Senator CANNON. What about this problem of communication? Were you able to keep in secure communication with the FAA or with the control towers or with the law-enforcement personnel or was this impossible while the hijacker was sitting there in the cockpit with you?

Captain HAAS. I was able to communicate signals as they stated yesterday. I was certainly able to tell them whether I wanted armed intervention or not and I displayed no such signal.

Senator CANNON. Were you questioned from the ground? Were you consulted as to whether you wanted armed intervention to try to terminate the flight?

Captain HAAS. No, sir.

Senator CANNON. That was never discussed with you at all?
Captain HAAS. No, sir.

Senator CANNON. Did you have any advance knowledge that armed intervention was going to take place to try to terminate the flight prior to having your tires shot out?

Captain HAAS. No, sir. I had no time to condition these people that this was about to happen. As a matter of fact, I felt like on the ground at Orlando my chance of getting the passengers off the airplane at Chattanooga had been aborted by the great number of people that showed up at the airport, spectators that continued to move in closer and closer to the airplane.

These people felt that each person out there represented some sort of a security man with a telescopic rifle ready to pick him off if he stuck his head out of the window. I had thought that I was going to get the people off at Chattanooga. We had already made arrangements to carry the apparent heart attack victim off the rear steps of the airplane and lay him beside the runway.

And this, of course, was aborted by the number of spectators that had gathered by this time, as I said before, moving closer to the airplane.

Senator CANNON. How close were the spectators at that time?

Captain HAAS. Less than 100 yards, and quite a number of people. Senator CANNON. Was there any attempt on the part of law enforcement ground people to keep people away?

Captain HAAS. Well, they were instructed to get the people back away from the aircraft-the airport perimeter there-but the hijackers did not want any vehicles moving on the airport, they did not want anyone coming out there in vehicles to move the people back.

And I told them that this would be an impossible situation, that the people simply would not move back on their own. There would have to be someone that would come out there to move them away from the scene.

They would not allow this. They wanted only one vehicle moving on the airport and this was the gas truck. And the driver was to have minimum clothing on. And any other vehicle moving on the airport or around the airport perimeter, especially at night, would excite these people.

Mr. O'DONNELL. Mr. Chairman, two other times during that hijacking incident, Captain Haas advised us that he had almost con

vinced the hijackers to let the people off the aircraft, another time at Key West and at Orlando.

Outside activities around the aircraft excited the hijackers to the extent the hijackers told him to get out of there. In Orlando, Captain Haas had brought the incident to that point where the hijackers were discussing letting the people off when the shooting of the tires.

occurred.

When that happened the hijackers became more violent than they were originally. I believe that is when the shooting of the copilot took place and, according to the statement of Captain Haas, it was their intention to kill that copilot, not to wound him. Because he ducked he was only wounded.

To answer your question about whether or not Captain Haas was aware that the termination of this hijacking was going to occur, the answer is "No." Because a termination can occur only in accordance with the agreement between ourselves, the FAA and FBI, in the event the captain gives the signal.

He did not give this signal. There are signals that should not be discussed in open session, how this is conducted, how we convey this message to the people on the ground. The company said yesterday in its statement that they had considered earlier in the hijacking to terminate the hijacking but they were afraid the crew would have been killed.

They said it would have been a mistake to terminate the hijacking earlier. I asked Captain Haas whether he was fatigued or whether he was in such a state that they should have terminated. He said he had already flown 29 hours, he could have flown another 29. The hijackers were convinced they could not fly directly across the Atlantic; they were prepared to fly up the coast.

In addition, the oil problem that was used as the precipitator of the termination, that it was low on oil, the hijacker told Captain Haas that the engine holds 16 quarts of oil, they had been up 29 hours, “you have used 8, so you have enough for another 29 hours."

This was the hijacker's statement to the captain. So the circumstances around the termination of the hijacking were such that the company looked for reasons after the fact.

Mr. Chairman, I don't think you or I expect the FBI to admit they made a mistake. According to the understanding of Mr. J. Edgar Hoover and FAA and ourselves it was clear that the pilot in command alone must make the final determination. It was not done in this case and it nearly ended up in a holocaust. It was only because of the captain's ability to take an airplane off with flat tires. Those of us who have flown for many years know this is a feat that very few men probably could have accomplished.

Senator CANNON. Captain Hines, do you want to tell us a little about your situation?

Captain HINES. Yes, sir; I would like to make a couple of comments, Senator, if I may.

I have heard much discussion today about local law enforcement. I have had some experience with local law enforcement around airports. For example, we had an incident just a few months ago where the captain had 60 passengers as a group. They refused to obey several

89-353 0-73— -13

air regulations. It is the captain's responsibility to see that these regulations are obeyed. He called for local law enforcement. A policeman entered the front part of the airplane. He weighed about 120 pounds, but he did have the badge, he did have the uniform, and he did have the pistol, but he took one look through the cabin of the airplane at these unruly people and his statement was that it is not safe back there and he departed immediately.

The captain wound up canceling the flight.

We had another incident with local law enforcement. In this particular case, a passenger was on the aircraft; the captain called for local enforcement and they showed up. Again they had the uniform, badge, and gun, but their position was, "we have no jurisdiction on the aircraft."

Therefore, they said, in effect, "if someone will remove the violent passenger from the aircraft, we will lend you assistance."

Now, the captain and first officers couldn't get anyone else to help so to protect their passengers, they had to forcibly remove this violent man from the airplane.

The first thing that happened when they turned him over to the local law-enforcement officer was that the violent man hit the officer in the face with his fist and knocked him down.

We also have a local law-enforcement officer at the bank I do business with at home. He is a nice gent, elderly man, probably 70 years old, but he has a badge, and he has a uniform, and he has a gun. He passes out suckers to the kids as they come in and out, does a good job of this but I doubt seriously if he is protecting any of this bank's

customers.

I say we cannot tolerate local law enforcement in this case. It has been suggested that maybe the airlines should organize their own police force. Someone mentioned that today.

If each of the airlines in this country must organize their own police force, then how about down the street there is a hamburger stand, does the man running this business organize a hamburger police force to protect his business and customers? I live further down the street. Who is going to protect me?

If we go on this concept, then I am going to have to strap a .38 on my side to protect my property and my family.

It is not the responsibility of the airlines in this instance, in my opinion. Law enforcement is the function of government. In this case, a function of the Federal Government.

One other thing, Senator, I would like to mention, concerns a statement that was made several times today. This statement was that there has only been four hijackings in the last 6 months of this year.

Well, one of them happened to be my hijacking. My agent was killed. My fuel man was wounded. My beautiful airplane was sprayed with bullets. And I was ordered to fly from Houston to Havana.

These criminals would not even listen to me when I tried to tell them we did not have enough fuel to go to Havana. We had enough fuel, Senator, to go only to the middle of the Gulf of Mexico. Their response was, well, that is their destination then, the middle of the Gulf of Mexico if that is all the fuel you have.

So I had a problem on my hands. Yes, it was only one of four, but the people who make the statement that there has been only four

hijackings in the last 6 months, I would like them to talk to the 6-year-old son of the agent who was killed and explain this to him. I am sure it will make him feel a whole lot better.

Thank you.

Senator CANNON. Thank you, Captain Hines.

Captain O'Donnell, shortly after Secretary Volpe made his announcement of the new emergency regulations on December 5, you held a news conference in which you applauded the Government's new program, including the provision requiring local rather than Federal police protection at the airports.

Now today you have testified in support of S. 39 and I know you have supported our bill last year.

I am just wondering how you reconcile those two statements?

Mr. O'DONNELL. Senator, if you listened to my press conference, you will recall that I lauded the Government when they finally did something for security. As you know, I discussed air security in great detail with many Congressmen trying to get Congress in the last days of the last session to change their attitude and at least provide some sort of security at the loading gate.

The answer simply was, "No."

My statement to the media in support of the President's announcement was that we applaud action that provides adequate law-enforcement presence at the gate.

We did not state whether it was Federal or State. In fact, I was a little concerned with your statement the other day, because I find your bill provides the authority of the FAA to deputize local law-enforcement people into this Federal security force.

As Captain Hines just said a few minutes ago, Sir, we don't think local law-enforcement people, unless they are properly trained by the Federal Government, monitored, checked and supervised so that there is one level of security at every gate. That cannot be accomplished, Senator, by using local law-enforcement people unless the Federal Government trains them and is responsible for them.

My endorsement of the President's statement was because of several things. We, at least, had them going down the road. In my statement I told them it was not our concern who was going to pay for this-the airlines, airport owners or Federal Government. I think I said in our statement today that we do not want to get involved in who is to pay for it.

The only thing is, we say the level of security should be consistent and should be monitored and checked. In fact, my letter to the President stated that the testing of this security force should be to the same degree that the Air Force used in testing the SAC system. This should be for the next several years, to make sure that the law-enforcement people are doing their job. That can only be done, Sir, if they are properly trained to begin with.

I said, in jest, that I don't want law-enforcement presence at the gate, the type of gent that is selling used cars or the type of gent selling Dodge automobiles on television. This is what Captain Hines is saying.

We have got the 75-year-old gent, or we have got the boy in the used car business. We can't live with it and I don't think the industry can live with it. And if the FAA at the meeting we had that Secretary

Volpe mentioned this morning-we kept saying, who is responsible? Who is going to check the system?

We were advised, the FAA has a 300-man security force that is going to go around and test the system.

We asked them how many are going to be trained by the Federal Government?

They said about 150 out of 3,000 people.

They are kidding themselves, because unless every man gets adequate training, the security program is not going to work.

Does that explain my position, Senator?

Senator CANNON. Yes, sir.

Senator Hart?

Senator HART. Gentlemen, thank you.

This, I suppose really does not bear on the immediate question of the bill, although the bill establishes the Administrator as the commander and chief, doesn't it, of all security on and off the plane? Senator CANNON. Puts it under the FAA, yes.

Senator HART. And Captain O'Donnell says that the pilot, the captain should be the one who shall decide whether he wants outside intervention or not.

If and you didn't describe what happened when you took off from Houston-but if the bandits, if the hijackers told you they wanted you to take off and go to Cuba, and you knew you had fuel only to get halfway, and if ground knew that through monitoring the conversation, and if there was a commander and chief, the administrator of this thing, and he or his agent knew that, and you didn't signal you wanted the tire shot out or outside intervention, what happens? You know?

Captain HINES. Yes, sir, be happy to answer the Senator.

No one on the ground could understand the situation in my airplane. I had four desperate men heavily armed; one with a shotgun. spread throughout the airplane. I was told that they would shoot the stewardesses first, and then the passengers one row at a time if there was any attempt to abort this particular hijacking.

Well, my first thought was, maybe they are kidding. This was followed very closely by the thought, they are probably not. They just shot two men right in front of my eyes.

I had the job of convincing these people that we had to have fuel somewhere during the flight. If I couldn't convince them, then I would have to take the chance and try to come in close to shoreline, but I was waiting, hoping I could convince them.

I did it in this manner: Once they were in the air-the people weren't calm, but they were a little bit calmer than they were on the ground-they were calm to the point where I could explain to them in very simple language, here is a fuel gage just like a fuel gage in your automobile. At this end it says full, at this end it says empty. And you see where the needle is.

So I finally was able to convince them and I was convinced I could convince them. But if somebody had tried to abort this there is no doubt in my mind what people in that airplane would have been killed.

So we landed at New Orleans for fuel. While we were on the ground at New Orleans, they were concerned about someone trying to abort