Atlas Jet Hijack

[Ahua]

Turkish News reporting Atlas Jet (A320?) from Ercan North Cyprus to Istanbul has been Hijacked, Diverted to Antalya, seems to be currently held on the ramp :uhoh:

[Ahua]

A plane flying from Cyprus to Istanbul has been diverted to the southern Turkish city of Antalya after a hijack attempt, Turkish TV reports.

The two hijackers, who are reported to be speaking Arabic, wanted the plane to fly to Tehran.
A number of passengers escaped from the plane after it landed at Antalya.
An official from the airline, Atlas Jet, said there were 136 passengers and six crew on the plane when it left Ercan Airport in Northern Cyprus.
The plane was two hours into its journey from Northern Cyprus to Istanbul, when two men tried to forced their way into the cockpit, the BBC's Turkey correspondent Sarah Rainsford reports.
When they did not succeed, the men asked to be flown to Iran, but the plane landed in Antalya.
A number of passengers then succeeded in opening the door and jumping on the tarmac, according to local reports.
Only a few passengers, crew members and the hijackers were left on board, Atlas Jet chief executive Tuncay Doganer said.
It is thought the hijackers do not possess weapons, but appear to carry what is thought to be a bomb, Mr Doganer told Turkish TV. Passengers told local TV that the hijackers were tall, dark skinned, apparently speaking Arabic and claiming to be from al-Qaeda.

[helimutt]

so security precautions seem to work then? I also thought it wasn't possible to profile these types. Dark skinned, middle eastern origin, arabic speaking? Unbelievable really.

[Ahua]

I like the part when they could not get through the cockpit door, he asked to be flown to Terhan.

did he knock politely and say please!! before he mentioned the bomb!!

[rubik101]

The 'aviation security expert' on the BBC is sitting looking at the video footage of the pax exiting over the wings and jumping from the tail cone escape route and telling us that the Boeing 727 isn't going to fly anywhere soon.
The man is a stupid prat and makes him and his ilk look even dumber than the idiots who ask them for their comments.

Will no one rid the world of these 'experts'?

[stevehudd]

I'm Glad someone else noticed. I'm no expert in any field and just waking up and could tell it wasnt a 727. How can someone soo posh talking and with a title under their name of aviation expert not know anything about aviation. I was sat there staring at him while he was waffling on and thought what a n*b head.

I think I knew the name of that plane when I was 12 years old.

[ADC2604]

Typical media getting the details wrong again.....its an MD83 of AtlasJet. The video footage shows passengers escaping from emergency exits whilst at Antalya Airport

[stevehudd]

Yes True, Taken back :p I just don't like people who come across as a know it all, but know nothing. I come across as if I know nothing but know alot, example was my flying when it came to the chief pilot being shocked at hearing me over the radio as opposed to talking in general.

[MaxBlow]

It was a MD83 from World Focus Airlines chartered by Atlasjet.
Media reported that the pilots left the airplane thru the cockpit windows.

Found this on airorthaber.com

[Onions]

If you look at the video footage of the passengers getting off the aircraft it does say Atlasjet all down the side in very big letters. Think we should let them off that one.

[B757-200]

According to passenger reports the plane was "apparently" plumetting towards the earth.

Also it was said that 4 were still on-board, 2 crew and 2 hijackers. Does anyone have more on this? Are the crew being held hostage by the hijackers or are were the crew restraining them until police arrive?

[London legend]

Seems the flightcrew have made it off. Some cabin crew still on board.

ANKARA, Aug 18, 2007 (AFP) - The two men who hijacked a Turkish
airplane en route from northern Cyprus to Istanbul on Saturday are
Iranians, the Anatolia news agency quoted Turkish Cypriot Transport
Minister Salih Usar as saying.
Usar, speaking in Nicosia, said the hijackers were protesting
against the policies of the United States.
The plane, which took off from Ercan airport in the northern
Turkish Cypriot part of divided Nicosia, landed in the southern
Turkish resort of Antalya after the pilots said they needed to
refuel.
The hijackers wanted to go to Iran or Syria, passengers and
officials said.
The pilots and most of the passengers escaped after the plane
landed in Antalya, leaving only the hijackers and a few passengers
and crew still on board.
The two men, according to passengers, claim to be Al-Qaeda
members and in possession of a bomb.
su/jj

[MikadoTrident]

I'm not sure but i think pilot and co-pilot are still on-board

[Payscale]

Quote"
"The plane was two hours into its journey from Northern Cyprus to Istanbul, when two men tried to forced their way into the cockpit, the BBC's Turkey correspondent Sarah Rainsford reports." unquote

If it was 2 hours enroute, it must have been overhead Istanbul.....and THEN diverted south another 1:20 to Antalya.....highly unlikely. Must have diverted much earlier....A380 was it? :ugh: experts..

[SLFguy]

For Payscale.....


"The men claimed to be carrying a bomb and demanded that the Atlasjet Airlines plane headed from northern Cyprus to Istanbul be diverted to Iran. The plane, which had taken off from northern Cyprus headed for Istanbul, landed at Antalya airport after pilots said they needed to refuel."

New York Times

[G-DAVE]

It is a McDonnell Douglas MD-83 (DC-0-83), used to belong to Iran AirTOur Airline.

Glad to see all ok

[Huck]

Brings to mind an interesting question I was asked during a sim check once.
Say you were on the ground, in the cockpit and had thirty seconds to disable your aircraft so that it could not be flown without serious mechanical repair. What would you do?

I would disconnect the CSD's on the generators, for one....

[Leezyjet]

Not a bad suggestion Huck, or you could do as most f/deck crew tend to do and spill their tea/coffee/coke over the centre consol !!. Always seems to take a few hours to fix :ok:

Glad to hear these "terrorist's" failed in their mission and will now be spending a number of nights at the mercy of the Turkish Police - I'm sure they don't adhere to Human Rights Laws over there !!.

:D

[reverserunlocked]

Interesting seeing the video of the evac on the BBC News website.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/6952594.stm

The tailcone just fell away and dangled in the breeze, leaving what looked like a pretty long jump for the pax. Is there no slide on the tailcone, or had it been disarmed perhaps?

[Metro man]

It can't have happened, the security precautions put in place after the attacks on the world trade centre would have prevented any future aircraft hijackings. Just not possible anymore.

[Fox3snapshot]

"The two hijackers, who are reported to be speaking Arabic, wanted the plane to fly to Tehran."

A subtle, but poignant question/observation I have regarding this statement would be, why Arabic speaking and wanting to fly to Tehran (different mob!) :hmm:

My first concern is they speak Farsi in Iran and secondly they would need to speak Turkish if they are on an internal flight in Turkey wanting to go somewhere special....

Either the media sc*ew*d the pooch on their nationality reporting, or the hijackers were completely confused as to where they were from and where they really wanted to go.... :8

[scoreyc]

Hey Guys , I am currently a Flight Purser rated on the MD-90. Note that when the passengers escaped from the tailcone exit the slide didn't inflate. The curious thing is if :

The Crew or the passengers opened the tailcone exit ? 99% it was opened with the emergency red lever and the slide failed to inflate in this case the crew failed to inflate the slide manually which could have easily caused injuries to the passengers while they where escaping .

Luckily this hijack turned up to be a complete flop for the hijackers.

[moist]

These "hijackers" have NOT been able to get into the cockpit!

Therefore it was NOT a hijack, or certainly not a successful one.

The BBC were reporting with words like: "The Hijackers took control of the aircraft" which is absolute crap and the "pilot in charge" and "the pilot (1) has lost control of the aircraft" for a while!!!!

In future I'll be listening to Al Jazeera for facts, not the idiotic uninformed/uninformative BBC to$$ers.

[moist]

bigbluecar,

You have a point about he word hijack, however they have not hijacked the aircraft, more like unsuccessfully affected it's trajectory somewhat.
If I was the captain I would also have diverted, in order to get rid of the risk, however the "hijack" did not succeed, therefore I would call them a pair of unsuccessful wannabie hijackers, with a capital 'W' and a very small 'h'.

It's like after 9/11 the media started referring to the hijackers as "pilots" which really p****d me right off, as they were hijackers, not pilots! :mad:

moist

[MaxBlow]

I followed other reports in Turkey (where we spend our holidays). Didn't understand all they where saying but asked the barman to translate.

Appearently there has been a discussion about the pilots leaving the aircraft and people said it's not right - but a spokesman from the Turkish ALPA answered that 'an airplane without pilots can't fly...'

On CNN Turk a speaker called on of the pax in the airplane on her cell phone and seriously asked her to give the phone to one of the hijackers... :yuk: to ask them what they want. I find that un :mad: believable !

She than asked the pax to at least talk to one of the CCMs...if these guys where serious think of what could have happend to the pax or crew.
How far can they go for a good story?

A day later it has been reported that they only carried a package of playing daugh not any explosives - but who could tell ?

Looking at the tail slide - it sure didn't inflate the way it supposed to and I saw pax falling out that exit rather than using the slide.

Good thing is though that nothing really happend.

[ADC2604]

There is a difference between quoting the complete wrong aircraft compared to all this absolute nonsense about which airline it belongs to.....it had AtlasJet all across the aircraft....end of.

Being pedantic isn't a good quality:ugh:

[Earl]

http://www.turkishdailynews.com.tr/article.php?enewsid=81334
Hijacked plane brings about debate over pilots
Monday, August 20, 2007
ISTANBUL - Turkish Daily News
The hijacking of the Atlasjet Airlines plane, from Lefkoşe in Cyprus to Istanbul, on Saturday morning spurred much debate over the pilots' conduct. Some argue that the pilots' jumping out of the cockpit window, leaving behind the hijackers, the passengers, and the other crewmembers to be wrong and risky, while others argue it was a good way to prevent a disaster in the Antalya Airport.
“We know the captains are the last to leave ship, but we did not know there was a ‘rule' that pilots should be the first to leave plane,” wrote Fikret Bila quite sarcastically in his column in yesterday's Milliyet daily. He labels the pilots' conduct a “scandal.”
Bila pointed out that passengers trust pilots to handle difficult situations and to solve problems. “It is hard to find a believable explanation for the pilots to leave a hijacked plane first, let alone just any plane,” wrote Bila.
Another columnist to agree with Bila was Güntay Şimşek, who handled the same issue in yesterday's daily Sabah. Şimşek cites the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) and the Tokyo Convention Act Rules to judge the manner of the pilots' abandoning the plane as “totally wrong.” He pointed out that the conventions show the pilot as the foremost authority in case of a hijacking. “Yet, the foremost authority in this case abandoned the plane from the cockpit window,” read Şimşek's article. He added, “The Directorate General of Civil Aviation, the Turkish Airline Pilots Association (TALPA), and the administrators at Atlasjet Airlines have erred in trying to protect the pilots.”
Aydın Kızıltan, chief executive of Worldfocus, the company that leased the plane to Atlasjet, does not agree with either Bila or Şimşek. He said that the pilots left the plane through the cockpit window to prevent the hijackers from forcing them to fly the plane and shut off the power. “It should not be forgotten that the mode of hijacking airplanes has changed after the Sept. 11 events. Today, planes are hijacked not to accomplish what the hijackers want but to be used as weapons. Our pilots prevented a possible disaster by not opening the door of the cockpit and by abandoning the plane,” said Kızıltan.
The two hijackers have been identified as Mehmet Reşat Özlü, 27, and Mommen Abdul Aziz Talikh, 25. Their interrogation continues at the Antalya Police Department. Any possible links between the two men and organized groups is also being investigated.

[Airbubba]

If the pilots leave the plane, it is just a building, good move in light of 911 events!

[DingerX]

Technically, hijackers fall into one of three groups:
A. Fanatic Nutcases
B. Organized Fanatic Nutcases
C. (desperate) Dumbasses.

Group B. is usually a contradiction in terms, so those who fall into it are best monitored using social techniques (=Find out who they are, and make sure they don't get on planes). Security is traditionally (and best) designed to catch A. and C, and, to be honest, there's no sense in worrying about B. unless you're a fearmongering politician. (I know, I know, try telling the TSA that).

Now, these guys without doubt fall into class C. They hijack a plane flying out of Ercan. Unless things have changed, scheduled flights to Ercan only go through countries that acknowledge the TRNC as a country (and that would be Turkey). So if they did wait before hijacking, they pretty much required the aircraft to land in Turkey. If they didn't, the flight crew would still have a convincing argument to land in Turkey first ("Rogue State B is not gonna accept flights from Rogue State A; when you hijack internationally, always do so to the more roguish state. Them's the rules. I didn't make 'em.")

And heck, if you got A. or C. on board, as the Atlas crew amply demonstrated, and has been shown in past cases, running is a pretty good option.
hell, with dumbasses like that, they're lucky they didn't end up off Madagascar.

[Earl]

Should be a good discussion here about this, personaly I think that leaving a plane load of Pax and jumping out the windows was wrong.
But this is Turkey!

Think the jury is still out on this one.

Guess you are damned if you do and damned if you dont.
But after 911 I guess every case is different.
No given set of rules here, but I doubt you will ever see these actions written in the SOP"s.

[Rainboe]

Nonsense! You say the jury is still out and then deliver your verdict: "..it was a bad call, showed lack of leadership, responsibility and borderlined on cowardince"! It was exactly the right call. Who was the 'leader' to show 'leadership'? The hijackers! The pilots were just 2 more hijacked passengers. By removing themselves, they disabled the aeroplane, taking away any possibility of allowing the aeroplane to be located elsewhere where the problem must be handled again from the beginning. I cannot believe you besmirch the pilots with the word 'cowardice'! What do you know about it? The advice is to get out if you can for the above reasons. You have delivered a shoot-from-the-hip judgement and yet you obviously have received little training or advice.

[Right Way Up]

Pilots leaving the aircraft. Completely the right move imho. I think a Pan Am crew did this a few decades ago.

[HotDog]

Earl (in between the cameltoes). Pray tell how you would have reacted in this hijacking?

[wee one]

Earl, what a tosser you are.
Also ignorant to the current philosphy on handling hijacks since 9/11.

Ok so I run away. I did the right thing, it can no onger fly. You stick around , show bravery and leadership...the security forces cant follow their training as you havent followed yours. You interfer with the situation because you are confusing your flying licence with counter terrorism training. people get killed. You survive. The correct proceedures are made known to the public and you get sued until you are a pauper and villified for being a know all ******.

You clearly have not had any airline security trainingso shut the **** up:ok:

[Super VC-10]

I fully agree with Rainboe. Without pilots the aircraft is going nowhere. The hijackers were unable to access the cockpit, and even if they had been able to almost certainly couldn't fly the aircraft themelves. They couldn't even prevent those who they wished to remain hostages from leaving the aircraft! :rolleyes:

Well done, flight crew! :D

[Rainboe]

I do hate this post-event 'Courts Martial' of any incident, where verdicts are delivered in Rumours and News from the hip over the pilots' behaviour! People criticise me because I apparently react adversely to such criticism and it is taken as objection to criticism of the profession. The reasons I find such damming verdicts so objectionable are:
1- 'Armchair' verdicts when in possession of few facts of the incident are meaningless.
2- Verdicts of peoples' actions delivered when not knowing current regulations or advice are baseless.
3- One has to be very careful when having the luxury of lengthy time to consider and review an incident that occurred in a flash and required instantaneous action from the participants.
4- Any such announced 'amateur' Court Martial decisions seriously besmirch the participants and their company unfairly in a public forum.
5- There is actually a person involved, the victim of amateur verdicts, suffering in an unpleasant post-event limbo, who may well be coming here to anxiously observe reaction to the incident.

This is Rumours and News, not a sounding board for loudmouths to criticise people in a public forum. So Earl, you are obviously ignorant and insufficiently trained. Would you care to edit your post again and remove unjust criticism of what are allegedly 'fellow' professionals? ie- extract yourself from 'between the camel toes', retract and wind your neck in!
And a hint- try and show a bit more professionalism in your sad profile! It's a bit of an insult to your fellow professionals here.
.....Second cargo never complains about delays, temperature, or some flight attendant they had a problem with.
Flew cargo before, back to Pax now, cargo was much better.
But rule number one with pax, never marry the flight attendant, the women they put on the freighter to handle the horses are a much better option, ha ha.
Hope this helps.
Stick to the cargo mate!

[Earl]

Like I said, in todays world, you are damned if you do and damned if you dont.

[Rainboe]

Maybe one can expect pig-ignorant columnists to publicise personal verdicts like they do- they have the power and the medium to spread their decision on the matter, if not any knowledge about the whole matter (we're used to that from journalists!), but it's not on for other pilots to criticise these pilots as well for doing exactly the right thing by taking away the tool the hijackers could use to fly the aeroplane and prolong the agony unnecessarily.

[aulglarse]

So easy to have hindsight isn't it Earl?? Say the bomb was real and these pricks decide to blow themselves and the plane up with whoever else is left on board....you die a hero? :D

Some good the crash axe was in your hands ready to take on the world!

Wait for the report before any more speculation or criticism.:ok:

[Contacttower]

Why is that whenever someone goes against the prevailing opinion in this forum everyone jumps down their throat?

It's OK surely to tell people they are wrong but there is no need for so many people to simply repeat what others have said in putting people down. I'm just a PPL but I don't need hindsight explained to me and neither does a 747 pilot.

[Green Guard]

Controversy over hijacking continues
Although the hijacking of a Turkish passenger plane traveling from the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus (KKTC) to İstanbul on Saturday was concluded peacefully, without bloodshed, debate over the incident continues.


Aviation experts have criticized the crew for leaving the cockpit after the al-Qaeda-linked hijackers threat.
According to aviation experts, the local authorities failed to act to rescue the passengers and crew involved in the incident. The experts say the passengers and crew should receive an apology for this failure.
Two men, wielding a fake bomb and claiming links to al-Qaeda, hijacked the plane early on Saturday after it took off from northern Cyprus. They held the passengers and crew hostage for more than four hours before surrendering to police in the Turkish Mediterranean resort of Antalya. The incident saw the pilots escape from the cockpit while a group of men escaped after breaking down the rear emergency exit. Six passengers were injured when they jumped onto the tarmac from the tail of the plane, including a man who broke his pelvis.

Güntay Şimşek, an aviation expert, told Today’s Zaman by telephone that “the pilots were totally wrong. They say they were ordered to get off the plane. Even if there was such an order, it was a huge mistake and such an order violates all aviation security measures.” Şimşek claimed that the pilots’ escape was due to fear. He continued by saying that the pilots are the commanders of the airplane and they (both the pilots and crew) are trained in security and emergency tactics.

“The only people who can communicate from the plane and describe what is going on are the pilots. When they escaped, everything went out of control on the plane,” he said.

Şimşek stated that Turkey is a member of the International Civil Aviation Organization and is bound by international civil aviation regulations. “As a country you have to apply the civil aviation rules in your country. Not only the pilots, but also the local governors made mistakes in the operation. Another claim is, that without the support of the security measures the passengers and crew were left to their own devices.”

According to security experts “it is totally unacceptable for civilians to be used in such rescue operations.” In Saturday’s incident, nine psychologists were used to convince the hijackers to surrender. The experts have called on the security directorate to train negotiators and experts for such cases.

Debate also rages over the whereabouts of the minister for transportation, who was not involved despite his direct responsibility for such events.

Police find al-Qaeda link for Egyptian hijacker

Turkish police said the Egyptian hijacker involved in Saturday’s drama had received training at an al-Qaeda camp and had wanted to be flown to Iran to join al-Qaeda in Afghanistan, the Anatolia news agency reported on Monday.

According to information received by Anatolia, police said the 33-year-old Egyptian, Mommen Abdul Aziz Talik, had served time in the same prison in Saudi Arabia as a senior al-Qaeda member, called Ahmad, who was sentenced to life for helping to organize the Sept. 11 attacks. Police did not say at which al-Qaeda camp or in which country Talik had received his training, the agency said. Police also did not say why Talik was jailed in Saudi Arabia.

Police said Talik, who is of Palestinian origin, was born in Cairo and that his family was still lived in Saudi Arabia. His alleged accomplice, Mehmet Reşat Özlü, was from the city of Sanliurfa, in Turkey’s Southeast. The two hijackers met in northern Cyprus a year ago before living in the same house for a month, police said. Özlü was registered as a student in the literature department of a university in the KKTC.

Police said that during the interrogation the two suspects confessed that they wanted to divert the plane to Iran and travel to Afghanistan to join the “jihad.” The suspects told police they had tried to storm the cockpit shortly after takeoff, Antalya Governor Alaaddin Yüksel said. Passengers said they had failed to break the door down.

Police said the men had not been armed with explosives and that Talik was carrying a bomb-shaped pack of play-dough when he surrendered, Anatolia said. Police questioned two passengers on suspicion of ties to the hijackers but later released them after concluding they were not linked, according to Anatolia.

Dozens of Turks have joined al-Qaeda in Afghanistan or Iraq, police said. Suicide bombers linked to al-Qaeda hit Istanbul in 2003, killing 58 people in attacks that targeted two synagogues, the British Consulate General and a British bank. In February, the courts sentenced seven people to life in prison for the bombings.


21.08.2007

İstanbul Today’s Zaman

[Rainboe]

I see Guntay Simcek has been mysteriously promoted from 'journalist':
Another columnist to agree with Bila was Güntay Şimşek, who handled the same issue in yesterday's daily Sabah. Şimşek cites the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) and the Tokyo Convention Act Rules to judge the manner of the pilots' abandoning the plane as “totally wrong.” He pointed out that the conventions show the pilot as the foremost authority in case of a hijacking. “Yet, the foremost authority in this case abandoned the plane from the cockpit window,” read Şimşek's article. He added, “The Directorate General of Civil Aviation, the Turkish Airline Pilots Association (TALPA), and the administrators at Atlasjet Airlines have erred in trying to protect the pilots.”
to 'aviation expert':
Güntay Şimşek, an aviation expert, told Today’s Zaman by telephone that “the pilots were totally wrong.
he doesn't quite appear to know exactly what he is, and he does know he disagrees with:
The Directorate General of Civil Aviation, the Turkish Airline Pilots Association (TALPA), and the administrators at Atlasjet Airlines
and also all the current hijack security training given to pilots, the perceived wisdom is it is better to get the pilots out and remove possibility of relocating the aeroplane.
So contacttower
Why is that whenever someone goes against the prevailing opinion in this forum everyone jumps down their throat?
It's OK surely to tell people they are wrong but there is no need for so many people to simply repeat what others have said in putting people down. I'm just a PPL but I don't need hindsight explained to me and neither does a 747 pilot.
The reason so much criticism of the post was made was that it didn't go against 'prevailing opinion', it directly criticised the pilots for acting in accordance with security training, and that is a different matter. It also showed that the poster was ignorant of this training and needs revalidating himself.

And if you don't need 'hindsight explained' to you, what exactly are you posting here for? As a PPL with no knowledge of security training, perhaps you had better hold your peace and leave this discussion to people who know what they're talking about?

[Contacttower]

Perhaps I should have made myself clearer, I was commenting on how people were reacting to Earl's post,


Earl, what a tosser you are


,for example

not how the prevailing opinion in the newspapers was, after all the prevailing opinion in this forum is nearly always against what the newspapers say. As it happens rainboe I actually agree with you but like you often do I was mearly passing comment on how the thread unfolds after a questionable action/decision/ommission has been committed by flight crew.

[Rainboe]

What the papers say is irrelevant. One scans them for iotas of information, not the idiotic journalistic excess such as 'the striken death jet plunged 20,000' with passengers screaming........'. that they so often resort to. One seems to get that from the BBC now, but people don't really take much notice of newspapers tomorrow with a critical event happening today.

Comment/queries are fine, but when that crosses to uninformed and incorrect criticism based on few facts, then it is necessary for someone to start making people account for their criticism. How would those pilots feel if they logged on to Pprune and saw themselves villified for doing the right thing? Very possible, even likely. And they know they now have tribunals to face. So if only the smartarses would stop criticising and stick to facts only rather than shoot personal opinions out, we would all have a happier experience!

[Earl]

Ok you win, I will retract my comments made towards the crew, maybe it was a little severe.
But just a question for some.
1. With the crew not on board and should immediate armed intervention been needed from the ground, who would be left to call for this on the radios.
2. Should the ground security stormed this plane and shot up alot of people thinking it was immed needed and was not, who could have stopped this, the pax?
Yes the plane was definetly not going anywhere without the crew.
Thats why I said damned if you do and damned if you dont.
This ended without anyone getting killed.
Could have been different and with no one comunicating with the ground or informing them as to what was going on opens the door to many other possibilities.

[S76Heavy]

Inform them of what, exactly?:rolleyes:

It has already been said that with the closed door policy there is a communication barrier between flight deck and cabin. This barrier is most likely aggravated by the fact that any hijacker would not take too kindly to a CA using the intercom to fully inform the flight crew about what is going on in the back and which seats the perpetrators are occupying, to be relayed to the anti-terrorist squad.

By leaving the a/c they have effectively grounded the a/c, buying time for the other professionals to do their job.

My question is, why didn't anybody insecurity spot the lump of clay and wires and what will the effects be on security measures after this?

[Rainboe]

My question is why didn't anybody exterminate the lump of clay and wiry hair that is the journalist Guntay Semcek? Like the world needs another journo! Especially one who has decided he knows best!

In a hijack situation, the pilots just become 2 more passengers who can move the aeroplane. They are unlikely to have free communications with the ground. Their effectiveness is minimal.

If shooting up is going on, nobody is going to be up saying 'don't shoot!'. You will be pressing your nose into the carpet trying to be shorter than the carpet fibres. The crew can do nothing.

[SLFguy]

*Dons flak jacket*

Hmmm, I'm not so sure that it's quite that clear cut Rainboe. Whilst I would not use the word 'cowardice' I'm not sure this wasn't a 'dereliction of duty'.
I appreciate the point regarding no pilot - no fly but at the same time remain uneasy that the 'commander', (and Lord knows how many times we are told in here that his word is final), did not have sole responsibility for his aircraft and passengers.
I don't know what he may or may not have been able to do but it still sits uneasily with me.

[Rainboe]

On what experience do you base your objection to the action? The action recommended by security services for years? We are aware, are we not, that the Captain was no longer 'Commander'? He was just another hijacked passenger. If you have a basis of experience and qualification to justify your objection, I would be interested to hear, but until you can tell me, I suggest you withhold any criticism because without a shadow of a doubt, their exit left the hijackers high and dry. It might sit uncomfortably with you, but if you are just a 'bean counter' with no security training, then your uninformed opinion is completely irrelevant to real life.

[Contacttower]

It might sit uncomfortably with you, but if you are just a 'bean counter' with no security training, then your uninformed opinion is completely irrelevant to real life.


probably true, but to be fair Rainboe current philosophy on different aspects of flying are questionned all the time on this forum and just because the pilots complied with the current thinking on aircraft hijacking does not mean the validity or correctness of that training can not be questionned...but of course by those who are qualified to do so.

[Rainboe]

One is perfectly happy for policies to be discussed- as long as they don't step over the security line- but in this thread, and several others running currently, there are direct criticisms being made of the crew, usually for following currently recommended policy. In this case by security training itself. I'm thinking of the human element here- this is exactly the place those involved will come to when they have been involved in a serious incident to gauge reaction. How will it be received to find themselves dragged over the coals by people who are not aware of the issues or received the training, but promote themselves as self-appointed (and completely inexperienced) adjudicators? It won't sit well. And when that criticism is of those people of what is usually well trained and justified action, then I am going to wade in big time. And remember this is the very place they will come to!

When the point is understood that policies can be discussed, but direct criticism of crews under current or pending investigations cannot, then we will all be happier. An ability to fly Microsoft Flight Sim or an interest in aviation does not qualify one to criticise pilots whilst an investigation is proceeding! We see this in the CAL B737 thread the pilots now being criticised for evacuating the aeroplane and not doing a walk through to look for those trapped! Now my training was 'don't become another casualty for the emergency services to rescue- leave it to them'. They evidently would not have survived a walk through, nobody died- yet they are now being criticised! How does that make them feel? Once again, they did the right thing and get hammered for it by uninformed and ignorant people- yet again 'journalists'!

[Green Guard]

Do i need new pair of glasses or somebody else can notice ANY escape ropes hanging out of cockpit windows? How did the 2 bale out? Dolphin style or ghekko style :}

[Contacttower]

The MD-80 cockpit is quiet low to the ground. Also if you remember the Air France hijacking from a while ago the co-pilot actually fell all the way from the cockpit of the Airbus A300- quite a way to fall.

[Earl]

Quote from WEE ONE:
the security forces cant follow their training as you havent followed yours. You interfer with the situation because you are confusing your flying licence with counter terrorism training. people get killed. You survive. The correct proceedures are made known to the public and you get sued until you are a pauper and villified for being a know all ******

Earl: Where does this come from?
Where is it written for in the regs"the correct procedures are known to the public"? Interfering with counter terrorism training?
Your statements says it all, are you even crew?
I can take critisism when due, but dude you are way out there!
Lawyers and litigation is the least of our worries, doing the correct action is.

[Rainboe]

Earl- drop it mate! You have made plain your criticism of the pilots. It is wrong. I have been undergoing annual security training since it started being needed back in the 70s. The advice is don't be a hero, be compliant, and get out if you can (thus disabling the aircraft). Leave it to the security people to handle. The days of the Captain saluting on the bridge of the Titanic as the water rises are gone- the days of the Captain doing a final walk through the cabin in an evacuation are gone- he just makes himself another body the rescue services must risk themselves trying to get out. The pilots just become 2 more people who have to be rescued. A plane without pilots can't move. They did the right thing in all respects under all current guidelines. I don't know why you are not aware of this, but it is wrong to draw criticism of them through your lack of awareness of current security training. You may not like it, but that's how it is.

I really don't want to go any deeper into security procedures in a public forum.

[anartificialhorizon]

Would it not be wise advice to first physically disable the aircraft and THEN leave.....?

Before 911 who would have thought it possible that hijackers could take control, navigate and deliver the aircraft at low level with pinpoint accuracy...? Some CAN fly therefore and it would not be beyond the realms of possibilty in this flight sim age to get the thing rolling and off the ground.....

These particular hijackers don't sound in the same league as the 911 guys, but i think a bit of deliberate disabling of the aircraft (ie fire handles pulled) would be in order before abandoning ship.....Hope that is standard hijack training before getting out.....

And don't get me wrong getting out IS the thing to do in my opinion if at all possible whether you are FD, CC or PAX.....

[Rainboe]

How does one 'physically disable the aircraft'? This is where a little knowledge is a bad thing. I don't know from your profile what you are, but you think pulling fire handles somehow 'disables' the aircraft? One could disconnect the generator drives, but that doesn't stop the aeroplane moving, or even taking off and flying, and could cause the aeroplane to ultimately crash if forced to go. Could pull CBs, but they can be reset. In the meantime, you may well be punished for taking action. If the authorities want the aeroplane disabled- they can do it by parking a tractor in the way, or putting a block of wood through the fan blades- it's not for heroes onboard who will probably get a bullet for it.
What is the problem with accepting official advice? Why does every individual here have a better idea?

[Right Way Up]

Rainboe,
Don't you just take the keys with you! ;) ;)

[Octopussy2]

Well, speaking a 'umble pax, my "uninformed" but strong opinion is that, given the choice between being

(a) on a hijacked aircraft on the tarmac, with no pilots so it's not going anywhere (assuming of course that the hijackers can't fly it, which appears to be the case here), and

(b) on a hijacked aircraft at 35,000 ft.

then I would take option (a) every time. I think the pilots did absolutely the right thing.

[lomapaseo]

Many years ago I was a frequent flyer on Pan Am. There was a hijack attempt in Pakistan where a car load of baddies drove up to the plane and boarded it shooting some of the F/As (fuzzy details in my memory) The flight crew went bdown the ropes and the hijack ended there with no more loss of lives.

The then head of Pan Am took a lot of flack for his pilot actions. I wrote a letter to him saying that I as a frequent passenger supported their actions. Surprisingly to me he answered the letter thanking me.

[Rainboe]

It's certainly borne out as the right thing to do. If you look at all the incidents where pilots have escaped if possible, the situation normally is subsequently resolved with minimal damage- it takes away the advantage of motion to the captors, and the blow to their plans seems to take away the initiative as well from them.

[cavortingcheetah]

:hmm:

Why should one hang around to fly an aircraft which could explode at any moment to a destination to which one does not wish to go, with passengers on board whose mental stability is questionable, that's before they find the drinks trolley, who are making utterly unreasonable requests of everyone and who are being objectionable towards one's cabin crew?
Nosirreee, it's down the escape rope pronto presto!
Whooops! That's the easy style way to avoid the Malaga flight!:p

[Rainboe]

So I'm sitting there, and someone starts waving a shooter and starts shouting in a foreign tongue. What do I do- get out, or do the stiff upper lip British thing? Have you ever walked around a corner and seen a rat disappear up a drainpipe......fast. I'd be quicker than that. Of course it makes it far easier if you're not actually airborne at the time.........

[Green Guard]

View Poll Results: Should the pilots of the hijacked a/c be criticised for disabling it by abandoning it
I AM a professional pilot and they SHOULD NOT be criticised 47 43.12%
I AM a professional pilot and they SHOULD be criticised 7 6.42%
I AM NOT a professional pilot and they SHOULD NOT be criticised 53 48.62%
I AM NOT an professional pilot ad they SHOULD be criticised 1 0.92%
I have no opinion one way or another 1 0.92%
Voters: 109. You may not vote on this poll



Rainboe
Warning Toxic!

I have been undergoing annual security training since it started being needed back in the 70s. The advice is don't be a hero, be compliant, and get out if you can (thus disabling the aircraft). Leave it to the security people to handle. The days of the Captain saluting on the bridge of the Titanic as the water rises are gone- the days of the Captain doing a final walk through the cabin in an evacuation are gone- he just makes himself another body the rescue services must risk themselves trying to get out. The pilots just become 2 more people who have to be rescued. A plane without pilots can't move. They did the right thing in all respects under all current guidelines. I don't know why you are not aware of this, but it is wrong to draw criticism of them through your lack of awareness of current security training. You may not like it, but that's how it is.



..... sooner then 1 pilot cockpit

[Rainboe]

I was hoping nobody would draw attention to a very unfortunate inference from that poll: that the sample of non-professional pilots is actually smarter than the sample of professional pilots!

We'll not worry too much about 0 pilot aeroplanes- when you're willing to fly in one, I'll start worrying about it!

[Phileas Fogg]

Talking as a potential hijacked passenger I would be more than delighted if the flight deck door remained locked and the flight crew legged it at the first given opportunity.

And ..... if I ever caught up with the flight crew thereafter I'd buy them both a beer :)

[lomapaseo]

I was hoping nobody would draw attention to a very unfortunate inference from that poll: that the sample of non-professional pilots is actually smarter than the sample of professional pilots!


but, we already knew that:}

[anartificialhorizon]

Rainboe,

Pulling the fire handles... plane ain't going anywhere......

Try it sometime or read up on it next time you have a quiet hour or 3 on the flightdeck.....

[chuks]

According to my understanding of the law according to ICAO, for an aircraft on the gound, if its doors are closed then the Captain is responsible for what goes on inside. If a door is open then the civil authorities are in charge.

So if you are having some sort of problem on the ground, open the doors and let the cops/airport security/GSG9/the Men In Black/ whomever deal with it.

Last time I checked my ninja suit was in the laundry so that I really don't plan to tackle any hijackers if I have that choice. Once I get that thing safely on the ground I reckon it's time to do a Brave Sir Robin number, all else being equal. The risks of having to take to the skies with some nutcases in charge of the aircraft are just so much higher than leaving an aircraft parked with no flight crew on board, whgen it might as well be a Porta-Cabin.

[GlueBall]

No need to get emotionally terrorized and work yourself into a stupor over comments made by persons with non aviation backgrounds.

Keep in mind that there is an entertainment value in a free-for-all public forum where anonymous participants may include plumbers and chimney sweeps who haven't seen an airplane and have no clue about aviation. . . .Unless you enjoy running a hampster wheel. :ooh:

[Watchdog]

I can only add to the sentiments of that said earlier. It's simple.

If there is nobody able to fly the aircraft, then the aluminium tube sitting on the runway is simply an expensive garden shed. Go hijack that! :ugh:

[Green Guard]

If there is nobody able to fly the aircraft, then the aluminium tube sitting on the runway is simply an expensive garden shed. Go hijack that!


Garden shed, maybe. But a garden shed almost full with people,
with 36 deg C outside, and much more inside.
Pilots jumping out maybe good idea, but why not send the same idea to their F/A ?
Once out of aircraft, why did they not open aft stairway from outside?

(Most MD80 in Turkey are quite new, and with new USA style - aft stairway open-close controls in the cabin, removed to "prevent" bad guys baling out during unpressurized flight. Stupid idea anyway, as the tail-cone exit obviously is still more suitable for jumping out with a parashute)

[cavortingcheetah]

:hmm:

Cannot quite understand reference to garden sheds.
Garden sheds usually full of tools.
:confused:

[Basil]

Ex - Has been
Spurt - drip under pressure

The Pilot in Command made a decision and I'd say it's a bit presumptious for a bunch of people who have never been in that position to have a public poll of their irrelevant opinions.

[sailor joe]

Pan Am flight PA73, Karachi, 5 September1986. Wikipedia has an article on the event.

[paresb]

Can anyone of you pilot's give me a reference that the PIC has full authority and that it is his/her responsibility to give the final decision during a hijack incident regarding what to do in case of confronting anykind of threat. I've read ICAO Annex 17 and IATA Security Manual and searched the web for guidelines, regulations and procedures for unlawful interference, hijacking etc. but have not found anything where it is been stated that the PIC has full authority.

[Right Way Up]

It makes me laugh/cry that people can question the actions of a crew in this case. Seemingly intelligent people who run governments can stew for months before making a wrong decision. These guys made a decision which seemed right for the situation and made it instantaneously. And imho made the right one. :D:D

[ZAGORFLY]

The last gift of the post 911 is what the turkish pilot have shown us!!
abbandoning the ship and its passengers and sit donwn with a coffee and watch potentially heads rolling out one after another!
Please fly those unhappy bomb strappped passengers where they want to go.
I never seen such unprofessional, and un ethical triunph of the armored flight deck doors.
As an airline manager I would sake those pilots immediatelly.

[con-pilot]

This is the first time I have read this thread. To be honest I really don't know if I should laugh or cry at some of the undulated garbage I have read here.

Okay, first off I am not an airline pilot nor have I ever been one, however, and it is a big however, I did fly airliners with passengers that given the remotest chance would have hijacked us without a second thought.

I flew some of the most dangerous prisoners in the world, yes the world. Only on very few occasions did the guards out number the prisoners. I will not say what the guard to prisoner ratio is/was.

I was one one the very first pilots in this program and the subject of being hijacked was a very high priority to we the pilots and the personnel in the cabin. We did a great deal of research on this subject including talking to crews of hijacked airliners. We worked with the F.B.I. and Interpol. We worked with the US Military Special Operations people.

We arrived at one inescapable conclusion. The only way that a hijacking can be controlled is for the flight crew, pilots, what have you, is to GET OUT OF THE AIRCRAFT.

If possible to disable the aircraft before we evacuate. If the pilots remain on the aircraft all you have are hostages that can fly the aircraft somewhere of the hijackers choice. Not a good option.

If I was a passenger on a hijacked airliner I would pray to God for the pilots to somehow get off the aircraft. Then the authorities can really control the situation on the ground. On the ground we have a chance, not in the air.

I believe the events of 9/11 rather proves this.

[Sallyann1234]

con-pilot says it all.

Crew exit quickly =
airplane disabled,
2 less hostages,
no on-board authority to negotiate with,
no direct comms with outside.
= kidnappers disadvantaged and demoralized

[BenThere]

Interesting thread, and I'm pleased the overwhelming majority in the poll came to the correct conclusion that the pilots leave the aircraft. By doing so, the worst possible outcome is greatly reduced.

One aspect not touched on yet, though, is what if one or both of the pilots are armed FFDOs? Are they obligated to stay on? Or is the greater good for them to get off also?

[con-pilot]

One aspect not touched on yet, though, is what if one or both of the pilots are armed FFDOs? Are they obligated to stay on? Or is the greater good for them to get off also?

My personal opinion is that armed or not, off the airplane. One very big advantage of having a FFDO in the cockpit on the ground is to assure that the pilots get off the aircraft.

(An FFDO also presents another opportunity or way to disable the aircraft to ensure the aircraft remains on the ground. It would be rather difficult to start the engines with a couple of rounds through the engine start switches, fuel panel, etc.)

Remember, as long as the aircraft is on the ground, the authorities, not the hijackers are in control of the overall situation. The hijackers are just in control of the aircraft and sadly the passengers. Unless of course the aircraft is in a country that is sympathetic to the hijacker's cause, then all bets are off.

[westie]

Zagorfly,

Remind me who you are an airline manager with again? Your comments are some of the most disgusting I have read for a while now. You must have been HR trained as theose people have no idea whatsoever how to handle staff.

Sack (or sake) the pilots?? :*

[BelArgUSA]

The procedure of cockpit crew abandoning or escaping the aircraft, if and when possible, is an established policy of all airlines that I know. This policy was already existing in the 1970s with PanAm.
xxx
I often represent Argentina and my present airline at various ICAO and IATA conferences and shake hands and bump heads with the representatives of numerous countries and airlines. I know this policy is recommended by most if not all of the airlines in the world.
xxx
A plane abandoned on the ramp by cockpit crews is of no use to hijackers, worse even for them if the aircraft is full of passengers, and numerous examples of this situation exist. Our cabin crews are briefed in accordance with this policy.
xxx
:)
Happy contrails

[NSEU]

Rainboe,

Pulling the fire handles... plane ain't going anywhere......

Try it sometime or read up on it next time you have a quiet hour or 3 on the flightdeck.....

So how does pulling the fire handles permanently disable an aircraft?

Anyone with a respectable desktop flight simulator knows about fire handles. Disconnecting gens sounds like a much better idea, depending on aircraft type.

Rgds.
NSEU

P.S. I'll bet the terrorists are just loving these handy tips.

[Earl]

Maybe he meant when you pull the fire handles, to pull the damn things completely out of the console, wont be any reset then!
Then throw the things out the window or overhead escape hatch.
After you get out of the aircraft you can look them in the eye with the fire handles and all hardware in your hand ,be it the wires or cables and say "whatcha gona do now cowboy"?
Sorry, had to laugh at this idea also!
Just a joke here everyone, no need to slam me more.

[HotDog]

Pulling fire handles will prevent engine start. Pulling switch arms fire extinguisher; closes fuel shutoff valve; depressurizes engine driven hydraulic pump and shuts off hydraulic fluid supply; trips generator field after a time delay; closes bleed air valve. However all sytems will be restored by pushing fire handles back in again.

Disconnecting CSDs will disable generators and can only be reset on the ground. Engine cowl has to be lifted to gain access to the reset switch. APU generator power will still be available, so a hijacker in the know could still operate the aircraft.

Best way to disable aircraft is to connect a tug and apply the brakes.

[NSEU]

Try it sometime or read up on it next time you have a quiet hour or 3 on the flightdeck.....

So what book was AnartificialHorizon reading? :confused:

P.S. You might need to manually reset a few switches on the flight deck when you reset the fire handles (I tried it a month or two ago). Not saying which ones tho' ;)

[181.filo]

Atlas crew did the right thing, save the day. No need to cry over spilled milk anymorwe.Pax should wake up ,wipe their tears and kiss the ground and buy the guys dinner at GELIK at Bakirkoy.... over.!!

[SLFguy]

"Rainboe,

Pulling the fire handles... plane ain't going anywhere......"

It's gonna get ugly I tellya..real ugly...:uhoh:

[BenThere]

You could also take your axe and smash the circuit breaker panel either in the starter and ignition or fuel pump locations after pulling the appropriate breakers. Won't go anywhere then.

Fire handle functions vary among airliners. Most, but not all shut off fuel, air, hydraulics and electrics. Some can be reset to normal when pulled, some can't.

[Rainboe]

Can we restore a little reality to this thread? A little knowledge is a very bad thing. First off, pulling fire handles doesn't do anything that cannot be repaired in 2 seconds. Disconnecting generator drives does not prevent the aeroplane being started up and flown.....until battery power runs out and all instrumentation is lost and total loss of plane and contents extremely likely- you would be making a bad situation desperately worse. As to the suggestions of taking the axe to the flight deck systems, I hold my head in my hands, and the employers will be holding your cojones in their hands for needlessly damaging their lovely shiny equipment! And you may well get yourself shot and prevent your own escape by making all that racket.

Can we try and agree that the right thing to do is for the drivers to absent themselves at any given opportunity? It allows the authorities to hold captive the captivators, it prevents 'escape', and the Captain is no longer in command of the situation so if he can, he should exit and not become just another hostage. Meanwhile I hope those who made rash statements criticising the crews now see the light.

Please- no more bright ideas from flight simmers or people who don't know aeroplanes!

I feel this has been discussed enough, some of this should really be confidential, and I point you to this thread:
http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?t=289981

[NSEU]

Please- no more bright ideas from flight simmers or people who don't know aeroplanes!

If you're referring to my comment, Rainboe... I'm a Boeing aircraft maintenance engineer of over 30 years who does know how well flight simmers have become familiar with aircraft operation. Never underestimate them... They have shown that they can jump into a Level D sim power up a dead ship, programme the FMC and fly anywhere they want to.

Incidentally, I believe I was the first to defend your statement that pulling fire handles was a waste of time.

Rgds
NSEU

[quickturnaround]

ZAGORFLY, I am delighted with your posting, Sake for the flightcrew! Champagne would fit better. However I do not believe you are an airline manager, because then you would have had posted a much more appropriate posting into the matter knowing about av.security.

Cheers, QTA

[kingoftheslipstream]

Those ATLAS guys did the right thing.

k-o-t-s

[BenThere]

I've given your post some thought, Rainboe, and refined my escape plan.

Should I be involved in an on-the-ground hijack attempt, I am going to disable the aircraft prior to my escape attempt by pulling the starter and ignition CBs, then chipping at the collars to make sure they can't be reset.

I'm sure my employer would rather have me do that than watch an airplane full of passengers comandeered and taken off by a hijacker/pilot. No need and no time to destroy the entire CB panel and the bus behind it. It's a life and death matter and my emergency authority covers that decision. You do what you want on your airplane.

Also, not all airliners are new, with electronic fire handles. Some older handles will actually pull out a foot or two of cable as they mechanically close the pneumatic, fuel and hydraulic shutoff valves. Good luck in trying to push them back in. Most evacuation checklists call for pulling the fire handles, anyway.

So take your head out of your hands and think it through.

[Shaft109]

Crew did the correct thing. Buy them beers.

Something that sprang to mind when reading this thread:

Film Passenger 57.

Hijacker to flight deck "Who's in charge here?"

PIC "I am!"

Hijacker gives PIC double tap to head

Hijacker "So, once again. Who's in charge here?"

F/O "You are".

Crap film but relevant.

[Congested Airspace]

Has anyone considered that this may have been a test for potential hijackings in the future? There has been mention on the news of terrorists testing airport security measures my attempting to carry block cheese and dense objects through security checkpoints to see if they will be stopped. There have been numerous mentionings from cabin crew of "suspicious" persons lurking around cabins, taking pictures and asking questions.

[Green Guard]

We can bla bla forever, but it looks like everybody talks about OPEN cockpit door.
Here the so called NEW post 9-11 (quite expensive) NEW cockpit doors were closed and locked . . . . .

[MD11Engineer]

Rainboe, just from an engineer's point of view:
If you have something resembling a flat screwdriver bit, you can easily remove the quarter turn fasteners on the modules on the overhead panel and e.g. take the one for the start switches, fuel pumps or the electrics panel with you. It won't take you one minute to take them out, since the connectors on the back are usually cannon plug types and I doubt you'll get the engines started or the plane moving without boost pumps, electrics or e.g. hydraulics.
Years ago in TXL we had a F/O of the now extinct Turkish Holiday airlines, who got himself into an argument with his captain over some grievance. When the captain didn't look for a moment, this F/O removed the module with the start switches, put it in his bag and walked out. Eventually, after several hours, he dumped it in the airport police station, but he had effectively disabled the aircraft (by then the captain was out of hours and they were waiting for a new F/O to flown in from Turkey)

Edited for typos

[NSEU]

take the one for the start switches, fuel pumps or the electrics panel with you. It won't take you one minute to take them out, since the connectors on the back are usually cannon plug types and I doubt you'll get the engines started or the plane moving without boost pumps,..

You've never heard of gravity/suction feed? I'm sure I wouldn't be the first or the last person to successfully start up an engine after forgetting to turn on the boost pumps. Also, the last time I had to remove an overhead panel, the wiring was so tight I had to pull out several panels... and use cannon plug pliers...but maybe an MD11 is different from other aircraft?

By the way, something which looks like a screwdriver will probably be confiscated before you get on the aircraft :=

I think pilots should be looking for quick, practical ways of disabling an aircraft. Snapping off ignition CB's.. pah... Most aircraft have 3 sets of breakers? (Sys 1/2 and Standby). CB's will break when you don't want them to... Good luck intentionally snapping them off.

Physically lock the cockpit door and jump out the window (hatch). This will give you enough time to disable the aircraft from the outside (as someone has already suggested).

[MD11Engineer]

You've never heard of gravity/suction feed? I'm sure I wouldn't be the first or the last person to successfully start up an engine after forgetting to turn on the boost pumps. Also, the last time I had to remove an overhead panel, the wiring was so tight I had to pull out several panels... and use cannon plug pliers...but maybe an MD11 is different from other aircraft?

Ok, boost pump switches would be a bad example, but the pneumatics or the electrics panel will certainly do. No pneumatics, no air to turn the starter. No electrics (battery switch etc.), no electricity to move valve actuators etc..
Concerning the bayonett type cannon plugs now in use on most aircraft, maybe I have stronger hands than you, but except for the smallest ones, where I can't get a proper grip, I can usually disconnect them without pliers.

By the way, something which looks like a screwdriver will probably be confiscated before you get on the aircraft

I was talking about screwdriver BITS, hexagonal, about one inch long, plus a small bit holder, not a regular screw driver. No way you can use them as a weapon . You can even stick one in your wallet among the change.


I think pilots should be looking for quick, practical ways of disabling an aircraft. Snapping off ignition CB's.. pah... Most aircraft have 3 sets of breakers? (Sys 1/2 and Standby). CB's will break when you don't want them to... Good luck intentionally snapping them off.

Besides causing quite a bit of damage.

[NSEU]

no electricity to move valve actuators etc..

No electricity to keep the door closed, etc....

I think the key word here is "subtlety"... It helps when you don't want to get shot at/blown up, etc.
They want to get out in a hurry, without creating lots of loud noises, without changing the state of the aircraft (packs shutting down, cabin lights turning off,...). Do you really want the hijackers to think a SWAT team is about to storm the cabin?

[MD11Engineer]

No electricity to keep the door closed, etc.
Our planes have a manual lockbolt in the flight deck additional to the electric lock.

[Rainboe]

Reality time folks! In a hijack, do you really think you have time to decide what you are going to do? Start removing panels and unplugging things? Think: Why? The fact is- an opportunity presents itself- you immediately go headlong through the door/window, whatever- get your ass out like lightning? Why are we talking about disabling the aeroplane? YOU have no requirement to do that. Just get yourself out- with no pilots it's difficult to move. Leave it to the authorities. IF they want the aeroplane disabled, they can put large chocks on, or stick a pice of wood into the fan blades to stop the engines being started, or disconnect ignition leads on the engines in the dark.

I have spoken to several pilot hijack victims. Far from being cool headed- you are in imminent terror of a grenade being exploded even accidently because the hijacker is so hysterical. Can you imagine if he discovers you 'doing something'. You will not only be killed, but may precipitate a bad situation that could escalate rapidly when nobody is ready. Lock yourself in the flight deck? Be ready for executions outside the door- you will escalate the temperature when what is needed is to relax things and give the authorities time to get organised. Just get yourself out if the opportunity presents itself, and please, no more ideas about damaging your own aeroplane!

[NSEU]

Our planes have a manual lockbolt in the flight deck additional to the electric lock.

They all do. That's actually what I meant when I said:

"Physically lock the cockpit door"

IMHO, I think Rainboe's response hits the nail on the head.

Cheers.
NSEU

[Earl]

In a way I have a few regrets posting this mess about the pilots jumping ship.
Then as a joke I placed the idea about ripping the fire handles out.
Seems that I opened a can of worms here, that was never my intention.
Some of these replies are way out there.
Destroying an aircraft to prevent it from being flown is not the way.
The ground handlers can do many things to prevent the aircraft from being moved as previously mentioned.
Lets all hope that if or should it happen again we all take the correct action.

[HotDog]

Earl, I think it's best to punctuate your jokes with a smilie. Otherwise people will think you are serious.:rolleyes:

[BenThere]

Destroying an aircraft to prevent it from being flown is not the way

Agree with the statement, but there's a big difference between disabling and destroying. Also, there may not be ground handlers if they were warned away, or you're in a remote ramp or at an unfriendly airport.

I still think quickly preventing the aircraft from operating before trying to escape is the right strategy, subject to ascertaining the actual, rather than hypothetical, situation and using some of the judgment we're paid to possess.

[CJP-MK]

This business of people saying the pilots should have stayed with the aircraft, reminds me of captains of ships being obligated (by their company and by the public at large) to go down with their foundering vessel.

Why was this the case with ships? As a punishment for failure in their duties? Because of some misguided notion of honour?

Such an attitude is outdated and pointless. People might want the comfort of knowing that someone of authority - the flight crew - is there, (Ah - maybe that's the real underlying reason why captains went down with their ship?). But the average pilot isn't a trained negotiator. He or she brings only one skill to the table - flying the aircraft somewhere. And that's exactly what needed preventing here.

Even if these guys were terrified (and I have no doubt they weren't in their comfort zone) and even if they were only thinking of their own backsides, I believe the right choice was made by removing themselves from the equation.


EDIT:

Disclaimer: It should be obvious from my post that I'm not a professional pilot. Which is to say that do I fly, but I don't get paid for it. ;)

[Ancient Mariner]

CJP-MK:This business of people saying the pilots should have stayed with the aircraft, reminds me of captains of ships being obligated (by their company and by the public at large) to go down with their foundering vessel.

Why was this the case with ships? As a punishment for failure in their duties? Because of some misguided notion of honour?


More likely because a ship's Captain is responsible for his passengers, his crew, his ship and his cargo and as such felt obliged to ensure that their safety and well being came first. Sometimes time ran out.
Per

[CJP-MK]

More likely because a ship's Captain is responsible for his passengers, his crew, his ship and his cargo and as such felt obliged to ensure that their safety and well being came first. Sometimes time ran out.

Possibly, but look at what happened to captains of passenger ships who had the poor taste to survive a sinking. We've got this very macho, pseudo-honourable thing where they're supposed to follow the fate of the vessel, however pointless that is.

While what you said is ultimately true of a pilot also, I wonder whether the negative attitude toward these two pilots might come from commenters having a ship's captain in mind, and thinking that they were abandoning their duty, (the safety of their passengers), when actually they improved the situation by not being part of it anymore.

[elisiario]

Someone knows what type of requisitions Atlas jet ask for cabin crew???:)