's possible they weren't in the loop but if they were WHAT ON EARTH WERE THEY DOING STAYING UP THERE???
 
Monkeyfist said:
Somebody calling to warn of a bomb on board after the aircraft has departed seems unlikely, if they had the information and wanted to stop an attack why wait until after departure

Somebody giving a threatening call of a bomb on board sound like a hoax.

What terrorist would call and inform authorities of a bomb being on board before the bomb blows up. Why would they call and reveal this information and have the possibility of their plan being halted.

Umm, helloooo! When bomb threats are made against airliners how do you think it's done most of the time? Yup it's with the old phoneroo!

Monkeyfist said:
Also the airline chose to continue the flight, we don't have the information that they had. Airlines don't routinely fly in conditions under which the aircraft might explode. My guess is the airline had very compelling evidence the phone call was a hoax.

To which I would respond with a four-word question: What if they're wrong?


Monkeyfist said:
This is my reasoning,

if an airplane blows up in the next couple of weeks after continuing flight, after a bomb threat had been received Then please disregard the above

See, this is just the wrong attitude altogether!
 
There's no *logical* thinking behind continuing that flight. Wether there turned out to be a bomb on board or not, no question asked the plane is landed and deplaned if possible.

Would you want to be the one to tell the families of the passengers that "yeah we had a threat called in, but didn't think it was serious so we just let them keep flying"?

As for the whole "if a plane blows up in the next few weeks....." thing...isn't that the same thing as saying "oh yeah we just had someone tell us that terrorists were going to fly airplanes into the world trade center among other targets...we think its wrong...but oh now that its happened disregard the fact that we thought it was a hoax.."

Come on...there is no way that plane should have left the ground, or if it was already airborn there's no way it should have done anything but land...

I'm sure the people on board would rather have landed, gotten off, and had some dog sniff the plane just to find out nothing was wrong than to continue to their deaths...I know I would have...

-mini
 
ThomasR said:
You blow up two lousy buildings and nobody ever trusts you again, WHATS this world coming to?
Next thing you know there's gonna be security guards* at every airport making people take off their shoes before they can get on airplanes...oh....wait....

-mini

*security guard - I use the term very broadly
 
If they were past the mid point of their fllight when the pilot got the information, going onward would be the logical choice. Of course I am only half German so my logic might be flawed.
 
That plane would have been escorted to an airport by a couple of F-16's in the U.S.:)
If it had continued on to its destination Ill guarentee Israel would have done the same. I would take the Israeli air force more seriously than anyone out there....
 
ThomasR said:
If they were past the mid point of their fllight when the pilot got the information, going onward would be the logical choice. Of course I am only half German so my logic might be flawed.
They couldn't have landed at the next airport?

-mini
 
Dumbledore said:
But hey, they're the Germans and they know better than any of the rest of us what they're doing, right?

Well, maybe. Fact is, according to the article you quoted, that it wasn't Lufthansa that concluded that: "German security officials concluded that the threat was a false alarm and authorised the plane to continue its journey to Tel Aviv".

And if they say that, you can be pretty sure, that they were certain. Nothing wrong with the israelis to take extra measures.

That said, you shouldn't forget, that Germany (along with the brits, spanish, dutch and so on) has been dealing with terrorism since the 70's, IRA, PLO etc. So they have some experience, defintely more than than the US domestic secret services.
 
"You've obviously never been through airline security training!"
Guess again Dumbledore. How many airline security training programs have you been through? They told you that any threats, whether or not they are legitimate, should automatically result in diverting a flight? Sounds like an interesting program. How exactly do you think that diverting the flight would keep a bomb from going off? I think you need to ask your security training program manager for a refresher... :rolleyes:
 
That wasn't my point and you know it!

Bluto said:
"You've obviously never been through airline security training!"
Guess again Dumbledore. How many airline security training programs have you been through? They told you that any threats, whether or not they are legitimate, should automatically result in diverting a flight? Sounds like an interesting program. How exactly do you think that diverting the flight would keep a bomb from going off? I think you need to ask your security training program manager for a refresher...

My point was that where airline security is concerned ALL threats are taken seriously and treated as the real deal. You know that is the case so don't try to say that I don't know what I'm talking about!

Continuing the flight when the call came in a few minutes after departure and deciding to let the flight continue is INSANITY - and you know THAT too!

(Juvenile insult deleted.)

While it may be true that German intelligence determined that the threat was a hoax, in the end, Lufthansa made the decision to continue the flight. If the pilots knew about it and were in on the decision making they oughtta have their tickets punched.

I mean really, think about it! What do you suppose the FAA would do if a bomb threat were called in on a U.S. carrier heading out of the country and the crew elected to continue. There'd be no heavy duty investigation??? Maybe even an emergency revocation pending review of the captain's judgment during the incident?
 
Last edited:
I have no idea what your point was. Maybe you should try to make it again. Was it that Germans are arrogant? Seriously, I don't understand it. Well, clearly you know better than Lufthansa and their pilots. Congratulations on a stellar Monday-morning quarterback job. If you want to talk politics, please PM me. Juvenile insults do nothing to lend your case credibility. In fact, they along with your snap judgement of a situation you learned about only through news reports make you sound like a rookie.
 
Last edited:
If there was a bomb on the airplane, I don't think the terrorists would phone in the threat.
I don't remember there being a phone call to authorities the morning the Russian airliners blew up, or on 9-11
We would be discussing a different news article, "Lufthansa flight crashes shortly after take off, witness saw explosion, terrorism suspected"
 
Monkeyfist said:
If there was a bomb on the airplane, I don't think the terrorists would phone in the threat.
I don't remember there being a phone call to authorities the morning the Russian airliners blew up, or on 9-11
We would be discussing a different news article, "Lufthansa flight crashes shortly after take off, witness saw explosion, terrorism suspected"
Finally someone hit the head of the nail...
 
Monkeyfist said:
If there was a bomb on the airplane, I don't think the terrorists would phone in the threat.
I don't remember there being a phone call to authorities the morning the Russian airliners blew up, or on 9-11
We would be discussing a different news article, "Lufthansa flight crashes shortly after take off, witness saw explosion, terrorism suspected"

So what are you saying? That the threat's not real if a call is actually made? Or that it can only be a real terrorist attack if a call is NOT made? I haven't ever seen that in ANY security manual or law enforcement training material EVER! See, the thing is, a threat is as good as a real attack until the passengers are safe.

With 347 passengers and crew aboard and already aloft, the time for speculation about he validity of the threat, at least as far as a go/no-go decision is concerned, is not while the aircraft is still aloft. For that matter, speculation isn't what the process ought to be in the first place. It can't simply be an educated guss that everything's okay. We do preflight inspections so that we're not taking a guess at the condition of the plane we're about to fly away in using this logic. How about when a bomb has been threatened? Don't you think that merits just a little extra attention? The government of Cyprus sure did!

How would you feel if you were on a plane for 6 hours and at the end of the flight, the thing's swarmed by police and emergency vehicles because of a bomb threat made against the flight more than five hours earlier, just after departure? Kinda gives you a warm fuzzy feeling, doesn't it?

But since everyone agrees that German intelligence was right to wave the flight onward based on the fact that they just didn't see any way that the threat could possibly be real, I must not have any idea what common sense is anymore. Oh well.
 
Bluto said:
Juvenile insults do nothing to lend your case credibility. In fact, they along with your snap judgement of a situation you learned about only through news reports make you sound like a rookie.

You're absolutely right! I deleted the bad, hateful, right wing, homophobic, ecologically unsound words we shouldn't call our friends from my post. Oops, I forgot "racist." Please insert racist in my lineup of descriptors for my now deleted words.

But about this business of being a rookie, son, at 2200 hours you're hardly in a position to be calling ME a rookie.
 
I don't pretend to know anything about your background. All I said was you sounded like a rookie. Why don't you give me a reason to change my mind? You have yet to explain your credentials for sounding off on Lufthansa/Germany's error in judgement. Why should we listen to you when all the reasonable, level-headed individuals on this site seem to think they did the right thing? If you can't win us over with your logic, maybe a look at your resume would help? I mean, are you TOM RIDGE?! If so, I apologize. I don't know of any airlines (US registered at least) that fly the Nimbus 2000 so that doesn't help much. Although, personally, I'd go for the Firebolt if I had my choice. The Nimbus 2000 is so 5 years ago...Oh, and please don't call me 'son', you know nothing about me or my background. You may want to add 'condescending' to your list of posting flaws.
 
Sunnfun said:
That said, you shouldn't forget, that Germany (along with the brits, spanish, dutch and so on) has been dealing with terrorism since the 70's, IRA, PLO etc. So they have some experience, defintely more than than the US domestic secret services.
You're being facetious, right? Germany sure handled the '72 Munich Olympics terrorists well. And don't forget that they set free the terrorists they captured.
 
http://www.haaretzdaily.com/hasen/spages/485529.html

Cyprus files protest against Israel over Lufthansa intercept

By Zohar Blumenkrantz, Haaretz Correspondent, and Agencies
NICOSIA, Cyprus - Cyprus protested formally to Israel on Wednesday over the diversion of a German airliner to the Mediterranean island, and the airspace violation by two Israeli jets who escorted the airliner.

The plane, a Lufthansa Boeing 747, was flying past southern Cyprus Tuesday on its way to Israel when its pilot was told there was a bomb on board. The pilot wanted to continue as the airline believed the warning was a hoax. But Israel refused to allow him to land and two Israeli fighter jets intercepted the plane and forced it to land at Larnaca airport, Cyprus.

"This is a grave violation of international flight regulations," Cypriot Communications Minister Charis Thrasou said in a statement. "The government will be protesting to the International Civil Aviation Organization and other relevant international bodies."

The government also said that Israeli Ambassador Ivi Cohen-Litant had been summoned to the Foreign Ministry to receive the protest.

A thorough search of the plane at Larnaca revealed no bomb and the plane flew on to Israel after an eight-hour delay. It had 331 passengers and 16 crew.

The Israeli fighter jets mistakenly buzzed a Swiss aircraft close to Cyprus on Tuesday before intercepting the Lufthansa airliner, a senior Cypriot official said on Wednesday.

Reuters reported that Cyprus is furious that Israeli fighters scrambled to intercept the aircraft, a potential security risk, without clearance within Cyprus-administered airspace and "forced" it to land at a Cypriot airport.

However, Transportation Ministry security officer Dan Shin'ar said the Cypriot authorities cooperated fully and that there was no argument with Lufthansa about landing the plane in Larnaca.

The Lufthansa jet, which was flying from Frankfort to Tel Aviv, was intercepted south-west of Cyprus by two F-16s to keep it from entering Israeli air space.

Cyprus Communications Minister Haris Thrassou said that before the Lufthansa jet was approached, a Swiss plane had to switch altitude because it was approached by two Israeli F-16s.

"My information is that before the fighters approached the Lufthansa plane they approached the Swiss plane which was forced to switch altitude," he said. "It appears they then realized their mistake and moved on to the Lufthansa plane," he said.

Shin'ar dismissed the criticism of aviation sources that Israel had overreacted and that the same checks could have been conducted at Ben-Gurion Airport.

"I gave instructions not to let it into Israel and to land it in Larnaca for security checks," Shin'ar said.

"I don't think it was overreacting or hysteria. We know terror organizations are motivated to harm airplanes to Israel. Recently two Russian planes exploded and a bomb was put in a Turkish plane about a month ago," he said.

A passenger on the Lufthansa flight said that despite reports of a thorough search of both the plane and the passengers during the stopover in Larnaca, nobody examined the passengers physically or searched their hand luggage.

The Lufthansa plane landed in Israel early Wednesday morning after a seven-hour layover. Cypriot security officials had found no explosives on Tuesday in the cargo hold or passenger cabin of the Boeing 747.

Lufthansa flight No. 686 took off as usual at 10:30 A.M. from Frankfurt Tuesday and was due to land at 1:55 P.M. at Ben-Gurion Airport. It was carrying 331 passengers and 18 crew members. An hour after it took off an anonymous telephone caller told the airline's office in Frankfurt that there was a bomb on board. The German authorities notified Israel and the Transport Ministry decided to land the plane in Larnaca.

"I was afraid," said Lorraine, a 30-year-old Lufthansa passenger, in a telephone conversation from Larnaca on Tuesday. "We were told on the loudspeaker that we would land in Israel in half an hour, when suddenly they said they're not letting the flight enter, and that there are negotiations. They didn't tell us what was going on, why we weren't allowed to land. Then they announced that two Israeli air force war planes would escort us out of Israel's air space. Suddenly we saw two fighter jets. They flew with us a while and left," she said.

"After landing in Larnaca, they loaded us onto buses and took us to the terminal. They still told us nothing of what was going on. After about half an hour, we got food and drink and only two hours later they told on the loudspeaker, in English, that there was a bomb threat. But we all knew all that already, because we called home from the terminal, and they told us what was happening. Throughout all the time in Larnaca nobody checked us physically nor searched our handbags."

Lufthansa's Israel director Ofer Kish told Haaretz: "All the flight security measures in Frankfurt were checked after the threat was made and found in order. Our station notified the captain and Israel. About half an hour before the plane was due to land in Israel, Israeli security decided not to let it in. Lufthansa decided to land it in Larnaca, where it was searched by the Cypriot security forces."

Lufthansa spokesman in Israel Yitzhak Zaruni said the bomb threat caller had an Arabic accent. After consulting with German security officials, the airline and German authorities decided that the threat was not serious and the plane should continue on its way to Ben-Gurion Airport, he said. However, Israel decided to divert the plane to Cyprus and thoroughly check it there, on the orders of Defense Minister Shaul Mofaz.
 
Let me pose a hypothetical question here, without taking one position or another on the incident that started this thread as to if the flight should or should not have continued.

What if…….

Terror organizations and just plain sickos out there decided that all they needed to do to inflict a serious setback to our country’s economy was to make phone calls?

What if…..

Persons all over the country started to phone in threats to hundreds, if not thousands of flights every week, with the idea that it would cause gridlock and people then decided it was imprudent to fly commercial airlines?

What if…..

Phone calls to all the Amtrak stations and subway train stations from pay phones and pre-paid cell phones, with real, or disguised ‘Arab’ accents, said there was a bomb on a rail car?

What if…..

Phone calls to hundreds of schools every day caused schools to be evacuated for the day while bomb sniffing dogs searched the premises?

What if…..

Hundreds of phone calls were made to governmental and commercial office buildings every day warning that a bomb would go off in that building in the next few hours?

Would, or could this scenario play right into the terror organization’s plans? Would that be just as successful in shutting down America if in fact no bombs were ever in existence? How long would authorities continue to just “shut it all down” as “phone terror” played out as well as ‘actual’ terror without anyone ever have to risk getting caught in the placing of real bombs?

What would be your solution to this scenario? Don’t say it can’t happen. It may in fact already be happening, but airline or others in officialdom just don’t leak it to the media. In my state a few years ago, a bomb threat was phoned into a local school. School was dismissed for the day. It proved to be a prank by a student who just wanted to play hooky. But what happened next, was that over the next few weeks many other schools around the state had similar false threats before it died out. And these were just 14 and 15 year old kids. The threat was all that was needed. The fact that they proved not to be credible did not alter the intended disruption.

Why would not that same ‘phone terror’ campaign be just as effective in shutting down America as ‘real terror' would? And maybe just every once in a while, they have a real bomb go off, just to keep any official policy from calling the callers bluff.

So, with that hypothetical, what do any of you think should be done if the hypothetical became reality?
 
Last edited:
Jarhead: I agree, some threats must be discounted. I guess Israel just didn't trust Germany's opinion on this. Were the lines of communication fully open? Not known.
 
TWA Dude said:
You're being facetious, right? Germany sure handled the '72 Munich Olympics terrorists well. And don't forget that they set free the terrorists they captured.

That was 32 years ago. Do you actually think that nothing has changed since then? Please tell me that you're not serious about that assumption.
 
Let me pose a hypothetical question here, without taking one position or another on the incident that started this thread as to if the flight should or should not have continued.

What if…….

Terror organizations and just plain sickos out there decided that all they needed to do to inflict a serious setback to our country’s economy was to make phone calls?

What if…..

Persons all over the country started to phone in threats to hundreds, if not thousands of flights every week, with the idea that it would cause gridlock and people then decided it was imprudent to fly commercial airlines?

What if…..

Phone calls to all the Amtrak stations and subway train stations from pay phones and pre-paid cell phones, with real, or disguised ‘Arab’ accents, said there was a bomb on a rail car?

What if…..

Phone calls to hundreds of schools every day caused schools to be evacuated for the day while bomb sniffing dogs searched the premises?

What if…..

Hundreds of phone calls were made to governmental and commercial office buildings every day warning that a bomb would go off in that building in the next few hours?

Would, or could this scenario play right into the terror organization’s plans? Would that be just as successful in shutting down America if in fact no bombs were ever in existence? How long would authorities continue to just “shut it all down” as “phone terror” played out as well as ‘actual’ terror without anyone ever have to risk getting caught in the placing of real bombs?

What would be your solution to this scenario? Don’t say it can’t happen. It may in fact already be happening, but airline or others in officialdom just don’t leak it to the media. In my state a few years ago, a bomb threat was phoned into a local school. School was dismissed for the day. It proved to be a prank by a student who just wanted to play hooky. But what happened next, was that over the next few weeks many other schools around the state had similar false threats before it died out. And these were just 14 and 15 year old kids. The threat was all that was needed. The fact that they proved not to be credible did not alter the intended disruption.

Why would not that same ‘phone terror’ campaign be just as effective in shutting down America as ‘real terror' would? And maybe just every once in a while, they have a real bomb go off, just to keep any official policy from calling the callers bluff.

So, with that hypothetical, what do any of you think should be done if the hypothetical became reality?



Well said Jarhead. I do not know what the airlines could do in this situation. You would be playing Russian roulet with the passenger's lives if you didn't take all of the bomb threats seriously. Let's hope it never comes to that. However, it would be interesting to find out what the airline actually did to prove that this bomb threat was a hoax. We have all seen that TSA is not perfect in America, so how could Lufthansa know that there wasn't a bomb on the plane? By the way, what does everyone think about Kerry's idea to x-ray the cargo holds of "all" aircraft. Is this a feasible solution? How would this be done? More importantly, who would pay for this huge expense?
 

Latest resources

Back
Top Bottom