Page images
PDF
EPUB

Number 10, assign special seats to suspicious passengers so FAA sky marshalls can monitor them.

Number 11, late arriving passengers should either be denied entrance or subjected, regardless of possible flight delay to the same screening process as all other passengers.

Number 12, take responsibility for security out of the hands of ticket agents. They were not hired as security guards.

No doubt these recommended interim procedures will involve cost, inconvenience, and complaints. They will also save lives.

Finally, we urge this committee to obtain a better sense of the confusion and cover-up that now characterize airline security by investigating a particular case, the case of Pan Am Flight 103. We have attached as an appendix to this statement a series of questions for which you will be able to obtain answers better than we.

Those answers will not bring back our loved ones massacred last December 21st at 31,000 feet. Neither will the remedial measures we advocate here. At least these measures and others like them can help to increase the safety of our airways and help to prevent another calamity from inflicting pain on more people, perhaps people like you and your families.

If action is taken now that saves the lives of others, then the terrible tragedy of last December will have at least produced some small gain to offset the terrible loss we have suffered. On the other hand, if we forget the past we are condemned to repeat it.

We are grateful for your consideration of our views and we are hopeful that you will take early action accordingly. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Senator Ford. Thank you, Mr. Barry.

Several disturbing things in your statements for me. Probably the most disturbing point was made by Mr. Hudson. You are accurate, I am sure, when you said here in your written statement:

During the week of March the 19th, the FAA issued a high level alert that warned of a possible hijacking of an American airliner in Europe during the Easter rush. The substance of" this warning was broadcast as a travel advisory on U.S. Armed Forces television in Europe and then leaked to the British tabloid press.

Can you substantiate that statement?

Mr. Hudson. Mr. Chairman, there was a clip of the actual broadcast on one of the network evening news programs, and I can give your staff an exact reference.

Senator Ford. Would you do that for me, because if that occurred then we are right back to where we said it was against the rules to post it on the embassy bulletin board, and that was put out as an advisory. That went to just a limited number of personnel.

But was this then written in the British press?

Mr. Hudson. I believe, sir, the broadcast was simply a travel advisory. The British press published actual details of the FAA bulletin, and that provoked a strong reaction from Secretary Skinner.

Senator Ford. Well, I can imagine it would, yes.

Mr. Hudson. As I understand it, the broadcast was available to our 300,000 military personnel in Western Europe.

Senator Ford. Do you have a clip of the British paper, or can you advise me what paper I should secure it from?

Mr. Hudson. It appeared in the "London Times" and there were several others. But I can also supply your staff with copies of those clips.1

Senator Ford. Well, that would be fine. If you would do that I would be grateful to you.

[The following information was subsequently received for the record:]

The material was not reproducible.

■{4!>l . United States Department of State

Washington, D.C. 20520

Dear Mr. Chairman:

Thank you again for the opportunity to appear before the Subcommittee on Aviation of the Commerce Committee. I'hope that my testimony contributed to a more complete understanding of U.S. counterterrorism policy, our public notification system and other related matters of concern to your Subcommittee.

One of the final witnesses before you was Mr. Paul Hudson, whose daughter died in the Pan Am 103 bombing. In his testimony he stated, in effect, that the U.S. Government has a double standard regarding notification of terrorist threats to U.S. government civilian and military personnel abroad as compared to other Americans who are traveling overseas. In large measure he based his claim on an allegation that Armed Forces Network (AFN) issued in late March a security alert to its listeners based on the contents of an FAA Aviation Security Bulletin. For the record, the true sequence of events that led to Mr. Hudson's misunderstanding of U.S. Government policy is as follows:

o On March 16 the FAA issued an aviation security

bulletin which included the names of three individuals who were allegedly planning the hijacking of a U.S. aircraft in Western Europe. No date for the possible hijacking was specified.

o The contents of the bulletin were leaked, apparently

from the office of a U.S. airline in London, to Robert
McGowan, a columnist for the London tabloid "Daily
Express." He wrote an "exclusive report", based on
the contents of the aviation security bulletin, which
appeared in that paper on Thursday, March 23.

The Honorable

Wendell Ford,

Chairman, Subcommittee on Aviation
Commerce Committee

United States Senate.

- 2

0 The "Daily Express" story was distributed worldwide by
various wire services on March 23. Armed Forces
Network (AFN) was one of the recipients. On that same
date, and beginning with local radio newscasts as well
as the 6:00 P.M. evening news broadcast, AFN ran the
report as a news story and said its source was press
reports from London. No AFN story characterized this
story as a security alert to U.S. military and
civilian officials in Europe.

1 should add that Mr. McGowan's own reporting of this story demonstrates some of the problems inherent in publicizing aviation security bulletins. Despite having access to the actual text of the bulletin, his story contained two major factual "errors. He reported erroneously that the bulletin applied specifically to an Easter weekend hijack threat (thus perhaps making the threat more newsworthy), and that the U.S. Government had warned its military and civilian personnel of this threat. Both of these claims_j^reJEactuaLly^ incorrect. In this regard, I have attached the plress guidance wHTcK'was used here in Washington to comment upon this article as well as the AFN transcript for the news report in question.

In closing, let me assure you that there is no double standard between the travel security information available to the community of official personnel overseas and to U.S. citizens traveling abroad; it is neither U.S. Government policy nor procedure to notify government employees of terrorists threats while keeping such information from other American citizens.

I would appreciate this letter being included in the record of the hearing.

Sincerely,

[graphic][merged small]

Senator Ford. That is adding insult to injury if that is happening.

Let me just assure you that we are going to be moving—I think Senator Stevens came in this morning with a short statement. I do not know whether you were here to hear him or not, as it related to compensation. He is a very thoughtful, hard-working Senator, and this was one of the items that we were discussing in the statement that I had made that he referred to, I think, that compensation.

And those protocols now are in the final stage, as you well know. We do have conflicting interests in that, the State Department one way and I guess trial lawyers another. The victims have no voice in this unless you raise your voice, do they?

Mr. Barry. That is correct.

Mr. Hudson. Mr. Chairman, we do have a position on that. If you would like, I can tell you what it is.

Senator Ford. We would be glad to listen to you.

Mr. Hudson. The last time I believe this came before the Senate was in 1981, and at that time the amendments to the Warsaw Convention provided, as they do now, for an effective compensation level of $325,000, and that would be on a no-fault basis.

Also, as part of that it is apparently permitted for each country adopting this amendment to this international treaty to put in place what is called a supplemental plan. There was a vague outline, really, of a supplemental plan drafted in 1981 that would have provided for unlimited damages. However, it would have excluded non-economic damages, it would have excluded punitive damages, and it would, as we understand it, provide for no right of judicial

review.

We would support the adoption of the proposed amendment, the so-called Montreal Protocols, if the supplemental plan provided for full, fair, and prompt compensation to American families of those killed, not only in terrorist acts but in all air disasters overseas.

And we believe it should include what are commonly called noneconomic damages, which are things like pain and suffering, grief, loss of society, and others. It would still exclude punitive damages, and we believe that is a reasonable trade-off to be followed.

The time frame for compensation in the original draft plan back in 1981 I believe called for 60 days, and even if that is lengthened slightly that would be a far better system than what we have today, where families must wait essentially one to five years to receive recovery through our tort system.

Senator Ford. Has there been any approach to the families by the airline itself through their agents, which would be legal, to begin to negotiate any kind of financial settlement?

Mr. Hudson. I believe most families, Mr. Chairman, have received a settlement letter offering $100,000.

Senator Ford. Now, is that above the maximum?

Mr. Hudson. No. Well, the maximum is $75,000.

Senator Ford. Yes.

Mr. Hudson. And as I understand the offer by the insurance carrier, it is for $100,000.

Senator Ford. So they are going $25,000 beyond the maximum that is now required by law or protocol?

« PreviousContinue »