Cockpit Security - Doors

[Ontheairwaves]

In the light of recent events should aircraft manufacturers and airlines alike consider strenghtening the cockpit doors if not changing them to be made out of a substance like steel???
Yes i know it would add to the overall weight of the aircraft but perhaps then prevent would-be hijackers gaining access to the flight deck????
Just a thought :confused:

[Gentleman Aviator]

I believe that we should consider how to combat this latest form of airborne terrorism.

The mass and velocity of an aeroplane, when targeted at a ground feature will cause enormous damage. In order to target the aeroplane, a pliot on the flightdeck has to be coerced into using his aircraft as a weapon, or replaced by another pilot who is prepared to die for his cause.

Both of these scenarios require an assailant to gain access to the flightdeck. Once the terrorist is on the flightdeck he or she will probably require some form of personal weapon to take control.

X-ray and other form of pre-departure screening should ensure that bombs, rifles, guns, grenades etc do not make it onboard the passenger or freight compartment. Ensuring that small blades, shards of glass, garrotte wire etc do not make it into the passenger compartment is almost impossible.

If we accept that a motivated assailant could use hundreds of potential weapons that are readily available on an aeroplane then we must accept that our aeroplanes are vulnerable. They are vulnerable because potential attackers can gain access to the flightdeck.

We should ensure that the flightdeck is a sterile environment. The door should be locked throughout the flight. The door should be secure enough to prevent unauthorised access. Rest areas should be available within the secure flightdeck area for cruise pilots.

If a potential adversary cannot smuggle weaponry onboard to destroy the aircraft, nor take control of the aeroplane due to a lack of access, attacks of the type seen recently will not occur again.

In short, lock a secure flightdeck door for the duration of the flight and never open it, irrespective of what is occurring on the other side.

Comments?

[Commander]

Gentleman Aviator is right. The only way to block access to the flight deck is blocking it out compleatly regardless of threats or violence in the back. I think airport security is an other thing; those determined enough can and are able to get their will done. Stupidity and plain evil can go a long way. On the other hand we could have armed guards on every flight.

Flying is about compromise. It can be dangerous but we still fly. The security measures taken and inflicted in the future will be a compromise of price and comfort. It's safest to bombserch every luggage, but it takes time and money and therefore not done - yet. I belive that airtravel as we know it will forever change. God willing, security measures will filter out the worst, ie. the un-luckiest, but those crazy enough to do this kind of terror are still living and even contemplating something similar. The only thing that can really stop these people is morality and respect for life.

[Checkboard]

The current strategies for dealing with skyjack were formulated during the early 60s and seventies, where the skyjackers were either political refugees "Take me to Cuba!" or people willing to make a political statement by by diverting an aircraft to a remote field, then destroying it on the ground. Some were merely disturbed individuals looking for attention.

Under that paradigm the advice to "follow whatever directions the skyjacker gave", while attempting to alert the authorities on the ground made eminent sense. The skyjacker had the advantage of surprise, was mentally prepared for violence, usually armed and had access to hostages in the cabin, while the pilots were taken by surprise, strapped into seats with their backs to the skyjacker and hampered as they also had to ensure the safe flight of the aircraft. A physical response while airbourne would always have a very low likelyhood of success, while dealing with the situation on the ground, with ground assistance, maximised the chances for survival of all on board.

Under this new paradigm - suicide skyjackers using the aircraft as a 200 ton missile with inbuilt hostage protection while in flight, may require a re-think of the strategies in dealing with skyjack.

In the USA in the early 60s and 70s - before significant ground security checks at airports, pilots began to arm themselves as several pilots were killed at that time.

[tired]

Spot on, Checkboard, the playing fields have just tilted significantly and the old advice of "do what they tell you to do" has to be radically rethought. A locked cockpit door will help, but it's not a cure-all. Am I right that American public transport flights are already required to keep the door locked?

[MPH]

I know that Swissair has an armoured cockpit doors on most of there aircraft. They also have a video camara looking back into the area immediatly behind. That keeps the cockpit crew more or less safe and they can see whom is coming or trying to get on to the flight deck. This certainly does not solve the ultimate problem. And, that is, how to screen boarding pax in a more efficient and practical manner? The other part of the equation, is how do we combat terrorism or even solve the worlds problems. I am sure that this issue will a discussion point for many years to come! In the mean time my condolences to all whom have been touched by these tragic events.

[echomikeecho]

Gentleman Aviator and the Commander

Both with absolutely sound ideas. The Flight Deck door should remain closed for the whole flight. If we wish to stop the same type of incident happening again, then this can only be done by making the Flight Deck door totally secure and it be physically impossible to gain access from the cabin during the flight. As pax will always be able to smuggle things onboard or grab a fire axe or heavy fire extinguisher, or take on board chemical incapacitant sprays, weapons must be considered to be available to these peolple. If we go down this route, which is the ONLY way to prevent similar incidents, by stopping them physically getting at the controls, then there will have to be major changes to the inside of the aircraft - lavatories, food, additional comunication between FD and cabin, operational procedures - all of these and more, will be topics to be discussed.

A very, very, very sad few days for us all.

[Nick Figaretto]

Thoughts along the lines of Checkboard's post have come to my mind too. The "Do whatever the hijackers say" recipe just doesn't work anymore.

In this case, I'm afraid a "Turn the airplane over on its back and pull the stick as hard as you can." would have saved literally thousansd of lives.

Up until now, the "only" thing we have been concerned about is the safety of the flight and the passengers on board. The recent happenings sets the hijacking threat in a different perpective.

September 11th 2001 changed everything. :(

Nick.

[moon]

A steel flight deck door, well locked is now a must. A video camera looking at the pax cabin(s) is also essential. Any sign of terrorist activity and a pilot should be able to discharge a harmless knockout gas into the pax cabin and land the aircraft asap. Upon landing the terrorists can be dealt with whilst still unconcious.
True this method will probably not spare the lives of all on board, but bear in mind the alternative. May all those poor souls rest in peace.

[BmPilot21]

I strongly disagree with you. There is no point locking the flight deck doors. On one of the hijacked planes in the USA the hijackers were unable to break down the locked flight deck door, so they started stabbing one of the stewardesses until it was opened. Can any of you seriously say you would not open that door if you got an intercom from a girl saying she was being stabbed? Or, they could say they have a grenade and will blow up the whole aircraft if you don't open the door. They will assure you they will not harm you if you do open it - maybe they DO just want to be 'taken to Tehrain' etc and it could be a 'conventional hijack'.

There are also too many reasons why access is essential to the flight deck:

1. In an emergency the pilots may need to go down the back (gear lock viewers, burning smells etc).

2. In an emergency the No.1 must be briefed. This is far better face to face from a CRM point of view.

3. The toilet is outside the flight deck on short haul aircraft.

4. Pilots require food and drink from the galley.

EME - where EXACTLY do you propose putting a toilet inside a 737 cockpit?! There isn't enough room to swing a cat in there. There are 1000's of them worldwide, each capable of being used like in NY. The cost of redesigning them would be prohibitive and it wouldn't achieve anything.

[ 13 September 2001: Message edited by: BmPilot21 ]

[erikv]

BmPilot21, I fully agree.

A locked door, strong enough to withstand a bad-tempered hijacker, provokes violence towards flight attendants and pax. Who of you wants to be the first pilot landing with only the flight crew still alive? Then there is the possibility of the pilot having family members on board, next in line to be killed unless he opens the door... how long would that door remain closed?

It has been the policy - or actually law - in the US for years (if not decades) to keep the door closed. Did that stop or even just stall the hijackers on any of the four planes? We all know it didn't.

Erik.

[sistern]

The argument here seems to be...door unlocked v door locked.

How about no door at all. This negates any argument about cabin crew being threatened so as to force pilots out of the flight deck. There is no point in even trying to gain access, controle the flight etc if access does not exist.

Front aircraft door is for flight crew only with a metal bulkhead in front of row one seating. Pilots have their own toilet and self serve galley. Not as nice as being handed a cup of cofee by a prety flight attendant, but the world changed this week and not for the better.

[Mycroft]

If we follow dw's suggestion then we have the ultimate safety measure; a/c cannot be hijacked if they do not exist. I realise that due to this (and other similar) incidents that the cockpit will be closed at all times, but unfortunately with terrorists willing/eager to die the only way to combat them is by preemptive strikes / improved security stopping them getting anywhere near the a/c. No current design is capable of simple modification to permanently seal the cockpit - any don't forget the many regional a/c with no solid partitions, just curtains, and even if you had sealed cockpits and Rambo-style sky marshalls on every flight, consider a light twin (or heavy turbo single) loaded with HE or even ANFO - the Oklahoma city bomb was far larger than the WTC or Pentagon impact. It is impossible to protect every possible target.

[PPRuNe Radar]

However, taking the front doors out means a corresponding reduction in passenger loads due to aircraft certification evacuation times. Less passengers means higher fares and possibly less travel by the public so there could be big big ramifications and some airlines might not survive in the economic climate.

There is always a balance to be had. The question is how far to one side will it be allowed to be tipped and what will the effects on everyone's liveliehoods be ?? :(

[Max Angle]

There is no doubt that the locked (modified or not) cockpit door is on the way for all airliners that have doors. Our lot have now said that only flight crew and cabin crew are to have access to the flightdeck from doors closed to doors open and I can't see it ever changing back. It seems trivial to mention in the light of so much carnage but it is shame that we will no longer be able to invite the wide eyed air cadet in row 5 up the front for landing.

There are several threads running about new doors and changing the internal config. to have a door to the flightdeck outside the pax. cabin so the crew are sealed in etc. It seems to me that the measure that is going to make the biggest difference is a trained, and armed security officer on EVERY flight. The airlines will moan that it will be too expensive but many operators already employ far more cabin crew than they need simply to provide in-flight service which would seem to be far less important. We often carry 8 crew on an A321, 3 more than the legal minimum so it is only a matter of airlines changing their views on what is really important. El Al have been doing it for years and I think it is time for others to follow, I am sure that the U.S. will go down this route.

It has been a truly dark few days for the world and I feel sick to my stomach that the thing that I love being involved in so much and that has given me so much pleasure has been used to such horrific effect. RIP

[ 14 September 2001: Message edited by: Max Angle ]

[wingnut135]

OK, what about instead of hired security on board evey flight, we simply arm and train a percentage of the flight crew? True, it seems extreme, but it also seems that in states where someone may be carrying a weapon there is less violent crime. Perhaps the fact that the pilots they're trying to hijack might turn around a pull a handgun might change a terrorist's mind about hijacking as a viable option. Of course, no one wants to think about the consequences of discharging a weapon on a jet, particularly at altitute, and the training and certification to carry a weapon would certainly be a pain, but it might be worth it.

[erikv]

The weight increase resulting from a fully sealed cockpit with its own access door does take away the threat to pax and cabin crew.

But does it also increase safety levels? It takes out an emergency exit. It also prevents the pilots from going into the cabin in case of technical problems: it will be impossible to look, listen or otherwise observe what's going on when the a/c does not work as adertised.
Events that justify an access door have been a lot more common throughout the years.

[Mount'in Man]

No single approach will solve security issues on board airliners. You need a multi-facet approach:
1. Improve security at the gate lounge. Better scanning and detection.
2. Redesign the airliner. Self contained cockpit with washroom and galley. No door into the cabin - just an impregnable bulkhead. Fit an external door for crew access.
3. CCTV and electronics to monitor systems and cabin.
4. Marshals on-board - armed.
5. International terrorism should be declared an act of war. No civil trial and years languishing on death row - a simple court martial and death by firing squad!

Don't arm the crew - you have you read some of the posts by pilots on this BB. Could you honestly trust some of these jackasses with a side-arm, in a pressurised cabin with a lot of people?

[karrank]

The key to locking the doors is not "I hear you knocking, but you can't come in," it is denying communication to the smelly chap in the cabin with unorthodox views on the conduct of the flight.

If there is no way for the cabin to communicate with the flight deck (after a panic button is pressed) the smelly chap can't really stop you from landing the aircraft where you want it to.

Fine, he can still blow it up or slice up the SLF, but this is not as much fun to him, so he will lose interest and blow himself up on a bus instead.

[geiginni]

I am just reiterating what I had posted on another thread, but I am really curious.

Does anyone believe pilots could/should be trained in high-G manouvers that could disable anyone who wasn't strapped into their seat. It would seem that a well executed split-S or Immelman type manouver could throw anyone who wasn't strapped in their seat to the back of the cabin where they would likely be knocked unconcious or have a few bones broken.

What are the load limits on a large airliner like a 767 or A330? Would it be possible to execute such a manouver as a last resort to disable anyone standing? I've read many reports of FA's breaking ankles in clear air turbulence that it would seem an intentional manouver to disable people would be within the limits of the A/C structure.

[moon]

Earlier in this thread I made several points, one of which was a stronger, locking flight deck door would maybe be a way to go.
This has been met with several responses, some good points, some bad, some ridiculous.
As another of my points was there should be cameras in the pax cabin, pilots would be able to see if it was safe to exit the flight deck to investigate problems in the cabin (of a technical kind).
True, a possibility exists where many passengers may be injured or even killed if terrorists are on board an aircraft, but this is better than the terrorist being able to take control of the aircraft and use it as a weapon. This of course will mean the deaths of all souls on board as well as the loss of countless lives on the ground.
My final idea hasn't been commented on, perhaps because it sounds crazy or extreme. You must all excuse me if I am being naive or ridiculous, but it seems to me, once the flight deck is secure and sealed, with its own air supply (no recirculated air), the use of gas to 'knock out' all those in the pax cabins would prevent the hijackers from doing too much damage. Sure they would have time to do a certain amount of damage, but their time would be limited.
Once unconcious they would no longer pose a threat and the aircraft could land asap where the terrorists could be dealt with.
Even if this is not the right method to use, it seems to me that disabling the terrorists in some way BEFORE they can seize control of the aircraft has to be the way to go.

[Centre Command]

There will always be a risk, no matter what you do. The question is whether the benefits of air travel outway the risk of travel. Not just against terrorism but any accident.

This is the first time this has happened in 100 years of aviation. That is acceptable, as long is it does not become a regular occurrence.

More viable would be to restrain the passengers, like in a roller coaster ride (this would also add to their safety!) and allowing them to get up in a controlled fashion as the need arises (ie toilet stop or stretching). This way, flight crew could ensure that 5 hyjackers could not get up at the same time and storm the plane!!

This concept may take time for some people to absorb, but it is the most viable and in many ways pratical.

[4 of 7]

On the DC10 the whole panel in the lower part of the door Kicks-In/Out depending which direction you do it from.

As they bend their head to get in, you can scratch their eyes out with your plastic fork!

Over reaction or what?

[moon]

Centre Command, 'you da man!' that is an excellent idea. 4 of 7, you truly are a bounder! :D

[Ontheairwaves]

PPRUNE RADAR
i agree that adding to the aircraft weight reduces the amount of passengers but one could always lose the gained weight say in the cargo area....and reduce the weight in checked luggage rather than changing the number of seats.....more than one way to skin a cat....don't just jump at the passenger loads...having been to Boeing in Seattle and seen how they put together an aircraft there are many ways to combat the fact that there is a steel door at the cockpit.
BMpilot 21

Yes what you say is true could you actually stay inside the cockpit and risk having the whole cabin killed a tough decision but now with this whole new situation i say that it would be hard thing to do but rather than have your aircraft crash into a city,building such as the WTC then,yes I WOULD land first and try and avoid something like what we have seein on Tuesday.
I was flying that same hour and my collegues discussed this very situation once on the ground in Miami...
If there is a likely hood that the terrorist could fly the plane and from now on i don't think we can discount this fact, then i would try to stay in command of the aircraft as long as i could and avoid such a tragedy...
Yes yes i know in the past we have been trained to do as they say but can we believe this now in the shadow of WTC....don't think so......
That's my personal opinion.....i had relatives staying in the hotel in WTC who luckily checked out at 745am that morning and i certainly wouldn't have wanted to met them there that day in my aircraft....
My thoughts are with the people in NYC and WAS...and hope that the cowardly terrorists are brought to justice.....

[Wino]

This is an interesting dilemma. But basically, it is unlikely the 4-5 people could kill everyone on an airliner without access to the cockpit. You could cut a couple of throats, but then the rest of the pax are likely to start fighting back eventually atleast slowing the terrorists progress if not stopping them completely. IN the meantime, you can hustle the aircraft onto the ground where you can get some armed intervention.

As soon as a terrorist gets into the cockpit, he only has to kill 2 people (the pilots) to kill the rest of the people on the aircraft. Handgrenades inside the cabin aren't sure to bring the aircraft down either, unless you throw a lot of them....

Certainly on a 747 the easiest way to kill 400 people is with the controls in the cockpit.

As to the needs of going back to the cabin. The freighters never have that option. the 757PF that UPS flies has the number one door moved way forward. Behind it is a solid bulkhead. In the cockpit area is a mini galley and a lav. Use that as the new standard and place the pax cabin behind the freight bulkhead with no cockpit to cabin access.

As to evac routes, the pilots still have their outside door plus 2 windows. Cockpit windows are never included in the certification for an evacuation so that doesn't change anything either.

Inspection of gear ports and what not can be done with video cameras.

Cheers
Wino

[PPRuNe Radar]

Ontheairwaves

My point was not to do with the weight (I don't think I mentioned it), rather the fact that the forward doors would no longer be available to passengers. Not such a problem in heavier metal but very restrictive to evacuation in the 737/A320 class of aircraft. That's what would restrict your pax load since you need to be able to get everyone off in 90 seconds (yeah, right !!).

Wino

I wasn't particularly worried about cockpit crew egress. As you say, they have multiple routes whatever the configuration.

[Chimbu chuckles]

Geiginni,
You don't need to fling the aircraft all over the sky to hurt someone, I can bounce you all around the back with very gentle control inputs.

To everyone with strange,expensive and unrealistic ideas about redesigning aircraft etc get real....the only affordable option is HIGHLY trained 'Sky Snipers'.

A minimum of two on every aircraft likely to be a target of this kind of obscenity, seated wide apart but with NO-ONE on board knowing who or where will be the only way to stop these things ending badly.....NOTHING can be done to stop them starting.

The best part about it they already exist and are already trained and the Govt already pays them to play at their jobs....they're called SAS!

Chuck.

[Dagger Dirk]

To everyone with strange,expensive and unrealistic ideas about redesigning aircraft etc get real....the only affordable option is HIGHLY trained 'Sky Snipers'.
Here's another:

The answer to defeating unlawful interference might lie with this solution:

CLICK this LINK (http://www.iasa-intl.com/RoboLander.htm)

[Chimbu chuckles]

Yeah right...and the day the system malfunctions....which it will, an aeroplane with possibly 400 pax crashes with the pilots unable to intervene.

For f**ks sake! DO NOT LET THE ENGINEERS HIJACK US AS WELL!!!!!

Chuck :mad: :mad:

[Dagger Dirk]

Chimbu Chuckles

If you look at the credentials of the chap (Rainman) giving the endorsement of the whole idea, he is THE Boeing and McDD auto-flight control expert. He writes extensively upon the subject on the Bluecoat glass-cockpit technician's closed forum. He has many years in the field; in fact many more years than the autoland systems that he does the design accreditation of. Those systems are fail-safe and that is the key. Having the Robolander as a fall-back position would at least avoid the thousands of casualties (that will now grow exponentially because of the many years of war to come).

The religious wars of the 21st Century are going to go on for many decades and will despoil the earth and deprive my children of what might have otherwise been a quite joyous life. And what's more worrying, I am not at all convinced that, once a Jihad is called by the clerics, that Freedom and Democracy will prevail. We lack the mindless conviction of the other side and just may not make it through to "Last Man Standing".

My government has decided to invest in a significant number of Global Hawks. They only did that after looking at the warrantied failure probabilities. They are far lower than your chances of winning the national lottery.

The concept is described in detail at this URL (http://www.iasa-intl.com/RoboLander.htm)

[Hwel]

What do you need your own gally and washroom for? If you cant eat your own sandwiches and pee in a bottle for your $100,000 a year then your in the wrong game. Re-building the A/c is not an option, just armour the cockpit door and lock yourself in.

[Luud]

A little sidestep from the flightdeck door, if I'm allowed. In my airline we don't use incapacitant spray(nor had I ever heard of it). What is it and what does it do, specifically.(Do you believe it, there's no questionmark on this keyboard!)

[RatherBeFlying]

How about a double door where only one door can be open at a time (like photography darkrooms) to a narrow passage that requires you to enter sideways (watch your waistline) that can only hold one person at a time? This would stop hijackers from bursting in with the next sharp object held against a hostage's throat. The cockpit could have a switch to open both doors on the ground for evacuation and ground servicing. Once pasengers are boarding, the passage would revert to secure mode.

Additionally the galleys must be protected so that one or more hijackers can not quietly sneak up to an isolated cabin crew member to make a hostage of her. It's much easier to make the initial hostage grab in the galley where there are no passengers to interfere. These people tend to do their dirty work in dark corners.

[Cargo Cult]

Re: Centre Command

No doubt about it, yours is an eminently prat-ical idea

[sky9]

The answer surely is to take the pilot out of the aircraft and manage it on the ground. Modern autopilots Sat nav and one or two other gizmoes should mean that we can sit at home managing the flight and writing to PPRuNe.
Now - who's that at the door?

[Wino]

Oh great, I can see the headlines, 9 year old hacks 7 aircraft all crashed...

Just make sure there is NO access from the cabin to the cockpit, then it doesn't matter what happens in the back , the aircraft cannot be used as a weapon.

Cheers
Wino

[Dagger Dirk]

RoboLander Updated (http://www.iasa-intl.com/RoboLander.htm) with some added links, inputs, facts and ideas.

Actually requires reading, analysis and some thought - versus shoot-from-the-hip superficial dismissal.

[old-timer]

some thoughts to add:-

Doors can be made stronger with kevlar,
not cheap, but VERY strong,it
wouldnt be beyond the wit of man (or design engineer) to achieve a satisfactory fix
fairly easily (it worked for concordes tanks)

Cabin crew protection:-
issue lightweight 'flak' jackets ??
not too bulky of course, but a lightweight version able to withstand personal attack,
probably not really practical though ?

How about issuing anti-personal sprays too ?
(those 'mace' type sprays that provide
temporary impairment to an attacker)

Its a tough call though, how do you
cope with madmen intent on death &
destruction ?
maybe armed sky marshalls would work ?

hope we find the right answer,

keep safe folks,

[thermostat]

I agree with BmPilot21 and Erik. The law in the U.S. to lock the door didn't stop them. Personally I don't like being made a prisoner in my own 'plane. That's not why I joined the airlines.
Everyone assumes that the hijackers are on the aircraft. How about preventing them from boarding in the first place?????????
Better yet, how about finding out just WHY we have hijachers in the first place.
If we as humans could learn to co-exist on this GOD given planet instead of drawing lines all accross the land and pretending that it belongs to us so nobody can set foot on "our side" of the line, and if we would stop teaching our children to hate others, maybe, just maybe we could leave the cockpit doors open. THINK ABOUT THAT !!!!!
All this talk of guns, locked doors, sprays, marshals etc makes me SICK.
Nobody should take the fun out of flying. NOBODY.

[gas_man]

i would like to ask what long haul pilots think about being locked in a rather small room (that is the cockpit) for so many hours.....
.


i suppose it would be better to fly freighters then ..atleast you might be able to visit the boxes.

also someone in a previous post suggested passing some anesthetic gas to disable the hijackers! i always wanted a career in aviation. since i am an anesthetists ...perhaps someone can offer me a place !

just as a point of interest, anaesthetic gases first excite the person before making him sleep .....so the hijacker might actually blow up the aircraft even if he didn't actually mean to !
in the hospital environment , we have ways of preventing this excitement phase ..so don't wory if you are due for an anesthetic in the near future....

i am a non prof pprune member ...sory if my question is very basic ...

prasanna

[rubik101]

As mentioned elsewhere;
Doors open, by definition.
Images of slaughter in the cabin shown on nifty little Tvs don't help unless the pilots can do something about it.
Both are useless.
Save your money and energy, discuss insurance.