Hijack in greece [Archive]

CHIVILCOY

3rd Oct 2006, 16:38

THY aircraft with 106 pax and 7 crew, from Tirana to Istanbul. When it passed the Greek airspace, it was observed turning around and declaring emergency. Then pilots declared on Hijack. Two persons are in the cockpit and demanded to go to Italy so that they could give a message to ... the Pope!
Now from the Italian TV is reported that they landed in Brindisi.

Wonder how they got in to the cockpit. Thought you couldn't do that nowadays?

blackmail

3rd Oct 2006, 16:45

hello everyone,

stupidity has no limits. quote from a previous post:"2 men in the cockpit demand
etc. ...". thy sops will be in for review regarding reinforced cockpitdoors.

wasteofcargospace

3rd Oct 2006, 17:01

I hope the italians lock them up and throw away the key.

Bleedair

3rd Oct 2006, 17:02

After a year in the right hand seat of a turkish airline I know far too well that they keep the cockpit door open most of the time. :=

Just a hijack waiting to happen really. Glad I got out of there before I had to experience it first hand!

Scary thing is that they fly all over Europe.

daz211

3rd Oct 2006, 17:05

Sky news reporting hijackers will give themselfs up shortly

and just a small point lets not tell terrorists which airlines keep the cockpit doors open :ugh:

caramel

3rd Oct 2006, 17:11

Must of been important if they had to give the pope a message that drastic, maybe they shouldve waited til they got to turkey and called him :confused: :confused: :confused:

3rd Oct 2006, 17:11

Quotes: After a year in the right hand seat of a turkish airline I know far too well that they keep the cockpit door open most of the time.
Just a hijack waiting to happen really. Glad I got out of there before I had to experience it first hand!
Scary thing is that they fly all over Europe.

This is what makes my blood boil. I'm asked to take off my shoes and belt despite having four stripes on my arm and yet there are probably numerous carriers operating into the UK with totally lax procedures.

Typical of the UK - we TOTALLY abide by the rules to the point of stupidity and many others just ...... don't. :mad: :mad: :mad:

A4 :*

Good point Daz - but the fact is thta post 911 secure doors became mandatory. Presumably this is a global or pan European directive. If it's not being adhered to by certain carriers then simply ban them or pull their AOC. Why should a whole global industry be put at risk because some carriers can't be ar$$ed to follow procedures :mad:

A4 :*

ray cosmic

3rd Oct 2006, 17:13

thy sops will be in for review regarding reinforced cockpitdoors.

As long as its not in the law, lots of doors will remain unlocked all over Europe.

30W

3rd Oct 2006, 17:14

Seems to me all governments should suspend THY overflight/landing rights until they have a policy where hijackers CAN'T gain access to the flight deck!

caramel

3rd Oct 2006, 17:17

Maybe they found Robert Langdon

Strepsils

3rd Oct 2006, 17:25

lets not tell terrorists which airlines keep the cockpit doors open:confused:

I don't think it matters what we say here. I thought it would have been fairly obvious by the fact the airliner was hijacked.

And do you honestly believe the terrorists come here to plan their attacks? I know the media come here for their stories but let's face it, the terrorists are much cleverer than your average hack:8

OFBSLF

3rd Oct 2006, 17:30

I hope the italians lock them up and throw away the key.I'm sure that will happen. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Achille_Lauro

Or maybe not :mad:

hobie

3rd Oct 2006, 17:38

which airlines keep the cockpit doors open

let us remember it's not just the crew or the pas in the back that may suffer from an open door policy (or a very lax locked door policy) .....

modern hijacking objectives may now include causing the maximum devastastion on the ground as part of the grand plan ..... an open door can now kill thousands ...... :cool:

LNAV VNAV

3rd Oct 2006, 18:09

Why is it being assumed that the door was open all the time? Couldn't the hijackers have rushed into the cockpit just as the cabin attendant was taking the coffee in? Or just as a pilot was coming out for the loo?

enjolras

3rd Oct 2006, 18:14

Hijackers have surrended and asked for political asylum in Italy. Crew and PAX leaving the plane now.

rhovsquared

3rd Oct 2006, 18:17

Jeez, another 911 is STILL possible:*

Happy Contrails....and Keep the :mad:-damned doors shut I don't wanna see another 3000 folks die:(
rhov:)

Reach

3rd Oct 2006, 18:23

What did they use, mouthwash or nail scissors?

blackmail

3rd Oct 2006, 18:34

on the news: hijacking = over, no one injured, hijackers surrender & ask political asylum.

westhawk

3rd Oct 2006, 18:42

Glad it worked out safely THIS TIME. Of course, anticipating the typical TSA response to international airline security incidents of any kind, better add religion to the list of topics NOT to discuss in the security lines!

Best,

Westhawk

daz211

3rd Oct 2006, 19:27

Whats to say that this was not a test by hijackers, testing security and if the aircraft was to be shot down or not? just a thought.

island

3rd Oct 2006, 20:15

some news-websites reported that the hijackers were not armed.... so how the:mad: did they do that?

Airbrake

3rd Oct 2006, 21:35

If the Italians did not not have a shoot down plan today, they will have tomorrow morning. I wonder how close to Rome this aircraft would have got before this incident would have had a very different ending.

mistral_e

3rd Oct 2006, 21:43

All european countries have one terrorist plan and Italy too. In any case you don't shoot down an aircraft at the first hijacking alarm otherwise you would kill innocent people even when the situation could be managed in a different way like today.

In any case nobody was injured and that's great.

Blues&twos

3rd Oct 2006, 21:44

Would have thought it would have been easier to buy tickets for a scheduled flight to Rome.......:confused:

Good news all OK.

mistral_e

3rd Oct 2006, 21:54

Yeah, I was wondering the same :ouch:

macroman

3rd Oct 2006, 22:09

It just goes to show that no matter what procedures are put in place on the ground, these nutters are going to keep coming. An open cockpit door is an open invitation.

Would've been a lot handier all round if they just emailed the Pope! It is good though that everybody got out okay.

Airbrake

3rd Oct 2006, 22:14

blackmail

3rd Oct 2006, 22:51

hijacker was an INAD(person refused entry), turkish army deserter/converted to christianism, who's political asylum request was denied by the albanian authorities. he was expulsed & put by "force" on this flight back to turkey, were a certain arrest upon arrival was guaranteed. so, i think, that should have raised at least, some red flags(escort required etc.) & flying with an open cockpitdoor was to open the door for ... .
well, what happened. not all the roads lead to rome anymore.

soddim

3rd Oct 2006, 22:59

One wonders if the aircraft would have been shot down if it approached Rome?

Hard to imagine a more reckless policy than keeping cockpit doors insecure after the lessons of 9/11.

mistral_e

4th Oct 2006, 00:06

Mistral, whilst a shoot down may be the last option you need to get things moving sharpish at the start to stand half a chance of playing it as your last card.
I would estimate Rome is less than 40 mins from Brindisi you simply do not have an hour or two before you need to get things moving.
Airbrake, I don't understand for what reason you are so concerned about engagement of a civil aircraft. May be you are scared of another 9/11 as I don't think you like to see blood in the skies. Man, look the aircraft was already escort outside greek airspace from greek fighter and let to italian fighter. Why they didn't stop it? Because, listening local news, turkish pilot reported the hijacker had a bomb and was going to detonate it if the aircraft was not diverted to Rome. So for Greece was a great relief and solution to escort a problem outside his skies and let the problem to italian' F-16s. Now, an F-16 is supersonic if necessary they can fly faster then speed of sound. Normally is avoided especially over landmark but if necessary they go, don't worry about it. Other issue, may be you don't know they can load AIM-120 a missile capable to achieve a speed of Mach 4 and a range of about 25 or 30 Nautical miles more or less, so what I mean in extreme case is not necessary to have a target insight to pull it down on ground. Even more this is not the first hijack alarm received after 9/11 where an european fighter was scrambled to see what was going on inside a civil flight. In each single incident, fighters reached their targets and they established a visual contact.There were already cases in Holland, France and Italy too therefore I think Europe took seriously these situations and until now I think we should not panic .

mistral_e

4th Oct 2006, 00:31

At the end he was alone. He cheated with the crew making them believe there was another hjacker on board.

Norman Stanley Fletcher

4th Oct 2006, 00:52

This case astounds me. In this day and age, why did the crew and passengers not fight with everything they had to kill or disable this guy? It is very alarming on many levels. Turkish Airlines are notoriously lax about door security - that alone should make them subject to an immediate ban over European skies until the matter is resolved. Perhaps the most troubling aspect is the acquiescance of 100+ people, including the Captain and FO, who failed to intervene. I just cannot get my head round that.

I am not the slightest embarrassed to say that if some nutter ever enters my cockpit uninvited, either he or I will shortly thereafter be leaving dead or very seriously injured.

Fox3snapshot

4th Oct 2006, 02:11

Nice theory mate.....! :hmm:

justawanab

4th Oct 2006, 03:19

I am not the slightest embarrassed to say that if some nutter ever enters my cockpit uninvited, either he or I will shortly thereafter be leaving dead or very seriously injured.

Now, not being a frequent international flyer, I need some clarification here.
I've seen most of the Airline disaster type movies too, but unless I'm very much mistaken, in real life the good guy doesn't always win.

Neither is there always the obligatory singing Nun, child with a terminal illness on her way to life saving treatment at the Mayo Clinic, Priest and, more importantly for this scenario, teenage kid with 30,000 hours experience on Flight Simulator who can take over the controls of the jet and land it safely with guidance from the guy at ATC when the entire flight crew are either dead or incapacitated because one of them decided to be a hero and took on the hijacker.

Am I wrong? :confused:

HZ123

4th Oct 2006, 06:29

Despite the loked doors the door codes in some airlines are widespread knowledge to many staff (some airlines have retained the same code since the doors were put in). Also on a shorthaul a/c it is possible to position yourself and work out what the code is. Surely a locked door only provides security against the would be one off idiot, those intent on criminal acts will do their research first. Maybe we should consider it lucky that these two were only making a point (allegedly) against the papel visit. This is a timely reminder to all of the flying comunity.

Flightmech

4th Oct 2006, 06:47

You are always going to have the problem of this re-occuring again. Even for that split second when the door is opened for a convenience break, or the dinner is delivered to the flight deck. The only way to eliminate it completely would be to have a dedicated galley with ovens, coffee makers etc and lavatory (and a cabin crew member!) inside the reinforced door, and lets face it, thats not gonna happen.

Haruki

4th Oct 2006, 06:50

HZ123

There is a time delay between putting the code and actual door opening .
The QRH says ' is somebody is trying to open the door using the code , action - DENY entry .'

Boeing Pilot

4th Oct 2006, 06:56

NORMAN STANLEY FLETCHER

I'm with you there 100%.

westhawk

4th Oct 2006, 07:07

Am I wrong? :confused:

YES!

Sorry, couldn't resist. :)

The old, pre 911 protocol was to cooperate with the hijackers. The success of this policy is debatable, but that's the way it was handled then. The reasons for the change in protocol should be obvious. The primary percieved threat now are individuals who very likely intend to crash the airplane into a target, killing all on board and anyone unfortunate enough to be in the impact area. Cooperation with any individual who MIGHT even have such motives in mind would be tantamount to signing not only one's own death warrant, but many others too. So as a matter of policy, surrendering command and control of the aircraft must NEVER be considered by ANYONE to be a possibility. Anyone contemplating such an act must know with certainty that they will be fought to the death by all crewmembers and yes, passengers.

To allow, through lax adherance to the protective measures in place, or through a willingness to negotiate for your life, a person to take over an aircraft in this day and age is completely wreckless and irresponsible. Making the crews think that they would not be harmed if they would only cooperate is EXACTLY what Atta and his co-conspiritors counted on to execute their plan. And it worked only too well in three out of four cases. The fourth case ended as it did only because the stakes became known and some folks decided that they would not go down without a fight.

This is the new policy, and right or wrong, it is the only acceptable response considering the potential stakes. I think they got away with one this time. Don't expect such a harmless outcome the next time an aircraft is allowed to be taken over. These days, anyone planning to take over an aircraft must believe they will be killed without succeeding. It is a harsh reality which may not appeal to the more humanistic side of us. But it is preferable to the alternative of giving up the ship when it well may endanger yourself and so many others to such a high degree.

Just my opinion.

Best regards,

Westhawk

LNAV VNAV

4th Oct 2006, 07:17

There is a time delay between putting the code and actual door opening .
The QRH says ' is somebody is trying to open the door using the code , action - DENY entry .'

That's right. All that you need is a camera that shows you the cabin and the galley so that you know when something suspicious is going on and you need the curtain closed so that passengers don't know when the door is open. And the passengers need to wait behind the curtain for the loo.

All this will keep you relatively and acceptably safe I would say.

Norman Stanley Fletcher

4th Oct 2006, 08:51

Westhawk - you are absolutely right and your comments reveal a succinct clarity of the security environment in which we now operate. No Commander of a commericial aircraft should ever concede control of the flight deck to an intruder under any circumstances. As others have pointed out, prior to Sep 11, the imperative was to prevent loss of life or injury to your passengers and crew. That lead to a policy of basically doing what you were told by the hijackers, getting to a suitable airport ASAP and letting negotiatiors sort it out. We now know that such a position is no longer tenable given the stated intention of some Islamic terrorists to kill every person on the aircraft and as many people as possible on the ground. In the light of such a potential catastrophe, the need for the crew to remain in one piece is far outweighed by the need to regain control of the flight deck. Therefore you have to do whatever is necessary to regain that control.

These battles are won beforehand in your mind - not when faced with an intruder that you are subconsciously willing to consider may be just an 'ordinary' hijacker rather than a mass murderer. Nobody wants any conflict, particularly of a violent nature, but you simply cannot take the risk that an intruder is someone you can deal with by negotiation.

FCS Explorer

4th Oct 2006, 08:52

yesterday i was scheduled to fly a short sector to bari (which is in the brindisi FIR, about 40NM from brindisi itself). when we requested start-up ATC told us that there is a hijacking in the brindisi FIR, the FIR is closed UFN, and start-up is denied. ok.
so we got the company on the phone and told them.
and they told us "WE know NOTHING of a hijacking, so get airborne!"
:ugh:
maybe next time the hijacker should file a request with my company and ask permission.

justawanab

4th Oct 2006, 10:49

... But it is preferable to the alternative of giving up the ship when it well may endanger yourself and so many others to such a high degree.

Ok, happy to be convinced. If that's the case, and it does make sense, without giving away any secrets how do you deal with this?

Do you automatically assume they're planning something along 9/11 lines or wait till that becomes more obvious before you act? Surely, until such time as there is that indication there's a risk that if you do take them on you are endangering not only your passengers but anyone who may be under you on the ground who may be otherwise in no danger if they are just trying a more traditional hijacking and you can get the plane down safely.

I'm not trying to nit pick or troll. I'm just trying to clarify this in my head. I can understand, if not fully appreciate, the incredible dilemma this must pose to anyone caught up in something like this, so I don't mean to trivialize it in any way. Sorry if it sounds like that.

[Edit: NSF has fairly concisely covered a lot of this. From what he has said you basically have to assume it's a 9/11 type situation from the start and act on that?]

BRISTOLRE

4th Oct 2006, 11:49

How the hell did they get in to the cockpit? Remains to be answered, but was he armed as well? If so, maybe the weak link was Tirana security.
The fear is that the terrorists WILL succeed again by using alternative airports with the weaker links.

172driver

4th Oct 2006, 12:24

According to this report, the whole things seems to have been a rather leisury affair..... not condoning or belittling in any way, btw. Hijackers should be dealt with firmly, swiftly - and terminally.

http://www.khaleejtimes.com/DisplayArticleNew.asp?xfile=data/theworld/2006/October/theworld_October123.xml&section=theworld

blackmail

4th Oct 2006, 17:31

hello,

after reading the newsrelease from above post :
1) a bit of "stockholm syndrome" present,(pax/hijacker symphatising), e.g. pax applauding the hijacker when surrendering to the carabinieri.

2) blatant/ unacceptable absence/disregard of elementary cockpit "pantzer"door policies.

3) the italian authorities, in my view, handled this affair quite correctly, but i prefer NOT to think at what would have happened, if the lunatic had insisted /forced the crew to continue to roma, instead of landing in brindisi, especially with an armed f16 on the left wing.

westhawk

4th Oct 2006, 21:06

Ok, happy to be convinced. If that's the case, and it does make sense, without giving away any secrets how do you deal with this?

No secrets revealed. The presumption that the worst is intended by any hijacker is necessary. To presume otherwise is to invite disaster from any number of possible sources. Remember that people in positions of responsibility on the ground have decisions to make too.

Surely, until such time as there is that indication there's a risk that if you do take them on you are endangering not only your passengers but anyone who may be under you on the ground who may be otherwise in no danger if they are just trying a more traditional hijacking and you can get the plane down safely.

As soon as terrorists believe this thinking is again possible, they will act to take advantage.

[Edit: NSF has fairly concisely covered a lot of this. From what he has said you basically have to assume it's a 9/11 type situation from the start and act on that?]

Yes, he has. I would just add that his most important point has to do with having a firm conviction regarding one's policy and mindset BEFORE the fact. Ceding control of the ship in the futile hope the "hostages" aft of the cockpit door will be spared is no longer an acceptable response for a flightcrew given the risks involved. Welcome to the new reality!

Best regards,

Westhawk

Halfnut

5th Oct 2006, 03:08

SOP at my carrier is PF continues to fly the aircraft while the PNF does the shooting.

vunzke

5th Oct 2006, 07:57

The discussion on what to do with perons trying to get unauthorizd access to the cockpit with whatever intention is a very easy one to have on the internet. different thing however is how one will respond when the "real" thing happens. Its all to easy to tell hero stories on how to act and fight yourself to death if necessary to prevent anyone from taking over control etc. Its an "on the spot" decision and no-one can EVER say that a crew made the wrong decision or was acting wrongly simply because you were not there to live thru it i beleive. I am a captain and certainly hope I will never encounter such a thing. How would I respond?.... I simply dont know. I hope I have the ability to take the right decisions if such a thing would happen to me but i simply dont know.... people respond very differently in different situations and cannot and should not be judged for their decisions when in such life threatening situations where the lives of many are dependant on their decisiveness.

As far as the closed door policy is concerned. I beleive that whatever happens in the world I would like to live my life in reasonable comfort and that means that I do want the cabin crew bringing me my coffee and meals etc. We need to open the door for that and those moments are the vulnarable ones, i realise that. so be it. The mere fact that the terrorists have us change our ways of life in the way that some of us would recommend us to do is in my view a victory to them already. I for one do not like to give myself up that way and continue to not let them influence my living comfort. I will not spend the rest of my life looking over my shoulder, restricting my freedom for security reasons. The threat has become a part of my life ...like for anyone in this world i guess.... but i will not give the terrorists the pleasure of destroying my "joy de vive".:=

I do beleive in following procedures in an airplane however I am also the captain and therefore tested to be capable to make decisions in that same airplane... like when and if I want my coffee...or when and if I want to go to the toilet... :hmm: