A question of sealed cockpits

[bugg smasher]

Apropos of a recent thread regarding cockpit security, it is my feeling that cockpits should be sealed completely from the cabin. Until this has been accomplished, the airliner as a target remains of great interest to the suicidal terrorist, and the flying public is not likely to return to the skies in increasing numbers or with any degree of confidence.

Further, once the threat of intrusion has been removed, the powers that be will hopefully no longer deem it necessary for heavily-armed fighters to roam the skies with the express mission of shooting down errant airliners, or pursue any further the frightening proposal that recently developed UAV technology be installed into the aircraft, allowing complete and autonomous control from the ground. What would happen should a terrorist gain access to said control room, or more plausibly to the control technologies and frequencies that would make interception and remote hijack possible.

My questions; to the engineering types, how should this be accomplished most efficiently; to the cabin crews, how would you feel about being separated completely from the front end crew, and what measures would you like to see implemented in the cabin in such an event.

[eagle767]

Bugg smasher I think that quite a few cabin crew would be absolutely over the moon if they could be completely seperated from the pilots! :D

[Genghis the Engineer]

From an engineering viewpoint there's nothing simpler. Fit a bulkhead between ribs, made from a lightweight ballistic composite such as Kevlar, and a simple intercom / CCTV system so that the Captain knows what's going on up the back.

There's no need to block any emergency exits, since aircrew always have a route out the cabin window. The door in said bulkhead could be locked via a weight-on-wheels switch (that'll exist already for things like lift dump and thrust reversers), with some form of emergency override (a) on the cockpit side, and (b) outside the aircraft for crash crews.

There's likely to be some loss of revenue earning cabin, this largely depends upon where the furthest forward toilet is. A microwave and heatable meals are no problem.


So far as UAV technology is concerned by the way, I think most discussion had centred upon autopilot and autoland, so the risk of terrorists taking over some control room somewhere wouldn't be an issue.

G

[bugg smasher]

Hello Ghengis,

Many thanks for your comments, it sounds to be a relatively simple process. I imagine the first airlines to have such a modification as this installed will enjoy a tremendous marketing advantage, which should placate the accounting department somewhat for the loss of revenue earning cabin. The MD-11 I fly has room for such an installation with no loss of seating capacity, although the first class lavs would be rendered inaccessible to the passengers. Regarding seating capacity, I believe the same could be said for most 747 models, I don’t know to what extent other aircraft types would be affected.

Could you take a wild stab as to how long something like this would take to develop and how much it might cost?

On thinking about your comments regarding the UAV technology issue, I suppose it would be wisest to limit remote command of the aircraft merely to the continuation of the flight plan loaded in the FMC, which could be easily and quickly modified via ACARS uplink for routing to the nearest suitable airport. It would mean, however, that on all non fly-by-wire aircraft, a way would have to be found to mechanically render inoperative the flight controls, fuel levers, and virtually every other switch, button and lever in the cockpit that might affect safety, the only possible exception being the seat belt/no-smoking switch and the logo light. Such a system malfunctioning is an uncomfortable thought. Then again, I guess the Airbus pilots go through this all the time.

Leaving aircraft essentially as they are at present and preventing any possibility of cockpit intrusion with a barrier strong enough to resist a deranged and armed terrorist appears to be a much better and more efficient solution.

[Agaricus bisporus]

Er, helloooo!

Sadly - maybe thankfully, the world of aviation does not consist of behemoths like L1011s where there is room to build the front door of Fort Knox plus a toilet and a galley beyond it in front of the pax.

Reality is that 80% of the worlds public transport aircraft are short-madium haul 2 pilot types, 737, A320 and smaller. Unless you plan to lock the poor pilots into those closet sized flightdecks all day long, no drinks, no toilet, no incapacitation checks, how does the cc know who is really up there anyway, do we do the tech log and loadsheet via e-mail or something?... Oh do us a favour! What about the smaller commuter types with a curtain or soft concertina door (BAe146)

It is a daft idea and CANNOT be made workable.

Ditto armouring doors - there's no threat involving breaking them down, so why legislate against a non-existant threat in the pretence thet it covers the clearly extant one? That is simply dishonest.

The threat there IS; that of pilots leaving their seats for whatever reason - which they clearly have to do from time to time - and which necessarily involves unlocking that door is in no way addressed by ANY of the above, nor even acknowledged so far by any authority I have seen. Well why the hell not, it's just killed 5000 plus people! Or do they recognise that this is situation so extreme that it simply can not be legislated against? That there is simply no mechanical means to prevent it?

Talk of armouring doors, or locking the pilots in permanently - because ANY opening of that door renders the whole idea null and void, is simply irrational as it CANNOT work

A bit of moral honesty and study of cause and effect would not go amiss here, I'm sad to say I've so far seen neither from any authority, government or airline. It's about time we did.

[ 25 October 2001: Message edited by: Agaricus bisporus ]

[ 25 October 2001: Message edited by: Agaricus bisporus ]

[4Greens]

There is a major technical problem that is not getting the attention it deserves. If you seal the cockpit then the 'door' becomes a new pressure bulkhead. It will have to withstand a decompression either side of the seal- a whole new engineering ballgame. Blow out panels will defeat the object of seling in the first place.

[bugg smasher]

I believe El Al have successfully implemented engineering solutions and operational procedures that prevent cockpit intrusion of any kind. Their record speaks admirably for itself.

Short of that, my friends, in the face of the continued threat, what would you realistically have us do.

[The Nr Fairy]

Bugsmasher :

ElAl also have excellent security processes on the ground - that's how they caught a bomb given to a pregnant woman by her "boyfriend". Better trained, well motivated security staff would go a fair way towards the reduction of the risk, but it appears that governments and airlines have balked at the cost of this in the past.

What's the choice - forgetting the costs involved ? Something which requires NO engineering and can be done very rapidly, or a placebo solution which is only there until it's defeated again ?

[Dagger Dirk]

What's the choice - forgetting the costs involved ? Something which requires NO engineering and can be done very rapidly, or a placebo solution which is only there until it's defeated again ?


RoboLander (http://www.iasa-intl.com/RoboLander1.html)

[Genghis the Engineer]

I freely admit to not being an airliner expert, I spend my life working on nothing bigger than a twin turboprop, and historically nothing bigger than a BAC 1-11. So, please treat what I say with that in mind.

It is not necessary to make the bulkhead pressure sealed - you simply need to make sure that the smallest human beings (or their weapons) can't get through. A ballistic fibre barrier could be made comfortably people proof and effectively un-cuttable (and you only really need to make it proof against penknives and hacksaws, nobody's going to get a power tool through even the most lax airport security. This can equally be as leaky as a sieve (and before anybody mentions gas, what's the point of gassing the aircrew if you can't get into the cockpit to take over!).

Costwise, it's hard to say, but I'd guess that you could probably do it for somewhere between £35-50,000 per aircraft. It will probably depend upon the aircraft; for example in a 2-crew jet like an A320, you might need to lose the front row in 1st class to fit the aircrew loo and microwave in. Hardly the end of the world in the current climate, I doubt that you could fill it anyway !

If, as I said, the door to the cabin is interlocked with a WoW switch, then loadsheets, deciding whether to throw drunk pax off before take-off etc, can still be achieved. But, it means that the worst case scenario should become a hijack on the ground, which is infinitely more containable than one airborne.

If I wanted to get something like this done, I think I'd go to Marshalls Aerospace at Cambridge [UK], who are leaders in doing odd things to airliners. Remember Pegasus, the L1011 they modified for the US DoD to fire anti-satellite weapons? People like Marshalls could probably have it certified and flying in 4-6 months if they were just told to get on with it. One the basic concept is sorted on one type (say a 767) then you could probably get each new type going in another 6 weeks or so. Mass production is just a matter of cash.

G

[bugg smasher]

I read with great interest details of the proposed “Robolander” project, found on the link kindly provided by Dagger Dirk. My general impression is that although the technology would certainly be useful in a number of scenarios, to include the suicidal hijack, an extensive certification and testing program requiring many years would be necessary before its successful implementation. Most of the very highly qualified people who have supplied commentary seem to be in agreement, that in the short term a good, strong cockpit door is the only viable solution to satisfy the industry’s immediate requirement.

One writer’s comments;

“The most security, and least additional risk in implementation (probably none) would involve making the cockpit inaccessible to any passenger during flight. If necessary, the barrier could be enhanced to improve its effectiveness against attack, but adding complexity here has no effect on flight safety. Perhaps coupled with video monitoring and screening, many of the perceived shortcomings of locked cockpits and isolated crews could be overcome, but the fundamental fact is that if the hijacker doesn't have access to the cockpit he cannot control the aircraft.
It's as simple as that.”

Further to his, yet another writes;

“Solutions are always possible but in airline aviation there has to be a cost-benefit analysis and some real incentive for the industry and regulator to act. Or at least that used to be the case. I think that question has probably now been resolved. But of course, even though technically possible and plausible now, this is all a bit futuristic and so, in the shorter term, crews (and the populace at large) must be protected by a heavy-duty metal flight-deck door - that being the only credible last-ditch defence. “

Thank you Ghengis for your comments, if your estimate of cost per aircraft is as you say, this would certainly be an effective, cheap and rapid way to eliminate the airliner as a target of significant interest to the terrorist.

Care to start a cockpit barrier manufacturing company? Bet you we could make heaps o’ cash in no time at all…