Executive Summary
This is an essay that tackles the important issue of airport security. In relation to this, it is therefore essential to consider the members of an airport security committee who would ensure the safety of the planes, the crew members, and of course, its passengers. Included in this essay is a discussion of the possible members of an airport security committee and their role and responsibility in airport safety. Also discussed in this paper is the crisis situation faced by Air France Flight 8969, as well as how the proposed airport security committee members would enact their roles and responsibilities in such a crisis situation.
Airport Security: An Introduction
In a society copious with violence and conflict, people and the authority could not afford to be vulnerable to acts of terrorism. Anywhere in the world, disagreements among nations are tangibly displayed through numerous hostage situations, bombings, hijack situations and the like. Hence, at a specific level, it is the responsibility of the members of the airport security to employ ways and methods in order to protect airports from acts of terrorism and other forms of crime.
More particularly, members of the airport security present a first line of defense by making every effort to stop probable attackers from transporting with them bombs or weaponry into the airport. If they can succeed in such endeavors, then the chances of these weapons getting on to aircraft are significantly lessened, and acts of violence and crime are likewise reduced. With these, airport security has two fundamental objectives—to defend the airport from attacks and crime, and to defend the aircraft from such assaults; hence, protecting the welfare of the passengers and crew members as well.
Possible Airport Security Members
Logically, the primary members of the airport security could include security officers, a police force, members of the military, members of the airport protection service, a crisis management team, and a negotiation team.
Security Guards. These individuals are typically privately employed individuals who have the responsibility to protect property as well as people in airports. Furthermore, these security officers are normally in uniform so as to maintain high visibility presence and to prevent inappropriate and illegal deeds; to monitor signs disorder through alarm systems, patrols, and video cameras; and to take action and report suspicious occurrences to the airport’s authority (“Security Guard,” 2006), so as to be able to immediately take the necessary precautionary actions.
In connection to this, the security personnel are also trained to enforce the security measures of the airport; to do so, they are trained to perform arrests as well as control procedures, perform cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) and first aid, manage emergency equipments, and enact other responsibilities as required by the airport they are protecting (“Security Guard,” 2006). Furthermore, security guards could also be trained to be efficient in carrying weapons such as pepper spray, batons, and some forms of firearms. Moreover, recently, due to dangers of hijacking and other forms of terrorism, the security personnel are now required to have emergency crisis as well as bomb threat trainings (“Security Guard,” 2006).
Police Force. It is necessary to hire efficient members of a police force that would be dedicate their services to the airport. Moreover, it is vital to deploy a police force to ensure effective airport security. For one, their mere visibility could already pose as a threat to probable terrorists; without them, airplanes are practically sitting ducks—terrorists could easily approach the plane and take hold of its passengers.
Moreover, the police force is also allowed to carry firearms as part of their duty to protect the safety of the airport, its planes, and most especially, the passengers. For example, the police have the right to carry equipments for radio communications so as to share information with each other so as coordinate their responsibilities and, if necessary, to get help easily. Furthermore, in the past years, computers could now be installed in their vehicles and these enable the police to immediately run criminal background checks on suspicions passengers, as well as to dispatch calls quickly. These are only some examples of equipments and purposes of the police force which are all necessary in the security of airports.
Members of the Military. During emergency and extreme situations, the police force could ask for assistance from the military, since military aid to the civil power is the responsibility of a number of armed forces. For example, there are instances wherein dangerous and sensitive situations could happen which the police could not handle on their own. The military then, with their training, could collaborate with the police force to assure efficient airport security.
One example of a terrorist situation that was effectively handled by the military has happened in 1980, when the Metropolitan Police passed on the control of the siege of the Iranian Embassy to the Special Air Service (SAS). The terrorist blockade of London’s Iranian Embassy was effectively resolved when SAS, the special forces of United Kingdom, stormed the building in Operation Nimrod (“Iranian Embassy Siege,” 2006).
Members of the Airport Protection Service. Evidently, the airport management should also hire trained individuals that would protect the airport and the welfare of its customers. Basically, the responsibilities of the airport’s protection service are similar to those of the aforementioned. The only difference is that the airport protection team is trained to focus only on the airport’s security, while the police and the members of the military have other accountabilities to the country they reside in.
Crisis Management Team. There are circumstances wherein precautionary measures employed in the airport fail and terrorists or hijackers get the chance to board the plane and hold its passengers hostage. This is the instance wherein the crisis management team enters. The main responsibility of such group is to assemble its best members to be able to plan and perform feasible, if not the best, options and alternatives so as to resolve the given crisis situation with minimal or no casualties and destruction of property. Moreover, the crisis management team normally collaborates and coordinates with the government as well as with the military and the police, since in such hostage and hijack situations, frequent changes to seemingly foolproof plans have to be made, in accordance to recent developments of the given circumstances.
Negotiation Team. From the name itself, one would know the responsibility of such group—to be effective in communicating and collaborating with the terrorists This team has a very important and sensitive responsibility, because they literally hold the lives of the hostage and the airplane’s crew in their hands—one wrong move hundreds of people could die. Members of the negotiation team, as much as possible, should also try to gain the trust of the terrorists because if the hijackers sense that they are being fooled or stalled, they would not hesitate to commit crime and kill their hostages. Lastly, members of the negotiation group also coordinate with the government and the other teams involved in airport crisis situations so that everything they would convey to the terrorists are in accordance to the plan of the government and of the airport’s security members. This ways, the safety of the planes, the crews, and the passengers are still assured.
The Hijack of Air France Flight 8969
On December 24, 1994, Air France Flight 8969 was hijacked by four men at the Houari Boumedienne Airport in the Algiers. The flight was supposed to travel to the Charles de Gaulle Airport in Paris but the terrorists instantly got hold of the plane. Immediately, Abdul Abdullah Yahia and the other three members of the Armed Islamic Group or Groupe Islamique Arme (GIA) commanded that the 12 flight crews and 220 passengers cooperate with them (“Air France Flight 8969,” 2006). After a few minutes, the terrorists got in touch with the control tower of Houari Bourmedienne Airport and required that the plane be allowed to take off. The people in the control tower refused and the four men instantly released the dead Algerian Police officer into the runway, along with a chilling statement that if their requirements were not met immediately, they would kill another hostage (“Air France Flight 8969,” 2006).
Such demand of the terrorists was met by great defiance from the Algerian Army; they refused to remove the tire chocks and the mobile stairway that would allow the plane to take off, in spite of the threat of the hijackers. In fact, after intense negotiations, the Algerian Colonel still refused to give in to the demands of the terrorists. With this, on Christmas night, the hijackers said that they would execute one person every half hour if the authorities still refuse to allow the plane to take off and go to Paris (“Air France Flight 8969,” 2006). After the loss of three lives in spite of the forty hour negotiations, the Algerian Colonel finally removed the wheel chocks and the staircase at 2:00 in the morning of December 26, 1994. The negotiation team has decided that it would be wise to divert the flight to Marseille International Airport, five hundred miles south of Paris. The crew of Air France Flight 8969, after secret communications with the air traffic controllers of the tower, told the terrorists that the plane did not have enough fuel to make it to Paris. The French forces have already landed minutes before Flight 8969 landed at the Marseille-Marignane Airport. And here, at 17:08, day after Christmas, the raid successfully ensued, with the help of GIGN as well as the assistance of Air France Flight 8969.
Airport Security Committee in Action
What is questionable in the above situation with the Air France Flight 8969 is how the terrorists got past the security of the airport, especially during holidays, a time when numerous people plan to travel to see their relatives and loved ones. It could therefore be assumed that not enough security measures are employed in the airport. Hence, with this, it could be concluded that for terrorist acts in airplanes to be lessened or completely eradicated, air operators should assure that security in the airport is tight and effective. This, then, is the responsibility of the security guards, the members of the airport protection service, and even the police force.
First, the visibility of the security officers, members of the police force and of the airport protection service should already serve as threat to the terrorists who plan to hijack the plane. It is therefore necessary for these individuals to be physically commanding and even forbidding—their heights and body built should already serve as indications that they could overpower the hijackers when circumstances call for it. Moreover, the equipments and weapons they carry could also serve as visible warnings to the terrorists; they should be able to project an image that they would not hesitate to use these weapons in necessary situations.
Next, during circumstances wherein the terrorists already got hold of the plane, its crew, and its passengers, the members of the military could then be called on. These people could make use of their training to analyze the hostage situation, specifically the demands of the terrorists and what, or who, are at stake. Moreover, they could also orient the members of the other airport security teams so as to be able to perform their own responsibilities with utmost efficiency.
The crisis management team and the negotiation team would then work together and form ad hoc committees, in accordance to the needs of the given situation. For example, one team would be in constant watch of the plane to observe even the slightest movement from it. Also, another committee would be in continuous contact with the terrorists and also the government so as to convey the important messages, such as the demands and what would be given in exchange of compliance. Another team, should also be in close contact with the military, the police, and the airport’s security group so as to update each other with what is currently occurring during the hijack situation. This way, every individual concerned and responsible with the terrorist act would be act in accordance to a unified plan that would ensure the safe and effective resolution of the terrorist act.
Conclusion
The hijack situation faced by the Air France Flight 8969 is only one example of an instance that shows the importance of the members of an airport security committee. Every individual involved in such group are therefore expected to fulfill their responsibilities, no matter how challenging and intense, for the sake of the airport they are accountable for and for the welfare of the crew, the passengers, and the public in general.
Credit:ivythesis.typepad.com
0 comments:
Post a Comment