Rogue flight in Seattle

The other day, Seattle residents were greeted by a bizarre sight in the skies over Puget Sound. A 76seat Bombardier plane performed stunts, flew erratically and, at one point, attempted a barrel roll, leading some observers to believe they were being treated to an impromptu air show. The real story was far more tragic: The plane was piloted by Richard Russell, a 29-year-old Horizon Air employee who worked at the airport and had apparently never flown an aircraft before. He managed to commandeer the plane, take off and fly over a major metropolitan area for about an hour as two fighter jets trailed behind him. He eventually crashed into an uninhabited wooded area on nearby Ketron Island in what authorities presumed was a suicide.

No one else was injured in the crash, and Russell was reportedly worried about harming people on the ground. Yet the incident, which could easily have turned deadly for many more people, exposed the vulnerability of aircraft to tampering, theft and hijacking from airport employees. How could a member of the airport ground staff steal a plane from a large international airport and take off without authorization?

This potential gap in aviation security has been pointed out before, notably in a 2017 House Homeland Security Committee report that warned of threats to airport access controls. The report drew attention to “security vulnerabilities” that could allow terrorists and criminals to join the workforce of about 900,000 aviation employees. In response, the House approved a bipartisan bill that called for more stringent background checks of these employees and increased surveillance at airports. Following the Seattle incident, a Senate version of the bill might now pick up traction.

There is no question that the circumstances behind Russell’s flight and crash need to be thoroughly investigated. But as authorities and lawmakers assess the situation and consider policy responses, they should be careful not to overreact. There needs to be a measured conversation about how best to improve airport security and prevent incidents such as this one—and the solution might not necessarily involve more cumbersome background checks and expensive security technology.

Instead, there are simple, actionable policy shifts that could reduce these threats. For example, airlines and airports could focus on improving communication links among the different stakeholders involved in airport security; training staff on how to report suspicious activities; reducing the number of employee access points to planes; and revamping the employee screening process to become more strategic and targeted. This incident drew attention to a possible loophole that should be closed. Now what is needed is a rational, evidence-based response.