Honolulu-Bound Flight Diverted After Crew Discovers Box Cutter

Honolulu-Bound Flight Diverted After Crew Discovers Box Cutter
The Associated Press
Published: Sep 30, 2001

LOS ANGELES (AP) - An American Airlines pilot made an unscheduled landing Sunday after crew members found a box cutter left on the plane by a catering employee.

Flight attendants found the box cutter in a food cart about 90 minutes after the plane departed from Dallas, said American Airlines spokesman John Hotard.

The captain decided to land the Honolulu-bound plane, carrying 220 people, in Los Angeles so every passenger could be screened again. About 3 1/4 hours later, the plane resumed its trip to Hawaii, said airport spokeswoman Nancy Castles.

The box cutter was imprinted with the name of the airline's caterer, Sky Chef. Airline officials called the company, and an employee said he had inadvertently left the knife on the cart.

"There's no big deal here," Hotard said. "It's just a guy who forgot his box cutter."

The terrorists who hijacked airplanes Sept. 11 apparently used box cutters and other small blades in their carryon baggage to take control of the jets.

Many have complained about the paranoia of the government over nail files and box cutters. I see the same paranoia in assuming that a bomb is always real, that all hijackers will be heading for a building full of people and that everyone on the plane is expendable should panic-striken gung-ho passengers decide that it's better to crash the plane immediately without at least wondering about the other possiblities, including what's going to be beneath the plane when it hits the ground.

If the pilot is still in control of the plane, passengers should attack the hijackers while letting the pilot fly the plane. Any hijacker who kills or otherwise disables the pilot, however, must be presumed to have the worst of intentions.

All this is assuming that one of the hijackers is in control of the cockpit and said gung-ho passengers also want to jump him, even if no one else knows how to fly and land the plane.

Any hijacker who wants to fly to Cuba will have the pilot fly him there. If a hijacker takes over the plane, it is almost certainly going to be better to attack the hijacker (at the severe risk of crashing the plane) than to let the hijacker fly where he's going. The one case where it may be good to hold off is if the plane is over an urban area but seems destined to leave it. In that case, it may be better to delay the attack until any crash is unlikely to cause serious ground casualties.

The point is that the courage on Flt. 93 was bolstered by the absolute knowledge of what their hijackers were going to do with the plane and that they were going to die anyway. I admire their actions and hope that I would do what I could under the same circumstances. But next time, the goals of the hijackers may be different and all aboard could be killed in vain. I realize that it will be a gamble and that it's best to err on the side of saving those who can be saved on the ground. I'm just concerned that a lot of people could end up needlessly dead, if hijackers, using a fake bomb, just want to relocate to Cuba.

If a hijacker just has a fake bomb, passengers will almost certainly be able to jump him without crashing the plane. What risk do you see in attempting to do so?

With my reservations now aired and awaiting further flaming by those far braver than I, I'd just like to add that it seems as though the antique mirrors and nail clippers could be consigned to the customers' checked baggage and that babies could wear Pampers, leaving those dastardly diaper pins at home. No carry-ons and a walk through the metal detectors would relieve the security from destroying nail files and priceless heirlooms for the most part.

Checked baggage is really a pain for short trips. It also poses serious risk that the items will not arrive intact at their destination. And please, tell me how tweezers endanger anyone on the aircraft.

That might only leave plastic explosives and chemical weapons to worry about.

And knives, either the stone-age type or modern ceramic equivalents.

The point I was making is that; for years, many folks in this country have been saying "If you do what the bad guy wants you to, he won't hurt you". This is simply NOT true. If you want to accept the word of a guy who has just taken a plane full of people hostage (he has after all been COMPLETELY trustworthy), go for it. If it turns out that he is (gasp!) lying to you about "just wanting to go for a joy ride to Cuba", then what do you do?

You stated earlier that if a guy claims to have a bomb while taking over an airplane, and I jump him to try to take the bomb away, or stop him from blowing the plane up, it's somehow MY fault if HE (the guy with the bomb, the one who committed several illegal acts) blows the bomb up, because I don't trust someone who says, "just do what I want you to and I won't hurt you".

This earlier statement puts you right in the camp of "if a criminal STEALS a gun from your home, YOU'RE responsible for any acts committed with the gun."

You go right ahead and keep on trusting those people who promise not to hurt you, and I guess I will be responsible when the plane I'm on blows up because I didn't trust the guy with the gun to my head.

Along these lines, I don't see anyone saying that the passengers who crashed the plane in Pennsylvania "killed the crew and passengers" of that plane.

The outcome was almost certain death (chance of eliminating or negotiating with the hijackers and safely landing the plane were slim to say the least). The circumstances of the terrorists' plans were understood by the passengers, they could only intervene and diminish the impact of the terrorists' plans.

The passengers who intervened are called heroes and it is noted that they gave their lives. If an altercation inflight had caused a bomb to go off, it may never be determined exactly why the terrorists "set it off" at that place or time.

I figure a person who brings a bomb on a plane as being someone committed to using it. The only legitimate bombs I can recall either went off in flight, were detected before the flight, or were used in "negotiations" on the runway (the incident I recall ended with the plane blowing up with passengers in front of cameras). It doesn't seem likely that they will surrender their bomb if they get their way (e.g. prisoners released).

I have no problems calling these thugs terrorists (they have attacked but hidden their motives, no one has stepped forward yet to take responsibility - thus the "cowards" label still fits). I've read several press reports that called them "freedom fighters", if that means they fight freedom then I agree but they certainly aren't fighting for freedom. Isolating an oppressive regime from outside influences doesn't beget anyone freedom.

One final bit of semantics, these are being called hijackings but since the planes were being flown by the "hijackers" with no intent to land, they were either "plane-jacking" or more succinctly "joyriding". I'm not familiar with other circumstances where hijackers killed the pilots and took over flight in air.

You said:"Along these lines, I don't see anyone saying that the passengers who crashed the plane in Pennsylvania "killed the crew and passengers" of that plane."

See Mulder's post #45 where he states :"One would have to be fairly certain that the hijacker doesn't just want to land at a different locale. One could kill an entire plane-load of people if the motive is misjudged."

Sounds to me that he thinks if a brave passenger jumps on a hi-jacker, and the hi-jacker detonates a bomb, the person who jumped the hi-jacker is to blame.

My way of thinking is, if someone is holding a gun to my head (not necessarily literally), I am NOT going to think them trustworthy enough to take their word when they say "I'm not going to hurt you if you do what I tell you." That is sheep mentality, and I'm not a sheep. I will punch, kick, bite, scratch, hit, curse, spit, pour, swing, poke, prod, knee, and elbow ANY part of a person that is threatening my life. If it weren't for the sheep that initially espoused the "Just give them what they want, and they won't hurt you" idea, there would be far less criminal acts. Perpetrators would fear the consequences of their actions.

Any hijacker who kills or otherwise disables the pilot, however, must be presumed to have the worst of intentions.

Good point, although knocking the pilot unconscious doesn't necessarily constitute murderous intent. Be that as it may, assuming the worst is what the passengers would have to do.

If a hijacker just has a fake bomb, passengers will almost certainly be able to jump him without crashing the plane. What risk do you see in attempting to do so?

The risk comes in jumping the pilot, should one of the hijackers have drugged the pilot. Considering what went on with the today's "hijacking", some assumptions might become a problem. Of course, I would hope that American air personnel would not get into that sort of miscommunication, but there's no guarantee on that.

Anything can be a weapon, as these terrorists proved with their shaving razors. I've had my luggage sent to South America when I was only going to Virginia for the weekend(got it back 2 months later). I'm well aware of the risk, but if a potential hijacker is equally and more importantly inconvenienced, I have no problem with that. Besides, tweezing and the like can be done before the trip and tweezers/nail clippers and razors can usually be purchased at one's destination.

And knives, either the stone-age type or modern ceramic equivalents.

True, although if they're checking for tweezers and nail clippers, I would hope they're checking for blades of any material.

I would never trust anyone who was taking hostages. To characterize what I was saying as such is a total and seemingly deliberate misunderstanding of my concerns. I'm just working through some possibilities, because not every situation is the same. After all, every hijacking didn't result in entire planeloads of people dying before. That may be different now and potential hijackers, whatever their purpose, should be thinking long and hard before they risk getting rushed by a cabin-full of passengers. I would hate for a plane-load of people to end up crashing, when that might not be the hijackers' purpose at all. I wanted to hear what others had to say and am appreciative of the replies. The analogy with the stolen gun is a fairly good one, although gun owners are rarely present when the thief shoots someone, and I would certainly never blame the owner for what the thief does.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.