Metrojet Airbus A321 - Kolavia EI-ETJ: plane crash Egypt

[Bralo20]

A British government spokeswoman said: "While the investigation is still ongoing we cannot say categorically why the Russian jet crashed. But as more information has come to light we have become concerned that the plane may well have been brought down by an explosive device.
"In light of this, and as a precautionary measure, we have decided that flights due to leave Sharm for the UK this evening will be delayed.
"That will allow time for a team of UK aviation experts, currently travelling to Sharm, to make an assessment of the security arrangements in place at the airport and to identify whether any further action is required. We expect this assessment to be completed tonight."

Apparently the fact that an explosive device was probably the cause of the incident has been unofficially confirmed to CNN by an Intelligence source. US Intelligence believes it was ISIS or an ISIS affiliate (apparently they intercepted some communications between ISIS members or groups).

In the mean time the UK, Ireland and the Netherlands are delaying or suspending flights to and from Sharm El Sheik. In Belgium no flights are being cancelled at the moment but it's being closely monitored.


Anyway, though I find it disturbing that a plane can be brought down in 2015 by an explosive device, I can't say I'm surprised by the news, while security may seem tight in most airports it rarely is as tight as it should be (and especially in such destinations like SSH).

[crew1990]

Anyway, though I find it disturbing that a plane can be brought down in 2015 by an explosive device, I can't say I'm surprised by the news, while security may seem tight in most airports it rarely is as tight as it should be (and especially in such destinations like SSH).

Security is far to be optimal. In Europes I think this is more or less Ok but in some country, just to take an example in Kinshasa for example, the baggage are screen but nobody in front of the screen, if you go through the x ray, and it's ringing, no body check you, there are plenty of air port in the world where the security is very minimalist. But once those pax come onboard the planes and fly to Europe, they can be connected in any flight without being screen as it has be "done" in the airport of origin.

To me those security check are just in place to disuad the people, nor in some country like the UK, Kenya, etc...

[Homo Aeroportus]

Are there any 'Belgian' flights planned (the coming hours/days)?

Two planned for today 05NOV.

JAF, STD BRU 07:20. CANCELLED.
HQ, STD BRU 08:00. ATD 09:20.

Thomas Cook's position :
Nous sommes bien conscient qu’il y a beaucoup de médiatisation concernant la situation en Egypte. En particulier pour la région de Sharm El Sheikh.
A l’heure actuelle l’avis du conseil de voyages du ministère des affaires étrangères est inchangé.
Nous vous informons également que nous suivons minutieusement cet avis. En cas de changement, il va de soi que nous prendrons les mesures nécessaires et que nous vous tiendrons au courant.

Wij zijn er ons van bewust dat er in de media heel wat aandacht is betreffende de situatie in Egypte en meer bepaald in de regio van Sharm El Sheikh.
Het spreekt voor zich dat wij het advies van Buitenlandse Zaken nauwgezet volgen. Momenteel is het reisadvies ongewijzigd.
Uiteraard zullen wij de nodige aanpassingen doen mocht er een verandering komen in dit advies. Wij zullen u hier dan ook zo snel mogelijk over informeren.


Travel advice on http://diplomatie.belgium.be/en/service ... y_country/

Revision 04NOV still valid 05NOV :
A plane crashed on 31st October. The causes of the accident are still unknown. An investigation is underway.
All trips to the south of Sinai are not recommended, except for trips to the hotels area of Sharm El Sheikh. It is not advisable to get away from your resort. Trips to Taba hotel zones are not recommended.


Tough decision for sure but if the flight was brought down by a bomb planted on board at SSH, I'd think that it's rather unlikely to repeat at the same airport.
Must give some sweating hands after TKOF from there though.

H.A.

[Acid-drop]

unlikely for sure.
But enough to be "better safe than sorry" if you travel with your familly.

[Stij]

But once those pax come onboard the planes and fly to Europe, they can be connected in any flight without being screen as it has be "done" in the airport of origin.

That's not correct, when you arrive from a non-Schengen country, you're always screened again before you connect, especially when you connect to a Schengen flight. Schengen to Schengen: no screening.

I must admit I'm not 100% sure non-Schengen to non-schengen is screened at every airport, but I'm sure it's this way in BRU, LHR and MUC,

Cheers,

Stij

[crew1990]

But once those pax come onboard the planes and fly to Europe, they can be connected in any flight without being screen as it has be "done" in the airport of origin.

That's not correct, when you arrive from a non-Schengen country, you're always screened again before you connect, especially when you connect to a Schengen flight. Schengen to Schengen: no screening.

I must admit I'm not 100% sure non-Schengen to non-schengen is screened at every airport, but I'm sure it's this way in BRU, LHR and MUC,

Cheers,

Stij

My mistake then i though that the connecting passenger didn't had to be screened again. But still even in europe the screening is not optimal, not like in some countries out of europe of course but still

[Stij]

But still even in europe the screening is not optimal, not like in some countries out of europe of course but still

I can only agree...

Cheers,

Stij

[Passenger]

Every carrier may decide what to do: keep on flying or cancel.

EU-Rule 261/2004, the legislation for cancelled flights, states: “…(14) As under the Montreal Convention, obligations on operating air carriers should be limited or excluded in cases where an event has been caused by extraordinary circumstances which could not have been avoided even if all reasonable measures had been taken. Such circumstances may, in particular, occur in cases of political instability, meteorological conditions incompatible with the operation of the flight concerned, security risks, unexpected flight safety shortcomings and strikes that affect the operation of an operating air carrier…”

It’s the legal department within Thomas Cook and TUI/Jetair who decide. Thomas Cook probably argues: “there is no negative travel advice from our department of Foreign Affairs, and we only hear rumours about a safety issue”, whilst Jetair probably argues: “the governments from both the U.S. and the U.K told yesterday evening that there is a serious safety lack at Sharm el Sjheikh at this very moment. We need more time to check this”.

These totally different decisions are both based upon a solid legal advice. Clients will therefore have to accept that decision.

[tsv]

Security is far to be optimal. In Europes I think this is more or less Ok but in some country, just to take an example in Kinshasa for example, the baggage are screen but nobody in front of the screen, if you go through the x ray, and it's ringing, no body check you, there are plenty of air port in the world where the security is very minimalist. But once those pax come onboard the planes and fly to Europe, they can be connected in any flight without being screen as it has be "done" in the airport of origin.

To me those security check are just in place to disuad the people, nor in some country like the UK, Kenya, etc...

In this case it was a Charter flight where the Passengers had booked a package tour which included the flight. So unlikely to be any Connecting Passengers. Or Suicide Bombers for that matter.

If it was a bomb (looking likely) I suspect it was concealed in the luggage/cargo area. Could be a rogue worker allowed it to happen. Or could be due to deficiencies in their Security system. If there are Cameras on the ramp they should be able to identify suspects and eventually figure out exactly who put it there.

[Passenger]

Commercial tv VTM reports tonight that Belgium now has issued a negative travel advice for Sharm el Sheikh. This means that touroperators/airlines may no longer send clients to Sharm el Sheihk, and that they have to repatriate their clients asap.

No tourist can be forced to leave a foreign country. But if they want to stay in their hotel in Sharm el Sheikh, their return flight to Belgium is at own expenses (unless the airline is able to arrange a return flight on a later date).

http://nieuws.vtm.be/binnenland/165472- ... -egypte-af

[Acid-drop]

in the middle of school holiday. Nice.

[sean1982]

in the middle of school holiday. Nice.

Sure, cause the risk of being blown up by a bomb is neglectable during a school holiday

[tangolima]

Hello

Instead of making rules, they should better try to find this fucker! Who was loading the A/C? Which catering company is working with MetroJet in SSH etc. I am sure this can be find out easily and from now on, like this already happens with some flights at other airports (Surinam Airways for example at AMS) take names of everybody who wants to go inside of the aircraft (cabin, holds etc) Name on the airport pass mentioned + reason of entering the aircraft + company he or she is working for.

Now you can only depart with hand luggages and what will happen now? I will tell you, luggages will get ''lost'' ...stolen!

Although we have to agree this terrorist is not a very smart one,he only ''took'' an A321 with +/- 200 seats. What if he had placed this bomb on a Transsaero 747 some months ago when they were still flying or a 777....

Greetings,

[sean1982]

Because some months ago they werent probably ready. Getting a bomb on an aircraft these days is not an easy task.

All catering companies that deal with irish registered aircraft need to have a security program that needs to be approved by the IAA, is if it came from there, there will be a paper trail. The question is: is the paper trail correct. Is person X really who they say they are. How did they get it through security. Which components was it made off.

All these questions need to be answered before security can be garantueed again

[Bralo20]

JAF has ordered background checks on each passenger who is scheduled to fly out of SSH on top of the extra security measures they've taken already (luggage check with explosive dogs, JAF staff loading,...)

As a result from these background checks some passengers were refused on the flight and can't return with JAF to Belgium.

Source: http://www.nieuwsblad.be/cnt/dmf20151106_01958442

[airazurxtror]

http://www.rtbf.be/info/societe/detail_ ... id=9129326

Gone five days ago for a holiday in Egypt, Albina and Paulina T. (Russian-sounding name) were denied boarding the Jetairfly flight that would take them back to Belgium this Friday night. The mother and daughter, resident in Belgium had not yet as bags "cabin" as they were gone for a short stay.

Once the "check-in" past, impossible to embark: the doors close before their eyes. Taken aback, the wife contacted her husband remained in Belgium. He calls the call center of the Jetairfly for more explanations. On the phone, they explain to him that his wife and daughter are on the list of people "at risk" 'but against no information is given to the travelers on the spot.

Finally, they learn that they cannot embark on any Jetairfly flight for safety reasons. Albina and Paulina are then invited to buy tickets to go with another company. The JAF return ticket will be refunded.

The company justifies and explains that she has the right to refuse passengers on board, referring to its terms and conditions.

The husband was able to find another flight to bring back his wife and daughter in Belgium. They boarded another plane of Aeroflot and are currently in transit in Moscow.

Foreign Affairs said they had not been kept informed of the refusal to take on passengers to Brussels. An element that pushes the husband to believe that Russian nationality of his wife is the only cause of rejection. It does not understand the tour operator's decision to have agreed to ship them five days ago but not today.

That is Jetairfly ... Scandalous, if you ask me. But then, when you book on Jetairfly, you deserve all that can happen to you.

[sean1982]

Every company has the right to refuse passengers if they might pose a threat against the aircraft, crew or passengers and doesnt even have to give an explanation as to why. It has nothing to do with JAF in particular and this crusade of you is on the border of ridiculous

[airazurxtror]

Every company has the right to refuse passengers if they might pose a threat against the aircraft, crew or passengers and doesnt even have to give an explanation as to why. It has nothing to do with JAF in particular and this crusade of you is on the border of ridiculous

Posing a threat because you have a Russian-sounding name ? What next ? Because you have an arab- or Jewish-sounding name ? because your nose is too long or your skin too dark ?
And why would a passenger with a Russian-sounding name be a threat to security on the inbound flight whilst having been accepted on the outbound flight ? because in the meantime a Russian aircraft has allegedly been sabotaged ? Where is the connection ?
Does it mean that you are never sure to be brought back home by Jetairfly ?
I am sure the affected passengers will lodge a complaint and demand heavy damages compensation. And rightly so.

[jan_olieslagers]

Have we been told the motives for the refusal? I don't think so, and it is little likely we ever will. If only for the sake of those unfortunate pax's privacy.

And no, nobody can ever be really sure about anything. Nor should we, it is wiser to be honest with one's self.
Two certitudes, of course: death and tax.

[sean1982]

Every company has the right to refuse passengers if they might pose a threat against the aircraft, crew or passengers and doesnt even have to give an explanation as to why. It has nothing to do with JAF in particular and this crusade of you is on the border of ridiculous

Posing a threat because you have a Russian-sounding name ? What next ? Because you have an arab- or Jewish-sounding name ? because your nose is too long or your skin too dark ?
And why would a passenger with a Russian-sounding name be a threat to security on the inbound flight whilst having been accepted on the outbound flight ? because in the meantime a Russian aircraft has allegedly been sabotaged ? Where is the connection ?
Does it mean that you are never sure to be brought back home by Jetairfly ?
I am sure the affected passengers will lodge a complaint and demand heavy damages compensation. And rightly so.

How the hell do you know that that was the only reason? Because the passengers family said so?? Those 9/11 terrorists also said they were just taking flying lessons for fun. JAF has no obligation and is even prevented by law to disclose any details as to why these passengers were refused.

Those passengers were removed under the rules in the general terms and conditions and they are lucky they get the money for their return flight back because they are not even entitled to that!