The incident
is receiving a lot of brickbats from netizens saying that the protocol was
flawed. Should it not be top priority to get the passengers out of the aircraft
as the first instance when the aircraft landed instead of holding them inside
the aircraft that is the subject of a bomb threat? It sounds very logical. And
the procedure of keeping the passengers inside the aircraft looked so silly to
many observers and commentators.
Maybe there
are other reasons or information that the public did not know. What is the
nature of the bomb threat? Normally it is like a bomb being planted in the
plane. So getting the passengers out and away from the aircraft looks the most
reasonable thing to do.
What would
it be if the threat says do not open the door for doing so would trigger the
bomb to go off? Ah, no one thought of this right? I think the security people
are not that daft as the public thought them to be. Understand the nature of
the threat first and then the measures taken would make sense. Some bombs are
designed to trigger off at certain
heights, above or below or at certain speed like it will go off if the speed
falls below say 300 knots.
Now what is
this case all about? Who knows? Did the security people made a booboo by
allowing the passengers to remain in a plane with a bomb threat or there is more
than what we know?
16 comments:
This Is The NEW NORNAL! This Is The NEW NORNAL!
If THEY want to kill you, it is almost impossible to avoid.
So far, all past killings, all with "element of surprise"!
Not so easy to detect. THEY are not MAD! THEY will JUST-DO-IT!
No place is safe! No place to hide!
This is the NEW NORNAL!
No choice! No choice!
Rb you are really good as I never thought of it that way
/// What would it be if the threat says do not open the door for doing so would trigger the bomb to go off? ///
Right.
We should all believe what the terrorists tell us when they phone in the bomb threat.
And waiting one hour will automatically deactivate the bomb.
Just like waiting 55 years, you will automatically get your CPF money back.
I may not be a security expert but I should say that they handle the situation well.
Since the decision maker has the same thinking as of mine .Its definately the right decision to make.
For security reasons and not to undermine our security effort, I will not disclose here on my view but if I am the decision maker I will do the same.
Even if one klkk in his airbase decades ago that does not make him understand what is security and safety.
Only those born with security intelligence can understand.
Even if one klkk in his airbase decades ago....
Agongkia 9:30 a.m.
U talking about RB?
If agongkia sees RB, he will have to tabeh and called him 'Sir'.
Even his superior would have to call RB 'Mr Chua'.
Knowing that his job is to mingle around with mei meis, you know how important he is and what kind of educational level he has.
Reading what RB wrote and what this khongcum agongkia wrote, the difference is like heaven and hell. No comparison.
One is snoopying around on the ground for info and the other a thinker.
If agongkia produces a son with a mei mei;
It will raise the average IQ score of agongkia's family tree for the next 3 generations.
RB, you and Agongkia gave them too much credit. What kind of bomb can be planted and will go off when a plane door is opened at ground level? This is simply a stretch of RB's imagination. You should be critical of govt agencies that remain opaque about the whole incident.
Think Rb may have to spend his remaining lucid years to understand the riddle posited here by Agongkia.
Guess Agongkia might be thinking that since Rb was not in the plane, there was no threat to Rb. Hence Rb worries too much about something for nothing concerning himself.
To those anons here..
Lowly educated does not mean I am inferior to those so claim" paperful" Tua or Sheng or fake graduates.
Addressing one "Sir" to me is normal becos in my mind I am calling them "snake in Chinese".They happy I oso happy.Nothing to lose.
I may be poor but I hug more mei meis than the rich.
Whats wrong of having more money? Oops no, having more mei meis ?
If so interested in this bomb hoax incident, go join the screwty industry.
>> So getting the passengers out and away from the aircraft looks the most reasonable thing to do. <<
KA BOOM! One of the passengers happens TO BE The Bomb, and now the bomber is in "paradise" raping virgins (according to their religion).
Also if there was a bomb or "device", you don't know if it is a "dirty" nuke, or a bio-weapon, or a plain old suicide vest or a complete hoax.
Just like the "saving" of people trapped in a fire or a kid drowning in raging waters would depend on whether the level of danger faced by the rescuers could be transcended and thus offer a better chance of a successful rescue, the same reasoning would apply to the SQ flight.
In situations like this, the reality is not everyone can be saved, all the time.
Got Ah Lah Hoo Ak Bar, infidel motherfuckers?
Agongkia, good thinking. You are now thinking every inch like Ah Q.
Said Threat happened abroad.
Who decided the Protocol?
The Captain of the Aircraft/Flight
or the Airport Authority.
There are International Procedures
for handling such emergency and
contingency. So were their decisions
wrong?
There is a need to know the Nature
of the Threat, the Security Experts at
US and those of SIA cannot be Khongcums. Right?
Well, considering that the Chairman of Changi Airport Group is one of the passengers sitting in that plane waiting to get off while there is a bomb threat on that plane, I wouldn't make too much guesses on whether the Singapore airport operators have taken the right actions. The Chairman sitting in that plane knew what was going on and sat and waited in the plane.
Post a Comment