Bomb threat hoaxes force diversions and strain European aviation system
More than two dozen recent bomb threat hoaxes have led to emergency landings, diversions and increased workload for airlines and air traffic controllers across Europe.
A wave of bomb threat hoaxes targeting passenger flights has prompted emergency landings, diversions and military escorts throughout European airspace this week, causing disruption for airlines and anxiety among passengers. Authorities say all of the incidents are malicious hoaxes and no actual explosives have been found, but the threats have highlighted how a single false claim can trigger mandatory safety procedures under international regulations.
Wilfried Covent, head of Covent Consulting, told CNBC the pattern is unprecedented in his career. He said the perpetrators appear to know that “the weakest point of aviation is targeting it in-flight,” because a threat aimed at a specific airborne flight obliges controllers to arrange an immediate landing and a thorough search.
National aviation authorities, airport operators, airlines and law-enforcement agencies share responsibility for assessing and responding to such threats. The European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) and the U.K. Civil Aviation Authority set safety rules, while the European Commission coordinates policy among member states.
According to Joji Waites, director of flight safety at the British Air Line Pilots Association, threat levels are graded red, amber or green, but an amber rating is not applied to an aircraft already in the air. When a threat is deemed credible, the captain is instructed to follow company procedures, which may involve an immediate diversion and evacuation on the ground.
The ripple effect of each diversion can be costly. Philip Baum, a visiting professor of aviation security at Coventry University, told AP that a single diversion may cost an airline up to $250,000 due to crew replacements, missed connections and schedule disruptions. An EASA spokesperson said the safety risk from individual hoaxes is low, but the cumulative strain on pilots, controllers and airports is significant.
Experts say regulatory changes will take time. John Edwards of Gates Aviation noted that governments will review existing frameworks to understand why the recent threats have been deemed credible enough to warrant action. Eric Schouten, former intelligence liaison officer at the Dutch General Intelligence and Security Service, warned that procedural revisions must balance the interests of multiple countries and agencies, and that future threats could extend to railways or highways.
Covent cautioned that without adjustments to assessment protocols, the frequency of diversions could rise, potentially forcing more drastic measures. He emphasized the need for European preparedness as the nature of threats evolves.