Gru Bound Flight Ordered Back To Yyz

[cp fa]

So, Peter Mansbridge and Ezra Levant are flying on Air Canada when suddenly the plane is ordered to turn around and go back.... Sounds like the first line of a joke.

Seriously though, this must have been very expensive. I wonder who has to pay for it?

http://news.nationalpost.com/2014/06/19/toronto-plane-to-brazil-called-back-mid-flight-after-passenger-boarded-without-security-screening/

[John S.]

Was discussing this with a fellow pilot.

We wonder if some $8.00/hour security person happened to look the wrong way for ten seconds (Wow, look at that girl/guy in lane five!) and missed part of the security scanning procedure.

Unless there was a true and valid security concern then calling back a flight is nonsense.

[AIP]

Send the bill to CATSA

[inchman]

Was discussing this with a fellow pilot.

We wonder if some $8.00/hour security person happened to look the wrong way for ten seconds (Wow, look at that girl/guy in lane five!) and missed part of the security scanning procedure.

Unless there was a true and valid security concern then calling back a flight is nonsense.

Agreed. Unless there was an obvious intent for someone to circumvent the process, a simple slip up allowing someone to get through security shouldn't be an excuse to turn an aircraft around.

Let's face it, airlines in the US alone move more than 2 million people per day and, beyond that kid in YEG and other people innocently carrying their guns and those dangerous bottles of water with them, there has not been an intentional or organized attempt to hijack an aircraft since the LHR incidents. If one guy happens not to have his boarding pass scanned at security, chances are slim that he just happens to be the guy who planned to take over an aircraft. Add to that the fact that the aircraft had been in the air for hours and was well past the "desirable" targets, and the turnback would probably spur him on if he had hesitated (as well as re-overflying those targets). It seems, at least with the information we have right now, a bit much to turn a flight back because of what would seem a relatively small security breach.

[cp fa]

So I guess the answer to the question of why they would make them come back hours later is "because they can". And regardless of who actually gets the bill for this, ultimately the costs will be absorbed by taxpayers or air passengers or both.

[conehead]

So, if there was a legitimate security concern, why didn't the flight land at the nearest appropiate airport, instead of going all the way back to YYZ?

[Fido]

So, if there was a legitimate security concern, why didn't the flight land at the nearest appropiate airport, instead of going all the way back to YYZ?

Because no country wants the problem.

[inchman]

Turns out there was no crime committed and the passenger was benign. It took them 3 hours to decide to turn the aircraft around. I could almost understand if they had made a snap decision, but they thought about it for 3 hours!!!!

There was a sound byte yesterday where an official (did not catch his position) said "We will not second guess the decision to have the flight turned back". How will they ever learn if they don't second guess bad decisions?