Talk:Aircraft hijacking

Non-Islamic hijackings?

Have there really not been any non-islamic hi-jackers since 1968? jimfbleak 12:39 6 Jun 2003 (UTC)

There have been all those Cuban asylum seekers. Rmhermen 13:58 6 Jun 2003 (UTC)

The key word is 'significant' at the top of the list, major and firsts only, a 'quiet' and successful Cuban hijack isn't significant. ²¹² 14:11 6 Jun 2003 (UTC)

there was one in Melbourne last week. Tannin

Certainly the first Cuban hijacking then at least. Anyone know when it was? Rmhermen 14:45 6 Jun 2003 (UTC) --answered my own question

There were 558 attempted hijackings between 1930 and 1978 (317 successful, 47 incomplete, 195 unsuccessful). Refer to Civil Aviation Security Service, Worldwide Reported Hijacking Attempts - Summarization, as of January 1, 1979. And to Civil Aviation Security Service, Domestic and Foreign Aircraft Hijackings, as of January 1, 1979.

Between 1949 and 1979 there were 69 incidents (non-ICAO usage of this word) involving explosions on board aircraft causing 1098 deaths (35 aircraft types, 42 carriers). Five were at sea, 64 occurred in 31 different countries. See Civil Aviation Security Service, Explosions Aboard Aircraft, as of January 1, 1979.

In 1978 alone: 71 criminal acts involving civil aviation worldwide (81 deaths and 147 injuries). 31 (44%) were hijackings; 16 (22%) were explosions at airports, on aircraft, at airline offices; 9 (13%) included live or hoax explosive devices discovered at airports and at airline offices; 3 (4%) involved terrorist attacks; 12 (17%) other incidents and acts against aircraft and aviation facilities including sabotage. See Civil Aviation Security Service, Significant Worldwide Criminal Acts Involving Civil Aviation, January-December 1978.

Is anyone prepared to categorise the above as accords their association with "Islam" -v- "non-Islamic"-motives, including gathering and categorising data post-1979, before making claims about the nature of post-1968 acts of air piracy and other offences committed on board aircraft (noting the relevant clauses regarding 'political nature' in the legislation)? (Weirpwoer (talk) 11:00, 15 November 2009 (UTC))

---

Was the Lockerbie flight hijacked? I thought it was just blown up. Rmhermen 13:58 6 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Agreed. I'll cut it out. ²¹² 14:11 6 Jun 2003 (UTC)

International law issues

This article simple lacks internal law issues. -- Toytoy 04:49, Jan 5, 2005 (UTC)

See under newly-created Tokyo Convention page for a stab at this broad topic. (Weirpwoer (talk) 11:08, 15 November 2009 (UTC))

Miss Macao

Numerous web sources give the date for the Miss Macao hijack as June 16th (or possibly 15th). Only one independant source has July 16.

see June 16, june 16 june 16

compare with July 16

I'll change the article.

Zeimusu | (Talk page) 15:23, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

Go to this website: http://www.waterfrontair.com/history.htm

At 5.30pm on July 16, 1948, Catalina VR-HDT - piloted by American Dale Cramer, 27, known as a gifted softball player, with Sydney-born Ken McDuff, 23, as first officer and Delca da Costa, 22, as hostess, left Hong Kong for the final time.

you can contact me at mollidew@yahoo.com

Dale Cramer was my Uncle. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Trepessa (talk • contribs) 19:31, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Are attempted hijackings supposed to be included in the list?

The mention of the 1970 attempted hijacking by Refuseniks in USSR seems a bit out of place if we consider that no other attempted hijacking is included. If not, I'll just remove that part, I already removed the political commentary on it but I am thinking of removing the attempted hijacking as a whole. Any thoughts? Jewnited (talk) 16:32, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Neutrality

"Opponents proposed that shooting down the aircraft and killing everyone onboard would be more reasonable than a pilot firing a pistol in an airliner at a flight deck intruder."

Is there a source for this statement? It looks like it was designed to ridicule opponents of armed pilots. PK9 22:35, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

It was meant to ridicule, as the argument is pure logic, and does not need a source, IMO. the fact that there were opponents to armed pilots here in the USA proves the point. Either you have an aircraft shot down when it is hijacked, or you have a crewmember who can shoot at a hijacker. If you get hijacked, you're getting shot down and everyone dies. If you have an armed flight deck, a federal air marshall, FBI agent, Secret service, or any other special person allowed to carry a pistol on a commercial aircraft, there is some chance everyone onboard will not be killed. If the fight goes bad, everyone dies. same result. --Kvuo 04:31, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Movies

Can we have a list of movies relating to of revolving around. --unsigned.

• Support: Yes, in a section under popular culture like other significant topics. --lTopGunl (talk) 11:40, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

First Hijacking in Civil Aviation

The article seems to contradict itself listing the 1954 Israeli hijacking as the first act in civil aviation when the Background paragraph preceeding it states this was actually the Miss Macau incident? It's also a little out of context when most think of hijackings as having a hijacker on a plane, not military or other jets forcing another to land in order to take control. I wonder if this incident should be removed all together or at least more details supplied to make more clear what happend? I also should be modified to state the hostages were held for 2 days, not just "days" (this could mean any length of time really). Your thoughts? Macutty 19:29, 7 September 2006 (UTC)macutty

Made a couple edits, take a look...I think their a little more clear and accurate now.

Flags

Updated some flags to represent counrties of origin for the Hijackers rather than the home countries of the respective airlines (does it really matter what country the plane was from?). Working on identifying remaining countries for those not listed. Macutty 17:23, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

List of hijackings?

Air Highjacking is almost always suicidel to people on board.

Have there been any U.S. hijackings since 9/11? Could Wikipedia share a list of them?

Thank you, TulsaDavid 9/29/2006

Cubana 1976

Seems like we missed the Cubana hijacking http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cubana_Flight_455

Also note the comments: "In September of 2005, a US immigration judge ruled that Posada should not be deported to either Cuba or Venezuela because he could be subject to torture"

Cubana 455 was a bomb not a hijacking.--Zleitzen 03:03, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

7500

Can anyone confirm what is claimed at 7500, that this is some kind of special hijacking code. Thanks. Not a dog 04:22, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

See my reply on Talk:7500. I removed your tag. -- AirOdyssey (Talk) 04:29, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

This is cited at Transponder (aviation), along with (7600 = loss of radio comms & 7700 = general mayday) Oktal (talk) 03:37, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Please remove the specific code mentioned for security reasons. Crews may need to set this code in secret. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.43.155.250 (talk) 17:14, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Pan Am 1931 Hijacking, Arequipa Peru

The aircraft involved was a Fokker F.7 Trimotor, not a Ford Trimotor. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 12.145.174.220 (talk) 14:32, 4 January 2007 (UTC).

Questionable 1954 Hijacking

The article includes the following paragraph:

The first state-hijacking of an airplane is Israel's hijacking of a Syrian airways civilian jet in 1954, with the intent "to get hostages in order to obtain the release of our prisoners in Damascus," who had been captured spying in Syria (Prime Minister Moshe Sharett). Sharett accepted the "factual affirmation of the US State Department that our action was without precedent in the history of international practice."

This text is taken virtually verbatim from Noam Chomsky's website, International Terrorism: Image and Reality, by Noam Chomsky, which reads:

The first airplane hijacking in the Middle East also falls outside the canon: Israel's hijacking of a Syrian airways civilian jet in 1954, with the intent "to get hostages in order to obtain the release of our prisoners in Damascus," who had been captured on a spy mission in Syria (Prime Minister Moshe Sharett). Sharett accepted the "factual affirmation of the US State Department that our action was without precedent in the history of international practice."

However, in two hours of searching on the Internet I have been unable to find a single other source verifying this claim, and only this entry which repeats it. Chomsky's footnote of that paragraph, which also makes other claims, references a book of his, "Pirates and Emperors," and a 1989 newspaper article that I will try to find at the University library.

In the meantime, I think a {{fact}} tag is in order. --Eliyahu S ^Talk 23:32, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

With the contributions of the anonymous Navy user at 205.68.95.65, and my own additions, there is no more dispute about the facts here. Accordingly, I've removed the {{fact}} tag.

I do think, though, that the whole section, an overblown story from a typical piece of Chomskyian Israeli-bashing, could just as well be removed. Should other editors choose to remove it, though, I request that they post a copy of the text here in the Talk section for future reference. Thanks. --Eliyahu S ^Talk 17:47, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

The rebuttal of Chomsky's argument appears to me to be an unpublished synthesis; I have tagged it as such. Dricherby 14:57, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I removed this bit: "The first state hijacking of an airplane may have been Israel's hijacking of a Syrian government aircraft although this characterization and the details surrounding the incident are still disputed." Only source is Noam Chomsky, and if this would be a true event there should be a more trustworthy source somewhere.Dassiebtekreuz (talk) 23:09, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Some publications alleging this incident have referenced it with "New York Times, December 13, 1954", which should be verifiable by someone with access to the NYT archives. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.56.99.175 (talk) 13:48, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Upon further research totally confirming Chomsky, I request inclusion of the following paragraph:

"The first state hijacking of a civilian airplane may have been Israel's hijacking of a Syrian Airways Dakota on December 12, 1954, by Israeli war planes shortly after its takeoff, forced to land at Lydda airport. Passengers and crew were detained and interrogated for two days, until international protests forced the Israelis to release them. The hijacking was devised as a plan to force the Syrian government to release five Israeli soldiers apprehended the day before while installing wiretaps on the Syrian telephone network."

with references to The New York Times, December 13, 1954, p. 7 http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=9D05E3DA123DE23BBC4B52DFB467838F649EDE# and Livia Rokach, Israel's Sacred Terrorism, which quotes a diary entry by Israel's then Foreign Minister Moshe Sharett as follows: "I have no reason to doubt the truth of the factual affirmation of the U.S. State Department that our action was without precedent in the history of international practice. (22 December 1954, 607)" https://msuweb.montclair.edu/~furrg/essays/rokach.html#CHAPTER%206%20%20Sacred%20Terrorism — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.56.99.175 (talk) 15:27, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

References

That is not how the incident is portrayed in the book, "Violence in the Skies: A History of Aircraft Hijacking", by Philip Baum (pgs. 36-37), which, while citing both Moshe Sharrett's diary entry and Noam Chomsky's claim, states the following:

On 12 December 1954, two days after five Israeli soldiers had been captured in Syria, a Syrian DC-3 bound for Cairo strayed into Israeli airspace, was intercepted by Mustang fighter jets from the Israeli air force and forced to land at Lod Airport near Tel Aviv. In what was to all intents and purposes a war zone, any government could justify taking action against civilian airliners entering its airspace; however, the subsequent action taken by Israel was, and continues to be, utilised as a political weapon to this day".

The author then goes on to further describe the details of the incident in a critical manner, but rejects Chomsky's characterization of it as "the first airplane hijacking in the Middle East", writing:

"This statement is far fetched; a naive error of judgement it may have been, calculated terrorist attack it was not."

Jacob D (talk) 21:04, 3 September 2019 (UTC)Jacob D

First Hijacking

According to this artivle [1], the first Aircraft hijacking happend in 1919 by Hungarian nobleman Ferenc Nopcsa, who forced the pilot with his gun to land in Wiener Neustadt, Austria. The second by the former Hungarian king Charles IV upon his attempt in returning to the trone of Hungary in 1921.

The article in question, in Magyar, does not contain the text "1919" or "Wiener" or "Neustadt", which causes me to doubt the claim. Even with the very poor translation of InterTran I can see that there is no talk of hijacking there. --Eliyahu S ^Talk 19:53, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

You can deduct 1919 from the fact that he hijacked the airplane right after the [Tanácsköztársaság] started. "Bécsújhely" is the Hungarian name of Wiener Neustadt ( just as Vienna is "Bécs" in Hungarian ), "repülőgép-eltérítő" is hijacker. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mermik (talk • contribs) 20:19, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

The article is confused. It says the first hijacking was in 1931 but then says that one occurred in 1929. Surely we need to decide whether this did actually occur and put this in as fact or not. Also "Note:" is surely not commensurate with Wikipedia style guide! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pfbray (talk • contribs) 02:09, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Homophones

The alleged directive by LAX to passengers to say "Hello, Jack" instead of "Hi, Jack" sounds extremely suspicious. Can we find a citable source for this? Grayston 21:30, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Airliner Hijacking List

Moved list here. Lists included in articles are not necessary, OR moved as a separate article. For those with separate articles, check if they're included in Category:Airliner_hijackings. KyuuA4 23:53, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

---

List of well-known hijackings

(Moved list to list of notable aircraft hijackings)--Lendorien (talk) 18:08, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

---

Why not create an article List of notable hijackings? It seems a waste to just get rid of the information. --snowolfD4 ^{( talk / @ )} 00:16, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

1980's Airline Hijack "Fight Back" Movie

I'm curious if anyone recalls a made-for-TV in the 1980s that involved a group of hijackers taking over a plane and then having the passengers fight back and retake the plane. They had the hijackers bound in 1st class and the second half of the movie involved the Captain and one of the flight attendents trying to stop the passengers from holding a vigilante trial. The one thing I remember clearly about the movie was one of the hijackers was a heavy Irish man who said "They'll be no heros on this flight!" when they took over the plane. Such a film as this is impossible to find with a goggle search since United 93 now dominates this very same topic. So, anyone remember the film? -OberRanks (talk) 05:36, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Passenger fightback in the 1960's?

Several years ago I read a book on hijackings published in the mid-late 1970s which had extensive coverage of the "fly me to Cuba" hijackings. One of these incidents involved a teenager armed with two pistols who was tricked into letting go of them by a passenger (Allegedly a coin dealer who used the stock he was carrying as a distraction). He was then jumped by two other passengers who tied him up with their belts. I cannot remember much else about the incident beyond the fact it happened in the late 60's and that the hijacker claimed he was doing it to provoke the US into invading Cuba, but I thought it might be worth tracking down for inclusion.Graham1973 (talk) 02:16, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Massive Amount of Problem Templates

As you will see, I've added many templates. In fact, I've added so many, I'm going to say that there are too many for me to specifically describe the reason behind each one. Why? Because I'm lazy and have less-important (but more fun!) things to do. Most of the tags should be self-explanatory...but they might not be due to my high expectations of articles on Wikipedia.

Therefore, please pose all questions about tags here...and please, also on my talk page. That way I'll get that little message =D If you don't have questions, perhaps you're not lazy and can help fix the issues? Shicoco (talk) 06:04, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Pilot Actions.

Transponder codes are one of the only lines of defense a pilot has against hi-jackings. To publicly relay this information on Wikipedia is jepordizing pilot and passenger lives.

As a pilot, strongly urge someone to take it down immediately.

I am all for publicly available knowledge, but emergency transponder codes are of no use to the public, so long as they do not wish to take over a plane. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.79.161.243 (talk) 22:43, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Tansponder codes are available to everyone who's interesed in them (they appear in Annexes to ICAO Convention and AIPs of particular states). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.74.193.155 (talk) 08:44, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

About the section "United States administrative law definitions"

As a general rule, the law of one specific country does not deserve its own section on an article about a non-local topic unless the particular importance of the local perspective can be justified. Moreover, I think the content itself is of questionable importance. The first sentence isn't even about hijacking. The second continues with the excruciating detailing of the organization of the law, followed by a trivial definition that doesn't add much to the article. And while the third (and last) sentence is a bit more interesting, it has the problem that the link "Air disaster" redirects to Aviation accidents and incidents, whose working definition, borrowed from the ICAO, appears to exclude some or perhaps even all forms of hijacking. As such, I have gone ahead and deleted the section. I hope this decision sits well with you all. 108.216.31.202 (talk) 03:41, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Copyright violation in and requested expansion of the history section

I also removed four paragraphs from the history section for blatantly copying one of the references for the article, per WP:CPI. The section should be repopulated with details about the history of hijacking during its heydays, as well as post-9/11, appropriately compiled. Don't write things like "... the situation has not returned to the pre-1968 level and the number of successful hijackings continues to be high - an average of 18 a year during the 10-year period between 1988 and 1997..." that gives away the decade the (copied) passage was written, and, well, don't plagiarize, period. 108.216.31.202 (talk) 07:03, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Prevention Section Citation Free

The Prevention subsection makes spurious claims and has no citations. Adding them now. I suggest the article be locked if they're reverted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.88.244.2 (talk) 04:47, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

"Golden Age" Errata

The "Golden Age" dates are clearly incorrect as they self-overlap, which isn't even a thing, but there you have it. I've now made the same amount of sense as this section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.75.116.128 (talk) 15:41, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Aircraft hijacking. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120611011403/http://www.samaa.tv/newsdetail.aspx?ID=35569&CID=1 to http://www.samaa.tv/newsdetail.aspx?ID=35569&CID=1
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101201044248/http://trybunal.gov.pl/eng/summaries/documents/K_44_07_GB.pdf to http://www.trybunal.gov.pl/eng/summaries/documents/K_44_07_GB.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:52, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Aircraft hijacking. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070724125115/http://www.airdisaster.com/features/hijack/hijack.shtml to http://www.airdisaster.com/features/hijack/hijack.shtml
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131126110320/http://secure-skies.org/crewtraining.php to http://www.secure-skies.org/crewtraining.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:23, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Comment by anonymous user reverted from top of talk page due to damage

Why why did this happen we all ask these people were psycho they hated us because we could live in freedom and they couldn't they stabbed passengers and pilots to get the plane and crashed into some very important monuments we will never forget that day — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:5863:8290:79db:e07b:e70a:5151 (talk) 20:50, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk pages are not a discussion forum about the subject of this article. Please read the talk page guidelines for how to use talk pages. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 07:39, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

"they hated us" Who is "us"? It is far from clear what you are talking about. Dimadick (talk) 08:01, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Australia… ‘relatively free’ ?

What does this mean? That Australia had no hijackings ? In which case the statement is absurd. Or there were just a few attempted hijackings? 2001:8003:3082:F500:EDAE:4B0E:FFB9:6D7B (talk) 08:26, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

Article preview image is unrelated

As ye know, when hovering over a link with your mouse, there is an article preview showing up, most of the time with an image related to the article (usually the first image in the article). The image of this article here, has no link whatsoever with the subject (I assume it's vandalism), and I wondered if someone could do something about this situation. 173.246.29.147 (talk) 03:39, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

I too am confused as to why the preview image of this article is a detailed image of an open wound. Currently on the mobile app, and clicking the image temporarily changes it to the correct one. BxHammer (talk) 13:25, 8 September 2023 (UTC)