Hijackin Of Aircraft

Aircraft hijacking (also known as skyjacking and sky controlling ) is the unlawful seizure of an aircraft by an individual or a group. In most
cases, the pilot is forced to fly
according to the orders of the
hijackers. Occasionally, however, the
hijackers have flown the aircraft
themselves. In at least one case, a plane was hijacked by the official pilot. Unlike the typical hijackings of land
vehicles or ships, skyjacking usually is
not committed for robbery or theft.
Most aircraft hijackers intend to use
the passengers as hostages, either for monetary ransom or for some political
or administrative concession by
authorities. Motives vary from
demanding the release of certain inmates (notably IC-814) to highlighting the grievances of a
particular community (notably AF 8969). Hijackers also have used aircraft as a weapon to target
particular locations (notably September 11, 2001 attacks ). Hijackings for hostages commonly
produce an armed standoff during a
period of negotiation between
hijackers and authorities, followed by
some form of settlement. Settlements
do not always meet the hijackers' original demands. If the hijackers'
demands are deemed too great and
the perpetrators show no inclination
to surrender, authorities sometimes
employ armed special forces to attempt a rescue of the hostages
(notably Operation Entebbe). History Further information: List of notable aircraft hijackings 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. Between 1948 and 1957 there were
15 hijackings worldwide, an average
of a little more than one per annum.
Between 1958 and 1967, this climbed
to 48— an annual average of about five. The number grew to 38 in 1968 and
82 in 1969, the largest number in a
single year in the history of civil
aviation; in January 1969 alone, eight airlines were hijacked to Cuba. During the third 10-year period
between 1968 and 1977 there were
414 hijackings, an average of 41 a
year. The Nixon Administration in 1973 ordered the discontinuance by the CIA
of the use of hijacking as a covert
action weapon against the Castro
regime. The Cuban intelligence
followed suit. That year, the two
countries reached an agreement for the prosecution or return of the
hijackers and the aircraft to each
other's country. The Taiwanese
intelligence also followed the CIA's
example-vis- а-vis China. These measures plus the improvement
in Israel's relations with Egypt and
Jordan, the renunciation of terrorism
by the Palestine Liberation
Organisation, the on-going peace talks
between the PLO and Israel, the collapse of the communist states in
East Europe, which reduced the scope
for sanctuaries for terrorists, and the
more cautious attitude of countries
such as Libya and Syria after the U.S.
declared them State-sponsors of international terrorism, the collapse of
ideological terrorist groups such as
the Red Army Faction and the
tightening of civil aviation security
measures by all countries have
arrested and reversed the steep upward movement of hijackings. However, the situation has not
returned to the pre-1968 level and the
number of successful hijackings
continues to be high - an average of
18 per annum during the 10-year
period between 1988 and 1997, as against the pre-1968 average of five. On September 11, 2001, 19 al-
Qaedan-affiliated Islamists hijacked American Airlines Flight 11 , United Airlines Flight 175 , American Airlines Flight 77, and United Airlines Flight 93 and crashed them into the Twin
Towers of the World Trade Center, the southwestern side of the Pentagon building, and Stonycreek Township near Shanksville, Pennsylvania in a terrorist attack. 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.This led
to an escalation of attacks. First a few
planes were hijacked and blown up
on the ground, then hijackers began
killing a few passengers to make a
"political statement" this escalation continued until reaching the ultimate escalation on September 11, 2001.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 crew members,
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 flight attendants, passengers
and hijackers while likely heading to
the White House or the United States Capitol, crew members and 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 and crew member
resistance occurred when passengers
and flight attendants 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. 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.On 9/11, the hijacker-pilot of Flight 11, Mohamed Atta , mistakenly transmitted announcements to ATC , meaning to go through the Boeing 767. Also, Amy Sweeney and Betty Ong called the American Airlines office, telling the workers that Flight 11 was hijacked. 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. 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. Only in Israel is decompression used on all luggage to
check for pressure sensor detonators[citation needed]. Along with the FAA, the FBI also monitors terror suspects. Any person who is a
threat to civil aviation is banned from flying[citation needed]. 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, U.S.
fighter pilots have been trained to
shoot down hijacked commercial
airliners should it become necessary. Other countries such as India, Poland, and Russia have enacted laws or decrees that allow the shooting down of hijacked planes.Polish Constitutional Court however, in
September 2008, decided that the
regulations were unconstitutional and dismissed them. India In August 2005, India revealed its new anti-hijacking policy. [9] The policy came into force after the cabinet
committee on security (CCS) approved
it. The main points of the policy are Any attempt to hijack will be
considered an act of aggression
against the country and will prompt
a response fit for an aggressor. Hijackers, if captured, will be
sentenced to death. Hijackers will be engaged in
negotiations only to bring the
incident to an end, to comfort
passengers and to prevent loss of
lives. The plane will be shot down if it is
deemed to become a missile
heading for strategic targets. The plane will be escorted by
fighters and will be forced to land. A grounded plane will not be
allowed to take off under any
circumstance. The list of strategic targets is prepared
by the Bureau of Civil Aviation in India.
The decision to shoot down a plane is
taken by CCS. However, due to the
shortage of time, whoever – the prime minister, the defense minister or the
home minister – can be reached first will take the call. In situations in which
an aircraft becomes a threat while
taking off – which gives very little reaction time – a decision on shooting it down may be taken by an Indian Air
Force officer not below the rank of
Assistant Chief of Air Staff (Operations). Germany In January 2005 a federal law came
into force in Germany – the Luftsicherheitsgesetz – that allowed "direct action by armed force" against
a hijacked aircraft to prevent a 9/11-
type attack. However, in February
2006 the Federal Constitutional Court of Germany struck down these provisions of the law, stating 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. 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., or The President of Germany, Horst Köhler , himself urged judicial review of the constitutionality of the
Luftsicherheitsgesetz after he signed it
into law in 2005. International law issues Tokyo Convention The Convention on Offences and Certain Other Acts Committed on Board
Aircraft ("Tokyo Convention") is a multilateral convention, done at Tokyo
between 20 August and 14 September
1963, coming into force on 4
December 1963, and is applicable to
offences against penal law and to any
acts jeopardising the safety of persons or property on board civilian aircraft
while in-flight and engaged in
international air navigation. The convention, for the first time in the
history of international aviation law,
recognises certain powers and
immunities of the aircraft commander who on international flights may
restrain any person(s) he has
reasonable cause to believe is
committing or is about to commit an
offence liable to interfere with the
safety of persons or property on board or who is jeopardising good
order and discipline. 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.Montreal Convention See the United Nations website for full
text on "Convention for the
Suppression of Unlawful Acts Against
the Safety of Civil Aviation".