Kaptin M

Are aircraft hijackings a thing of the past?
Have they already served their purpose, and outlived their usefulness, now that we have such strict security procedures in place?

As a matter of fact, are these strict procedures really necessary, now that we are 100% wise in hindsight?

Let's take an example of an aircraft that appears to have been hijacked - it may have sent out that discrete code (known only to pilots and terrorists), that indicates that it is has been hijacked.
Or it might have deviated from its original flight planned route.

Obviously, the FIRST thing ATC will be directed to do, will be to try to confirm with the aircraft whether its signal (alerting them that it is is hijacked) is intentional, or that its deviation is intentional.
Following this, I would expect ATC to issue an instruction to the aircraft, that would take it well away from any densely populated areas/areas of significance.

Assuming a comms loss, I would expect that if the aircraft did not comply with any of the ATC instructions issued on primary and secondary frequencies and comms, that a military escort would very quickly appear, issuing signals to the aircraft.

Should these NOT be followed almost immediately, there appears to me to be very little alternative but to remove the threat.
A threat removed, is no threat!

After all, in today's world, isn't it better to lose a couple of hundred lives, than several thousand + the economic impact?!!

Aircraft hijackings - I believe - would have to rate way, way down on the terrorists' scale of 1-10 nowadays!

Old Smokey

Kaptin M,

I would like to think that you're right, but not for many many years of terrorist-free flights should we relax the present levels of security.

In fact we should strive ever harder to close the loop-holes and gaps that do exist within the present system, perhaps the security HAS worked, and that is why there have been no terrorist hijackings of late, BUT, as those with ill intent learn of the gaps and flaws within the system, we cannot risk that they may exploit them. There would need to be a radical change in the face of the terrorist beast before we slacken off at all. There is presently no sign of this.

Let's not forget that prior to terrorist hijackings there were numerous other hijackings for different motives, many of them fatal. If every terrorist were to disappear tomorrow (what a wonderful thought), there is still an endless supply of raving lunatics out there who see the hijacking of an airliner as the means toward their ends.

We have a REASONABLE but imperfect security system in place, put there at considerable expense. Let's maintain it as just as much an integral component of aviation safety as all of the other safety initiatives that we now take for granted.

Flip Flop Flyer

Maybe, maybe not. Still doesn't seem to stop governments worldwide trying to prevent a rerun of the last incident, rather than preparing and studying for the next.

How much money are spent on protecting our harbours? Even after the trainbombings in Madrid, a good example of how terrorists explore new possibilities, how much has train safety been beefed up? Answer to both: Very little.

Anybody here think a 911 part Two is likely? But that's where the money is being spent. Typical political ball fumbling, locking the door after the horse has bolted.

Kaptin M

Sorry if my preceding post was somewhat unclear.

IMHO, the security measures introduced as a result of 911 were WAY overdue......HOWEVER, as a RESULT of 911, I believe that if any aircraft is now positively identified as being hijacked, it will be "removed".

Quite a sobering thought for crew and pax alike, is it not?!

Edit: And by the way, I'm not referring to just the policies of the good ol' USA - I believe this would be the "standard" for EVERY Government, EVERYWHERE today.

Flip Flop, you cite NON-aviation events and targets, which is PRECISELY what I am trying to point out will be the NEXT targets.
Aircraft are far too easily "removed", once identified as a threat.

Old Smokey

Kaptin M,

It is indeed a sobering thought, but one that we must come to terms with and accept if we are to remain in this profession, or indeed, fly as passengers.

Given the choice of death at a terrorist's hands, or death by 'friendly' fire, I would much prefer the latter instead of allowing my passengers, my crew, and myself to be used as living ammunition against an innocent target.

Max Angle

Too true, lets not kid ourselves that any of the security measures we are adpoting are for the benefit of us or our passengers. They are to protect those on the ground and shooting the aircraft down before it can be used as a missile is now the logical and likely conclusion to such a scenario. So Kaptin M is quite right, hijacking an aircraft to further a cause such as the release of prisoners or to make some other political point is a thing of the past. Hijacking one to use as a weapon, which will be done by people who are willing and eager to die anyway, still consitutes a very real threat in my opinion and it's not the time to let our guard down.

OFBSLF

The US is probably the most likely target for such attacks. The US is a very large country. I have to disagree with your assumption about the speed with which a military escort would appear -- the only available fighter could be sitting on the tarmac quite a long ways away. Once the fighter does scramble, it might be rather difficult to find the airliner if, as on 11 Sept., the hijackers turn off the transponder and fly at low level.

Kaptin M

Knackered if I know why this has been moved to the Questions forum - this is NOT a question, it's a statement of FACT if one thinks about it for more than 2 seconds!

ijp

I AM ABSOLUTELY SURE THAT WE ARE 100% SAFE, from little old ladies, executives and businessmen, tourist, students and teachers, not to mention small children, babies housewives and the list goes on!!! BUT a real determined hijacker....not for one second. Security is the biggest boondoggle in the world. And one of the earlier post is correct, make trouble by complaining and your name will be on "THE LIST"

OFBSLF
Don't believe your post for a second! Do you think enemy a/c squawk a code that is recognised by anyone not equiped with FOF capabilities. Like shooting fish in a barrel

Bakelite

The problem with intervention is the time available. The aircraft has to be positively declared hostile, the right aircraft scrambled (contrary to popular belief very few military jets are routinely live armed), and authority granted to shoot down obtained. All of this takes time.

Far better to prevent the hijacking in the first place. The fact that there hasn't been a hijacking shows that things are working. More reason to keep being vigilant, not remove what seems to have been doing the job.

dudduddud

Air-Terrorisim is certainly alive and well.
It is a potent display of grievence that grabs the headline like nothing else.

But why would terrorists in the middle east go to all the trouble of hyjacking an airliner when theres plenty of westeners in Iraq to behead?

daw

It also shouldn't be assumed that security has been improved the whole world over. There would be a number of countries around the world where little has changed since 9/11 for a variety of reasons including lack of available investment. And if security was working so well then how come an "alledged terroist/on a watch list" was allowed to board a United flight that was subsequently diverted. Surely they should be stopped at the gate and not allowed onto the flight in the first place? Bit like the horse has bolted me thinks. Fortunately it was a stuff up on the names and no harm done but there you go.

skibeagle

I agree with Kaptain M, the safest day to fly anywhere was Sep 12, 2001. The Terrorists will likley target aircraft again, but it will be a while. In the mean time, they only have to look at mainstream US media to be given a whole list of opportunities where they are much more likley to succeed. Such as the advertisment that they have nuclear (or nukiller if you're Geogre W Bush) bomb detectors at the land borders - but only some, and even the department of homeland security will explain what they look like and hence where they are located. Also the fact that US sea ports have only 10% of the budget they need for screening and guarding against dirty nukes coming in by sea....

2close

The BBC 'Crisis Command' programme a few months back was quite interesting.

For those that didn't see it, three members of the public assumed the roles of Ministers for one hour whilst the UK was subjected to multiple terrorist attacks, including attacks on the London Underground, a chemical attack and an airborne threat. They received guidance from genuine ministerial advisors, one of whom (security advisor) was a former senior RAF officer, and they had to decide action to be taken based on the intelligence coming in and the advice received.

One of the scenarios was an airliner diverting from its authorised course over the English Channel and heading towards the UK south East. It was not obeying ATC instructions so eventually a couple of Tornadoes were scrambled. Eventually, terrorists came on the RT announcing they had taken over the plane and were headed for one of the London airports (LHR I believe) to land.

The question was whether or not to believe them that they were going to land or to shoot it down. They dillied and dallied until it was too late and it had crossed the 'no-shoot' line where a falling aircraft would now pose too much of a risk to persons and property on the ground.

The end result was that it slammed squarely into the House of Commons. The 'Ministers' were then advised that they had made the wrong decisions all along and had compromised UK security by allowing it to come too close to the capital and that decisive action should have been taken far earlier.

So the point I'm making, assuming that the genuine advisors were being accurate, is that UK policy is, in these circumstances, to bring down airliners with military hardware.

2close

BTW, and sorry about this, my decision was not to allow it to cross the coast but that's easy to do when it's not for real

OFBSLF

IJP, I think perhaps you misinterpreted what I wrote. I'm sure that a fighter (US or otherwise) could easily shootdown airliner flying at low level. Provided, of course, that it can find the airliner in the first place.

We do not have blanket low-level radar coverage throughout the United States. If the FAA and/or military controllers do not have the airliner on radar, then they can't vector fighter in for an intercept.

If you don't know the general that the airliner is in, then you can't get the fighter into that general area. And if you can't get the fighter into the same general area, then he isn't going to find the airliner.

And since the fighter could be sitting on the tarmac 500 miles away, with a 15 minute launch delay, by the time the fighter gets to last known position of the airliner, the airliner could be long gone...

Kaptin M

For the doubters, I guess the event in the last 24 hours, where an Olympic Airlines Airbus(?) enroute Athens - USA received a bomb threat, and was subsequently diverted to Stansted, England, under the escort of FOUR RAF fighters, shores up support for the opening post.

A British spokesman stated on BBC TV, that England has a number of fighter based in the North and the South of the country, on 24 hour standby, and able to be airborne within 10 minutes.

I wonder how many pax on that aircraft realised WHY they received the VIP treatment of having 4 "escorts"? (In pre-Sept 11, 2001, 1 would have been more than enough.)

OFBSLF

Kaptin M: That was not the type of situation that I was describing. In the most recent Olympic Airlines situation, the pilots were still in charge of the aircraft, it was no doubt flying at height, in contact with controllers, transponders on, etc. The controllers no doubt had it on radar, so they could vector the fighters in for an intercept.

That's a very different situation that what occured on Sept. 11. On Sept. 11, the hijackers turned off the transponders, flew at low level, and were not responding to controllers.

MarkD

When governments seeking to save money start standing down aircraft on Q what happens then?