The flight crew of the Afghani airliner which was hijacked bailed out of their plane, abandoning ship, and abandoning their duties, as I see it.
What do y’all think of their actions? Please remember the heroic stance of the French aircrew in the Entebbe incident in considering your response.
It’s an interesting question. Do flight crews recieve training on what to do in situations like this? WAG: Maybe they’re told to escape in order to keep the plane in one place.
Although it does seem that they should have a duty to stay with the craft, like a ships captain.
The major urge in life is to stay alive. It may sound callous, but would you perhaps die for a group of strangers? It would be differant were the hostages family or friends. The crew apparently knew the hijackers were serious. Could they really do anything to help?
The crew were Afghanis if I’m not mistaken. It’s difficult to apply Western standards of duty and obligation to people raised in a different culture. Good luck finding out what the Afghan regulations and policies are for such an eventuality. Those would be the only ones that apply in this case since it was originally a domestic flight.
Sorry, when I board a commercial airliner I don’t expect the flight crew to offer themselves up as hostages or human shields. The only things I insist on are a safe takeoff, passable snacks, and a safe landing–and the safe return of my luggage.
On the other hand, I would ask that the morons who performed the airport security checks at departure be exchanged for the passengers as hostages. Either that, or let the freed passengers kick their asses at their convenience.
“It’s only common sense,
There are no accidents 'round here.”
I don’t really know what’s expected. On one hand, the captain and crew, I would hope, are charged with respnsibility for the welfare of the passengers, so taking leave of the situation mid-crisis does appear to be abandoning one’s responsibilities. OTOH, in a location hopping multi-day excursion, could you not argue that removing the possibility of continued flight might hasten the conclusion of the ordeal?
In the case at hand (I haven’t seen anything new in about 15 hours) it appears there might have been some collusion between hijackers and hostages that may make this particular incident a poor one from which to draw standards.
I THINK that the pilots are supposed to escape if possible. For the sole reason that the plane is then grounded.
As for the flight crew…
If you were in a Wendys and a bunch of people came in with guns, would you expect the burger flippers to stay and protect you, or to worry about their own lives?
I think the ship example comes from how dangerous it was to sail way back in the day. Every time a ship set sail they had the expectation of facing life threatening situations. Correct me if I’m wrong, but I think the crews on old ships were subject to an almost military style living. These guys had to follow orders and be relied on in tough situations all the time.
Compare this to today’s airline stewards (waiters). These people have nothing to add to a situation where hijackers take over the plane.
As mentioned in the posts above, the escape of the flight crew was what prompted the hijacking to end. Basically, once the crew left and the plane was effectively grounded, and the hijackers lost all their chips in negotiations…
I agree. Without a flight crew the hijackers might kill all the hostages, but they still can’t get off the ground. It ceases to be a hijacking and becomes a (slightly) more routine hostage situation.
Loosely quoted from NPR yesterday:
Aircrews are trained in how to deal with hostage situations with mock passengers.
The crew escaping denies the hijackers a means to move the aircraft. This can help the situation, especially if a HRT is in place or it can possibly incite the hijackers to kill hostages.
Side questions: Is the aircraft in ‘operation’ during the hijacking and if not, is the crew required to do anything ? If there is no crew on board (i.e. while normal boarding) who is responsible for the safety of the passengers. Maybe there is always a flight crew member present but I haven’t noticed it. Does the FAA consider planeing/deplaneing operation of the aircraft which requires a pilot present ?
Let’s see:
(1) The Senior Pilot onboard the aircraft is the Aircraft Commander, and as such, is responsible for the welfare and safety of his crew and passengers until the aircraft’s mission is complete.
(2) The hostages merely had to start killing people (those not of their family onboard the flight in question) to get the authorities to provide another flight crew. It has happened in the past that flight crews have been rotated during a hijacking.
(3) Russia is catching grief right now for their ground crew not attempting to disable the aircraft there.
As a passenger, I personally expect the pilot of the plane to get my tush where he’s obligated to get it–to the destination safely.
I have no idea about the training, cultural biases, or other factors which caused this flight crew to behave this way.
What I can do is cite (from memory - details may be fuzzy) the heroic actions of 1 flight attendant in a previous hijacking.
She, I believe, was a German attendant aboard a plane bound from Europe to the US, which was hijacked to Tripoli. The hijackers selected a passenger, an American soldier in uniform and shot him & threw his lifeless body out onto the tarmac.
She was ordered by the hijackers to collect all of the passports from the passengers. Because of the murder already committed, she managed to hide many American (and possibly Israeli) passports, particularly those with Jewish surnames, before giving the rest to the terrorists.
She was credited with preventing additional loss of life. She took a not inconsequential risk to do so. She is rightly recognized as a hero.
As hijackings go, this one was pretty tame. It appears that all the hijackers really wanted was to get the hell out of Afghanistan. A significant number of hijacked passengers are applying for asylum. There is, apparently, even some consideration in Britain being given to showing leniency towards the hijackers.
Here’s a link suggesting the line between perp & victim is more than a little bit hazy:http://www.pathfinder.com/time/daily/0,2960,39091-101000211,00.html
Sue from El Paso
Siamese Attack Puppet - Texas
Experience is what you get when you didn’t get what you wanted.
Sorry - that link didn’t come out right:
http://www.pathfinder.com/time/daily/0,2960,39091-101000211,00.html
The Seabee’s name was Richard Stethem and we honored him on almost a daily basis while I served in the Navy. The stewardess certainly is a hero, and deserves whatever honors we can give her and/or her family.
Maybe we shouldn’t judge other cultures by our standards, but we have to have some standard. It seems to me that anyone who is willing to take the responsibilty that they have claimed is theirs (by, say, assuming the captainship of an aircraft) should be strong enough to maintain that their responsibility is their responsibility. They should be strong enough to accept that the safety of their passengers is their primary responsibility.
Maybe it is better (tactically) for the air crew of a flight to escape these kinds of situations, I think that is a possibility. But if that is not the case, we shouldn’t judge these people by some other form of morality that is completely foreign to us, they are every bit as much a part of this world as we are and whatever ethical statements they make by their actions reflects on each of us.
I realize that I say “us” and “we” a lot in the above statement, I use these terms realizing that this is primarily a US web board, with US participants. However, I doubt that many of the users of this web board are completely ignorant of the concept that if they are the “Captain” of a vessel, that means they probably shouldn’t take off when things get hairy. Maybe I’m wrong.
Mr. Sleep - I agree with most of what you posted, including the fact that in most hijackings, I do feel the crew has a responsibility towards doing whatever is reasonable to help the passengers & save lives.
My main point was to show that yes, there clearly is precedent for heroism among flight crew members during hijackings.
But this appears to have been not your standard-issue hijacking. Many of the hijackers appear to have had their families along on the flight, and the British authorities are having great trouble sorting out who was in cahoots, and who was along (voluntarily) for the ride, and who if anyone were truly terrified hapless victims.
By any standards, in a low probability of violence situation like this, I can’t really fault the flight crew for extricating themselves & thereby eliminating one means of escalating the crisis.
MajorMD:
You are absolutley right, this is not your standard hijacking. I probably came off as a little sanctimoniuos is my previous post, becuase I take the death of Stethem somewhat personally. I didn’t know him, but like I said, we honored his death on a daily basis, I feel some kinship towards him.
In the case at hand, it is very strange and I look forward to finding out just what happened (if we ever find out). I don’t want to spread wild speculation, but it seems possible that at least some of the hostages were in on the whole deal – it presents a very interesting question, one that I’m glad we American readers can pass off to our English friends. It’s a very sticky situation.
I’m sure we’ll all be following the news to find out what happens. This is a horrible position for the English government to be put in, I don’t envy them at all.
It just occured to me that it is not the English government, but it is the government of the United Kingdom. I have to admit, I’m not really sure what the difference is, but I love them just the same.
“Low probability of violence?!” What?!
The hijackers were armed with weapons, or did you forget to read that portion of the news? Do you think the flight crew could have said, “Gee, nice try, friend; but, you see, we’re not deviating from our flight plan” and then the hijackers would’ve said, “Well, thanks; thought we’d try” and then gone quietly back to their seats? Some, many even, of the passengers may have been in cahoots with the hijackers (although that has not been proven yet) but by no means was that all of the passengers. Nor were the flight crew and cabin crew in cahoots as evidenced by the violence inflicted upon one of the cabin crew. I, for one, don’t really think he was used to jumping out of 2nd or 3rd storey windows, but your perception of his ejection from the plane may be different than mine. I do believe he could have easily died from that height if he “fell wrong.”
By abandoning the aircraft, the aircraft commander (i.e., the senior pilot aka the Captain) thus ensured that no matter what happened on board after his departure he could do absolutely nothing to alleviate the violence inflicted upon individuals for whom he was responsible.
This is from the 1999 Federal Aviation Regulations:
So… I found nothing in my cursory search that requires a pilot to stay with the aircraft when the aircraft is on the ground and the engines have been shut off (i.e., the “operation” of the aircraft is not taking place). If there were such a rule, the aircrew could still evacuate if they determined that in their judgement it will result in a favourable outcome, based on FAR 91.3(b). I’m not a lawyer, but as I read FAR 135.123 the requirement is that the certificate holder (i.e., the holder of the Air Carrier Certificate – the “company”) have an evacuation plan in-place; but it doesn’t specifically say tht the plan must be carried out.
IMO, the action depends on the situation. If the situation can be resolved by abandoning the aircraft, then abandon it. It the situation can be resolved by staying with the aircraft, then stay with it. Tactically, the departure of the aircrew weakened the hijacker’s position in that they no longer had the option of flying away.
Were the crew cowards; or were they taking a logical course of action? Did they say, “If we leave then passengers might be killed; but the hijackers will be stranded.”? “If we leave, maybe it will encourage others to escape.”? “We can do more good from outside than inside.”? “Fuck the passengers. I’m not paid enough for this!”?
In this case, I think they made the right decision because it was a catalyst to end the situation. It might not have worked in different circumstances.
Okay, Johnny; just for the sake of argument/discussion:
Let’s say the flight crew but not the cabin crew abandoned ship just as happened in this case.
Let’s also say the hijackers, instead of just chucking a flight attendant out the door as happened, did the following:
-Opened the cabin door and held a hostage in plain view
-Announced that they would kill one person every 30 minutes until a fresh flight crew reported aboard
-Shot the hostage dead and chucked his carcass onthe tarmac
-Shut the cabin door
Let’s also say this all happened approximately 29 minutes ago.
Now what happens? What do you think of the flight crew for abandoning ship and being the catlyst for this scenario?