Ethiopian Hijack?
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: AUSTRALIA - CHINA STHN
Age: 59
Posts: 261
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Legal Hijack Q
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!)
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!)
Pegase Driver
Join Date: May 1997
Location: Europe
Age: 74
Posts: 3,684
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So the 'hijacker' squaked 7500 on himself? Seems odd....
So this really does not make sense, must be more to it.
Pegase Driver
Join Date: May 1997
Location: Europe
Age: 74
Posts: 3,684
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Someone will have to pay for this.
Not sure however if it makes a lot of difference in jail sentence terms.
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: PA
Age: 59
Posts: 30
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Confoederatio Helvetica
Age: 68
Posts: 2,847
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Pasadena
Posts: 633
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: May 2013
Location: UK
Age: 56
Posts: 85
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
landing at the wrong airport is a pretty common issue on here, so he sounds like a typical pilot
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: leafy suburbs
Posts: 308
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London
Posts: 7,072
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Confoederatio Helvetica
Age: 68
Posts: 2,847
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Over at Airliners(dot)net 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 …
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 …
DOVE
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Myself
Age: 77
Posts: 1,179
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Part two
Extra fuel
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."
"15.000 Kg more fuel for kids Captain?"
Skipper: "Please help yourself!... I will justify those two hours and more endurance as an economical uplift."
...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!!!