Ethiopian Hijack? [Archive]

reverserunlocked

17th Feb 2014, 07:33

Something odd going on. The pic in the Telegraph shows the steps at the L1 door but the taxi and landing lights are still on, the flaps look to still be down and the F/O window is open with what looks like the escape rope dangling down. More to this than meets the eye, perhaps.

Hijacked aircraft lands in Geneva - Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/ethiopia/10642999/Hijacked-aircraft-lands-in-Geneva.html)

ETA on closer inspection it might just be a dirty streak rather than the escape rope, actually. The rope would be a bit further back...

slam_dunk

17th Feb 2014, 07:37

Co- pilot left the aircraft by rope through the cockpit- window.:ouch:

I can understand that, since he probably didn't want to meet the angry pax and very :mad: captain

radar0976

17th Feb 2014, 07:42

Seems he was looking for asylum according to Airport spokesman Bertrand Staempfli.

"He said he felt threatened in his country and wants to seek asylum in Switzerland."

Co-pilot surrenders to Swiss police after hijack - RTÉ News (http://www.rte.ie/news/2014/0217/504788-ethiopian-airlines/)

D.Lamination

17th Feb 2014, 07:53

More info:

Ethiopian Airlines flight hijacked by co-pilot seeking asylum in Switzerland - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation) (http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-02-17/hijacked-aircraft-lands-at-geneva-airport/5265400)

if so :ugh::ugh:

ExXB

17th Feb 2014, 07:57

9:10 The pirate Ethiopian origin, born in 1983, was the copilot of flight Addis Ababa to Rome. He took control of the aircraft while the pilot was the toilet after trapped in the cabin. Approaching the airport at four in the morning, he asked the control tower to land to refuel kerosene before finally know that it was a diversion. He then jumped out of the cockpit with a rope. - See more at: Live: détournement à Cointrin: le pirate était le copilote - News - La Côte - Journal régional lémanique (http://www.lacote.ch/fr/news/live-detournement-a-cointrin-le-pirate-etait-le-copilote-2139-1262668#.dpuf)

Google translate from French.

SMT Member

17th Feb 2014, 08:08

Briliant, just brilliant.

Since 'lessons will (have to) be learned', one wonders to what level of stupidity our political leaders will sink to this time round. No less than 2 persons in the cockpit at any one time, perhaps?

Longhitter

17th Feb 2014, 08:20

No less than 2 persons in the cockpit at any one time, perhaps?

That is a rule that a lot of companies have in place already, for various reasons (incapacitation etc.)

By the way: getting asylum in Switzerland is not going to be easy as he will have gained a Swiss criminal record after conviction for the hijacking...

Scalper

17th Feb 2014, 08:24

Since 'lessons will (have to) be learned', one wonders to what level of stupidity our political leaders will sink to this time round. No less than 2 persons in the cockpit at any one time, perhaps?

I think that the flight crew should not be allowed access to the toilet as this episode has clearly shown that it can lead to dangerous situations :rolleyes:

awblain

17th Feb 2014, 08:25

ExXB, asylum rules usually mean you have to seek asylum the first time you're somewhere safe. If he wanted to specifically reside in Switzerland, then he has to come straight into Switzerland from the country he's fleeing.

Although, he might have had more chance of getting-out-of-Ethiopia success if he'd had a quiet word with the Italian immigration desk after his scheduled arrival. Then again, I guess he wasn't thinking at his straightest.

A rather better outcome than Egyptair managed at least.

seltsam

17th Feb 2014, 08:26

According to this source he even got an escort by two Eurofighter Typhoons

AirlineReporter.com - - We are AvGeeks Blogging on Aviation, Travel and Airlines. (http://www.airlinereporter.com/)

DOVES

17th Feb 2014, 08:35

"15.000 Kg more fuel for kids Captain?"

angels

17th Feb 2014, 09:26

Just imagine the carnage he could have wrought if he had a bottle of Evian and a yoghurt with him that security had missed.....:rolleyes:

ExXB

17th Feb 2014, 09:29

I'm not sure how you address both the Jetblue captain (http://news.yahoo.com/unruly-jetblue-pilot-locked-cockpit-flight-diverted-175748303--abc-news-topstories.html) being locked out of the cockpit and this incident. Two sides of the same coin.

On the other hand, both incidents ended well without injuries to other crew and pax.

ExXB

17th Feb 2014, 09:39

Update

Hijacking crisis at Geneva Airport over

Geneva police spokesperson, Eric Grandjean, has confirmed that the hijacker of flight 702 was the 30-year-old Ethiopian co-pilot of the plane.

The hijacking crisis at Geneva Airport is now over and Geneva police say the situation is under control.

Ethiopian Airline’s flight 702 en route from Addis Ababa to Rome sent out a distress signal of a hijacking, while flying over Sudan.

After circling over Geneva airport the plane landed at 6AM and negotiations with the hijacker began. The co-pilot locked the captain out of the cockpit when he went to the toilet and took control of the aircraft-requesting asylum in Switzerland. The co-pilot was unarmed and surrendered by climbing through a cockpit window.

Police confirm that the co-pilot has been arrested and that all 200 passengers and the crewmembers are safe.

Geneva Airport has now reopened.

Olivier Jornot, Attorney General of the Canton of Geneva, says that under Swiss law taking hostages can garner up to 20 years in prison.

racedo

17th Feb 2014, 09:57

I don't get this......................he has a skill easily transferrable to another airline and so not likely to be stuck in Ethiopia for long if at all.

Sounds like there are some Psychiatric issues here.

Prefer he doing something like this than driving it into the ground.

Brookfield Abused

17th Feb 2014, 10:00

Remember there also the Co-pilot was also "PF" of a 67 and solo in the cockpit back in 1999. Same scenario, CP goes pottie and a change of flight plan and single pilot operation takes over. I think that ET, the real estate flown over, persons living in that flight path and the pax can consider themselves very, very lucky nothing worse came out of this. Of course like the "Swiss" cheese model, were there any clues lining up prior (during initial hiring, screenings, security checks, medicals, sim sessions, line training) leading up to this that should have been flagged?
Sadly as we've seen in the past, ET will deny any wrong doing in their business model, hiring system (ET 409 in 2010) and checking!
I look very forward to the CVR transcript and pax word-of-mouth on this event. No doubt a real drama unfolded in the forward galley and J-class! Obviously no hero's here, except the fact this FO still respect life and property as not to harm anyone directly. Mental trauma aside!

DonLeslie

17th Feb 2014, 10:09

Just a thought: can a fully trained and qualified pilot who is rostered for that very flight actually be a hijacker, I mean in a legal sense? He obvioulsly diverted from his original flightplan, broke a couple of SOPs and laws, but he didn't put a gun to anybody's head. So did he actually hijack the plane (as the media say) or would you call that something like "gross misconduct"?

Green Guard

17th Feb 2014, 10:10

I am very curious if Capt. was an Ethiopean national or not ? That may add some more light to this lunacy.

Wageslave

17th Feb 2014, 10:35

Standby for mandatory portapotties on the flight deck.

SloppyJoe

17th Feb 2014, 10:42

why was his squawk 7500?

Herod

17th Feb 2014, 10:43

One question it raises: how many lives have been put at risk/lost because of the locked door, against how many have been saved by same? On a saner note, I always thought (on the 737 at least) that the locked door should have been put aft of the toilet. That, and a modification to the galley would mean that the crew would never have to leave the cockpit. Oh, and a three-man crew. ;)

Andu

17th Feb 2014, 10:44

We can only thank God that he didn't have any nail clippers or lip balm to help him in overcoming the Captain.

I mean, a First Officer armed with those dangerous items as well as two hands on the control yoke and thrust levers could have really done some damage.

Mail-man

17th Feb 2014, 10:45

So the 'hijacker' squaked 7500 on himself? Seems odd....

b263354

17th Feb 2014, 11:08

"infuriates" me...but very well *sigh*:

-fire the copilot
-initiate criminal charges against him
-as he SHOULD get a criminal record, no asylum granted!
-extradite him
>>in the process, strip him of his pilot license completely<<

...as a "duh" SOP: never less than 2 on the flight deck, period! One pilot needs a potty break, put a purser or flight attendant on the flight deck!!!

(unless of course he has obtained irrefutable proof that the antichrist is an Ethiopian official...:S)

edmundronald

17th Feb 2014, 11:17

Adult nappies are the obvious solution :)

G-F0RC3

17th Feb 2014, 11:27

I'm not sure what the legal definition of hijacking is, but here's a dictionary one:

illegally seize (an aircraft, ship, or vehicle) while in transit and force it to go to a different destination or use it for one's own purposes.

The key words here are "illegally" and "seize". I don't see how he "seized" control, as the captain left the FD voluntarily and left the FO at the controls. Secondly, there was nothing illegal in so doing, by either the captain or the FO. This only became an illegal act after the FO refused the captain re-entry to the flight deck, but I don't think it can feasibly constitute a hijacking (at least not in the conventional sense).

woodja51

17th Feb 2014, 11:32

I too am interested in what exactly he can be charged with in a legal sense - that is , under Conventions etc.

As the F/O , with the captain absent from the flight deck he is technically in command , so ( apart from squawking 7500 on himself etc) he is able to prett much do anything the captain can.. This case aside, what if the captain was the nutsy one ( thats happened before) and the F/O wanted to keep him out of the cockpit for example ....seems like a case of unlawful interference , but maybe not? As far as hostage taking etc. the conditions of carriage dont guaranteee you getting to your destination at any time so maybe this is along a similar legal path.

BTW I am studying AVLAW at the moment hence the question is not meant to be antagonistic, just looking at the pure legality of the case, not a pilots viewpoint as to who should be to blame or otherwise let in cockpits... Sans lip balm , nail clippers or toothpaste tube with 110 mls in lieu of 100 (all highly dangerous in the wrong hands!)

ATC Watcher

17th Feb 2014, 11:37

So the 'hijacker' squaked 7500 on himself? Seems odd....

Indeed, if he was alone in Cockpit all he had to do is tell Roma ATC that for whatever reason he requested to divert to GVA. The mess will have hit the fan once on the ground, but he would have saved himself a lot of trouble.
So this really does not make sense, must be more to it.

metro301

17th Feb 2014, 11:41

Crew member taking control from the legal commander of the vessel - Mutiny!!

fox niner

17th Feb 2014, 11:57

I would say that in this case, IF it isn't a hijacking in a legal sense, then certainly a mutiny and/ or abduction of everyone else to geneva.

ATC Watcher

17th Feb 2014, 12:01

metro 301: correct , but mutiny is different from Hijacking . Would have avoided scrambling jets/Interception(s), armed security troops on ground , and closure of airport and airspace for 2 hours.
Someone will have to pay for this.

Not sure however if it makes a lot of difference in jail sentence terms.

underfire

17th Feb 2014, 12:06

woodja, really?

Since you say you are studying law...what does the law say about intent?

If this individual's goal was to seek asylum, it could have easily been done at the destination, without commiting a serious crime as an excuse.

Taking adverse control of an aircraft in flight, with what intent, I know of a few that drove into structures. As you are aware in law, at the intial stage of the crime, intent is a multi-faceted beast.

If the passengers had stormed the flightdeck, or the air marshal had gained access, and capped the perp, would they be guilty of murder?

There is no excuse, nor any sort of applied (bull****) reasoning that justifies this crime.

The perp stole an aircraft, held hostages against their will

flytheskies

17th Feb 2014, 12:14

****NEW POSITION AVAILABLE as a FIRST OFFICER ON REPUTABLE [cough] AIRLINE ******

Note: Need not apply if you enjoy locking Captains out of cockpits

GNL

17th Feb 2014, 12:17

.....disposable bottles to be issued, for Capts use only !

ironbutt57

17th Feb 2014, 12:26

OR......land in Rome, catch a train to Switzerland if one feels the need...most likely now his chances are for an insane asylum...

ExXB

17th Feb 2014, 13:01

CONVENTION ON OFFENCES AND CERTAIN OTHER ACTS COMMITTED ON BOARD AIRCRAFT, SIGNED AT TOKYO, ON 14 SEPTEMBER 1963 (TOKYO CONVENTION)

http://www.mcgill.ca/files/iasl/tokyo1963.pdf

THE STATES Parties to this Convention HAVE AGREED as follows:

CHAPTER I
SCOPE OF THE CONVENTION
Article 1
1. This Convention shall apply in respect of:
(a) offences against penal law;
(b) acts which, whether or not they are offences, may or do jeopardize the safety of the aircraft or of persons or property therein or which jeopardise good order and discipline on board.
2. Except as provided in Chapter III, this Convention shall apply in respect of offences committed or acts done by a person on board any aircraft registered in a Contracting State, while that aircraft is in flight or on the surface of the high seas or of any other area outside the territory of any State.
3. For the purposes of this Convention, an aircraft is considered to be in flight from the moment when power is applied for the purpose of take- off until the moment when the landing run ends.
4. This Convention shall not apply to aircraft used in military, customs or police services.

…

Article 11
1. When a person on board has unlawfully committed by force or threat thereof an act of interference, seizure, or other wrongful exercise of control of an aircraft in flight or when such an act is about to be committed, Contracting States shall take all appropriate measures to restore control of the aircraft to its lawful commander or to preserve his control of the aircraft.
2. In the cases contemplated in the preceding paragraph, the Contracting State in which the aircraft lands shall permit its passengers and crew to continue their journey as soon as practicable, and shall return the aircraft and its cargo to the persons lawfully entitled to possession.

…

Article 14
1. When any person has been disembarked in accordance with Article 8, paragraph 1, or delivered in accordance with Article 9, paragraph 1, or has disembarked after committing an act contemplated in Article 11, paragraph 1, and when such person cannot or does not desire to continue his journey and the State of landing refuses to admit him, that State may, if the person in question is not a national or permanent resident of that State, return him to the territory of the State of which he is a national or permanent resident or to the territory of the State in which he began his journey by air.

…

Article 16
1. Offences committed on aircraft registered in a Contracting State shall be treated, for the purpose of extradition, as if they had been committed not only in the place in which they have occurred but also in the territory of the State of registration of the aircraft.
2. Without prejudice to the provisions of the preceding paragraph, nothing in this Convention shall be deemed to create an obligation to grant extradition.

A lot of gobbledygook but Switzerland can, but is not compelled to, return the copilot to Ethiopia.

awblain

17th Feb 2014, 13:01

If he wanted to leave Ethiopia and seek asylum in Switzerland, it's unlikely he could do it coming over the border on a train. He'd need to land in Switzerland direct. Would Italy have been an asylum option for him? If so, then all he had to do was chat to the nice immigration police after his regular arrival, and could ask to talk to them privately away from the rest of the crew. They could feign his detention if necessary.

Flying solo, when other crew resources were available, all the way from Sudan to Geneva, going several hundred nm beyond his intended destination into mountains in winter? I would think that the Swiss prosecutor could find something in the recklessness book to cover that. The first officer's insanity defense would look promising though.

It's not as clear cut for hijacking as some non-crew person threatening the crew or occupying the flight deck, but without a good excuse - he thought that the captain went gaga, he thought someone was trying to bring the captain into the flight deck from the bathroom as a hostage - I don't see a non-mental excuse for locking the door being valid. If the first officer thought that the aircraft was at risk from the captain or others on board, then surely his natural role would be to land as soon as possible to prevent that - in Sudan not Switzerland.

If an armed person on board had shot the only trained crew member at the controls, while nothing untoward was happening? I think the Swiss prosecutor would also have something in the recklessness book for him too.

Whatever weirdness was going on on board (and it would not be clear what it was, given they could only talk with the first officer), I'd expect the Italian and Swiss air forces to take an interest in the aircraft.

Interested Passenger

17th Feb 2014, 13:30

Why didn't he just apply for a job with Asiana, as he has shown skills three of their pilots would envy?

landing at the wrong airport is a pretty common issue on here, so he sounds like a typical pilot:ugh:

keel beam

17th Feb 2014, 13:41

If this individual's goal was to seek asylum, it could have easily been done at the destination, without commiting a serious crime as an excuse.Italy are starting to take a hard line on illegal immigrants from that area of Africa, so with this thought in mind? he decided to try Switzerland?

ParisFlyer

17th Feb 2014, 13:50

Shame he didn't have the fuel for London... :E

fireflybob

17th Feb 2014, 13:58

Crew members are obliged to obey legal commands made by the Commander. I would have thought "open cockpit door" is a legal command?

Heathrow Harry

17th Feb 2014, 14:11

not if you suspect the Commander is nuts.............

Heathrow Harry

17th Feb 2014, 14:16

Actually if he'd had any sense he would have locked the door, called ATC and said he thought the Captain was in the hands of hijackers and someone dressed as as the Captain was telling him to open the door or else

When the forces of Law & Order stormed the plane and dragged the real Capt off to durance vile (probably tasering/tear gassing/gagging him on the way) the No.2 could saunter off and disappear.......... I'd bet it would take them 4 hours to confirm who the real Capt was - more if they had to contact Addis

:):)

ExXB

17th Feb 2014, 14:22

Over at Airliners(dot)net (http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/general_aviation/read.main/5997174/) there is a thread on this incident. Some of the posters there were monitoring Swiss ATC as the aircraft approached, circled and eventually landed at GVA.

There is some speculation that the aircraft was very low on fuel, awaiting clearance to land from the Swiss, and may even have flamed out on one engine. (Starting at post number 68) Nothing concrete but a few posters were debating if they had each heard the same thing.

Methinks the Swiss kept them up in the air just a bit too long …

DOVES

17th Feb 2014, 15:08

Extra fuel

"15.000 Kg more fuel for kids Captain?"

At the briefing room with the flight dispatcher:

Skipper: "Please help yourself!... I will justify those two hours and more endurance as an economical uplift."

SMT Member

17th Feb 2014, 15:15

...as a "duh" SOP: never less than 2 on the flight deck, period! One pilot needs a potty break, put a purser or flight attendant on the flight deck!!!

Suggestions are welcomed as to how this procedure should be implemented on freighters, preferably without financially crippling the industry. Or are freighter operations excused from this rule? Reason for asking is that it's actually more common for the person commandeering the vessel to commit suicide, and when metal starts falling from the skies does it really matter if it holds 50 tons of carbon based organisms or 50 tons of laptops?

CodyBlade

17th Feb 2014, 15:22

There will be consequences from this episode.

Also he is lucky for the Swiss, If this was Asia no one will lets him land.

fireflybob

17th Feb 2014, 15:23

not if you suspect the Commander is nuts.............

If you had grounds to suspect that was the case that would be different, of course - but you'd have to prove that in a court of law.

HeathrowAirport

17th Feb 2014, 16:19

This aircraft wasn't hijacked over Italy, it was squawking 7500 over Sudan at about 1am. Unless FR 24 knew it was going to be hijacked, then why is the story wrong?

Please explain to me how Sudan is now Italy.

deptrai

17th Feb 2014, 16:31

Also he is lucky for the Swiss, If this was Asia no one will lets him land

Silly comment. Do you seriously think a hijacker/mutinous FO will care about clearances if he is determined to land, and low on fuel? how would Asia stop him? Block the runways and kill a lot of people? :ugh:

Maybe you wrote this in anger towards this guy, but rest assured, he'll get his punishment. No need to endanger others.

IcePack

17th Feb 2014, 16:46

Worldpilot. You probably won't get an answer to that on a public forum.
Anyway bet the capt. & crew were rather worried about what was going to happen next prior to the actual landing.

JonnyH

17th Feb 2014, 17:30

Doesn't necessarily deserve to be called a "hijacking" in my opinion. He had control of the aircraft, at the beginning anyways, for valid reasons. Cry for help, perhaps?

Don't know what other charge they can throw at him but no doubt they'll have something there. I think everyone can agree that there is definitely more to this situation than what has originally came to light.

Without the full details it's hard to completely judge everything. One can only think he never intended to endanger any of his passengers or colleagues because of how the situation came to an abrupt end - could have been talked down though, I guess. The powers that be may come to a different conclusion. I'll be interested so see what is said in the next 72 hours.

It seems like he's definitely an Ethiopian national.

Georgeablelovehowindia

17th Feb 2014, 17:38

This explains the 03:58 UTC wake up call the neighbourhood got as the QRA Mirage from Orange set off to investigate.

uksatcomuk

17th Feb 2014, 17:52

Not sure where FR24 first picked him up[it gets much of its data from PlanePlotter secondary sharers ] but interestingly he first pinged on PP at 36,000 feet after crossing the libyan
coast and he was already showing a 7500 sqwk 0150 GMT
and continued doing so for the rest of the five hour plus trip.

That being the case , why was he not escorted by Italian fighter jets into the first airfield on Italian soil ?

He must have stuck out like a sore thumb over the Med Sea painting 7500 for two hours .
Perhaps he thought Italy would extradite him , whereas as Switzerland wouldn't ??

deptrai

17th Feb 2014, 17:53

@ death cruiser: the Swiss Air Force can only be bothered during office hours (8-12 and 13.30-17, as ordered by politicians, with exceptions for international conferences, and Monday nights. No joke) The incident happened too early in the morning, this is why the French escorted them to Geneva. Luckily this frugal and fiercely independent country is surrounded by friends, and has entered treaties to cover such cases...

captplaystation

17th Feb 2014, 18:12

As mentioned earlier, some companies already have a rule that a flight attendant enters when 1 pilot leaves.

Given this incident, & the suicide last year by the EMB 195 in Namibia (?) it seems common sense that this be universally adopted.

It covers everything from Loonies to incapacitation, the only risk I can imagine being that the flight attendant could be a suicidal nutter who knows where to find a fire axe :uhoh:

Nothing can ever be perfect I guess :rolleyes:

fox niner

17th Feb 2014, 18:29

Just curious. How much fuel was left after landing?
I heard just a few minutes.

PPL Hobbyist

17th Feb 2014, 18:38

Damn b263354 (http://www.pprune.org/members/251073-b263354), looks like that idea is out too. Fedex 705 comes to mind where the only passenger on board was the hijacker in 1994. Add more people to watch over the passenger/s pilots would just add extra cost to the company, and they won't like that much.

Bondyboy63

17th Feb 2014, 19:04

The VC10 used to have a toilet in the cockpit, I remember in the 60's showing a couple of Pan Am pilots the SVC10 cockpit, they thought the "John" in the cockpit was great and would save them putting their uniform caps on as they have to do when they visited the toilet in their B707.

Dimitri Cherchenko

17th Feb 2014, 19:19

Timing is priceless...

Invading Switzerland? Try Before 8 or After 5 - Bloomberg (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-02-17/invading-switzerland-try-before-8-or-after-5.html)

JonnyH

17th Feb 2014, 19:26

PPL Hobbyist. I would have to disagree that he stole, or was involved in "stealing" the aircraft, as after all he did have control of the aircraft when his colleague went to the toilet. It's all about interpretation.

Perhaps the charge of "abuse by position and authority" but from the details and small amounts of "facts" that are available, if true, it doesn't look like he endangered his passengers by doing anything harmful - I could be proved wrong at a later date.

I'm not sticking up for the bloke in question - far from it. What he did, if true, was wrong, and completely ridiculous, but the media have, not for the first time, jumped in at the deep end with some stupid headlines. No wonder aviation gets a bad name... We're all jumping down this fellas throat with wild thoughts, opinions and views but we probably know 10% of the facts. Or is everything black and white? 99.9% of people on here probably disagree but who gives a :mad:

TCAS_Alert

17th Feb 2014, 19:32

My question is, if the copilot took control somewhere over Italy, why was the aircraft squawking 7500 over Khartoum? Surely the captain would have realised at some point in the flight that they were on a different squawk.

https://scontent-b-lhr.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-prn2/t1/1891141_668352333204193_1584876448_n.png

Something doesn't seem to add up here.

JonnyH

17th Feb 2014, 19:37

Definitely, something doesn't add up.

awblain

17th Feb 2014, 19:40

The early reports were that he took over the aircraft over Sudan, but it only got the attention of air forces with PR departments when it appeared over Italy.

daikilo

17th Feb 2014, 19:53

If only the French scrambled, and only one aircraft, seems to me many in HQ knew what was happening, and had confidence their FO knew also. I certainly don't condone his actions, but the outcome seems very safe and tidy. Let's not do this too often.

olasek

17th Feb 2014, 20:16

One can only think he never intended to endanger any of his passengersDoesn't matter what he 'intended'. By his actions he clearly put the safety of the flight at risk by interfering with duties of the rest of the crew.

AlphaZuluRomeo

17th Feb 2014, 20:29

If only the French scrambled
Nope, Italian scrambled too.

and only one aircraft
That's SOP. How many fighters do you think is needed for escorting a liner? Or even to shoot it down, if it comes to that (hopefully never)?
One intercepted, and was joined by another one in the finale phase of the Boeing flight.

And that's more than what the Swiss scrambled :E

Re: squawk:
FR24 picked ETH702 @ 22:50 on the 16th, squawking 2442. Immediatly after, @ 22:51, the squawk bacame 7500. It stayed so 'til landing.
Now, this are FR24 data, which only cover Khartoum's surroundings (then it's Italy), i.e. not Ethiopia nor Egypt (except airound Cairo) nor Libya.

OwnNav

17th Feb 2014, 20:39

Funny way to hand your notice in....

daikilo

17th Feb 2014, 20:58

Any idea what the Italians scrambled from where and what they did on station and once they had finished monitoring.

Are you sure the French can attack in non-agression conditions with just one on target?

A340rider

17th Feb 2014, 20:59

those psychometric tests really weed out the nutters :=

take note airlines!! they are total waste of time, proven here...

ILS27LEFT

17th Feb 2014, 22:14

Answer: two Italian Eurofighters were scrambled from Gioia del Colle, South of Italy very early morning. Aircraft intercepted just when entering Italian airspace from Africa, just below Sicily. Pilot was calmly collaborating with Italian Air Force and Italian fighters were following from behind not to alert passengers. Italian Eurofighters never moved to the side of aircraft. No risks according to Italian Air Force as pilot immediately explained his intention to land in Geneva so fighters only followed as precaution to make sure he would not divert or change his plans. Fighters were both fully armed but Italian Air Force confirmed pilot was very calm and fully collaborative: he clearly and calmly explained his intention to seek asylum in GVA and nothing else.:O

RoyHudd

17th Feb 2014, 23:20

atakacs

18th Feb 2014, 03:57

It is indeed the case that Switzerland does not have 24/7 air coverage.

That being said the whole incident occurred over Italian and French territory. I really don't see Swiss air-force intervening into those respective countries !

Any quite honestly there is very little place over Switzerland to shot down an airliner without major risks to the people on the ground...

videoguy

18th Feb 2014, 05:24

What exactly would the hostie do if the naughty pilot decides to divert? Take over control? Overpower the pilot and force him/her to behave? Threaten the pilot with the fire axe? Open the door to allow access to the other pilot?AP is quoting the witnesses:

"The pilot was threatening (the hijacker) to open the cockpit door and tried to knock it down without succeeding,".
"At this point, a message was transmitted by the loudspeakers in poor English, but the threat to crash the airplane was clearly understood," .
Oxygen masks then came down, making everyone on the plane very tense.
"We got scared because we saw these (oxygen masks) come down and the voice of the pilot, that usually is friendly and mellow, was cracking and worried, saying, `Breathe with the oxygen masks! Sit down!'...

The co-pilot later threatened to take away passengers' oxygen if they tried to leave their seats.
"`If you're not sitting down and belted, I'll take away your oxygen,'"

deptrai

18th Feb 2014, 06:15

Apparently he believed he could demand and be granted asylum while diverting/hijacking...expecting miracles from ATC?

Seems highly irrational.

LLuCCiFeR

18th Feb 2014, 08:20

Put a cabin crew member into the flight deck each time one of the pilots needs to visit the toilet....brilliant!

What exactly would the hostie do if the naughty pilot decides to divert? Take over control? Overpower the pilot and force him/her to behave? Threaten the pilot with the fire axe? Open the door to allow access to the other pilot?

Anyone who flies will know that they can do what they wish with regard to single-pilot operation. Thanks to the locked door policy, this is easy.

And what if the pilot decides to commit suicide and promptly shuts down the engines and stuffs the nose down? Just what would our heroic flight attendant do? This has been done with both one and with two pilots present.

Grow up, panic-stricken spotters. Well said RoyHudd! Unfortunately the 'nanny-state' mentality is alive and kicking, also (or should I say, especially) among pilots, who subsequently start complaining that they have to take their shoes/belt off at security or complain about all the little micro-management rules from the CP's office.

I'm bracing to see what kind of stupid knee-jerk reaction the politicians and 'regulators' will come up with next... :ugh:

p.s. perhaps they will introduce the flight engineer again, so that there will always be at least 2 people in the flight deck! :)

smurphy

18th Feb 2014, 08:43

"What exactly would the hostie do if the naughty pilot decides to divert? Take over control? Overpower the pilot and force him/her to behave? Threaten the pilot with the fire axe? Open the door to allow access to the other pilot?"

Yes, that

"Anyone who flies will know that they can do what they wish with regard to single-pilot operation. Thanks to the locked door policy, this is easy."

You seem confused

ExXB

18th Feb 2014, 08:52

And quite honestly there is very little place over Switzerland to shot down an airliner without major risks to the people on the ground...

And in particular that bit of Switzerland where the distance between two borders with France is about 5km. Mind you all the UN organisations and NGOs are in that 5km stretch (except for the black helicopters, which are kept in New York)

captplaystation

18th Feb 2014, 08:59

LLuCCiFeR & Roy Hudd,

"Panic Stricken Spotter". . . well 18500hr including 14500 in Command of 737, I think you are missing a trick there Roy.

I don't think having the flight deck floosie visit whilst my colleague takes a wass is in any ways indicative of a "nanny state".

I have on occasions being tucking into a sandwich whilst my colleague is gone, & happened upon the idea, what if you bloody choked on some of this lovely jamon serrano as you try to swallow a whole chunk as it is too tough to break, what if " simply" I passed out & slumped over the controls. The delay involved in opening the door with the code is fairly lengthy.

In most cases, the only simple action required of a CC is to open the door & let the other pilot in. In the crash of the Embraer the sound of knocking on the door could be heard on the CVR, if he had got in, he "may" have had time to save the day. In this case (ET) I doubt any CC would have sat there dumbly from Khartoum to GVA whilst the Capt was demanding via intercom & door thumping to be let back in.

I am all against nannying & yet more rules (for example I think it is farcical that I cannot have an off duty colleague , that I may have flown with on the previous sector, sitting on the jump seat , in uniform , whilst in UK airspace) but I think a policy involving accompaniment would be more positive than negative. . .except on those unfortunate days when all 4 CC are of the male gender :=

LLuCCiFeR

18th Feb 2014, 09:47

I have on occasions being tucking into a sandwich whilst my colleague is gone, & happened upon the idea, what if you bloody choked on some of this lovely jamon serrano as you try to swallow a whole chunk as it is too tough to break, what if " simply" I passed out & slumped over the controls. The delay involved in opening the door with the code is fairly lengthy.Jeeeesus! that's exactly what I mean! NO COMMON SENSE! What if this, and what if that! Come on! What if a meteorite strikes an aircraft!?

So captplaystation, did you file an ASR for the 'potentially catastrophic safety threat about choking on a sandwich' and/or run to the CP so he/she can make a brand new rule again: FORBIDDING EATING A SANDWICHES WHILST THE OTHER PILOT IS OUTSIDE THE FLIGHT DECK? :ugh:

Some people have to have rules and rules and even more rules for...EVERYTHING because they either can't use their brains, or because they are completely paranoid about just about everything.

Anyone with a beard is a potential terrorist and every sandwich is a potential deathtrap! :rolleyes:

ShotOne

18th Feb 2014, 10:51

Was this in fact a hijack.? The definition I've found is taking control of an aircraft by force. While this chap is clearly very naughty, this offence seems to escape that legal definition on two counts.

SMT Member

18th Feb 2014, 10:59

What is so difficult or inconvenient with that?

Two of the biggest airlines of this world are flying nothing but freighters, and in the vast majority of cases there's only the skipper and the FO on board. No FE, no hosties, no loadies, no nothing. So, yes, for anyone who's operating freighters this is a major inconvenience.

ExXB

18th Feb 2014, 11:05

It wasn't a Hijack, it was an unlawful interference with an aircraft. The Swiss are talking about charging him with 200+ counts of kidnapping.

These are acts or attempted acts such as to jeopardize the safety of civil aviation, including but not limited to:
• unlawful seizure of aircraft,
• destruction of an aircraft in service,
• hostage-taking on board aircraft or on aerodromes,
• forcible intrusion on board an aircraft, at an airport or on the premises of an aeronautical facility,
• introduction on board an aircraft or at an airport of a weapon or hazardous device or material intended for criminal purposes,
• use of an aircraft in service for the purpose of causing death, serious bodily injury, or serious damage to property or the environment,
• communication of false information such as to jeopardize the safety of an aircraft in flight or on the ground, of passengers, crew, ground personnel or the general public, at an airport or on the premises of a civil aviation facility.
Definition Source
ICAO (2011), Official definition, Annex 17 (Security)

avionimc

18th Feb 2014, 11:09

Most of them are not professional pilots but merely unpromising hysterics.
From what I understand, the FO had been employed with the airline for five years. And only now wanting to leave the country and seek asylum? Or maybe he had an argument with the captain on that flight and went nuts?

Wirbelsturm

18th Feb 2014, 11:14

Personally I'm waiting to see what it was in Ethiopia that was so bad that it drove a fully qualified (therefore at least reasonably intelligent) pilot to pursue such drastic measures as to illegally divert his own flight for his own ends.

I'm sure he researched the legal ramifications (if not, not so clever) therefore before passing judgement I would wait and see what caused the whole thing.

Must be pretty horrific to force that sort of move.

IMHO of course!

Lonewolf_50

18th Feb 2014, 12:53

Exxb, thanks for clearing up what he is being charged with. Glad to see he landed safely, and nobody got hurt. Sorry to see he put the pax and aircraft at risk over all this. :mad: Those folks did not sign up for that.

wiggy

18th Feb 2014, 14:00

You know, I think I have the answer....:E.

Rather than insist that when your buddy goes for a break he/she is replaced by another crewmember (who lets face it could have joined the company 5 minutes ago and may have heaven knows what history) simply make it mandatory that if one pilot leaves the flight deck then so must the other one...a sort of "no go alone zone" ;) ;) :oh:-

As I see it then there's then absolutely no risk of a lone occupant either taking control and diverting the flight or slumping over the controls whilst eating that delicious sandwich..................

What does the team think? Think I'd get it past the TSA (States) or Transec (UK)........any obvious flaws??????

superq7

18th Feb 2014, 14:21

Wiggy, I can see a flaw in your cunning plan, what if both pilots forget the key code for the door ? apart from that I think it's a brilliant idea.

tumtiddle

18th Feb 2014, 14:47

IamA passenger on yesterday's Hijacked plane from Ethiopian Airlines to Geneva. Contrary to news coverage, it was hell. AMA! : IAmA (http://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/1y8qmh/iama_passenger_on_yesterdays_hijacked_plane_from/)

A gentleman claiming to be on the flight yesterday and contradicting the news of 'calm'. If it's true, it appears the co-pilot even cut the pack flow... :ooh:

wiggy

18th Feb 2014, 14:54

If one pilot wanted a pee, the other pilot (the nutty one) could then re-enter the f/d and lock door.

:(.......:)

Ahhh ha.. got the answer to that one -station a heavily armed guard outside the flight deck door with instruction not to let anyone in on their own..are we all feeling safer yet?

I can see a flaw in your cunning plan, what if both pilots forget the key code for the door ?

OOOh yeahh :sad:

I'll stop now before I get told to sit on the naughty step....

Kiltrash

18th Feb 2014, 15:02

Best ask MoL that one as he has a long term plan for single pilot, what was his solution to a toilet break, ah yes Porta Potty in the flight deck, well there would not be anyone else to see what you were doing

Wirbelsturm

18th Feb 2014, 15:08

what was his solution to a toilet break, ah yes Porta Potty in the flight deck

Just replace the seats with toilets and you could spend the whole flight 'on the throne' so to speak.

You'd need more than headset wipes for the crew handover mind! :uhoh:

DaveReidUK

18th Feb 2014, 15:15

A gentleman claiming to be on the flight yesterday and contradicting the news of 'calm'. If it's true, it appears the co-pilot even cut the pack flow...Strange that the captain's activities and whereabouts for the remaining 6 hours of the flight don't get a single mention in this so-called account.

superq7

18th Feb 2014, 15:27

Got it a Commode seat only one would be required obviously only for the Captains use !

Anyway enough of the funny banter I think DR has hit the nail on the head, what on earth was the Captain doing for all that time ?

b263354

18th Feb 2014, 15:33

this whole "debate" is taking a rather serious note from slightly joking to just plain outright insulting... and I won't mention any names, as I AM a professional, contrary to... (wonder what these "gentleman's CRM ratings are..hmmmhttp://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/yeees.gif)

Anyways, being off the flight deck now some time has given me some perspective, and I can only believe these men that go to insulting behavior are either the spoiled little pilot brats, or grumpy old john wayne men, with whom I have had the misfortune to hold hands with a little to often! (on the throttle)

To get BACK to the discussion, calculating the value of property, and personnel/ people aboard, time has come to find new ways of dealing with these issues, and no, "just trusting the pilots" simply will not do anymore, any manager who has responsibility knows this. (In this respect, thank god for ACARS, a tool for weeding the incompetent from competent often).

As for the FA, again, I presume these fore mentioned "gentleman/ boys" have little to no respect for these very valuable people, and pat themselves every so often on the back parading through the isle, calling the sexy FA for their coffee, grow up!, become a professional, and learn to work in a team. Many a times they work damn harder than any pilot, and there have been situations that I thanked god they were aboard to help/ alleviate/ support etc! And yes, amongst fore mentioned, yes they CAN at least in a situation successfully open a door from the inside of the flight deck if needed...jeezz:rolleyes:

BARKINGMAD

18th Feb 2014, 16:22

Not too long after the 9/11 fiasco, a major British respectable newspaper ran an article in which it was speculated that there were unknown numbers of possible "sleepers" in the pilot training system.

These individuals were being prepared for a future strike, as and when their masters decided it would be appropriate.

Our so-called authorities decided to do nothing about this possibility, preferring to deny access to the flight deck by "friendly forces" known to the crew, such as spouses, relatives and enthusiasts, and by making it difficult for even ATC personnel to experience a typical operation.

So we are now safe because our nose-hair tweezers, contact lens solution and lip balm have been excluded from the potential weapons list and we passengers, CC and tech crew can sleep easy in our seats henceforth...............

Have confidence in the psychometric tests and Advanced Compass Tests which our "wannabees" may have to pass, all the H R horsemanure will enure the "sleeper" scenario will never come to pass, won't it?????

Oh to be a fly on the wall as Transec, DfT and the rest chew this incident over, before deciding it will be all too difficult and expensive to implement effective psychiatric screening (if such a thing exists) for all crewmembers, and that's only looking at the main airline players.

So in the near future, beware of some funny looks and even wierder questions as to whether you packed your own brain, as you struggle through security to operate? :suspect:

wiggy

18th Feb 2014, 16:28

No offence intended but I'm not sure simply insisting you have a "FA" on the flight deck to prevent sole occupancy of the same is the answer here.

Certainly on a 2 pilot long haul flight as I'm sure you really know we're not just leaving the flight deck to "parade" :mad:, there are genuine physiological reasons that might require absence from the flight deck for slightly longer than the time needed for a quick P break. In some circumstances there's going to be a possible conflict between the need to keep the galleys/passenger cabins monitored if there's also going to be a requirement for two crew members to be on the flight deck at all times .....

Of course I'm sure any manager worth his or her salt would be willing to budget for the extra manpower needed to provide the obvious solution to the above problem.

ExXB

18th Feb 2014, 18:01

Not welcome: Ethiopian hijacker likely to face prison - swissinfo.ch (http://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/swiss_news/Ethiopian_hijacker_likely_to_face_prison.html?cid=37983408)

Some further news re fuel situation, Swiss (lack of) Air Force, likely refugee situation and legal probabilities. All your questions answered, except for future potty breaks.

Capn Bloggs

18th Feb 2014, 22:01

"The pilot was threatening (the hijacker) to open the cockpit door and tried to knock it down without succeeding,".
1. That technique might work with the kids but not with a nutter...

2. Yep, that's why it's called a security door...

ulxima

18th Feb 2014, 22:50

I am very curious if Capt. was an Ethiopean national or not ? That may add some more light to this lunacy.

It seems the Captain is Italian, former AZA skipper.

Andu

19th Feb 2014, 00:53

Hmmmm... I'm not familiar with Ethiopian Airlines corporate culture, but I know of some flag carriers to the near north east of Ethiopia where, if the captain was an expat the FO a local and something like this occurred, the captain would be the one found to be at fault.

Capn Bloggs

19th Feb 2014, 01:00

if the captain was an expat the FO a local and something like this occurred, the captain would be the one found to be at fault.
Hardly likely to be at fault for being locked out of the cockpit!

bubbers44

19th Feb 2014, 01:19

I agree. Why was not a FA in the cockpit to verify and allow captain to enter?
It was mandatory for us.

repariit

19th Feb 2014, 02:32

I am unsure of the order of events. Was squawk 7500 set before, or after the captain went to the head? If before, maybe the captain has a problem. If after, it appears to all be on the F/O until more is known about the interaction between the two of them.

Capn Bloggs

19th Feb 2014, 03:28

Was squawk 7500 set before, or after the captain went to the head? If before, maybe the captain has a problem.
So, captain squawks (or tells FO to squawk) 7X00, then goes to the loo. Sounds logical...

Andu

19th Feb 2014, 04:14

Hardly likely to be at fault for being locked out of the cockpit!Capt Bloggs, from that comment I think we can safely assume you have never worked for a Middle East airline.

scarrymike

19th Feb 2014, 04:46

In the AMA thread one person claimed one of the engines flamed out before landing due to fuel exhaustion. Any truth to this?

atakacs

19th Feb 2014, 05:36

Don't know about the flame out but apparently the fuel situation was fairly critical at landing. Basically the guy went into negotiating his asylum while circling the airport and pretty much landed at the last minute...

ExXB

19th Feb 2014, 05:58

Read my link in post #113

TCAS_Alert

19th Feb 2014, 13:01

In the AMA thread one person claimed one of the engines flamed out before landing due to fuel exhaustion. Any truth to this?

On ATC the pilot advised he'd had an engine flame out but don't believe that's been confirmed. I wonder if that was his way of pushing for his 'answer'.

captplaystation

19th Feb 2014, 13:27

Assuming they departed with a "normal" fuel load I would guess the extra flt time FCO-GVA & time spent in the hold "negotiating" probably left him without too much.

Although some question his sanity I would doubt if he was mad enough to play "Russian Roulette" by holding out until an engine flame out .

Unless he had a big fuel imbalance the 2nd one wouldn't be far away if that really happened . . . Shirley he wasn't THAT loopy ? :eek:

nathanroberts2K8

19th Feb 2014, 13:51

I'd be reluctant to call it a 'hijack' in the traditional sense. Anyway, couldn't he have gone on holiday to said country and claimed asylum, surely it would have saved embarrassment to everybody involved.

PPL Hobbyist

19th Feb 2014, 14:07

Is it safe to assume that the CVR/FDR would have been extracted and read out after this incident?

Tu.114

19th Feb 2014, 16:00

lomapaseo

19th Feb 2014, 16:40

Swiss jets not scrambled over hijacked plane because 'airbases closed at night'

An incident with a highjacked Ethiopian passenger jet has exposed the Swiss Air Force’s inability to deal with threats in ‘off-duty’ hours. An emergency escort to the aircraft in distress was carried out by vigilant colleagues from Italy and France.
Early on Monday morning, an Ethiopian Airlines co-pilot told ground control he had highjacked flight ET-702 from Addis Ababa to Rome and was going to land in Geneva. The Swiss Air Force was caught off guard and missed a rare opportunity to go on a real mission. It turned out that they were unable to scramble any jets because they only work during office hours!
“Switzerland cannot intervene because its airbases are closed at night and on the weekend,” Swiss Air Force spokesman, Laurent Savary, commented to AFP later on, adding that it is “a question of budget and staffing.”
According to Laurent Savary, the Swiss Air Force operates during office hours only, specifically from 8am until a lunch break at noon. A return to cockpits happens at 1:30 pm and they watch over Switzerland’s skies until 5pm.
When the Boeing 767-300 with 202 passengers, highjacked by 31-year-old co-pilot Hailemedehin Abera Tagegn got to Europe, it was still too early for the Swiss pilots to gear up for the urgent mission.
So the job was done by Italian and French military pilots. Italian Air Force Colonel, Girolamo Ladiciccio, said, the order to intercept the Boeing from the Ethiopian capital came from NATO command. Two Italian, and later a couple of French fighters ensured the Ethiopian aircraft did not stray from its route and harm national security.
And the fears were justified, as more details about the hijacking drama continued to emerge.
In an audio recording published on Italian media websites, a voice said to be the captain could be heard threatening to “crash the plane.”
“We thought the co-pilot had gone mad,” said Francesco Cuomo, a 25-year-old development economist who was among the ET-702 passengers, as reported by Switzerland’s, The Local.
The story proved that Swiss business wakes up earlier than its national military. Geneva airport opens for business flights at 06:00 am, whereas the Air Force remains inoperable until 08:00 am.
The Ethiopian aircraft had to circle the region for some time until the green light to land in Geneva was given around 5:30 am (04:30 GMT).
When the plane safely landed in Geneva at 6:02 am (05:02 GMT), Swiss military technicians had not even started to warm up the engines of the country’s F-18s and F-5 Tigers fighter jets.

Super VC-10

19th Feb 2014, 17:23

Presumably Italy and France will be billing Switzerland for their assistance?

AlphaZuluRomeo

19th Feb 2014, 17:32

Italy has no reason to do so: they intercepted above italian land (or water), then handed over to the French at ~ the italo-french border.

Now the French were the only in the air for the final phase, with the aircraft circling above both France and Switzerland around Geneva.

atakacs

19th Feb 2014, 18:10

There is an existing cooperation agreement between France and Switzerland for the former to provide some sort of air cover to the latter, against, obviously, an undisclosed amount of money. From my limited knowledge of the matter the sort of incident that occurred with the Ethiopian jet fells pretty much within this collaboration framework. As such yes the Swiss are paying for this service.

b263354

19th Feb 2014, 20:37

PPL Hobbyist

20th Feb 2014, 03:37

Surely, but the interesting flight phase where the Captain went for a leak probably is no longer on the CVR tape: the typically 30 minutes of recording time are a bit less than the flight time needed from KRT to GVA.

True. Frankly, I am more interested in the data the FDR holds. It will reveal weather there was in fact a flameout or not.

scarrymike

20th Feb 2014, 05:34

I never trust reporters to get the facts correct. If true, and not just a ploy by the co-pilot/hijacker - well it makes my skin crawl.

This guy should get life in prison for placing the passengers in danger.

Tu.114

20th Feb 2014, 06:38

If so, indeed. In Ethiopia, not in Switzerland - there is a general preventive aspect to be minded imho.

Fly3

20th Feb 2014, 06:48

Modern CVR's record 120 minutes. Maybe one was fitted here.

Gulfstreamaviator

20th Feb 2014, 07:49

I assume that GCA refused permission to land prior to opening time....?

ExXB

20th Feb 2014, 07:50

eureka!http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/badteeth.gif

Insert a microchip in the palm? of pilots, you can then swap it at the door to open them...or a palm reader, iris scan etc. No need for codes anymore, no one being locked out anymore...

… and when you want to keep the door locked? For example the JetBlue incident where the PIC went a little crazy?

I don't see how you can have it both ways. And given the frequency of these events I don't see it necessary to change anything.

I seriously doubt anyone will try and divert their aircraft to Switzerland again. No asylum for law breakers (Interference with an aircraft). Switzerland has an obligation to try him, or deport him to a country that will try him.

b263354

20th Feb 2014, 13:05

I tend...to disagree...

seeing it more and more these days, maybe it's the increased pressure, economical situation, more relationships braking up, and...more and more people tending to desperate measures just to improve their lives an inch

If it only happens once, and this is NOT a citation or a light TP, this was a 767, it gives more than enough reason to make improvements...

If they can hold you for hours just because you failed to take the lipbalm outta your pocket, then they can certainly make improvements considering preventing these suicidal circumstances, ... and yes, I do believe he would have gone to drastical measures if the swiss would have refused landing.

Besides, tell that to the passengers outside the cabin, I certainly can't and wouldn't like to either!

ele

20th Feb 2014, 13:47

I was also surprised to read on Reddit that the French passenger didn't know anything about the captain.
I have seen the video of the interview (Rai News) of one of the business class passengers, in Italian (as you know passengers were mainly Italians going back to Rome from all over Africa). He states that the captain tried (with a group of 2-3 people) to knock down the cockpit door, and that the hijacker (at that point) threatened to crash the plane and, in order to convince them that he was serious about it, let the plane abruptly dive (at this point oxygen masks were deployed, and everybody on board thought that they were going to crash, terrible moments indeed). He also states that the hijacker requested the captain to stay seated in the area 'controlled' by a camera in the cabin (so that he could observe that the captain was sitting and not attempting anything).
As regards the asil request: I am Italian and Italy has one of the lowest level of financial aid to asil-seekers in Europe. We receive lots of requests just because a LOT of people arrive to our shores (the first arrival land is the only responsible for the arrival and for the Asyl-request, not that we particularly like the idea..) He probably thought Switzerland was a better economical option.
Also, statistics say only one fourth of asyl applications are accepted (on average) in Switzerland. People whose applications are not accepted must be sent back (that's called Ausschaffung). Point is: IF the country of origin does not respect human rights, the person cannot unwillingly be sent back. Ethiopia is of course officialy on the Swiss list of countries where people cannot be sent back. This means there is no possibility (me thinks) that after the jail time he will be sent back. Imagine they would not send back an asyl-seeker that arrived in Greece -as 'first arrival point'- because in Greece (alledgedly) asyl-seekers are kept in 'poor conditions'
Also the idea in European Courts is that you should not extradite (even a criminal, I've read a ruling just now) a person to a country that does not respect human rights (see article 19 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, year 2000).
That said what this person did is unacceptable. In the interviews people are visibly shocked and will suffer from this trauma God knows for how long..
I also think that there something completely insane in this whole story.

SwissWatcher

20th Feb 2014, 15:42

Swiss FA18s did runs up and down the lake to Geneva yesterday and today - hadn't seen them round here for months! Just in case maybe? :rolleyes:
Anyway, by now they'll be tucked up in bed...
All this is having a negative effect on the future referendum on the purchase of Gripens for the Air Force, as you can imagine!

deptrai

21st Feb 2014, 03:42

The guy is now officially a suspect, a defense lawyer has been appointed, and a judge ruled the suspect will remain in custody while the investigation continues.

felixflyer

24th Feb 2014, 09:54

I just don't get this, surely as a 767 FO the guy would have been on the ground in places where asylum was available? Surely it would have been a better option to try and make it to somewhere after landing?

Could this have been a more serious event and he either changed his mind or was there to test responses?

After 9/11 any hijack will be viewed as a potential attack on ground targets, he must have known this and therefore put all the passengers lives in danger of being shot down.

GlueBall

24th Feb 2014, 10:50

the Swiss Air Force can only be bothered during office hours... The incident happened too early in the morning, this is why the French escorted them to Geneva.

And why exactly would the Swiss Air Force be intercepting a target in French airspace? If you look at a current map, post Roman Empire, you would learn that west, south & east Geneva is in French airspace. The north-west bound flight track did not penetrate Swiss airspace until the outskirts of the city. :eek:

jet-lover

28th Feb 2014, 17:49

there was engine flame out.. and the other engine was about to follow from what can b heard on the atc comm.

Ethiopian Airlines flight 702 Hijacked Engine Flame out! ATC Audio Forced to Land in Geneva - YouTube

JanetFlight

28th Feb 2014, 19:15

Sorry, question, besides the fact its ETH702 the callsign here its something "XXXXXX-0001"...whats that "XXXXX" word before the 0001?

maxred

28th Feb 2014, 19:26

I also think that there something completely insane in this whole story.

Tend to agree. It is almost as insane as the Egyptair into Prestwick, allegedly Syrian Asylum seekers, and the PIA into Stans Dead.

All media went into sleep mode ever since on these incidents. Not a jot.......

It's all terribly insane, or a lot of people know a lot more about these 'incidents' than they are letting on:zzz:

Green Guard

28th Feb 2014, 19:29

Janet, it is KK 0001

Very interesting, that (crazy) F/O locked out Capt. for good, but kept calling himself as "WE" in each radio transmission. :}

captplaystation

28th Feb 2014, 19:36

If the audio on jet-lover's post is correct (and it certainly sounds authentic) he needs to spend a fair amount of time in either a prison or a lunatic asylum.

To get the fuel so low that one eng flames out , whilst resisting the controllers attempts to get him to accept a landing clearance. . . . hang him I say.

Whatever he was suffering in Ethiopia ( & that, who knows, could have been very serious) why the Hell couldn't he have hired a Fiat Panda in FCO & driven to Le Suisse over any number of routes with possibly/probably uncontrolled borders. . or Hell, at worst, just driven through a fibreglass border post. Jeez :ugh: surely better than ditching a 767 in Lac Leman :eek:

Total RETARD ! !