Attempted ? Hijack KU102 JFK to LHR????
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: California, USA
Posts: 81
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So exactly warning signs should we ingnore from now on?
If you are old enough and have enough mental capabilities to buy an airline ticket, you clearly must comprehend that hijack/terrorist remarks will not be ignored.
From the Chicago Tribune regarding the incident on American Airlines yesterday:
<<<It was not long after Flight 1238 took off from Los Angeles with 153 passengers and 9 crew members that some began to notice Coburn, a man with sandy blond hair, wearing a T-shirt, jeans and brown work boots, sitting in row 21 next to his father. Throughout the flight, Coburn was whispering and talking abnormally, said Mark Jacoby, an accountant from Los Angeles who sat in the row behind them.>>>
<<<Then as the plane was about 40 minutes from landing at O'Hare, the man got up from his seat, ran through the aisle, burst into the cockpit and grabbed the pilot, passengers said.
The plane immediately lurched downward, said JoAnn Rockman's husband, Howard Rockman, an attorney. "We've experienced turbulence before, but never anything like this," he said. "We just went down. It scared to death every single passenger on the plane."
But within seconds, as many as 10 passengers and crew members pounced on him, pulled him out of the cockpit and wrestled him to the ground.>>>
Here is another person denied boarding after being thorougly checked out. If you had just been interrogated by the FBI, would you have done this?
<<<"Nothing was out of the ordinary," Mohammed continued. "They were all polite and pleasant. In fact, by the end of the session, we were on a first-name basis. One of the FBI agents even gave me her business card."
Mohammed was escorted to the plane by all four law enforcement officials, and he boarded the aircraft without incident.
"Once aboard and settled, I unpacked my video camera recorder and set it up in the seat next to me," he said.
"I began recording myself, speaking into the camera in both English and Arabic. There were only a couple of other passengers in the first-class cabin, so I don't believe I was disturbing anyone.">>>
If you are old enough and have enough mental capabilities to buy an airline ticket, you clearly must comprehend that hijack/terrorist remarks will not be ignored.
From the Chicago Tribune regarding the incident on American Airlines yesterday:
<<<It was not long after Flight 1238 took off from Los Angeles with 153 passengers and 9 crew members that some began to notice Coburn, a man with sandy blond hair, wearing a T-shirt, jeans and brown work boots, sitting in row 21 next to his father. Throughout the flight, Coburn was whispering and talking abnormally, said Mark Jacoby, an accountant from Los Angeles who sat in the row behind them.>>>
<<<Then as the plane was about 40 minutes from landing at O'Hare, the man got up from his seat, ran through the aisle, burst into the cockpit and grabbed the pilot, passengers said.
The plane immediately lurched downward, said JoAnn Rockman's husband, Howard Rockman, an attorney. "We've experienced turbulence before, but never anything like this," he said. "We just went down. It scared to death every single passenger on the plane."
But within seconds, as many as 10 passengers and crew members pounced on him, pulled him out of the cockpit and wrestled him to the ground.>>>
Here is another person denied boarding after being thorougly checked out. If you had just been interrogated by the FBI, would you have done this?
<<<"Nothing was out of the ordinary," Mohammed continued. "They were all polite and pleasant. In fact, by the end of the session, we were on a first-name basis. One of the FBI agents even gave me her business card."
Mohammed was escorted to the plane by all four law enforcement officials, and he boarded the aircraft without incident.
"Once aboard and settled, I unpacked my video camera recorder and set it up in the seat next to me," he said.
"I began recording myself, speaking into the camera in both English and Arabic. There were only a couple of other passengers in the first-class cabin, so I don't believe I was disturbing anyone.">>>
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Philadelphia (UK expat)
Posts: 92
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I know there is a lot of emotion around this subject at the moment, but I think what most people are saying is that we must never - whatever the provocation - lose our sense of reason or perspective.
It is agreed that it is a pretty stupid idea to make flippant jokey remarks to airport and aircraft security: "What's in that violin case?", "A machine gun" or "Are you carrying anything for someone else?", "Yes, this guy called Mohammed gave me a bomb" are cases in point. This has always been the case before, and there is no reason why it should be any less the case now.
However, if as a passenger I see what I consider to be a laxity or omission in security, then I really don't see why I shouldn't be able to point it out. After all, it's my life that's at risk too, and if I see the cockpit door open during boarding, and I consider that to be a security risk, then why shouldn't I point it out to the cabin crew. "With the cockpit door open, if I was a terrorist, I could hijack the aircraft right now". That sounds to me to be a perfectly reasonable comment.
In other words: "I don't like what I'm seeing; it's inconsistent and making me nervous because I'm about to put my life in your hands and I need to know that you're making every effort to ensure my safety". To respond to such a concern is something that all airline staff owe their passeners at the very minimum.
As malanda said above, what should pax do in these circumstances? Just the other day, I asked an FA to do something about a fat flash git who couldn't stop showing how important he was by continuously using his mobile phone on board an A340 from the moment he sat down right the way up to the start of the runway. Am I supposed to stop doing that? Because if so, then I'm damn well going to stop flying.
As always, if we consider ourselves to be intelligent, reasonable professionals, we should be trying to see the big picture and act reasonable and sensibly, no matter what has gone before. Yes, everyone can be excused for being a bit emotional in these times, but that is not the same thing as saying that the emotional response is the right one.
HugMonster
I don't normally enter into slanging matches on PPRuNe, but your knee-jerk diatribe in your earler response is in fact what misses the point and makes you look like a pratt. Rustbucket made a perfectly reasonable comment, and your reaction was way OTT.
To all pilots who think that the current situation is a good reason to further consider passengers as mere inconveniences in the pursuit of your job, I say this: if our society in general (not just on airlines) is going to remain safe, it is going to rely on the vigilance of the masses, the general public, yes, even your passengers, to prevent further acts of terrorism. It is the masses keeping their eyes open for suspicious activity that are our best weapon, and no amount of electronics or security can replace that. The LAX-ORD flight recently proved this.
As pilots it is in your interests to start treating "SLF" like human beings instead of cattle. One day we might save your life!
And another thing...!
I don't think it is a joke, neither do I think it stupid or even criminal that some passengers, and some journalists, have decided to expose the flaws in airport security - even now - by demonstrating that knives and suchlike can still be smuggled aboard aircraft. As pilots, you should be grateful to these people for alerting authorities to the fact that they still have a way to go before they can hope to reassure passengers that it is once again safe to fly. In my opinion, they shouldn't have been arrested or locked up to save the blushes of the authorities, and they certainly don't deserve your scorn. It's not a joke. They're telling you something important. I think you should listen.
[Edited to add 'and another thing...' comments]
[ 09 October 2001: Message edited by: Covenant ]
It is agreed that it is a pretty stupid idea to make flippant jokey remarks to airport and aircraft security: "What's in that violin case?", "A machine gun" or "Are you carrying anything for someone else?", "Yes, this guy called Mohammed gave me a bomb" are cases in point. This has always been the case before, and there is no reason why it should be any less the case now.
However, if as a passenger I see what I consider to be a laxity or omission in security, then I really don't see why I shouldn't be able to point it out. After all, it's my life that's at risk too, and if I see the cockpit door open during boarding, and I consider that to be a security risk, then why shouldn't I point it out to the cabin crew. "With the cockpit door open, if I was a terrorist, I could hijack the aircraft right now". That sounds to me to be a perfectly reasonable comment.
In other words: "I don't like what I'm seeing; it's inconsistent and making me nervous because I'm about to put my life in your hands and I need to know that you're making every effort to ensure my safety". To respond to such a concern is something that all airline staff owe their passeners at the very minimum.
As malanda said above, what should pax do in these circumstances? Just the other day, I asked an FA to do something about a fat flash git who couldn't stop showing how important he was by continuously using his mobile phone on board an A340 from the moment he sat down right the way up to the start of the runway. Am I supposed to stop doing that? Because if so, then I'm damn well going to stop flying.
As always, if we consider ourselves to be intelligent, reasonable professionals, we should be trying to see the big picture and act reasonable and sensibly, no matter what has gone before. Yes, everyone can be excused for being a bit emotional in these times, but that is not the same thing as saying that the emotional response is the right one.
HugMonster
I don't normally enter into slanging matches on PPRuNe, but your knee-jerk diatribe in your earler response is in fact what misses the point and makes you look like a pratt. Rustbucket made a perfectly reasonable comment, and your reaction was way OTT.
To all pilots who think that the current situation is a good reason to further consider passengers as mere inconveniences in the pursuit of your job, I say this: if our society in general (not just on airlines) is going to remain safe, it is going to rely on the vigilance of the masses, the general public, yes, even your passengers, to prevent further acts of terrorism. It is the masses keeping their eyes open for suspicious activity that are our best weapon, and no amount of electronics or security can replace that. The LAX-ORD flight recently proved this.
As pilots it is in your interests to start treating "SLF" like human beings instead of cattle. One day we might save your life!
And another thing...!
I don't think it is a joke, neither do I think it stupid or even criminal that some passengers, and some journalists, have decided to expose the flaws in airport security - even now - by demonstrating that knives and suchlike can still be smuggled aboard aircraft. As pilots, you should be grateful to these people for alerting authorities to the fact that they still have a way to go before they can hope to reassure passengers that it is once again safe to fly. In my opinion, they shouldn't have been arrested or locked up to save the blushes of the authorities, and they certainly don't deserve your scorn. It's not a joke. They're telling you something important. I think you should listen.
[Edited to add 'and another thing...' comments]
[ 09 October 2001: Message edited by: Covenant ]
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Currently Dubai
Posts: 173
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't think it is a joke, neither do I think it stupid or even criminal that some passengers, and some journalists, have decided to expose the flaws in airport security
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Philadelphia (UK expat)
Posts: 92
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
sanjosebaz
The grey area is: what am I to expect if I say to an FA: "The cockpit door is open; if I were a terrorist I could get in there now and hijack the plane"?
This, more or less, is what the guy was arrested for. Now, the words I used may have been more explicit in their meaning - i.e. not threatening. However, none of us really knows exactly what this guy said or how he said it. Was it meant as a joke or not? We don't know, and we may never know. We do know that airport security took it as a threat, which it most certainly wasn't. Sometimes we say things in a light-hearted way with a smile to conceal the fact that we're a bit nervous, not to say scared.
The grey area is also this: how do we decide what is a threat, or a stupid and inapropriate joke, that deserves being disembarked and arrested, and what is a serious comment on a concern for safety. Is it the way we say something? Surely nothing that subjective! Is it the words we use? Does that mean that we can't use certain proscribed words like "gun" and "hijack"?
The point is there IS a grey area, so people would do well to think about things like this before going off the deep end and ranting.
The grey area is: what am I to expect if I say to an FA: "The cockpit door is open; if I were a terrorist I could get in there now and hijack the plane"?
This, more or less, is what the guy was arrested for. Now, the words I used may have been more explicit in their meaning - i.e. not threatening. However, none of us really knows exactly what this guy said or how he said it. Was it meant as a joke or not? We don't know, and we may never know. We do know that airport security took it as a threat, which it most certainly wasn't. Sometimes we say things in a light-hearted way with a smile to conceal the fact that we're a bit nervous, not to say scared.
The grey area is also this: how do we decide what is a threat, or a stupid and inapropriate joke, that deserves being disembarked and arrested, and what is a serious comment on a concern for safety. Is it the way we say something? Surely nothing that subjective! Is it the words we use? Does that mean that we can't use certain proscribed words like "gun" and "hijack"?
The point is there IS a grey area, so people would do well to think about things like this before going off the deep end and ranting.
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Wet Coast
Posts: 2,335
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Covenant
Spot on. The only two people who know what was said are the 'perp' and the CC to whom he spoke. And whether it was a stupid joke or a genuine but poorly worded expression of concern only the speaker knows. I think it will be enlightening to see if he is charged or not.
The climate aboard US flights now is 'sit down, shut up and no sudden moves'. Choose your words very carefully if you feel it necessary to point out anything that's bothering you to the crew. Exactly the opposite of what should be going on, no ?
Spot on. The only two people who know what was said are the 'perp' and the CC to whom he spoke. And whether it was a stupid joke or a genuine but poorly worded expression of concern only the speaker knows. I think it will be enlightening to see if he is charged or not.
The climate aboard US flights now is 'sit down, shut up and no sudden moves'. Choose your words very carefully if you feel it necessary to point out anything that's bothering you to the crew. Exactly the opposite of what should be going on, no ?
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Rio de Janeiro, Brazil
Posts: 43
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I would just feel a lot more confortable if I knew that the same measures that are being applied to pax were also being applied to caterers, cleaning people, mechanics, and so on. The other day a flight to HNL made an emergency landing in LAX because someone found a small knife (or similar) that was lately discovered was forgotten inside the plane by a caterer. It just seems to me that too much effort is being put on just one side of the problem. I hope I'm wrong.
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 606
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The airlines and/or state aviation authorities aren't helping the frustration of regular passengers by making some bloody silly rules. On all flights out of HKG I believe it is now decreed that only plastic cutlery may be used. However, the wine is still in glass bottles. Could any FAs here comment on whether they would prefer to tackle someone coming at them with a standard eating knife or with a broken bottle?
The cabin crew I spoke to (without getting the flight diverted, thankfully) think this is mad, and look forward to getting the silverware back. They are not helped when catering produces steak, which the plastic knives can't cut, resulting in some pretty pissed off (front-end) passengers.
At HKG the security is no different from what it always was - i.e pretty good and swift as far as I can tell. We all just get to suffer because the US domestic system got the balance wrong.
The cabin crew I spoke to (without getting the flight diverted, thankfully) think this is mad, and look forward to getting the silverware back. They are not helped when catering produces steak, which the plastic knives can't cut, resulting in some pretty pissed off (front-end) passengers.
At HKG the security is no different from what it always was - i.e pretty good and swift as far as I can tell. We all just get to suffer because the US domestic system got the balance wrong.
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 10
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I was going to write a big long bit, but Covenant has just said exactly what I would have said. I agree completely with what he / she says.
A very insightful bit of perspective and opinion
FG
A very insightful bit of perspective and opinion
FG
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 99
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The climate aboard US flights now is 'sit down, shut up and no sudden moves'
"No one will be permitted to stand for the duration of the flight. This includes visits to the lavatory," says a voice over the PA system. "If anyone stands up, the FAA has directed us to divert this flight to Washington's Dulles Airport."
Now buckled into her seat, a women who says she has a bladder complaint asks the stewardess what she should do if she "simply has to go". The answer is not the one she - nor those who have been guzzling coffee for the past two hours - had hoped for: Do not stand up.
Now buckled into her seat, a women who says she has a bladder complaint asks the stewardess what she should do if she "simply has to go". The answer is not the one she - nor those who have been guzzling coffee for the past two hours - had hoped for: Do not stand up.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Philadelphia (UK expat)
Posts: 92
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
malanda
I find it sad. President Bush and his administration has rightly said that they are attacking terrorism on three fronts: financial, diplomatic (or intelligence) and military. Unfortunately, they seem to be forgetting the fourth, and possibly the most important one, and that is in the hearts and minds of the people back home.
The primary objective of terrorism is to strike fear into people - that's why it's called terrorism, oterwise it would simply be called "mass murder" (which it undoubtedly is also). Our only response to it should be to say: "No! You are not going to stop us from going about our business as normal".
Obviously, it is important to get the balance right here. You need to balance the need for heightened security with the need to prevent fear in the population. IMHO, the heavy-handed and extreme reaction in some areas of the new American security regime is simply playing into the hands of the terrorists.
No amount of security measures from any government is going to protect us completely from terrorism; so it is futile to try. It's the law of diminishing returns again. There is some point on the curve of "security measures" versus "safety of the population" that you get your maximum benefit. Those in authority need to think more carefully about where that point is, and maybe withdraw a little in some areas where their actions are simply making people more frightened than they need to be.
Not allowing people to stand up on aeroplanes (if this is truly the current policy) is quite clearly a case in point.
I find it sad. President Bush and his administration has rightly said that they are attacking terrorism on three fronts: financial, diplomatic (or intelligence) and military. Unfortunately, they seem to be forgetting the fourth, and possibly the most important one, and that is in the hearts and minds of the people back home.
The primary objective of terrorism is to strike fear into people - that's why it's called terrorism, oterwise it would simply be called "mass murder" (which it undoubtedly is also). Our only response to it should be to say: "No! You are not going to stop us from going about our business as normal".
Obviously, it is important to get the balance right here. You need to balance the need for heightened security with the need to prevent fear in the population. IMHO, the heavy-handed and extreme reaction in some areas of the new American security regime is simply playing into the hands of the terrorists.
No amount of security measures from any government is going to protect us completely from terrorism; so it is futile to try. It's the law of diminishing returns again. There is some point on the curve of "security measures" versus "safety of the population" that you get your maximum benefit. Those in authority need to think more carefully about where that point is, and maybe withdraw a little in some areas where their actions are simply making people more frightened than they need to be.
Not allowing people to stand up on aeroplanes (if this is truly the current policy) is quite clearly a case in point.
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Bahrain
Posts: 313
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Malanda
I read that BBC article in stunned disbelief. I then hurried to PPrune to add it to this thread when I discovered that you had got there before me.
It is more likely to be "Fools seldom differ"
For some time now I have privately thought that the Americans were a little bit prone to Exageration and over reaction but this completely takes the biscuit.
Presumably they would rather have a little old lady wet the seat than let her go to the toilet.
Covenant
You are so right, the terrorists have won completely.
I read that BBC article in stunned disbelief. I then hurried to PPrune to add it to this thread when I discovered that you had got there before me.
It is more likely to be "Fools seldom differ"
For some time now I have privately thought that the Americans were a little bit prone to Exageration and over reaction but this completely takes the biscuit.
Presumably they would rather have a little old lady wet the seat than let her go to the toilet.
Covenant
You are so right, the terrorists have won completely.
Join Date: May 2000
Location: New York
Posts: 510
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Baloney. Do some critical thinking people instead of believing everything journalists write about aviation. From my experience, ANYTHING said by the media concerning aviation is about 30% somewhat accurate and the rest just plain B.S.
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Currently Dubai
Posts: 173
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Maybe (just maybe) this "no stand up" was some kind of increased security for the first flight back into Reagan airport (the last to re-open and the closest to Pentagon).... That is (maybe) it was just for the one flight the journos happened to be on. I have flown (on AA) five times since Sep 11 and there has never been such an announcement. Not only were we allowed to stand to get to the lav, we could even wait in line for one to become available - just like before.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Jakarta
Age: 71
Posts: 176
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Covenant et al.... Perhaps the guy in the original thread should have mentioned simply that the door was open. That might have cued the CA into following KAC procedures and keep the cockpit door closed and LOCKED at all times while pax are on board.
This person may, indeed, have just been making a statement of fact " Oh, golly, the cockpit door's open, I could hijack the captain now!", but I'm glad this young lady had the presence of mind to bring it up to the Captain (even if she couldn't read this guy's comments as 'helpful')
BTW, chaps, what does "IMHO" mean????? & remember, there are no silly questions!!!
This person may, indeed, have just been making a statement of fact " Oh, golly, the cockpit door's open, I could hijack the captain now!", but I'm glad this young lady had the presence of mind to bring it up to the Captain (even if she couldn't read this guy's comments as 'helpful')
BTW, chaps, what does "IMHO" mean????? & remember, there are no silly questions!!!
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Currently Dubai
Posts: 173
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi KATO - at least I can attempt to be helpful without fear of being flamed (or maybe not!)
Anyway IMHO stands for In My Humble Opinion (at least where I come from
)
[ 13 October 2001: Message edited by: sanjosebaz ]
Anyway IMHO stands for In My Humble Opinion (at least where I come from
)[ 13 October 2001: Message edited by: sanjosebaz ]
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Florida
Posts: 93
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
>Max Contuinuous
What a patronising piece of twoddle its scary that people like you are up front
<
Too bad he's spot-on, I'm afraid that simply wishing for a different behavior by the paying customer is not going to cut it.
Right now the supply is up and the demand is down and about to go lower with responses like yours. Surely the customer service advocates will adjust to the customer in the long run. There's no sense in either side of this argument blaming it on the recent events and necessary security response. The fact remains that customers will still excercise discretion in choosing.
What a patronising piece of twoddle its scary that people like you are up front
<
Too bad he's spot-on, I'm afraid that simply wishing for a different behavior by the paying customer is not going to cut it.
Right now the supply is up and the demand is down and about to go lower with responses like yours. Surely the customer service advocates will adjust to the customer in the long run. There's no sense in either side of this argument blaming it on the recent events and necessary security response. The fact remains that customers will still excercise discretion in choosing.
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Currently Dubai
Posts: 173
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It seems that the "no stand up" situation is limited to Reagan airport, as suspected (see a few posts back). Apparently, no standing will be allowed within 30 minutes of landing at Reagan National, and the flight described above was a short hop from New York, so no standing allowed was allowed at all.
Not saying I agree with this policy - it does appear a little over the top, but there you have it.
Not saying I agree with this policy - it does appear a little over the top, but there you have it.
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Brussels
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As far as I understand, you're all talking about the situation in the USA. What about this: My dad took a flight from Brussels to Nice a few days after WTC. Before preparing his luggage, he called me to find out what he could (not) put in his hand luggage. I told him to not bring handluggage, just his wallet and passport. When he went through the security check at BRU airport, he was surprised that handluggage wasn't checked, neither at the first (x-ray)check nor at the gate. His surprise was even bigger when the FA's came round with their DF trolley: It was no problem to buy swiss knifes etc.on board!!! He thought security would be tighter in France, but it was even worse! Apparantly, only pax on flights to and from the USA are being checked.
My point: If we want aviation to be safer for both pax and crew, ALL flights should be treated equal. Only then we can try to prevent another disaster like 11/9.
My point: If we want aviation to be safer for both pax and crew, ALL flights should be treated equal. Only then we can try to prevent another disaster like 11/9.
