Aircraft hijacking
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article or section has multiple issues. Please help improve the article or discuss these issues on the talk page.
|
 |
The examples and perspective in this article or section might have an extensive bias or disproportional coverage towards one or more specific regions. Please improve this article or discuss the issue on the talk page. |
 |
This article or section may be slanted towards recent events. Please try to keep recent events in historical perspective. (May 2009) |
 |
|
|
The examples and perspective in this article may not include all significant viewpoints. Please improve the article or discuss the issue on the talk page. (May 2009) |
Aircraft hijacking (also known as skyjacking and sky jacking) is the unlawful seizure of an aircraft either by an individual or by a group. In most cases, the pilot is forced to fly according to the orders of the hijackers. However, there have been cases where the hijackers have flown the aircraft themselves.
Unlike the hijacking of land vehicles or ships, skyjacking is usually not perpetrated in order to rob the cargo. Most aircraft hijackings are committed to use the passengers as hostages. Motives vary from demanding the release of certain inmates (notably IC-814) to highlighting the grievances of a particular community (notably AF 8969). Other hijackers may hold the hostages for ransom while one hijacking was committed to seek political asylum. Hijacking may also be carried out so as to use the aircraft as a weapon to target a particular location (notably September 11, 2001 attacks).
Most hijackings for hostages result in a series negotiation between the hijackers and the authorities, followed by some form of settlement. However, these settlements do not always meet the hijackers' original demands. If the hijackers show no sign of surrendering, armed special forces may be used by authorities to rescue the hostages (notably Operation Entebbe).
Contents |
[edit] History
The first recorded aircraft hijack took place on February 21, 1931 in Arequipa, Peru. Byron Rickards, flying a Ford Tri-Motor, was approached on the ground by armed revolutionaries. He refused to fly them anywhere and after a ten day stand-off Rickards was informed that the revolution was successful and he could go in return for giving one group member a lift to Lima. [1] However, most hijackings have not been so farcical.
[edit] Dealing with hijackings
Before the September 11, 2001 attacks, pilots and flight attendants were trained to adopt the "Common Strategy" tactic, which was approved by the FAA. It taught crew members to comply with the hijackers demands, get the plane to land safely and then let the security forces handle the situation. Crew members advised passengers to sit quietly in order to increase their chances of survival. They were also trained not to make any 'heroic' moves that could endanger themselves or other people. The FAA realized that the longer a hijacking persisted, the more likely it would end peacefully with the hijackers reaching their goal. [2]
September 11 presented a unique situation because it involved suicide hijackers who could fly an aircraft. The "Common Strategy" tactic was not designed to handle suicide hijackings. This resulted in the hijackers exploiting a weakness in the civil aviation security system. Since then the "Common Strategy" policy is no longer used.
Since the September 11th attacks, the situation for passengers and hijackers has changed. As in the case of United Airlines Flight 93, where an airliner crashed into a field during a fight between passengers and hijackers, passengers now have to calculate the risks of passive cooperation, not only for themselves but also for those on the ground. Future hijackers most likely will encounter greater resistance from passengers and flight crews, making a successful hijacking more unlikely. An example of active passenger resistance occurred when passengers of American Airlines Flight 63 from Paris to Miami on December 22, 2001 helped prevent Richard Reid from igniting explosives hidden in his shoe. Flight attendants and pilots now receive extensive anti-hijacking and self-defense training designed to thwart a hijacking.
In one case, the official pilot hijacked the plane, when he diverted his internal Air China flight to Taiwan.[3][4]
[edit] Informing air traffic control
To communicate to air traffic control that an aircraft is being hijacked, a pilot under duress should squawk 7500 or vocally, by radio communication, transmit "(Aircraft callsign); Transponder seven five zero zero." This should be done when possible and safe. An air traffic controller who suspects an aircraft may have been hijacked may ask the pilot to confirm "squawk (or transponder) seven five zero zero." If the aircraft is not being hijacked, the pilot should not squawk 7500 and should inform the controller accordingly. A pilot under duress may also elect to respond that the aircraft is not being hijacked, but then neglect to change to a different squawk code. In this case the controller would make no further requests and immediately inform the appropriate authorities. A complete lack of a response would also be taken to indicate a possible hijacking. Of course, a loss of radio communications may also be the cause for a lack of response, in which case a pilot would usually squawk 7600 anyway.[5]
[edit] Prevention
Cockpit doors on most commercial airlines have been strengthened and are now bullet resistant. In the United Kingdom, United States, Canada, Australia and France, air marshals have also been added to some flights to deter and thwart hijackers. In addition, some have proposed remote control systems for aircraft whereby no one on board would have control over the plane's flight.[6] Airport security plays a major role in preventing hijackers. Screening passengers with metal detectors and luggage with x-ray machines prevents weapons from being taken on to an aircraft. The Israelis alone implement decompression on all luggage to check for pressure sensor detonators. Along with the FAA, the FBI also monitors terror suspects. Any person who is a threat to civil aviation is banned from flying.
In the case of a serious risk that an aircraft will be used for flying into a target, it may have to be shot down. Naturally, this would result in killing all passengers and crew. Although this last step would be taken to prevent more serious consequences, authorities have to carefully consider all aspects before coming to a decision.[citation needed]
[edit] Shooting down aircraft
Several states have stated that they would shoot down hijacked commercial aircraft if it can be assumed that the hijackers intend to use the aircraft in a 9/11-style attack, despite killing innocent passengers onboard. According to reports, US fighter pilots have been training to shoot down hijacked commercial airliners should it become necessary.[1] Other countries such as Poland and India have enacted laws or decrees that allow the shooting down of hijacked planes. [7]
[edit] Germany
In a widely regarded decision by the Federal Constitutional Court of Germany, in February 2006, it struck down a law - "Luftsicherheitsgesetz" or "Air security law" - claiming such preventive measures were unconstitutional and would essentially be state-sponsored murder, even if such an act would save many more lives on the ground. The main reasoning behind this decision was that the state would effectively be taking the lives of innocent hostages in order to avoid a terrorist attack[8]. The Court also ruled that the Minister of Defense is constitutionally not entitled to act in terrorism matters, as this is the duty of the state and federal police forces. See the German Wikipedia entry, or [2]
The President of Germany, Horst Köhler, himself urged judicial review of the constitutionality of the Luftsicherheitsgesetz after he signed it into law in 2005.
[edit] International law issues
[edit] Tokyo Convention
See the United Nations website for full text on "Convention on Offences and Certain Other Acts Committed on Board Aircraft".
[edit] Hague Convention
Signed at The Hague on 16 December 1970, the Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Seizure of Aircraft contains 14 articles relating to what constitutes hijacking as well as guidelines for what is expected of governments when dealing with hijackings. The convention does not apply to customs, law enforcement or military aircraft, thus its scope appears to exclusively encompass civilian aircraft. Importantly, the convention only comes into force if the aircraft takes off or lands in a place different than its country of registration. For aircraft with joint registration, one country is designated as the registration state for the purpose of the convention.
See the United Nations website for full text. [3]
[edit] Montreal Convention
See the United Nations website for full text on "Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts Against the Safety of Civil Aviation". [4]
[edit] See also
- Airport security
- List of notable aircraft hijackings
- List of Cuba-US aircraft hijackings
- List of hijacking of Indian aeroplanes
- D. B. Cooper
- CATSA
- Terrorism
[edit] External links
[edit] References
- ^ An amusing footnote to this hijacking is that 30 years later the same pilot was again the victim of a failed hijacking attempt. A father and son boarded his Continental Airlines Boeing 707 in El Paso and tried to force him at gunpoint to fly the plane to Cuba hoping for a cash reward from Fidel Castro. FBI agents and police chased the plane down the runway and shot out its tires which averted the hijacking. See http://www.airdisaster.com/features/hijack/hijack.shtml
- ^ http://govinfo.library.unt.edu/911/report/911Report_Ch3.htm
- ^ "Air China pilot hijacks his own jet to Taiwan". CNN. 1998-10-28. http://www.cnn.com/WORLD/asiapcf/9810/28/hijack.china.taiwan.02/index.html. Retrieved on 2007-01-25.[dead link]
- ^ B. Raman (2000-01-02). "PLANE HIJACKING: IN PERSPECTIVE". South Asia Analysis Group. http://www.southasiaanalysis.org/%5Cpapers2%5Cpaper103.html. Retrieved on 2007-01-25.
- ^ Aeronautical Information Manual, paragraph 6-3-4, "Special Emergency (Air Piracy)", Federal Aviation Administration, 1999
- ^ EC FP6 SAFEE: Safe Automatic Flight Back and Landing of Aircraft
- ^ http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4172487.stm
- ^ English translation of the judgement by the court
