Ariana Afghan B722 near Urumqi on Aug 9th 2009, bomb on board?

[NickN]

By Simon Hradecky, created Sunday, Aug 9th 2009 17:40Z, last updated Sunday, Aug 9th 2009 18:53Z

An Ariana Afghan Airlines Boeing 727-200, flight FG-331 from Kabul (Afghanistan) to Urumqi (China), prompted Chinese Authorities to deploy 110 police vehicles, 120 ambulances and uncounted fire engines to Urumqi Airport, when the flight was due to arrive after a bomb alert around 6pm local time.

Authorities reportedly had therefore denied the airplane to enter Chinese Airspace and deployed massive forces to Urumqui airport to prevent the airplane from landing.

Chinese Authorities confirmed just before midnight local time but retracted later, that the airplane had arrived in Urumqi and explosives had been found and defused on board. They had reported earlier, the airplane had been hijacked by a passenger threatening to blow the airplane up.

Chinese News agencies reported later, the airplane landed in Kandahar (Afghanistan). NATO forces in Afghanistan however say, they are not aware of any such incident.

Afghan Air Traffic Control and police sources say, there was no threat to the airplane at all and the airplane had been turned back due to incomplete paperwork.

Urumqi returned to normal operations after midnight. The whereabout of the airplane is unclear at this time.

http://avherald.com/h?article=41dfd20a&opt=0

Lets assume there was explosives onboard. Is that really an ethical response from China trying to prevent the aircraft from landing and making it someone elses problem?

I would have thought the abmulance and fire trucks would have been to help any injured passengers in the event of a detonation, not an attempt to block the runway or prevent access.

I know for a fact if a flight bound for Sydney was suspected of having a bomb onboard it is in our Aussie nature to get it down and help everyone survive.

[D Chan]

Originally Posted by NickN

http://avherald.com/h?article=41dfd20a&opt=0

Lets assume there was explosives onboard. Is that really an ethical response from China trying to prevent the aircraft from landing and making it someone elses problem?

I would have thought the abmulance and fire trucks would have been to help any injured passengers in the event of a detonation, not an attempt to block the runway or prevent access.

I know for a fact if a flight bound for Sydney was suspected of having a bomb onboard it is in our Aussie nature to get it down and help everyone survive.

As much as I don't believe in mainland chinese media propaganda I don't think this report is totally accurate. You know how good the media is in getting facts wrong or to sensationalise,

[Torin Wilson]

Lets assume there was explosives onboard. Is that really an ethical response from China trying to prevent the aircraft from landing and making it someone elses problem?

I would have thought the abmulance and fire trucks would have been to help any injured passengers in the event of a detonation, not an attempt to block the runway or prevent access.

I know for a fact if a flight bound for Sydney was suspected of having a bomb onboard it is in our Aussie nature to get it down and help everyone survive.

Why should it be their problem?

China and Australia are different in terms of locations aswell, its much harder to tell them to go home when its so far away.

[NickN]

There are still things to consider like duty of care etc.

If they turned that flight around and it exploded mid-air on its way back there would be huge outcry from the community. Assisting it to land and disembarking passengers to avoid that from happening is everyones responsibility. Just because one destination is more islolated than another means nothing.

Would you be ok if one of your family was on that flight and rather than get all the assistance necessary to land the flight was made to turn around? Even worse if something catastrophic occured on the return leg and nobody survived.

This is one of those issues that shows the world is not yet ready to be a global community.

[Stephen B]

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't it international law that an aircraft in distress must be allowed to land, even if other conditions (weather etc) might normally require it to divert? Of course that requires signitures on treaties etc, but is there really any justification/event anywhere for denying a flight with some sort of critical emergency permision to land?

That said though, weren't there some incidents like that back in the 80's around the middle east where runways were blocked to stop terrorist hijacked flights from landing?

[NickN]

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't it international law that an aircraft in distress must be allowed to land, even if other conditions (weather etc) might normally require it to divert?

You'd like to think so. Being turned back because someone doesn't want to deal with you would be heartless to say the least.