Several days ago, I wrote about (what I’d consider to be) a ridiculous situation, whereby an American Airlines flight diverted due to a text that a passenger sent. When I first wrote about this, I mentioned that I was curious what the air traffic control audio was like from this incident. Well, now we know, so I’m updating this post to add that…
In this post:
American flight returns to San Juan over “RIP” test
On Thursday, July 3, 2025, American flight AA1847 was scheduled to fly from San Juan (SJU) to Dallas (DFW). The flight was operated by an Airbus A321 with the registration code N902AA, with 193 people onboard.
The plane took off at 6:26AM, and flew for a little over 10 minutes, climbing to just over 16,000 feet. However, at that point, the plane turned around, and diverted back to San Juan. It landed there safely just over 30 minutes after departure, at 6:58AM.
While flights return to their origin all the time, the cause of this incident was anything but ordinary. As it turns out, the plane diverted because a passenger observed another traveler receive a text message saying “RIP” (rest in peace), and interpreted that as a threat to her flight. So she reported that to the flight attendant, and it was ultimately interpreted as a bomb threat, causing the diversion.
In the air traffic control audio posted online, here’s part of the dialogue:
American pilot: “We are declaring an emergency. We’re gonna do an overweight landing here on the runway. You know, we have a threat onboard with text messaging between passengers and flight numbers, so we’re gonna need authorities at the gate to meet us to figure out exactly what’s going on here.”
Air traffic controller: “Is the cockpit secure?”
American pilot: “Cockpit is secure. We just have a threat from out back. We’re not sure if it’s even credible or not at this point. But, you know, the way the things are, this holiday weekend and everything else, we figured the best course it’s just to be as safe as possible.”
Air traffic controller: “And they wanna know the level threat.”
American pilot: “We have, we’re checking right now. We are at a possible level three, so we’re treating it like a level three at this point.”
For those curious, a level three threat is one with “life threatening behavior.” The only higher threat is a level four, which is an “attempted or actual breach of the flight deck.”
Once the plane was back on the ground, airport security personnel and the TSA boarded the aircraft, to inspect it and interview passengers. The passenger who received the “RIP” text message was able to prove that a relative had died the day before, and that’s why he was taking the trip.
An airport official clarified that “it was a mix-up that was handled in accordance with safety protocols,” and that “there was no real threat to the flight or its passengers.” The flight ended up departing again at 9:40AM, just under 3.5 hours behind schedule.
Who is at fault for this absurd diversion?
Perhaps hindsight is 20/20, but I think we can all agree that a diversion over a simple text message containing the term “RIP” is ridiculous. But who is really at fault for this diversion?
Of course there’s the snooping passenger, who decided to report this in the first place, and set off this whole chain of events. We always hear the motto “if you see something, say something,” though all too often, that’s used by clueless people to simply make claims reflecting their own biases.
I’d argue that the party really at fault for this diversion is the crew, for taking this seriously. I wonder, did the “concerned” passenger really just share what she saw? Did she tell the flight attendants “hey, I saw someone texting the term ‘RIP,’ I think they must have a bomb?” And then the flight attendant was like “yeah, wow, that’s really concerning, let me call the captain, we need to divert immediately?”
I think this also reflects the “better safe than sorry” approach that so many airline crews take. They’ll never get in trouble for erring on the side of caution, but if they ignore something that ends up becoming an issue, that’s more of a problem for them.
This is reflected in what the pilot told ATC. He acknowledged he wasn’t even sure if the threat was credible or not, but “you know, the way things are, this holiday weekend and everything else,” it’s best “just to be as safe as possible.” With that logic, you might as well just divert every flight!
What really amazes me is how quickly all of this happened. The plane started turning back toward San Juan just 11 minutes after takeoff. So during that short, critical phase of the flight, the passenger noticed the text message, alerted the flight attendants, the flight attendants alerted the pilots, and the pilots made the decision to return to San Juan? That’s all very fast.
Bottom line
An American flight returned to San Juan just over 30 minutes after takeoff, for a bizarre reason. A passenger was snooping on the texts of a fellow passenger, and saw them receive an “RIP” text. Somehow that ended up being interpreted as a bomb threat, causing the flight to divert. I simply have no words. I’m not sure if it’s worse that the passenger reported this, or that the crew acted on it…
What do you make of this American diversion?
Ridiculous diversion! This is not even the passengers own text; if it was the passenger's own text, I wouldn't blame them directly, but this was someone else's text! The flight attendants should have carefully thought through on if the bomb threat was even real to begin with, rather than diverting out of unnecessary fear. Even then, it's understandable why the flight diverted back. This nosy passenger could have costed all the hundreds of people's lives...
Ridiculous diversion! This is not even the passengers own text; if it was the passenger's own text, I wouldn't blame them directly, but this was someone else's text! The flight attendants should have carefully thought through on if the bomb threat was even real to begin with, rather than diverting out of unnecessary fear. Even then, it's understandable why the flight diverted back. This nosy passenger could have costed all the hundreds of people's lives on the plane, with the flight already flying over the ocean; and they also caused a delay for the hundreds of people going to DFW (and possibly those with a tight layover of <1 hr at DFW) over a text that isn't even theirs. The passenger should be fined at minimum $10,000 if not more for causing potential danger on the plane, and for delaying people's flights; punishable under the Espionage Act of 1917. The Espionage Act of 1917 pertains to the passenger who falsely proclaimed of a non-existent bomb threat, in which the passenger " ma[de] or convey[ed] false reports or false statements" that "interfere[d] with the operation or success of the military or naval forces of the United States", namely the pilot on the American Airlines flight at that moment. Furthermore, the Supreme Court case of Schenck vs. United States (1919) found Charles Schenck guilty and charged him with conspiracy in violation of the Espionage Act of 1917 for mailing printed circulars critical of the military draft for World War I. The extent of danger to which the passenger's action of causing a whole flight diversion is analogous to the Canonsburg Opera House Disaster on August 26, 1911, in which a false shout of "fire" in response to a projector malfunction from a motion picture caused a sudden flash that triggered a panic that killed 26 people. Furthermore, the Canonsburg Opera House Disaster would also qualify as a violation of the Espionage Act of 1917 since the false alarm of fire "interfere[d] with the operation or success" of the theater, in which "false reports or false statements" on the nonexistent fire was made. The Supreme Court case of Schenck vs. United States (1919) would apply to the passenger that incited the diversion of the American Airlines flight with such similar circumstances to Charles Schenck pleading guilty. In conclusion, the passenger inciting the diversion should be charged with conspiracy in violation of the Espionage Act of 1917, supported by the Supreme Court case of Schenck vs. United States (1919), with the passenger's inciteful act punishable with a minimum fine of $10,000, under the Espionage Act of 1917.
I work for an engineering services business. We are repeatedly warned to not use the short form of Bill Of Materials when not in a work meeting or if not on site. Slip ups still happen though.
What's next, someone working on the secret al-gebra code going to be imprisoned or detained? O wait, that has already happened. This is what happens when the US lacks in education.
Al Gebra? More like Al Jazeera!
I don’t think anyone was at fault.
Innocent text message expressing sympathy.
Fellow passenger misread it (even if it wasn’t any of her business), and expressed reasonable concern.
FAs should absolutely not have engaged with the passenger with the text message as that could have escalated and activated a potentially serious threat.
Pilots were also in the right, and along with the FAs should be commended for their quick response.
The busybody nosy pax is at fault. And the FA could have handled it better
Wait till she finds out a lot of Gen Z use the term “rip” to express disapproval or as a response to something negative going on. It’s used far more often than you may tbink
yes, it was the crew.
the fact that the FAs did not investigate even remotely and the pilots took the FAs line IS a problem.
How do people this stupid manage to board a flight
I'm flying to Jamaica this Friday... I will definitely not use my phone (or get a privacy screen) I used to work at airports and tbh, I'm glad I don't anymore. Smh
Almost every person in this chain of events is operating in the dumbest timeline.
The staff should have questioned the lead up and the passenger should have showed proof. If you punish the staff for being cautious then there will be more incidents going forward that could have been avoided because it would cloud their judgement.
I feel like once the word “bomb” is mentioned, the crew probably has no choice but to act no matter how ridiculous. If a passenger says “their texting is weird” probably nothing would’ve happened but if they said “I saw her text and think she was talking about a bomb” then it’s an automatic return to gate. Can’t fault the crew because they probably thought it was just as ridiculous.
Many years ago, during preview performances of the Sondheim musical PACIFIC OVERTURES on Broadway, the show was stopped and the audience evacuated because of a perceived bomb threat. No bomb was discovered, and eventually the audience was allowed to return and continue with the show. The story was reported in several newspapers, and my friend, Kevin, who attended that performance, has recounted the tale many times.
It turns out that the "threat" was a conversation...
Many years ago, during preview performances of the Sondheim musical PACIFIC OVERTURES on Broadway, the show was stopped and the audience evacuated because of a perceived bomb threat. No bomb was discovered, and eventually the audience was allowed to return and continue with the show. The story was reported in several newspapers, and my friend, Kevin, who attended that performance, has recounted the tale many times.
It turns out that the "threat" was a conversation between two people sitting in the theater. One whispered to the other (apparently loud enough to be overheard), something like "It's a bomb!" The threat was reported, and the two gentlemen were identified and interviewed by the police. Eventually, it was determined that the "It's a bomb!" conversation was a critique of the show. This happened long before our sensitivity to perceived threats was so acute.
American Airlines crew and pilots do this crap all the time. They receive extra pay for a longer trip so they have $ incentives.
That stupid nosey woman needs to learn to mind her own business and keep her eyes off other passengers' devices. She should be fined and made to pay the cost of the diversion.
Will someone please interview this crazy b!tch and read her for filth so the whole world can see?!
Let me start by saying the person snooping also saw the guy texting the flight number they were on prior to the RIP. The real story never comes out. The crew followed proper protocol so all of you people commenting may not really be getting the “full” story as usual. Two flight attendants didnt want to continue feeling unsafe.
@ KER -- How is texting a flight number suspicious? People text flight numbers to others all the time so that they know when they'll land, etc. Is there more to it, or is that it?
When you let hysterical, Cluster B type (mostly women but some men) out in public.
Apparently, unlike the participants in this situation; I need a great deal more information before reaching a conclusion / taking action.
Bombshell no pun intended. The passenger was a Hasidic from Brooklyn.
So? What’s that supposed to mean?
It means that people stereotype based on looks. I'm Indian, and in my youth I once made a trip to Europe while wearing a beard. I was stopped at every. single. checkpoint. I learned my lesson.
Ashok, and what lesson was that? Shave your beard? If they stopped every single person with a beard it would take years to go through security.
I guess this is the kind of person who calls the police to delate others everytime they do something wrong
will this person be sued for this situation ?
Yeah, this is some real warp-speed hysteria.
Reminds me of when Guido Menzio was suspected of being a terrorist for flying with math equations.
At a loss understanding how this happened at lightening speed. Snoop reads RIP, manages to find FA, FA convinces pilot something's amiss and diverts in minutes. Must be a record here.
the lack of due diligence on the part of the crew is beyond astonishing.
Did they ask the passenger what the text meant or why they got it? Shouldn't that be the first action taken? It seems like the crew member just didn't want to work this trip and would rather turn around.
Either way, this gave me a proper laugh. Thank you Ben.