Patriot
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Sep 8, 2008
- Messages
- 7,713
- Reaction score
- 0
DOES a hijacker have to be on the aeroplane to conduct a hijacking? …… not necessarily!
On that fateful flight (Pk 805, Colombo-Male-Karachi, Oct 12, 1999) everything was perfect. The captain was flying along merrily. In a few minutes, he would be landing at Karachi. Boom! Came the voice of the air traffic controller: “You are not permitted to land at any airport in Pakistan……”
The captain was stunned. He was carrying the minimum legally required fuel, just enough to fly from Karachi to Nawabshah, the nearest ‘alternative airport’ (100 miles), plus a nominal amount as ‘contingency’ and ‘holding’ fuel. Outside Pakistan, he might just about make it to Ahmadabad in India on a wing and a prayer, almost 200 miles away. No other airport was within reach.
The captain pleaded for permission to land due to ‘low fuel’. Wing Commander Farooq of the Civil Aviation Department (Dawn, Nov 21, 1999): “It is the order of the prime minister not to allow the plane to land anywhere in Pakistan”…… Why?
The runway at Karachi was blocked with fire-engines and the lights were switched off. On board was the Chief of the Army Staff, the one man who had knowledge of our entire nuclear layout, every missile placement, the position of every submarine and fighter aircraft. He was also the most hated and wanted man by the Indians after the ‘Kargil’ affair and he was about to be presented to them on a platter.
Ahmadabad was not filed as an alternative airport. Permission to fly over Indian territory was mandatory. What possible excuse could the captain give for such a weird diversion? Clearance from Bombay radio on a cluttered H.F. frequency was a tedious proposition. In this dilemma, he had hardly any choice. Ahmadabad had to be ruled out.
Nawaz Sharif says that no crime was committed because any competent PIA officer could order the pilot to proceed to an alternative airport and, of course, he himself had the right to dismiss the Army Chief of Staff whenever he pleased (Dawn, Feb 5, 2009): ‘PML (N) plans global judicial council’.
Interfering with the operation of a scheduled international flight in the air and sabotaging its landing runway is a crime. Also, the captain and only the captain decides to divert the flight to an alternative airport, keeping in mind the well
- being of his passengers and a hundred other factors, including ‘fuel’. There is no provision for taking orders.
Of course, no one can deny the right of the prime minister to dismiss the Army Chief at his pleasure. But why was the aircraft stopped from landing at any airport in Pakistan?
A lot of dangerous ‘to-ing’ and ‘fro-ing’ between Nawabshah and Karachi went on: “Yes you can land”, “no you can’t”. With the fear of hitting an obstacle on the runway and risk cart-wheeling on the edges, killing everyone, he was on tenterhooks to put the aircraft down somehow. His eyes were glued to the fuel gauges. The orders of the prime minister or the general meant little to him. He took a sigh of relief when the runway began to be cleared. He landed with almost empty fuel tanks.
A hijacker with a gun behind a pilot’s neck forces him to fly to an unwanted destination. If Pk 805 had landed at Ahmadabad with Gen Musharraf on board, a successful hijacking would have been accomplished without a hijacker in the cockpit.
CAPT S. AFAQ RIZVI
Karachi
DAWN.COM | Letters to the Editor | Was-it-hijacking
On that fateful flight (Pk 805, Colombo-Male-Karachi, Oct 12, 1999) everything was perfect. The captain was flying along merrily. In a few minutes, he would be landing at Karachi. Boom! Came the voice of the air traffic controller: “You are not permitted to land at any airport in Pakistan……”
The captain was stunned. He was carrying the minimum legally required fuel, just enough to fly from Karachi to Nawabshah, the nearest ‘alternative airport’ (100 miles), plus a nominal amount as ‘contingency’ and ‘holding’ fuel. Outside Pakistan, he might just about make it to Ahmadabad in India on a wing and a prayer, almost 200 miles away. No other airport was within reach.
The captain pleaded for permission to land due to ‘low fuel’. Wing Commander Farooq of the Civil Aviation Department (Dawn, Nov 21, 1999): “It is the order of the prime minister not to allow the plane to land anywhere in Pakistan”…… Why?
The runway at Karachi was blocked with fire-engines and the lights were switched off. On board was the Chief of the Army Staff, the one man who had knowledge of our entire nuclear layout, every missile placement, the position of every submarine and fighter aircraft. He was also the most hated and wanted man by the Indians after the ‘Kargil’ affair and he was about to be presented to them on a platter.
Ahmadabad was not filed as an alternative airport. Permission to fly over Indian territory was mandatory. What possible excuse could the captain give for such a weird diversion? Clearance from Bombay radio on a cluttered H.F. frequency was a tedious proposition. In this dilemma, he had hardly any choice. Ahmadabad had to be ruled out.
Nawaz Sharif says that no crime was committed because any competent PIA officer could order the pilot to proceed to an alternative airport and, of course, he himself had the right to dismiss the Army Chief of Staff whenever he pleased (Dawn, Feb 5, 2009): ‘PML (N) plans global judicial council’.
Interfering with the operation of a scheduled international flight in the air and sabotaging its landing runway is a crime. Also, the captain and only the captain decides to divert the flight to an alternative airport, keeping in mind the well
- being of his passengers and a hundred other factors, including ‘fuel’. There is no provision for taking orders.
Of course, no one can deny the right of the prime minister to dismiss the Army Chief at his pleasure. But why was the aircraft stopped from landing at any airport in Pakistan?
A lot of dangerous ‘to-ing’ and ‘fro-ing’ between Nawabshah and Karachi went on: “Yes you can land”, “no you can’t”. With the fear of hitting an obstacle on the runway and risk cart-wheeling on the edges, killing everyone, he was on tenterhooks to put the aircraft down somehow. His eyes were glued to the fuel gauges. The orders of the prime minister or the general meant little to him. He took a sigh of relief when the runway began to be cleared. He landed with almost empty fuel tanks.
A hijacker with a gun behind a pilot’s neck forces him to fly to an unwanted destination. If Pk 805 had landed at Ahmadabad with Gen Musharraf on board, a successful hijacking would have been accomplished without a hijacker in the cockpit.
CAPT S. AFAQ RIZVI
Karachi
DAWN.COM | Letters to the Editor | Was-it-hijacking