Sq 117 hijack
-
Ooh. Multiple entry - that was an accident waiting to happen, even though it might have been necessary.Originally posted by bcoy:Garuda DC9 (“Woyla”) was hijacked by 5 men armed with one pistol, one grenade and a single stick of dynamite.
Detachment 81 (Det81) - Team A, were divided into 3 sub-teams – front, middle and rear of the aircraft. They were armed with silenced Uzi, Beretta .22, and M16s. And as a last minute display of unit pride, they wore their unique Kopassandha uniforms and red berets.
Of the hijackers –
One broke free from the front of the aircraft, jumped off only to be cut down by a M16.
One tossed the grenade in the middle of the aircraft – but it didn’t go off.
One hijacker was identified, directed out the emergency exit on the wing and was shot with a single round to the head when he struggled.
One was captured at the rear of the aircraft,
the last one was captured on the ground when he tried to blend in with the passengers. A captain stepped forward and shot him twice in the thighs to prevent him from fleeing.
Senior cadet Ahmad Kirang (rear team) was likely shot by his own team mates from the center of the aircraft in a crossfire. He died one day later. The round went in just under the vest above his crotch area it seems.
The planeÂ’s captain was found bleeding from a head wound (likely friendly fire). He died nine days later.
Of the 5 hijackers – 2 were captured alive in Bangkok. But all 5 were dead by the time they landed in Jakarta with Det81.
More details can be found in the book “Kopassus” by Ken Conboy. -
opps .. issit?Originally posted by Gedanken:Uhh, Icemoon, your tone says that you are disagreeing with things that people like storywolf are saying (e.g. "I agrue that..."), but what you're saying effectively agrees with what those others have said. I don't get where you're coming from.
I'm of the opinion you can't use SQ 117 as a good benchmark for our SOF then. I apologize if I sound contradictory in my reply. -
It was to laugh at the poster who cited the detachment 81 example. He chose a low profile mission when a high profile one could suffice.Originally posted by Gedanken:Was that supposed to be hilarious?
So does it mean he dunno the high profile ones or he wanted to enlighten me about a lower profile one? -
well .. almost everyone did beside our SOF.Originally posted by will4:I guessed they faced stiff resistance also.
so do you think our one was a good benchmark? -
what the heck .. they asked cadet to go for ops?Originally posted by bcoy:Senior cadet Ahmad Kirang (rear team) was likely shot by his own team mates from the center of the aircraft in a crossfire. He died one day later. The round went in just under the vest above his crotch area it seems.
-
So why wouldn't it be a good benchmark?Originally posted by Icemoon:I'm of the opinion you can't use SQ 117 as a good benchmark for our SOF then. I apologize if I sound contradictory in my reply. -
The cadet is apparently a CPT. I read in one of the Indonesian paper cause I from Indonesia.Originally posted by Icemoon:what the heck .. they asked cadet to go for ops? -
The mission at that time is rather "Take out all tango, stop any of them before they can take any action to blow up the plane " . If you think that is easy think again !Originally posted by Icemoon:I'm sure live explosives or no explosives, the pre-execution mentality should be the same - get the civilians out with minimal casualty. After all, most terrorists threaten to kill people every x minutes and the CT must react fast.
It is just like your school exam. An average paper cannot differentitate the good from the mediocre; it only weeds out the poor. I'm surprised you use the word "text book". Correct me if I'm wrong, all CT units train using the text book way, so this point is moot.
I'd argue that what our SOF went through was comparatively easy compared with other high profile plane hijack missions.
So you are right. Our SOF executed it the textbook way. There's no need to think out of the book.
While SQ 117 is not a *good* indication of their ability or inability, the mission was a success.
the team have to charge into a planes from different entrances , with time limit as the stop clock is ticking, before the tangos can recover from the surprise and iginte the explosive ! You got 2 teams charging in , with all the smoke , noise, shock passengers, to shoot, to kill all tangos fast without shooting any passengers or other teams mates , with everyone of them moving, with limited lights , without tripping yourself in the tight walkway.
This is not arcade games, you don't get to practice the whole scene till perfect ! you get to play it once only.
I would say it is a good job done , an a perfect textbook case , as result is what any teacher would be proud of - all tango take down without the chance to hurt anyone or trigger the explosive, no hostage or own team mates hurt ! -
You are an Indonesian? Did you serve in the military?Originally posted by will4:The cadet is apparently a CPT. I read in one of the Indonesian paper cause I from Indonesia. -
Exactly, storywolf.
First and foremost, I've never met a Green Beret or SAS trooper who doesn't like simplicity. The ones I've met have only cared about getting the job done, and none of them have had a problem with SQ117's lack of complexity.
Second, as you've said, it was a textbook execution, all tangos dead and all hostages rescued. 100% of the mission requirements were achieved, so there's no point in going "well, it could have been bettter if ...." - nobody's awarding 110% here.
Third, let's face it - the reality is that faecal matter happens, and it happens to the best of us. Do we wish that things were a lot more complicated so that we can prove that we can handle things going badly wrong? Anybody who does really has no business going anywhere near CT ops - gung-ho Rambo wannabes are only good for one thing, and that one thing's getting friendlies killed. -
Just to clarify - SIA does not use plastic knives in any of their in-flight classes.Originally posted by will4:Ineed they found with plastic knives n what u called that? Explosives simply cannot work.
Gosh luckily no 911 hijackers of the sort during the storming.
I talked to some local over this, they said these terrorist came not prepared.
The hijackers had used their own knives as well. And at that point of time, it was reported that the hijackers had sticks of dynamic. In addition, they had poured alcohol and threatened to burn the plane from inside.
All of these details/photos and more have been reported and described. -
Senior cadet may mean something else in Indonesia.Originally posted by Icemoon:what the heck .. they asked cadet to go for ops? -
Correct but only served NS in 2 PDF Comd. I often read about TNI matter.Originally posted by bcoy:You are an Indonesian? Did you serve in the military? -
I'm just guessing from the descriptions of the Garuda hijack, some more information from the book –Originally posted by Gedanken:Ooh. Multiple entry - that was an accident waiting to happen, even though it might have been necessary.
All 3 team went in at the same time – rear, middle, and front.
First contact upon entry was made in the middle by the hijacker with the sole pistol. He was shot by Uzis of Sgts. Hidayat and Suwarno. Both Sgts got onto the plane’s aisle – back to back, one facing front, the other facing rear.
At this time, the team at the rear made its entry and was hit by fire from the Uzis as well. PL Tobing was hit in the finger and vest, while senior cadet Kirang was hit below the vest and died a day later.
At the front – upon hearing shots from the middle of the aircraft, Sgt Mahmud and senior cadet Slamet fired their Beretta and Uzi into the cabin while still on the ladders, before moving into the plane itself. The plane’s captain was hit at this point. -
Damn, that's a mess - who the hell goes blindly firing through a wall when he can't see what the hell he's shooting at? Sounds like a complete Charlie Fox by the front team, and to some extent the middle team.
Sounds like a major coordination screw-up as well if the front team wasn't in the aircraft by the time the other two teams were havign a blue-on-blue.
Well, there you go - such a mission can go badly wrong, and it's a good thing our boys didn't did the job right on 117. -
I never said it was easy, did I? I said it was comparatively easier than other hijack ops.Originally posted by storywolf:The mission at that time is rather "Take out all tango, stop any of them before they can take any action to blow up the plane " . If you think that is easy think again !
the team have to charge into a planes from different entrances , with time limit as the stop clock is ticking, before the tangos can recover from the surprise and iginte the explosive ! You got 2 teams charging in , with all the smoke , noise, shock passengers, to shoot, to kill all tangos fast without shooting any passengers or other teams mates , with everyone of them moving, with limited lights , without tripping yourself in the tight walkway.
This is not arcade games, you don't get to practice the whole scene till perfect ! you get to play it once only.
I would say it is a good job done , an a perfect textbook case , as result is what any teacher would be proud of - all tango take down without the chance to hurt anyone or trigger the explosive, no hostage or own team mates hurt !
The conditions you mentioned, aren't they standard for most hijack ops? Hijack ops always have time limit, whether it is 5 minute 1 life or 30 minutes bomb goes off, for example. And which hijack ops has the cabin orderly enough for you to shoot?
I don't think you guys should make it sound so hard in the case of SQ117. I believe CT units are trained to distinguish tangos from innocents or friends. I believe they can throw president nathan and the cabinet ministers into the killing house, storm the house, and everyone can come out unscathed.
The mission is perfect because they were perfect during their practices. They did practise on a similar plane before the mission right? -
Because the whole scenario was a standard textbook mission. Was there anything exceptional or sudden change of circumstances that warranted an igenuity on their part?Originally posted by Gedanken:So why wouldn't it be a good benchmark?
I don't think there was anything exceptional in the circumstances or anything new to be learned from that mission. -
It was a well done job, no doubt. But definitely not a good benchmark.Originally posted by Gedanken:Second, as you've said, it was a textbook execution, all tangos dead and all hostages rescued. 100% of the mission requirements were achieved, so there's no point in going "well, it could have been bettter if ...." - nobody's awarding 110% here.
If this is a good benchmark of their abilities, then logic will lead us to admit Detachment 81, GSG and GIGN were below par. Because all three missions had casualties on the CT side.
Theirs were missons not well done. < 100% mission requirements. So they suck? -
I'm not sure what perspective you're taking on this, but round my neighbourhood, we want the job to be as uneventful as possible.Originally posted by Icemoon:Because the whole scenario was a standard textbook mission. Was there anything exceptional or sudden change of circumstances that warranted an igenuity on their part?
I don't think there was anything exceptional in the circumstances or anything new to be learned from that mission.
Let's face it, Detachment 81 messed up for some reason or other. They had a blue-on-blue and shot hostages, botching the entry so one team was still outside when the other two were already shooting, and then shooting through the walls of the aircraft. As far as CT ops are concerned, all those are big no-nos, especially plinking friendlies.
Is D81 a bad unit? I can't say for sure. Was that a bad mission? Definitely. Does such a mission add to the unit's reputation? Decidedly not - at least not in a good way because you don't brag about f*cking up. Do we want to have a mission like that? Definitely not.
The ingenuity's in the training and mission planning, not the execution, and if the job's done right, there's nothing much to be said about it because it'll be pure vanilla. -
Reminds me of Margaret Thatcher the Iron Lady who is so confident of the SAS that she's willing to sit inside the killing house and let the SAS trooper's live round fly past past her and hit all the targets surronding her. Don't think any of our minister would dare to take that sort of challenge.Originally posted by Icemoon:I don't think you guys should make it sound so hard in the case of SQ117. I believe CT units are trained to distinguish tangos from innocents or friends. I believe they can throw president nathan and the cabinet ministers into the killing house, storm the house, and everyone can come out unscathed. -
Wondering if the CT Teams have any distinct identification to determine friend from foe? AS during the storming of any aircrafts,ships,buildings, one would be hyperventilating, taking incoming rounds, firing off rounds and the environment is basically chaotic. The Israelis I have read, actually taped a yellow strip of tape to the slides of their handguns and also on the handguards of their SMGs/ARs to aid recognition.
Was playing Rainbow 6 3 and realised that another way for IFF during night ops is for the troopers to don uniforms with a reflective patch which shows up very distinctly on NVGs and not without.As this clearly helps create a shoot/no-shoot environmnet. -
my 1ct:
I agree that having entry teams in front, middle and rear is messy indeed. An aircraft is not a building. Its a tube shape object. I pity the middle guys the most.
I feel that the problem with that particular hijack was that the team was not thoroughly prepared. If they were well prepared, they would be on tippy toes to check their targets before they shot (after all, they knew they had friends coming from the front, end and middle ) , as well as ensuring that stray rounds do not cause collateral damage.
They would have better luck tear gassing the rear and middle, and have 1 team sweep through the plane. -
Can you list the reasons why you feel that it is easier than other hijack ops ?Originally posted by Icemoon:I never said it was easy, did I? I said it was comparatively easier than other hijack ops.
The conditions you mentioned, aren't they standard for most hijack ops? Hijack ops always have time limit, whether it is 5 minute 1 life or 30 minutes bomb goes off, for example. And which hijack ops has the cabin orderly enough for you to shoot?
I don't think you guys should make it sound so hard in the case of SQ117. I believe CT units are trained to distinguish tangos from innocents or friends. I believe they can throw president nathan and the cabinet ministers into the killing house, storm the house, and everyone can come out unscathed.
The mission is perfect because they were perfect during their practices. They did practise on a similar plane before the mission right?
Why ?
- because you feel the hijackers are dumber in this case ?
- or the hijackers numbers are less ? the hijackers all are wearing - "hijacker here !" t-shirt that make them easier to find ?
- The hijackers never eat lunch and dinner thus they have no strength to poke a knife into someone chest within 5 sec ?
- or they never eat no strength ever to light a explosive within 5 sec ?
- Or hijackers submitted to authorities a sample of explosive, so that it can be test and everyone know that it is not real explosive and cannot blow up the plane ?
Can you explain to us how the CT units are train to distinguish tangos ? - they train to read the t-shirt that say "TANGO" or "shoot me " ?
Killing house is just a training. Remember going into a killing house at least you do the shooting, the target don't shoot back. Even you are unsure , you can chose to not to shot and still be alive . In real life, that may mean the plane is blown sky high with everyone on board. -
IR reflective tapes are but one of the kits available.This is what the US Army use on their ACU badges.
-
The argument that it is easier is essentially a-posteriori. Looking back at the incident, there was nothing out of the book. They did what they were trained for. There is nothing much to be learned from the incident. We are eternally grateful that they did their job well.Originally posted by storywolf:Can you list the reasons why you feel that it is easier than other hijack ops ?
Why ?
- because you feel the hijackers are dumber in this case ?
- or the hijackers numbers are less ? the hijackers all are wearing - "hijacker here !" t-shirt that make them easier to find ?
- The hijackers never eat lunch and dinner thus they have no strength to poke a knife into someone chest within 5 sec ?
- or they never eat no strength ever to light a explosive within 5 sec ?
- Or hijackers submitted to authorities a sample of explosive, so that it can be test and everyone know that it is not real explosive and cannot blow up the plane ?
Can you explain to us how the CT units are train to distinguish tangos ? - they train to read the t-shirt that say "TANGO" or "shoot me " ?
Killing house is just a training. Remember going into a killing house at least you do the shooting, the target don't shoot back. Even you are unsure , you can chose to not to shot and still be alive . In real life, that may mean the plane is blown sky high with everyone on board.
I dunno how CT units are trained to distinguish tangos, but they do practise differentiating tangos from hostage in the killing house. Thatcher and the royal family had confidence in their SAS. Do you have confidence in our SOF?
Exactly! You hit the target. In a killing house, the targets don't shoot back (at least not with live rounds). In the SQ117, NONE OF THE TANGOS CAN SHOOT BACK. Pray tell me, how is it fundamentally different from a killing house?
Who knows .. maybe if the tangos weld AK like in Marseilles .. the result will be different?