Rick, I had a conversation today with an ex airline captain who had what people refer to as a bomb scare in 1983. It was on a 737 while emplaning early one morning.
The hostess came forward to the cockpit to inform him that one of the passengers had told her than he had a bomb. He went to the cabin to investigate and talk to the passenger and ascertained that he did not in fact have a bomb, and that he was making what he thought was a joke.
No delay to the flight, no hysteria, no gunfire, no deaths, no drama, no media mania.
I know Americans are completely lacking in imagination, as claimed by Condoleezza who said that nobody could have imagined hijacking aircraft and flying them into buildings, though Osama and co obviously could, which is perhaps why the USA is losing in Iraq and is wanting to cut and run. However, there is a logic to bomb threats if you use your imagination. Even Condoleezza and air marshals might be able to get a grip on this. I'll explain.
Somebody has a bomb for a purpose, which is to blow people up, possibly including themselves. They do that to achieve certain things which are important to them. Often, they don't want to actually blow it up and kill a whole lot of people. The USA for example has umpty megatons of noocular bombs but isn't planning to actually use them on anybody right now. Well, they are planning on using them on people and they have targets planned for most of them. Not many of those targets are in New Zealand. Targets would mostly be in Russia, China, North Korea, Iran, Pakistan and other threatening places where major military action might be needed. But although they have plans and targets, they are hoping to use the threats to achieve other aims, such as keeping opposition at bay, cowed by the horrific threat.
Similarly, small-time bombers don't necessarily plan to explode their bombs. They are often wanting to use the bomb threat to force people to do things they want. A bomb threat on an aircraft might be used to force the aircrew or other people to take particular actions, such as "Take me to Havana" [though why anyone would want to hijack an aircraft to there is beyond me].
I realize this train of logic is already way past the attention span and intellect of the average, let alone low decile, air marshal. But bear with me.
Small time bombers are therefore either planning on blowing up the bomb to destroy the immediate surroundings, perhaps including themselves to achieve particular aims, from revenge to withdrawal from providing air services, or geopolitical objectives such as the cancellation of Israel by the UN, or they are not planning on blowing up the bomb but want particular demands met, such as the traditional "Fly me to Havana".
There aren't many other options.
So, if somebody says "I have a bomb" on board an aircraft, they are either planning on making a demand, or simply blowing it up.
If they are wanting to blow it up, there isn't any reason for them to announce that they have a bomb, or they might be stopped from blowing it up, or blowing it up at the time they want. So, asking people checking in, "Do you have any bombs in your bags?" won't get bombers saying, "Yes, I do." They'll say "No I haven't". They certainly won't walk up and say, "I have a bomb in my bags" as it's even obvious to people with limited imagination, such as Americans, that they would not be getting on the aircraft, or getting any further with their bomb.
If there is no demand, there won't be a voluntary announcement "I have a bomb". If they are planning on blowing it up anyway, they won't make the announcement. If there is a demand, they will say, "I have a bomb and this is what I want". Or words to that effect.
If they have got cold feet, they might say, "I have a bomb in my bags, but I've changed my mind, and the people who are holding my family hostage if I don't blow it up are real meanies".
So, the pilot I talked to could conclude, after extensive analysis of not many seconds at all, and the general context of the comment, that there was no bomb. If there was a bomb, there would have been a demand, which there wasn't. If there was going to be an explosion, there wouldn't have been an announcement.
Even without considering context, it's obvious that there wasn't a bomb.
It's not like a hoax call, which is a threat to disrupt proceedings, perhaps to delay a flight so somebody can get to the airport before it leaves. In that case, there is a demand, albeit hidden.
The crazed air marshals were obviously at fault. I wonder if they had been drinking to help in their disguise as Hawaiian shirt wearing holiday-makers.
I know that in a split-second, your average, or low decile, air marshal isn't going to be able to figure out anything other than to start shooting and attacking innocent people who talk on cellphones or watch what's happening. But maybe with training they could do a bit better.
Note that in this instance, no witnesses other than the air marshals, who have a vested interest, believe there were bomb threats. They weren't all deaf and I'm sure they were all very interested in what was happening.
There's another bit of logic here. The "bomber" had got OFF the aircraft. People with bombs wanting to blow up aircraft don't get through security, but suppose they did, they would want to be ON the aircraft, not off it. Especially, obviously disturbed people like the dead passenger would have been noticed at the security check, and checking in, as being a dodgy character and given particular attention. I bet his bags were closely inspected.
Mqurice |
