Hijack in greece
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Chester, Cheshire, UK
Age: 68
Posts: 42
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I've seen most of the Airline disaster type movies too, but unless I'm very much mistaken, in real life the good guy doesn't always win.
Neither is there always the obligatory singing Nun, child with a terminal illness on her way to life saving treatment at the Mayo Clinic, Priest and, more importantly for this scenario, teenage kid with 30,000 hours experience on Flight Simulator who can take over the controls of the jet and land it safely with guidance from the guy at ATC when the entire flight crew are either dead or incapacitated because one of them decided to be a hero and took on the hijacker.
Am I wrong?
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Middlesesx
Posts: 2,075
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Despite the loked doors the door codes in some airlines are widespread knowledge to many staff (some airlines have retained the same code since the doors were put in). Also on a shorthaul a/c it is possible to position yourself and work out what the code is. Surely a locked door only provides security against the would be one off idiot, those intent on criminal acts will do their research first. Maybe we should consider it lucky that these two were only making a point (allegedly) against the papel visit. This is a timely reminder to all of the flying comunity.
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: EGSS
Posts: 943
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You are always going to have the problem of this re-occuring again. Even for that split second when the door is opened for a convenience break, or the dinner is delivered to the flight deck. The only way to eliminate it completely would be to have a dedicated galley with ovens, coffee makers etc and lavatory (and a cabin crew member!) inside the reinforced door, and lets face it, thats not gonna happen.
YES!
Sorry, couldn't resist.
The old, pre 911 protocol was to cooperate with the hijackers. The success of this policy is debatable, but that's the way it was handled then. The reasons for the change in protocol should be obvious. The primary percieved threat now are individuals who very likely intend to crash the airplane into a target, killing all on board and anyone unfortunate enough to be in the impact area. Cooperation with any individual who MIGHT even have such motives in mind would be tantamount to signing not only one's own death warrant, but many others too. So as a matter of policy, surrendering command and control of the aircraft must NEVER be considered by ANYONE to be a possibility. Anyone contemplating such an act must know with certainty that they will be fought to the death by all crewmembers and yes, passengers.
To allow, through lax adherance to the protective measures in place, or through a willingness to negotiate for your life, a person to take over an aircraft in this day and age is completely wreckless and irresponsible. Making the crews think that they would not be harmed if they would only cooperate is EXACTLY what Atta and his co-conspiritors counted on to execute their plan. And it worked only too well in three out of four cases. The fourth case ended as it did only because the stakes became known and some folks decided that they would not go down without a fight.
This is the new policy, and right or wrong, it is the only acceptable response considering the potential stakes. I think they got away with one this time. Don't expect such a harmless outcome the next time an aircraft is allowed to be taken over. These days, anyone planning to take over an aircraft must believe they will be killed without succeeding. It is a harsh reality which may not appeal to the more humanistic side of us. But it is preferable to the alternative of giving up the ship when it well may endanger yourself and so many others to such a high degree.
Just my opinion.
Best regards,
Westhawk
Sorry, couldn't resist.
The old, pre 911 protocol was to cooperate with the hijackers. The success of this policy is debatable, but that's the way it was handled then. The reasons for the change in protocol should be obvious. The primary percieved threat now are individuals who very likely intend to crash the airplane into a target, killing all on board and anyone unfortunate enough to be in the impact area. Cooperation with any individual who MIGHT even have such motives in mind would be tantamount to signing not only one's own death warrant, but many others too. So as a matter of policy, surrendering command and control of the aircraft must NEVER be considered by ANYONE to be a possibility. Anyone contemplating such an act must know with certainty that they will be fought to the death by all crewmembers and yes, passengers.
To allow, through lax adherance to the protective measures in place, or through a willingness to negotiate for your life, a person to take over an aircraft in this day and age is completely wreckless and irresponsible. Making the crews think that they would not be harmed if they would only cooperate is EXACTLY what Atta and his co-conspiritors counted on to execute their plan. And it worked only too well in three out of four cases. The fourth case ended as it did only because the stakes became known and some folks decided that they would not go down without a fight.
This is the new policy, and right or wrong, it is the only acceptable response considering the potential stakes. I think they got away with one this time. Don't expect such a harmless outcome the next time an aircraft is allowed to be taken over. These days, anyone planning to take over an aircraft must believe they will be killed without succeeding. It is a harsh reality which may not appeal to the more humanistic side of us. But it is preferable to the alternative of giving up the ship when it well may endanger yourself and so many others to such a high degree.
Just my opinion.
Best regards,
Westhawk
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Cyprus
Posts: 119
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There is a time delay between putting the code and actual door opening .
The QRH says ' is somebody is trying to open the door using the code , action - DENY entry .'
The QRH says ' is somebody is trying to open the door using the code , action - DENY entry .'
All this will keep you relatively and acceptably safe I would say.
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: 'An Airfield Somewhere in England'
Posts: 1,094
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Westhawk - you are absolutely right and your comments reveal a succinct clarity of the security environment in which we now operate. No Commander of a commericial aircraft should ever concede control of the flight deck to an intruder under any circumstances. As others have pointed out, prior to Sep 11, the imperative was to prevent loss of life or injury to your passengers and crew. That lead to a policy of basically doing what you were told by the hijackers, getting to a suitable airport ASAP and letting negotiatiors sort it out. We now know that such a position is no longer tenable given the stated intention of some Islamic terrorists to kill every person on the aircraft and as many people as possible on the ground. In the light of such a potential catastrophe, the need for the crew to remain in one piece is far outweighed by the need to regain control of the flight deck. Therefore you have to do whatever is necessary to regain that control.
These battles are won beforehand in your mind - not when faced with an intruder that you are subconsciously willing to consider may be just an 'ordinary' hijacker rather than a mass murderer. Nobody wants any conflict, particularly of a violent nature, but you simply cannot take the risk that an intruder is someone you can deal with by negotiation.
These battles are won beforehand in your mind - not when faced with an intruder that you are subconsciously willing to consider may be just an 'ordinary' hijacker rather than a mass murderer. Nobody wants any conflict, particularly of a violent nature, but you simply cannot take the risk that an intruder is someone you can deal with by negotiation.
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: right here
Posts: 342
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
check this out guys!
yesterday i was scheduled to fly a short sector to bari (which is in the brindisi FIR, about 40NM from brindisi itself). when we requested start-up ATC told us that there is a hijacking in the brindisi FIR, the FIR is closed UFN, and start-up is denied. ok.
so we got the company on the phone and told them.
and they told us "WE know NOTHING of a hijacking, so get airborne!"
maybe next time the hijacker should file a request with my company and ask permission.
so we got the company on the phone and told them.
and they told us "WE know NOTHING of a hijacking, so get airborne!"
maybe next time the hijacker should file a request with my company and ask permission.
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Chester, Cheshire, UK
Age: 68
Posts: 42
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Do you automatically assume they're planning something along 9/11 lines or wait till that becomes more obvious before you act? Surely, until such time as there is that indication there's a risk that if you do take them on you are endangering not only your passengers but anyone who may be under you on the ground who may be otherwise in no danger if they are just trying a more traditional hijacking and you can get the plane down safely.
I'm not trying to nit pick or troll. I'm just trying to clarify this in my head. I can understand, if not fully appreciate, the incredible dilemma this must pose to anyone caught up in something like this, so I don't mean to trivialize it in any way. Sorry if it sounds like that.
[Edit: NSF has fairly concisely covered a lot of this. From what he has said you basically have to assume it's a 9/11 type situation from the start and act on that?]
Last edited by justawanab; 4th Oct 2006 at 10:56. Reason: Comments added while I was composing ...
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Notts & Derbyshire border
Posts: 465
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
How the hell did they get in to the cockpit? Remains to be answered, but was he armed as well? If so, maybe the weak link was Tirana security.
The fear is that the terrorists WILL succeed again by using alternative airports with the weaker links.
The fear is that the terrorists WILL succeed again by using alternative airports with the weaker links.
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: SoCal
Posts: 1,929
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
According to this report, the whole things seems to have been a rather leisury affair..... not condoning or belittling in any way, btw. Hijackers should be dealt with firmly, swiftly - and terminally.
http://www.khaleejtimes.com/DisplayA...ction=theworld
http://www.khaleejtimes.com/DisplayA...ction=theworld
Join Date: May 2003
Location: france
Posts: 194
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
hijack
hello,
after reading the newsrelease from above post :
1) a bit of "stockholm syndrome" present,(pax/hijacker symphatising), e.g. pax applauding the hijacker when surrendering to the carabinieri.
2) blatant/ unacceptable absence/disregard of elementary cockpit "pantzer"door policies.
3) the italian authorities, in my view, handled this affair quite correctly, but i prefer NOT to think at what would have happened, if the lunatic had insisted /forced the crew to continue to roma, instead of landing in brindisi, especially with an armed f16 on the left wing.
after reading the newsrelease from above post :
1) a bit of "stockholm syndrome" present,(pax/hijacker symphatising), e.g. pax applauding the hijacker when surrendering to the carabinieri.
2) blatant/ unacceptable absence/disregard of elementary cockpit "pantzer"door policies.
3) the italian authorities, in my view, handled this affair quite correctly, but i prefer NOT to think at what would have happened, if the lunatic had insisted /forced the crew to continue to roma, instead of landing in brindisi, especially with an armed f16 on the left wing.
Surely, until such time as there is that indication there's a risk that if you do take them on you are endangering not only your passengers but anyone who may be under you on the ground who may be otherwise in no danger if they are just trying a more traditional hijacking and you can get the plane down safely.
Best regards,
Westhawk
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 33
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Open doors...?
The discussion on what to do with perons trying to get unauthorizd access to the cockpit with whatever intention is a very easy one to have on the internet. different thing however is how one will respond when the "real" thing happens. Its all to easy to tell hero stories on how to act and fight yourself to death if necessary to prevent anyone from taking over control etc. Its an "on the spot" decision and no-one can EVER say that a crew made the wrong decision or was acting wrongly simply because you were not there to live thru it i beleive. I am a captain and certainly hope I will never encounter such a thing. How would I respond?.... I simply dont know. I hope I have the ability to take the right decisions if such a thing would happen to me but i simply dont know.... people respond very differently in different situations and cannot and should not be judged for their decisions when in such life threatening situations where the lives of many are dependant on their decisiveness.
As far as the closed door policy is concerned. I beleive that whatever happens in the world I would like to live my life in reasonable comfort and that means that I do want the cabin crew bringing me my coffee and meals etc. We need to open the door for that and those moments are the vulnarable ones, i realise that. so be it. The mere fact that the terrorists have us change our ways of life in the way that some of us would recommend us to do is in my view a victory to them already. I for one do not like to give myself up that way and continue to not let them influence my living comfort. I will not spend the rest of my life looking over my shoulder, restricting my freedom for security reasons. The threat has become a part of my life ...like for anyone in this world i guess.... but i will not give the terrorists the pleasure of destroying my "joy de vive".
I do beleive in following procedures in an airplane however I am also the captain and therefore tested to be capable to make decisions in that same airplane... like when and if I want my coffee...or when and if I want to go to the toilet...
As far as the closed door policy is concerned. I beleive that whatever happens in the world I would like to live my life in reasonable comfort and that means that I do want the cabin crew bringing me my coffee and meals etc. We need to open the door for that and those moments are the vulnarable ones, i realise that. so be it. The mere fact that the terrorists have us change our ways of life in the way that some of us would recommend us to do is in my view a victory to them already. I for one do not like to give myself up that way and continue to not let them influence my living comfort. I will not spend the rest of my life looking over my shoulder, restricting my freedom for security reasons. The threat has become a part of my life ...like for anyone in this world i guess.... but i will not give the terrorists the pleasure of destroying my "joy de vive".
I do beleive in following procedures in an airplane however I am also the captain and therefore tested to be capable to make decisions in that same airplane... like when and if I want my coffee...or when and if I want to go to the toilet...
