how are attempted airplane hijackings handled post-9/11?

I don't think a bomb threat would have been handled any differently in the air post 9/11, the pilots would try to get the plane on the ground at the nearest suitable airport, and the FA's would try their best to appease the hijacker until a rescue team can storm the plane.

As far as the consequences, she will likely spend the rest of her life in federal prison. Potentially even Gitmo, if she is deemed a terrorist.

Or, she's noticeably drunk, and the stewardess goes to notify the captain, as per protocol.

The panicky passengers, for whom 9-11 is their worst nightmare, panic.
Thinking only 'we're going to diiiieeee!' they attack the drunk woman, kill her and are in the process of ripping her apart when the captain turns on the intercom and tells them to sit down and belt up, 'cause they're landing. Which they do as docilely as lambs, threat eliminated.

And they land, whereupon a heck of an investigation begins.
This is probably of limited use to your story.

From what I know (which when it comes to planes is little, so salt), they're going to lock down the cockpit and the pilot is going to call law enforcement -- someone will probably try to get her on the phone with negotiators.

However, don't forget there may be an air marshal on board.

I think one change might be the response of passengers and flight crew to hijackers on planes. Once there was an assumption that hijackers had a an objective--someplace they wanted to be flown, perhaps, or a specific monetary or political demand, and they would hold the passengers and crew hostage until they got it, or until things went to shit. No one really thought hijackers would want to crash the plane, because then they'd die too, right?

Post 911, I think there would be more fear that the hijackers would be trying to take over the plane in order to crash it into something, or simply to make it crash as an act of overt terror. Consequentially, passengers and crew might be less cooperative and passive, or maybe they'd just be more inclined to panic.

Also, shooting a hijacked plane down is a very real consideration, since the folks on the ground will be concerned about the potential for even more casualties if the plane is crashed into a target.

Actually, hasn't 911 kind of ruined it for old-school hijackers as a consequence? Hijackings have been rarer since 911.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...are-after-911-security-improvements/82375474/

https://www.dw.com/en/aviation-security-expert-says-9-11-changed-nature-of-hijackings/a-2778273

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/30/world/middleeast/airline-hijacking-history.html

Here's an article about an Egyptian airliner hijacking in the post-911 era, where the guy doing it seemed kind of crazy and random, maybe a bit like your character.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/egyptair-airplane-hijackings-rare-1.3510708

I got permission to tour NORAD in Colorado twice now. It is the central command that tells who needs to know what is amiss with planes veering off course. I saw the screen that follows the flights in motion; it's monitored VERY well (even small aircraft). I read a story, years ago, of a small plane that veered off course. They sent a fighter jet to intercept. The pilot contacted the other pilot and got him back on course.

They don't muss about.

This you tuber is a pilot and does a lot of videos about how and why stuff is done in commercial aviation. He may have a video that answers your question but if not he has his own app where people can ask questions about aviation and they are answered by pilots.

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCwpHKudUkP5tNgmMdexB3ow

Enlightened said:

I got permission to tour NORAD in Colorado twice now. It is the central command that tells who needs to know what is amiss with planes veering off course. I saw the screen that follows the flights in motion; it's monitored VERY well (even small aircraft). I read a story, years ago, of a small plane that veered off course. They sent a fighter jet to intercept. The pilot contacted the other pilot and got him back on course.

They don't muss about.

Click to expand...

That's standard. Any aircraft that goes into the wrong airspace or accidentally goes into restricted airspace will get contacted by air traffic control to find out who they are and what's going on and to get back to their planned flight path and if there's no response they'll send jet fighters. It occasionally happens to commercial airliners because the pilot's veered off course and not listened to the messages from air traffic control.

Here's a video about it by the you tuber I linked to in my last post: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9qM-xN7Bgg8&t=36s

ETA: at the end of the above video there's a brief mention of what happens if there's a hijacking or 9-11 style attack.

cornflake said:

From what I know (which when it comes to planes is little, so salt), they're going to lock down the cockpit and the pilot is going to call law enforcement -- someone will probably try to get her on the phone with negotiators.

However, don't forget there may be an air marshal on board.

Click to expand...

The cockpit is on lockdown by default post 9/11. The pilots will change their transponder code to 7500, which indicates a hijack is in progress, and will probably talk to ATC using guard frequency (121.5) for uninterrupted communications.

However you envision your MC's scenario, it won't end well for her. If she survives--and that's not guarunteed these days--she will be incarcerated pending a mental evaluation and probable criminal prosecution. At a minimum, she'll have a felony arrest record, whether or not she is convicted. In short, her life will never be as it was.

A white, affluent woman would be less likely to be profiled initially, but once she says "bomb" it's not going to matter that much. Responses are pretty much automatic through the first 72 hours or so. She'll be held without bail and an investigation started to see whether she had any ties to terrorism. Before she says "bomb" and after the initial investigation is when the fact that she's white, female, and presumably affluent is when those factors are in play.

It used to be that women could get a break at the time of arrest because they're cute and flirty, but that's disappeared quite a while ago. Now police know that this sweet young thing that's smiling at them could be smiling because she's going to explode a bomb and kill a cop.

Assuming she's affluent enough to afford a good attorney (retainer in the range of about $20 to $50 K, depending upon the market and jurisdiction), she could walk from this with credit for time served (I don't see any likelihood of her being bailed for at least a week) and a felony arrest or conviction. Use of a good psychiatrist, remorse, corrective actions, willingness to plea, and a very clear record would be needed in that case, but it is doable.

Pilots are locked down for the flight. Air marshal will take a hijacker out. Negotiating is not likely to happen unless she can actually show something that looks like a bomb and she can get enough isolation from the other passengers so that she can't be jumped. But 9/11 significantly changed the protocols for dealing with hijackers. And passengers are a lot more likely to intervene these days.

Jim Clark-Dawe

flowerburgers said:

what sort of crazy thing could a young white American woman do on an airplane or in an airport that would have far fewer consequences for her than someone of a different background?

Click to expand...

Change mid-flight to objectionable clothing. Not life-threatening and highly context-dependent.

-cb

I suspect that the 'affluent, pretty, young white woman advantage' started to lose ground back after Patty Hearst.

This is my area. What training we get is considered "need-to know" sort of stuff by the company training department. However the things out there will show you that the cockpit door is armored. You will also find that where there was a previous method of cooperate and minimize risk is what caused so much 9/11 damage in the first place and was replaced. there is no cooperation now and that would go in line with what Cornflake said. Given not only the post 9/11 fears of passengers, let's throw in to that a kneejerk reaction of all people today in outrage culture, so if anyone were to try something, they would have probably half the plane stepping all over themselves to get THEM and they wouldn't restrain themselves. On top of all of this, there is this in the cabin, and you have this program if you get anywhere successful. I know several in that system. All of this is commonly out there on youtube and the net.

So, this isn't to say that there arent attempts out there in consideration, but all of them tried so far have been stopped. (shoe bomber, underwear bomber, etc.) Also, consider the um....considerable....efforts to catch any of these plots before they materialize, which is ongoing, so who knows there might be a presence already aware of this characters motivcation just form theri own internet searching, conversations, emails, etc.

With that said, your worries about internet searches and government tracking raising flags, what says an ask here about this isnt a flag as well? See how paranoid our culture has become? See what destabilized environments can do to how we all think? A rich playground to set a characters cracking mind.

Plane on ground ASAP. Woman is appeased as much as possible, when on ground, plane is parked at end of runway. If she is trying to hold hostages after landing, plane is surrounded and sealed off, Delta guys are called, posse commitatus suspended, delta operators take plane. They are trained for it.

If not holding hostages, FBI boards plane, she is taken into custody and court cases ensue. If she's actually insane, she will get committed, if just drunk, she'll get some jail time and serious restrictions, if sane and had intent she's gone in the system for years.

Write it how you need it to play out for your story. Any outcome is possible, depending on how you write it.

Jeff