Man arrested on suspicion of making hoax bomb threat

qatar

A 47-year-old man has been arrested on suspicion of making a hoax bomb threat following an incident at Manchester Airport today.

A RAF fighter jet escorted a passenger plane into Manchester Airport after the pilot reported "a possible device on board."

Qatar Airways Flight QR23 from Doha to Manchester landed safely this afternoon after the crew on board received a threat during the flight.

Chief Superintendent John O'Hare, said: "An incoming plane has been escorted into the airport by the Royal Air Force as a result of information received by the pilot about a possible device on board.

"We don't know how genuine this threat is but it is absolutely vital we deal with the situation as a full emergency.

"As a result people will see the police and other agencies at the airport and on the airfield.

"At this time I would urge them not to be alarmed. Our response will be as comprehensive as it is proportionate with the safety of those on board and in and around the airport our paramount concern."

Runway operations were temporarily suspended while the incident was dealt with and the airport reopened after a twenty five minute runway closure, during which a number of incoming flights were diverted to nearby airports.

A spokesperson for Greater Manchester Police confirmed at 5.30pm that the search of the plane was complete and nothing had been found.

Updated 6th August: The 47-year-old man arrested following the incident at Manchester Airport has been sectioned under the Mental Health Act.

Following his arrest he was assessed by medical staff and again by a mental health team. He was subsequently sectioned to allow for a fuller assessment and appropriate treatment.

Passenger Josh Hartley has captured the plane being escorted into Manchester Airport on video.

Tags:
Manchester Airport
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement

Comments

Here's what readers have had to say so far. Why not add your thoughts below.

Richard Minton
Tuesday 5th August 2014 at 4:10 pm
Well after this person goes to court ....let's hope they have to pay the costs of scrambling a fighter jet and if they can't their family can foot the bill.
Ben Hurren
Tuesday 5th August 2014 at 5:52 pm
Brilliantly timed story!
Simon Worthington
Wednesday 6th August 2014 at 7:27 am
What was a fighter jet going to do? Shoot it down? Why was it sent on a journey of several hundred miles when it could do nothing? This is a non-story designed to make the gullible think that over the top security at airports is a good thing. Nowhere in the world has airport security found anyone with a device before getting on a plane. Terrorists all over the world will be hooting with laughter at this ridiculous knee-jerk response. The new breed of terrorist doesn't give warnings like respectable terrorists used to do.
Rick Andrews
Wednesday 6th August 2014 at 9:09 am
The fighter response is to prevent a 9/11 situation or a hi-jacking, just suppose the plane control was taken over and steered towards the city centre, the option to shoot it down is remote but is real and would be exercised if the threat was considered real on the basis of minimising casualties. Regarding airport security finding bombs and weapons, of course they find them, but sensibly do not publicise as the situation is contained and could reveal detection and intelligence techniques. In the case of the fighter, it is visible and therefore has to be explained.

Anyone who complains about airport security should look back to 9/11 when security was less stringent. I would rather be searched and reduce the risk than speculate about terrorism. Leave that to the experts.
Simon Worthington
Wednesday 6th August 2014 at 11:53 am
If the fighter was likely to shoot down the plane which had obviously not been hijacked why did it wait untill the jet had reached suburbia until closing in? Shoot it down over south Manchester to minimise caualties!!!! I never mentioned weapons whuch include safety razors which are removed from hand luggage and then you can then replace them in the airside shops.
If the authorities find devices but don't publicise the fact then how do you know they do? It would be a novelty for the authorities not to brag about their success in finding things at airports as they continually show drug smugglers how to avoid the traps.
Terrorists have achieved their aim and made life much more complicated and expensive with all the security. If they really wanted to cause mayhem then there are many easy targets. Perhaps we should all avoid any crowded area!
Sarah Lane
Wednesday 6th August 2014 at 2:17 pm
Simon. According to reports the man passed the cabin crew a note stating a bomb was on board as they were making final checks before landing. What else were they to do? Ignore him and pass him off as a liar and just take a chance. What would you suggest they do under the circumstances?
Simon Worthington
Wednesday 6th August 2014 at 2:40 pm
Again I ask what was a fighter going to do? I never said do nothing. This smacks of rumour. A jet could not be scrambled and fly from Lincolnshire and then wait if this was instigated when final checks were being made. The plane was over this area when the jet shadowed it and if it turned towards a more densly populated area it would be shot down. Really!
Taking a chance would invariably work and when it didn't what difference would be made. Note all those who have been caught on planes with "devices" (not at security as I stated) and question whether any of them gave a warning. Apprehend him as was done and ensure that the sentence is a deterent.
Sarah Lane
Wednesday 6th August 2014 at 3:28 pm
I admit to also being confused as to what a fighter jet could do if there had been a bomb on board. I could understand if a hijack threat had been made and the jet was scrambled to deal with that situation. I have read numerous comments on a newspaper website where everyone questioning what a jet could do with a bomb on board a packed plane was slated for being thick. The armchair experts said the plane would be escorted towards the sea and then shot down but.....surely that would be done with a hijack threat not a bomb. Also if a terroist has taken over the plane would they listen to orders from a jet fighter pilot when they had control of the plane. Yes call me thick as can deal with that but then could anyone just explain.

I guess its easy for all of us to have opinions but we don't know all the facts so I still think they just did something which I guess has to be better than doing nothing.
Mark Goldsmith
Wednesday 6th August 2014 at 9:58 pm
The only cost would be for the jet fuel and this would be at the untaxed value. Therefore the cost would be minimal.

Given tax payers spend £billions on these jet fighters, surely they are entitled for them to be used when they (we) may directly benefit from their deployment even if it is a remote posibility.
Neil Matthews
Thursday 7th August 2014 at 7:24 am
Whilst I agree in principle with Simon; I think the days of phoning a warning in are gone. I also wonder whether they set up 'patsys' just to check what happens if they try 'x'.

However, the jets normally intercept over the channel where they can cause least damage on the ground if they shoot it down. As this idiot did the note as they were ready to turn over the 'Hyde beacon' that option was removed. They did make the jet circle twice over the sparsely (comparatively) populated Peak District, where (I guess) they were ascertaining if the crew were in control or did they need to bring it down then.

Once getting confirmation from the crew they would follow it to MCR to make sure that the crew response wasn't through coercion - had the plane deviated from the correct route to land they would've tried everything up to and including bringing it down over the suburbs rather than letting it 9/11 over one of our cities.

It would easily have enough fuel left to head to London...
Vince Chadwick
Saturday 9th August 2014 at 11:55 pm
There would be no extra cost in sending the Typhoon to intercept the airliner as if the aeroplane had not been doing that, it would have been occupied on some training exercise instead. From the RAF's point of view this was an excellent training opportunity though that wasn't why the Typhoon was scrambled.

It would be monitoring the situation in the event the flight crew or the aircraft were compromised in any way, and its ultimate purpose in a '9/11' scenario might be a shoot-down, though obviously not where the result would be casualties on the ground. It's not reported at what stage in the flight the crew reported the incident by radio, but it was obviously early enough for the Typhoon to be scrambled from its base, locate and formate on the airliner, and accompany it at least on long final approach (as the video taken from within the airliner and shown on TV news illustrates). Perhaps the aircraft was held in the DAYNE hold (SE of the airport) until the Typhoon arrived?

One would assume that in a '9/11' scenario the airliner would be seen to deviate from the normal approach path and take up a heading and descent rate towards a suitable target. In any event the fighter would stay with the airliner all the way to touchdown because of course another possibility is the airliner breaking off its approach at any point, turning away from a landing, and then becoming a suspected '9/11' threat.

Thank heavens this was just the result of the actions of a disturbed individual rather than a real security threat. But we only know that in hindsight.