Question for Flight Deck???

[bealine]

The BAA has, according to yesterday's "Times", recommended to the Government that, once all aircraft cockpit doors have been strengthened, the policy of prohibiting passengres taking sharp items on board can be relaxed.

My question is this:

If your airline instructs you not to open the strengthened door at any time, regardless of circumstances, would you ALWAYS obey under ALL circumstances - Could you guarantee that the door would NEVER be opened in flight?

How about if one of your cabin crew members had a knife or razor blade at their throat - as a chivalrous gentleman (which most pilots are by their very nature and upbringing) would you not feel obliged to go to their aid?

How about if you had the onset of a stomach upset or food poisoning (some bugs incubate or up to 7 days before appearing) and you need the toilet?

I am intrigued s to how the BAA can make such guarantees

Comments please.......

[Hand Solo]

Wells thats the longest rhetorical question I've read here for a while! As you've clearly though about it then it should be quite clear that the door is going to be open at some time and then somebody can make their move. Locking and armour plating the door has been done for one purpose and that is to convince the public that they are somehow safer. Every aircraft hijacked on Sept 11th had a locked flight deck door.

The only thing which has changed security on-board is that nobody is going to open the door in a hijack situation anymore, and I don't care who they're knifing out the back, I'd rather it was them than me. Better to be a live coward than a dead hero!

[shredder]

Hello Bealine.

Chivalrous? Possibly. Stupid? I hope not.

The door would remain locked.

Forgive me for not expanding, but obvious security implications.

[Boss Raptor]

Have to agree...no one will open that cockpit door now regardless of what's going on down the back...

...and I can see any hijacker facing an onslaught worse than a Friday night brawl in the worst pub in town...they'll be facing, bottles, knives, shoes, the lot!

But since when has the BAA had any say or authority on what goes on onboard the aircraft...that is firmly DOT and CAA's remit...they should butt out and sort themselves out first!!

[Hand Solo]

Interesting to see the weasel editor of 'The People' on TV today with a small knife his comically unprofessional journalists had smuggled on to a MAN shuttle. After demonstrating how easily it could slash a copy of his newspaper (best use for it) he had the audacity to say "We could have hijacked an aircraft with this"!

NO YOU COULDN'T YOU IGNORANT PLEB!!

If he thinks thats all it takes then I challenge his gutter press journo to hijack any shuttle I'm flying with that weapon. We'll see how it fares against a steel flight deck door, and we'll see how he fares against 125 other very angry passengers.:mad:

[DOME]

"and we'll see how he fares against 125 other very angry passengers"

In reality, the "increase" in security since 09 Sep 01 is irrelevant window dressing. The above applies - with the unfortunate side effect that perhaps one innocent might get caught up in a mob of self defenders.

I can't imagine any passengers just sitting there while a hijack is attempted.

[Boss Raptor]

I've said it before so I'll say it again...

It is the purpose of the Aviation Security Inspectorate to test security measures in place at UK airports...

Any member of the public who attempts to do the same thing and that includes journalists should be prosecuted to the full extent of the Aviation & Maritime Securities Act which would no doubt lead to a custodial sentance...

This sort of action is totally irresponsible and without thought for potential consequences!

[cargosales]

"I can't imagine any passengers just sitting there while a hijack is attempted".

Damn right. If we have nothing to lose, why not have a go.

Can't agree about prosecuting journos for smuggling illicit items onboard though. For years they've been getting weapons onto aircraft, if only to prove that security isn't tight enough. If they can still manage to do that, it suggests that security measures are still not working well enough. In my book that deserves to be highlighted. The pity is that they publicise it in the way they do - I don't buy the gutter press on principle.

CS

[Captain Airclues]

cargosales

Are journalists allowed to ignore the law in order to obtain a story? If a journo is caught speeding, can he claim that he was testing the effectiveness of the speed cameras? If a passenger smuggles a gun onto the aircraft, can he claim that he intended to write to the newspapers with the results? If a journo points the smuggled weapon at a cabin crew member, can he claim that he was just testing the anti-hijack measures? Where will it all end?

Answers on a postcard please.

Airclues

[cargosales]

Captain Airclues

Didn't mean to include pax in the above - post above edited to reflect that. But I don't think even journos are so stupid as to point weapons at cabin crew.

But, you didn't address the worrying point that knives etc are still finding their way onto aircraft. That's of far more concern to me than prosecuting the journalist concerned. Shooting the messenger is all very well (indeed good in the case of some tabloid journos) as long as the message is getting acted upon.

CS

[Boss Raptor]

Taking it to it's 'enth' degree...

What's to prevent a terrorist network placing a member as a bonafide 'journo'...I believe they call these people 'sleepers'...they activate him to hijack an aircraft...he gets caught...he says 'Iam a journo just trying to get a gun on board to test security'!!!

The law is the law and cannot/should not be changed for some 'journo' to abuse !!!

[PAXboy]

I must agree - the journos are not the ones. Although it can be argued that they are the only ones at present.

The CAA (or other suitable body) should test these measures every week. Then, upon being found with banned item they show the ID card that allows them to be taken to the security office and formerly identified. These results must be published becuase otherwise BAA will do nothing (and don't all shout together JUST LIKE NOW!).

We need an Ombudsman who will test the system and tell us what happens. Then all can benefit and the journos get the story.

A parrallel is in shops. Retail companies employ agencies who do two things. They 'test shop'. Come in and buy things and might be awkward or not, clear minded or not and then report on the actions of the staff. The goods are then returned to stock. They also have people to try and steal from the shop, to see if their security systems and staff are on the ball.

If BAA measure their own security with suitable items in hand luggage and suitcases, they are not going to tell us about it. So, we need someone who has the legal duty of testing security. This should appeal to Blairy as he likes things that can be tested and give a clear cut outcome. It would also allow us to see if we are getting 'value for money' from the fees (tax) that we are forced to pay and he would like that too. ;)

Anyone want to join me in starting a campaign?

[GalleyWench]

Bealine, As the person " that would have a knife at my throat" (cabin crew) I would not expect the cockpit to open the door for me. Unfortunate experience has proven that the opening of the door worsens your circumstances. The ONLY upside of 9/11 is that passengers and crew now realise that keeping our aircraft safe is a TEAM effort. We are now trained to utilise the resources we have and that includes 100+ passengers that want the same outcome as us. While the journalists that brought knives/guns onboard could likely NOT have hijacked the plane they do highlight areas of security that need to looked at/improved upon.That is NEVER a bad thing in my book.