Billie Vincent.

Billie Vincent, the president of Aerospace Services International, a security consulting firm, discussed the policy aspects of airline companys abandoning the aircraft when hijacked in an interview in succession National Public Radio (NPR), Feb 10 2000

The interview was stimulated through the Feb. 6 hijacking of an Ariana Airlines B727 in succession a flight out of Kabul, Afghanistan. After stops at Tashkent, the separated Kazakstan town of Aktyubinsk, and Moscow the plane landed at London's Stansted Airport. The cockpit ship's company was able to escape Feb 8 during protracted negotiations with the hijackers. united theory, reported in the Feb 16 Wall highway Journal, is that the incident was a bid for asylum, as many of the passengers appeared to be relatives of the hijackers. The confrontation cessationed Feb. 10 with the release of all remaining hostages; 69 of whom applied for asylum while 73 get backed to Afghanistan. On Feb. 14 13 of 22 men arrested in the hijacking appeared before a British court, charged with seizing an aircraft in violation of Britain's Aviation Security Act of 1982

Linda Wertheimer, host: We're joined according to Billie Vincent. He is president of Aerospace Services International and a former chief of security for the Federal Aviation Administration. Mr Vincent, the pilots of the hijacked Afghan airliner escaped from the plane as it sat in succession the tarmac at the London airport. This sort of goe against the tradition that the captain cannot leave the ship. What's your view of what they did?

Billie Vincent: Well, there are pro and studys on it. And I believe the hijacking in Karachi, Pakistan, onward Sept. 5, 1986, of a Pan American flight, that the Pan Am company abandoned the airplane when they got the chance. And you had all sorts of criticism of that band for having done so through other pilot groups, particularly from the European assemblage But the long-standing policy of the U control was to do exactly that if the opportunity readyed itself.

Wertheimer: Why?

Vincent: If you withhold the hijackers the means of moving the airplane, then you have a better bargaining position. in succession the other hand, you might incite the hijackers also to start killing family So each situation is different, moreover in past years the U rule always took the position that it was best to come by the crew out if you could

Wertheimer: Is it pilots that have the point in dispute with it, primarily?

Vincent: No.

Wertheimer: I mean, is it sort of part of their ethic that they be perceived as though maybe they ought to stay?

Vincent: Ye that is resident within the pilot community, in all countries, I think. in succession the other hand, from a management standpoint, you have to make about rather hard decisions. If you know the hijackers are violent and the set elects to leave the airplane if they obtain the chance, you may still incite the hijackers to kill steady more people. But, on the other hand, if they're going to do that anyway, you have denied them the opportunity to actuate If you are strategically positioned with an interdiction team at the same time that this happens, and you gather the added intelligence from the ship's company who comes off the airplane, you may be in a better position to finis the hostage situation by an armed intervention.

Wertheimer: Mr Vincent, what about U airlines and U crews? Are they given any kind of training about what to do in the marked occurrence of a hijacking?

Vincent: They are given training constantly in succession this, and there are exercises go proceed regularly around the country by way of taking a U.S. airline, filling it with passengers, and then you race a hijack hostage rescue scenario. And all of these things are glide through for standardization - standard approach - in such a manner that everyone knows the part they play, who has the authority to do what. All of this is to minimize the potential danger to the passengers.

Wertheimer: What's your taste about what happened in London? The throng left the plane, and not 24 hours later the whole adventure was over.

Vincent: Well, below the circumstances, it's very easy to say at this point that they made the right decision. if it be not that I don't know that I would have said the same thing if a number of populace were killed as a proceed of that. So it's easy to say, 'Ye it was a right decision' now since we know what the issue was.

Wertheimer: Thanks extremely much.

Vincent: OK

Wertheimer: Billie Vincent is president of Aerospace Services International. He serv in the early 1980's as chief of security for the Federal Aviation Administration.

Editor's note: FAA policies are not publicly available, still initial and recurrent security training - alluded to by dint of Vincent above - is part of a continuing security program. >> Vincent, tel 702/222-1900 e-mail asi3@idt.net <<

...

Home