When a person on board has unlawfully committed by force or threat thereof an act of interference, seizure, or other wrongful exercise of control of an aircraft in flight or when such an act is about to be committed, Contracting States shall take all appropriate measures to restore control of the aircraft to its lawful commander or to preserve his control of the aircraft.Ģ. This Convention shall not apply to aircraft used in military, customs or police services.ġ. For the purposes of this Convention, an aircraft is considered to be in flight from the moment when power is applied for the purpose of take- off until the moment when the landing run ends.Ĥ. Except as provided in Chapter III, this Convention shall apply in respect of offences committed or acts done by a person on board any aircraft registered in a Contracting State, while that aircraft is in flight or on the surface of the high seas or of any other area outside the territory of any State.ģ. (b) acts which, whether or not they are offences, may or do jeopardize the safety of the aircraft or of persons or property therein or which jeopardise good order and discipline on board.Ģ. This Convention shall apply in respect of: THE STATES Parties to this Convention HAVE AGREED as follows:ġ. Sans lip balm, nail clippers or toothpaste tube with 110 mls in lieu of 100 (all highly dangerous in the wrong hands!)ĬONVENTION ON OFFENCES AND CERTAIN OTHER ACTS COMMITTED ON BOARD AIRCRAFT, SIGNED AT TOKYO, ON 14 SEPTEMBER 1963 (TOKYO CONVENTION) the conditions of carriage dont guaranteee you getting to your destination at any time so maybe this is along a similar legal path.īTW I am studying AVLAW at the moment hence the question is not meant to be antagonistic, just looking at the pure legality of the case, not a pilots viewpoint as to who should be to blame or otherwise let in cockpits. seems like a case of unlawful interference, but maybe not? As far as hostage taking etc. This case aside, what if the captain was the nutsy one ( thats happened before) and the F/O wanted to keep him out of the cockpit for example.
I too am interested in what exactly he can be charged with in a legal sense - that is, under Conventions etc.Īs the F/O, with the captain absent from the flight deck he is technically in command, so ( apart from squawking 7500 on himself etc) he is able to prett much do anything the captain can. Olivier Jornot, Attorney General of the Canton of Geneva, says that under Swiss law taking hostages can garner up to 20 years in prison. Police confirm that the co-pilot has been arrested and that all 200 passengers and the crewmembers are safe. The co-pilot was unarmed and surrendered by climbing through a cockpit window. The co-pilot locked the captain out of the cockpit when he went to the toilet and took control of the aircraft-requesting asylum in Switzerland. The hijacking crisis at Geneva Airport is now over and Geneva police say the situation is under control.Įthiopian Airline’s flight 702 en route from Addis Ababa to Rome sent out a distress signal of a hijacking, while flying over Sudan.Īfter circling over Geneva airport the plane landed at 6AM and negotiations with the hijacker began.
Geneva police spokesperson, Eric Grandjean, has confirmed that the hijacker of flight 702 was the 30-year-old Ethiopian co-pilot of the plane.
0 kommentar(er)
