Cockpit locking systems revisited
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: USA
Posts: 241
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Cockpit locking systems revisited
(This thread is not for discussion of the specifics of the Germanwings crash, nor for any discussions of the details of any given system on any existing aircraft.)
From first principles, what do we want a cockpit locking system to accomplish? What are the relative risks we are trying to mitigate?
For the purposes of a design exercise, we need to assume that the bad guy or bad guys have obtained knowledge of any and all codes or passwords, and/or have obtained physical possession of any and all keys or access tokens.
There are really only three fundamental design choices; the system must be one of the following:
What do we want, and why?
From first principles, what do we want a cockpit locking system to accomplish? What are the relative risks we are trying to mitigate?
For the purposes of a design exercise, we need to assume that the bad guy or bad guys have obtained knowledge of any and all codes or passwords, and/or have obtained physical possession of any and all keys or access tokens.
There are really only three fundamental design choices; the system must be one of the following:
- Someone inside the cockpit can deny access, no matter what anybody outside the cockpit is doing.
- Someone outside the cockpit can gain access, no matter what anyone inside the cockpit is doing.
- Sometimes #1 above; sometimes #2, depending upon other factors (for example, depressurization?)
What do we want, and why?
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Not far from the edge of the Milky Way Galaxy in the Orion Arm.
Posts: 510
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi, Gauges and Dials - from the land of the glass cockpit - - - -
You (we) want a third woman (or man) so that there are three on the flightdeck.
I am not going to comment on the fact that half of us are waiting to be the best and safest but don`t have the money to do so - then this k--b comes along and well . . . you read the news with great sadness and heartfelt sympathy for the families.
If we have three in the cockpit and leave the doors as they are.
The third man will increase a demand for pilots by (. . .hang on a sec . . .) I think it is yes, five personnel per aircraft = 1 flying, 1 training, 1 off sick, 1 on stand-by and 1 on holiday. which is good for those safe pilots who do not want to hurt anybody (like all of us on here
and it is good for the cockpit complement of an extra crew member - admittedly we now have the luxury of knowing that we are watching each other but it has not bothered us in the past and it is unlikely to bug us in the future - the third crew member will be able to help out with this and that but generally they can have a nice time watching the flight - just like they do when we have . . . a third crew member on board.
You (we) want a third woman (or man) so that there are three on the flightdeck.
I am not going to comment on the fact that half of us are waiting to be the best and safest but don`t have the money to do so - then this k--b comes along and well . . . you read the news with great sadness and heartfelt sympathy for the families.
If we have three in the cockpit and leave the doors as they are.
The third man will increase a demand for pilots by (. . .hang on a sec . . .) I think it is yes, five personnel per aircraft = 1 flying, 1 training, 1 off sick, 1 on stand-by and 1 on holiday. which is good for those safe pilots who do not want to hurt anybody (like all of us on here
and it is good for the cockpit complement of an extra crew member - admittedly we now have the luxury of knowing that we are watching each other but it has not bothered us in the past and it is unlikely to bug us in the future - the third crew member will be able to help out with this and that but generally they can have a nice time watching the flight - just like they do when we have . . . a third crew member on board.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: England
Posts: 1,904
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Operators demand that aircraft manufacturers produce the smallest tubes for the greatest number of passengers, to the extent that is as legal as possible. This expectation and the resultant aircraft design has resulted in a situation where staff members, who can legally spend 13 hours per day in the same aircraft, have to share bathroom facilities with hundreds of paying customers.
Obviously, the only genuine reason a flight crew member might have for leaving the flight deck mid-flight is to visit the toilet. Now, I'm not normally the type that is driven back to the drawing board based on a single very rare event, but this industry needs a kick up the backside because they got it wrong in the first place. Safety is paramount they constantly remind is, but so is the safety of flight crew. Safety for flight crew ensures general flight safety, so why did we not think about this in the beginning?
Any single cockpit door entry design is going to have limitations, pros and cons. I’m proposing that legislation requires aircraft manufacturers to install a separate toilet for flight crew on any aircraft that carries over 100 passengers. Additional advantages are that you get a sort of air lock system (correct term?) so that a flight attendant walking into the flight deck never results in a situation where a would be nutter could make a charge. The first door would operate exactly as it does today. No need to change the function or procedures. The toilet would be accessible immediately after entering this door. The second door, by design would allow a flight crew member to exit and enter as he pleases using a door entry card or other pin based system (that is for finer detail). Additionally, the remaining flight crew member would have the option to open either door independently but never force lock the second door. As long as the flight crew never venture past the first door, safety would be assured.
It’s a radical idea and it’s bold. Most of you have no way of seeing how this is feasible today. I agree it’s not, not today. But by starting now, we might be able to address the security concerns of the future.
Obviously, the only genuine reason a flight crew member might have for leaving the flight deck mid-flight is to visit the toilet. Now, I'm not normally the type that is driven back to the drawing board based on a single very rare event, but this industry needs a kick up the backside because they got it wrong in the first place. Safety is paramount they constantly remind is, but so is the safety of flight crew. Safety for flight crew ensures general flight safety, so why did we not think about this in the beginning?
Any single cockpit door entry design is going to have limitations, pros and cons. I’m proposing that legislation requires aircraft manufacturers to install a separate toilet for flight crew on any aircraft that carries over 100 passengers. Additional advantages are that you get a sort of air lock system (correct term?) so that a flight attendant walking into the flight deck never results in a situation where a would be nutter could make a charge. The first door would operate exactly as it does today. No need to change the function or procedures. The toilet would be accessible immediately after entering this door. The second door, by design would allow a flight crew member to exit and enter as he pleases using a door entry card or other pin based system (that is for finer detail). Additionally, the remaining flight crew member would have the option to open either door independently but never force lock the second door. As long as the flight crew never venture past the first door, safety would be assured.
It’s a radical idea and it’s bold. Most of you have no way of seeing how this is feasible today. I agree it’s not, not today. But by starting now, we might be able to address the security concerns of the future.
