JAA thwarting strengthened cockpit doors?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Les Portes du Soleil
Posts: 27
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wellll… Slinging mud at each other across the Atlantic was indeed not what I had in mind when I started this topic. And frankly, I'm a little surprised that this is the outcome. Among colleagues in my company, we've had and concluded the discussion about the Sept 11th events, including historical backgrounds, psychological insights, the question if additional security measures would amount to giving in to fear or if it would actually be foolish not to implement any additional measure we can think of, pros and cons of various measures that could be taken… And while some continue to believe that we should not take hasty action, and others want guns right now, the general consensus is that a layered approach, with a strengthened cockpit door as a last line of defense, would be most suitable at this time. While longer term solutions and effects are being discussed.
When faced with this, our management replied that although all sorts of measures were being studied, strengthening doors was not an option because the JAA opposed it. And while there have been suggestions that future cockpit door designs could overcome objections about rapid decompressions, I had hoped to find out if it is actually true that JAA restrictions are at this moment the barrier between us and the last line of defense that we are asking for, and if all European carriers are facing the same opposition.
As a European, I had not expected to come across colleagues who still believe that European carriers should not follow American security measures. Although the targets have been American recently, who can guarantee that other nations will not be next? Indeed, attacks on European targets have already been foiled. And a European airliner flying out of Boston is the obvious next target for anyone wanting to repeat the Sept 11th attacks without intending to lose time with a cockpit door that won't open.
Finally, Blacksheep, with all due respect, you may have lived with terrorism for decades, but the real experts in terrorism have flown with strong cockpit doors for that same period…
When faced with this, our management replied that although all sorts of measures were being studied, strengthening doors was not an option because the JAA opposed it. And while there have been suggestions that future cockpit door designs could overcome objections about rapid decompressions, I had hoped to find out if it is actually true that JAA restrictions are at this moment the barrier between us and the last line of defense that we are asking for, and if all European carriers are facing the same opposition.
As a European, I had not expected to come across colleagues who still believe that European carriers should not follow American security measures. Although the targets have been American recently, who can guarantee that other nations will not be next? Indeed, attacks on European targets have already been foiled. And a European airliner flying out of Boston is the obvious next target for anyone wanting to repeat the Sept 11th attacks without intending to lose time with a cockpit door that won't open.
Finally, Blacksheep, with all due respect, you may have lived with terrorism for decades, but the real experts in terrorism have flown with strong cockpit doors for that same period…
quidquid excusatio prandium pro
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: New York
Posts: 349
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Blacksheep, even though most of the engineering staff know their offices are not likely to be commandeered by a suicidal terrorist, they are still acutely aware of the need for urgency in the matter of cockpit security. Since you appear not to share the views of your colleagues, perhaps you’d be kind enough to enlighten the ignorant with your “dignified, persistent, and expert” response to the current situation.
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Nova
Posts: 1,242
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Let's face it guys, if the terrorist gets on your flight, you're all dead anyway.
It may make a difference on the ground, but terrorists have other methods for that. (Ask the IRA - funded by NORAID!)
Nothing I have seen implemented since 11th Sept would prevent the whole tragic sequence of events unfolding again.
Truth is, these cowards would never have managed to BOARD a flight on El Al.
The emphasis has to be on screening passengers. It's not as sexy as guns, and it's terribly inconvenient, but it's the only answer.
Lax security on US internal flights presented an open door those animals could not resist.
As an aside, I would wish to make two points:
1) When terrorism forces people to live in fear; They win.
2) Terrorism is NEVER defeated militarily!
It may make a difference on the ground, but terrorists have other methods for that. (Ask the IRA - funded by NORAID!)
Nothing I have seen implemented since 11th Sept would prevent the whole tragic sequence of events unfolding again.
Truth is, these cowards would never have managed to BOARD a flight on El Al.
The emphasis has to be on screening passengers. It's not as sexy as guns, and it's terribly inconvenient, but it's the only answer.
Lax security on US internal flights presented an open door those animals could not resist.
As an aside, I would wish to make two points:
1) When terrorism forces people to live in fear; They win.
2) Terrorism is NEVER defeated militarily!
I flew on a 737 with this door installed the other day. Looked pretty good to me! Instead of just debating the how's and why's, practical people just get on with the task and at least eliminate one possibility.
http://www.raisbeck.com/publications/pub38.html
http://www.raisbeck.com/publications/pub38.html
Join Date: May 2000
Location: New York
Posts: 510
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tandemrotor-
I do not accept the defeatist manta that fighting back is useless. I intend to fight and armed pilots are essential to that fight.
To accept YOUR premise IS cowardice. Please make an announcement on your flights that you do not intend to fight back, so I can get off your airplane.
These terrorists are not cowards. They are well organized, well trained, and well financed, . . . and not afraid to die. Never underestimate your enemy.
Our own incompetent security policy managers in government and industry are culpable for sticking to "old-think" and not looking ahead. There might as well have been a $5 an hour immigrant running making security policy in addition to checking bags. I take that back . . he'd probably do a better job than the FAA's Jane Garvey and the airline security managers. The typical "tombstone" policy making at its best by the FAA and industry Air Transport Associate members.
Screening will not stop a dedicated terrorist. It is not the ONLY answer, as you purport. That thinking is stupid and dangerous. You'll probably only stop 20% of them, even if you conduct a month long investigation on each suspect.
As I said before, a layered approach gives the best chance of survival.
What I get from your post is that:
1. Screening can be 100% effective.
2. They can't be stopped if they get on your airplane.
3. Don't be afraid, because then they win - just stand there and let them slice your throat.
4. Self-defense of the aircraft is useless.
5. Don't respond militarily, because it's not 100% effective.
I've got a hard time believing any aircrew would follow you with such a defeatist and cowardly attitude. I know I wouldn't.
I do not accept the defeatist manta that fighting back is useless. I intend to fight and armed pilots are essential to that fight.
To accept YOUR premise IS cowardice. Please make an announcement on your flights that you do not intend to fight back, so I can get off your airplane.
These terrorists are not cowards. They are well organized, well trained, and well financed, . . . and not afraid to die. Never underestimate your enemy.
Our own incompetent security policy managers in government and industry are culpable for sticking to "old-think" and not looking ahead. There might as well have been a $5 an hour immigrant running making security policy in addition to checking bags. I take that back . . he'd probably do a better job than the FAA's Jane Garvey and the airline security managers. The typical "tombstone" policy making at its best by the FAA and industry Air Transport Associate members.
Screening will not stop a dedicated terrorist. It is not the ONLY answer, as you purport. That thinking is stupid and dangerous. You'll probably only stop 20% of them, even if you conduct a month long investigation on each suspect.
As I said before, a layered approach gives the best chance of survival.
What I get from your post is that:
1. Screening can be 100% effective.
2. They can't be stopped if they get on your airplane.
3. Don't be afraid, because then they win - just stand there and let them slice your throat.
4. Self-defense of the aircraft is useless.
5. Don't respond militarily, because it's not 100% effective.
I've got a hard time believing any aircrew would follow you with such a defeatist and cowardly attitude. I know I wouldn't.
Cunning Artificer
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: The spiritual home of DeHavilland
Age: 76
Posts: 3,127
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
To buggs and anyone else who think that those "strengthened" cockpit doors provide an increased level of safety, just try opening one with the determination of a suicidal terrorist and you'll see what I mean. To people who can take the door off a safe without any effort, no door is an obstacle, though a fixed bulkhead just might do it. The door modifications are merely an interim "fix" to provide the illusion of action while work progresses on producing a truly secure flight compartment door. Don't imagine otherwise.
As to living with terrorism, you really will soon get used to it. I'm reminded of Aden Airways' Chief Engineer who received a hand grenade tossed under his car on the way to work one morning. Walked the rest of the way to the airport and picked himself a nice BMW from the cars abandoned in the car park by the British military, when they all piled onto the "last" aircraft out of Khormaksar the previous week. He stayed until FLOSY blew up the last DC3/C47 and the airline had to cease operations. Dick's still a bit deaf in one ear though...
That's what I mean about facing up to them with dignity - the only answer - even when one's arse is winking with fear, don't let it show. The crew of USS Cole showed the way and the New York Fire Fighters took it from there. Follow the true leaders and stop bleating...
**********************************
Through difficulties to the cinema
As to living with terrorism, you really will soon get used to it. I'm reminded of Aden Airways' Chief Engineer who received a hand grenade tossed under his car on the way to work one morning. Walked the rest of the way to the airport and picked himself a nice BMW from the cars abandoned in the car park by the British military, when they all piled onto the "last" aircraft out of Khormaksar the previous week. He stayed until FLOSY blew up the last DC3/C47 and the airline had to cease operations. Dick's still a bit deaf in one ear though...
That's what I mean about facing up to them with dignity - the only answer - even when one's arse is winking with fear, don't let it show. The crew of USS Cole showed the way and the New York Fire Fighters took it from there. Follow the true leaders and stop bleating...
**********************************
Through difficulties to the cinema
quidquid excusatio prandium pro
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: New York
Posts: 349
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Blacksheep, the honor and fortitude with which the people of your nation have withstood terrible onslaught are well documented, and remain, warm beer notwithstanding, defining characteristics of the British people. It is not in my place, Sir, to suggest you do your countrymen a dis-service by attempting to wave it in others’ faces.
You appear highly qualified to supply intelligent commentary regarding cockpit intrusion, which, at the risk of bleating, is the subject of this thread. You mentioned the possibility of a fixed bulkhead as a workable solution, can you elaborate?
You appear highly qualified to supply intelligent commentary regarding cockpit intrusion, which, at the risk of bleating, is the subject of this thread. You mentioned the possibility of a fixed bulkhead as a workable solution, can you elaborate?
Guest
Posts: n/a
See where in reaction to the new cockpit secirity BA & Virgin are putting in aviation authorities in Britain feel that September 11 was a one off incident. Don't bet on it! There are still 11 potential hijackers, 10 of who speak English trained in Afganistan by a former Ariana captain (now in hiding by the way) lose somewhere and possibly more!.
If the terrorists have heard the comments of these so called aviation experts whoever they are it must be music to their ears. We can't afford complacancy, these fanatic do not live by societys normal moral retrains & if they see a chink in the armour I feel there more than likely to try again. See where some Southwest pax in mid flight surrendered a gun he'd forgot he had. Security. What improved security
Emerald
[ 31 October 2001: Message edited by: Celtic Emerald ]
If the terrorists have heard the comments of these so called aviation experts whoever they are it must be music to their ears. We can't afford complacancy, these fanatic do not live by societys normal moral retrains & if they see a chink in the armour I feel there more than likely to try again. See where some Southwest pax in mid flight surrendered a gun he'd forgot he had. Security. What improved security
Emerald
[ 31 October 2001: Message edited by: Celtic Emerald ]
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Nova
Posts: 1,242
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Roadtrip
I appreciate, and in some ways sympathise with your position, and your words. However, having re-read my post, I stand by everything I said.
As I had strayed off the original thread, I won't make this too long, but I would like to say a couple of things;
Just because I have a different point of view to you, does that really make me a stupid coward? Is your view somehow more valid than mine?
Secondly - Anyone who hides away, sneaking around in the shadows, before emerging, to attack vulnerable targets, planning maximum loss of innocent civilian life, will ALWAYS be a coward in my book. (It doesn't take a brave man to die. He only has to be twisted!!)
But I guess one man's cowardly terrorist, is another man's brave freedom fighter. I hate to harp on, but a few people in the US don't need to look much further than NORAID to see that.
Finally, some time from now, you will probably learn - as has the rest of the World, that indeed, terrorism is NEVER defeated militarily (For the avoidance of doubt, there is no such thing as a 99% defeat! That is precisely the problem.)
I appreciate, and in some ways sympathise with your position, and your words. However, having re-read my post, I stand by everything I said.
As I had strayed off the original thread, I won't make this too long, but I would like to say a couple of things;
Just because I have a different point of view to you, does that really make me a stupid coward? Is your view somehow more valid than mine?
Secondly - Anyone who hides away, sneaking around in the shadows, before emerging, to attack vulnerable targets, planning maximum loss of innocent civilian life, will ALWAYS be a coward in my book. (It doesn't take a brave man to die. He only has to be twisted!!)
But I guess one man's cowardly terrorist, is another man's brave freedom fighter. I hate to harp on, but a few people in the US don't need to look much further than NORAID to see that.
Finally, some time from now, you will probably learn - as has the rest of the World, that indeed, terrorism is NEVER defeated militarily (For the avoidance of doubt, there is no such thing as a 99% defeat! That is precisely the problem.)
Cunning Artificer
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: The spiritual home of DeHavilland
Age: 76
Posts: 3,127
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Buggs,
To elaborate - a door is only as strong as its hinges and lock. A fixed bulkhead cannot be opened. But do we really want to seperate the flight crew from the cargo? We know that pilots (navigators and AEOs too!) can fly for fifteen hours or so locked into a small sealed flight compartment, with no lavatory or relief crew and nothing but a packed lunch to eat. They can even refuel in flight, deal with hostile defences and drop bombs with some degree of accuracy half way through the trip. So, we know that it can be done if necessary. But there are any number of reasons why the crew of a civil airliner ought not to be seperated from the cabin.
The 11 September suicide hijackers boarded the aircraft unhindered by any pretence of security on the ground. The flight deck doors were most likely locked in the usual manner - but the crew were not aware that this was a new kind of highjacking, so they opened them. No door that is capable of being opened will stop a group of determined suicidal terrorists gaining access to the flight deck - if they can learn to fly they can easily learn how to circumvent the locks. I've got a set of design drawings in my in-tray right now for goodness sake! They won't waste time firing machine guns at the bullet proof door like that chap demonstrating his design on CNN last night, nor attack it with an axe. (BTW, how would they get a machine gun onto the aircraft? Oh of course! Accomplices on the ground! How stupid of me not to notice all those chaps in dirty overalls)
Keeping terrorists off the aircraft is the proper solution.
**********************************
Through difficulties to the cinema
To elaborate - a door is only as strong as its hinges and lock. A fixed bulkhead cannot be opened. But do we really want to seperate the flight crew from the cargo? We know that pilots (navigators and AEOs too!) can fly for fifteen hours or so locked into a small sealed flight compartment, with no lavatory or relief crew and nothing but a packed lunch to eat. They can even refuel in flight, deal with hostile defences and drop bombs with some degree of accuracy half way through the trip. So, we know that it can be done if necessary. But there are any number of reasons why the crew of a civil airliner ought not to be seperated from the cabin.
The 11 September suicide hijackers boarded the aircraft unhindered by any pretence of security on the ground. The flight deck doors were most likely locked in the usual manner - but the crew were not aware that this was a new kind of highjacking, so they opened them. No door that is capable of being opened will stop a group of determined suicidal terrorists gaining access to the flight deck - if they can learn to fly they can easily learn how to circumvent the locks. I've got a set of design drawings in my in-tray right now for goodness sake! They won't waste time firing machine guns at the bullet proof door like that chap demonstrating his design on CNN last night, nor attack it with an axe. (BTW, how would they get a machine gun onto the aircraft? Oh of course! Accomplices on the ground! How stupid of me not to notice all those chaps in dirty overalls)
Keeping terrorists off the aircraft is the proper solution.
**********************************
Through difficulties to the cinema
Join Date: May 2000
Location: New York
Posts: 510
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Blacksheep- How do you propose to keep several seemingly unrelated terrorists with no known association with terrorist organizations by INTERPOL, or intelligence organizations, and with seeminly legitimate reasons for travelling, off the airplane? Do you think that it would be impossible for a terrorist organization to execute such a plan? Or maybe a hastily hatched plan by some of Allah's marytr wannabees up in that big radical fundamentalist mosque in Luton. I would suggest you remove the cockpit doors altogether, since you don't think they are useful at all. The quick-fix reinforcement done at our airline is very strong and will seriously slow down and probably stop a determined attacker. Authorizing armed pilots would virtually ensure a lethal greeting to anyone eventually breaching even part of the door.
Go back to BA's tickets and tours policy inflight since you want to put all your eggs in the screening process. Good luck.
[ 01 November 2001: Message edited by: Roadtrip ]
Go back to BA's tickets and tours policy inflight since you want to put all your eggs in the screening process. Good luck.
[ 01 November 2001: Message edited by: Roadtrip ]
Cunning Artificer
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: The spiritual home of DeHavilland
Age: 76
Posts: 3,127
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Roadtrip,
You're so right about terrorists being indistinguishable from ordinary people. Without their weapons they ARE just ordinary people. The method of keeping terrorists off aeroplanes - or anywhere else for that matter - is to seperate them from their weapons. They are then just ordinary folks like the rest of us.
The problem is that the process of seperating terrorists from their weapons violates the civil rights of the majority. To protect ourselves against terrorists it is futile to try locking the doors or even as has been suggested, installing "Goalkeeper" turrets on the roofs of tower blocks. Instead we must be prepared to surrender some of our civil rights. As I said previously - The price of freedom is eternal vigilance.
**********************************
Through difficulties to the cinema
You're so right about terrorists being indistinguishable from ordinary people. Without their weapons they ARE just ordinary people. The method of keeping terrorists off aeroplanes - or anywhere else for that matter - is to seperate them from their weapons. They are then just ordinary folks like the rest of us.
The problem is that the process of seperating terrorists from their weapons violates the civil rights of the majority. To protect ourselves against terrorists it is futile to try locking the doors or even as has been suggested, installing "Goalkeeper" turrets on the roofs of tower blocks. Instead we must be prepared to surrender some of our civil rights. As I said previously - The price of freedom is eternal vigilance.
**********************************
Through difficulties to the cinema
Join Date: May 2000
Location: New York
Posts: 510
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Since physical barriers are useless, what civil rights do we need to relinquish in order to stop criminals and terrorists. When I get home after this trip, I'm going to take your advice and remove all the locks from my house, and leave the keys in my car.
Again, what rights would you have us relinquish?
Again, what rights would you have us relinquish?
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Somewhere probing
Posts: 301
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Can I ask any so inclined, to go and stand at the graves and memorials for those children, women, and men who were murderd on the 11th, and then you can start talking of rights !
These terrorist scumbags are going to try and KILL YOU, if you give them half a chance - and I hate to say it but a few strengthend doors are not really going to cut the mustard, e.g. one fundamental weakness is that occasionally you'll need to come out to take a leak, that or the hostie will want to come into the flightdeck for some reason.
In any event, I'll bet that even now, they're perfecting their murderous art in how to beat an armoured door, and how to rush one that's open.
More needs to be done to stop them getting on in the first place, and generally a lot more needs to be done w.r.t. overall intelligence to keep tabs on these folks - and if that requires that the majority give up some 'civil rights' then so be it - I'd rather that, than the alternative.
These terrorist scumbags are going to try and KILL YOU, if you give them half a chance - and I hate to say it but a few strengthend doors are not really going to cut the mustard, e.g. one fundamental weakness is that occasionally you'll need to come out to take a leak, that or the hostie will want to come into the flightdeck for some reason.
In any event, I'll bet that even now, they're perfecting their murderous art in how to beat an armoured door, and how to rush one that's open.
More needs to be done to stop them getting on in the first place, and generally a lot more needs to be done w.r.t. overall intelligence to keep tabs on these folks - and if that requires that the majority give up some 'civil rights' then so be it - I'd rather that, than the alternative.
Join Date: May 2000
Location: New York
Posts: 510
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Again, what rights would you have us relinquish?
And BTW, if you think that secure cockpit doors and procedural entry/exit safeguards don't add a significant amount (not total) of security to the cockpit, you're an idiot. With that strain of impaired thinking, you might as well take the cockpit doors off altogether.
Again, what rights would you have us relinquish?
Again, what rights would you have us relinquish?
Do I need to ask the question again, or do I get a "Hollywood/Rock-Star" level of thought answer again.
And BTW, if you think that secure cockpit doors and procedural entry/exit safeguards don't add a significant amount (not total) of security to the cockpit, you're an idiot. With that strain of impaired thinking, you might as well take the cockpit doors off altogether.
Again, what rights would you have us relinquish?
Again, what rights would you have us relinquish?
Do I need to ask the question again, or do I get a "Hollywood/Rock-Star" level of thought answer again.
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: stansted
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Roadtrip Guv et al. It's not my style to post on this forum but here goes.
The terrible events of recnt history leave us all in a "new situation" regarding security.The terrorists were well aware of the proceedures regarding unlawfull interference under the "old situation" and hense achieved some success in thier sick operation with a few men and very little weaponry.
In response we must box clever,there is no point swinging wildly at were our opponent last stood lest we leave ourselves open for another punch.(Excuse the analogy)
The problem with a door impregnable when bolted from within is when the unthinkable happens and a terrorist(s)end up on the wrong side of it and it dosn't take the brains of an archbishop to come up with a few thoughts on the subject. Be it a rush or some more subtle form of infiltration and incapacitation(how well do you know your crew? how does your coffee taste? etc )These people have been in our countries for a long time.Its no good calling for help, any brave sole calling "lets role" is on the wrong side of the door even if he is a deadheading pilot.Net result one practically unarmed terrorist is in controll of a big weapon and importantly has time to use it.
Sounds far fetched granted but so did alot of things in August.Dont missunderstand me I am not against restricting access as part of a package but the bad guys need to be out thought not presented with a well intensioned opportuniy.
The terrible events of recnt history leave us all in a "new situation" regarding security.The terrorists were well aware of the proceedures regarding unlawfull interference under the "old situation" and hense achieved some success in thier sick operation with a few men and very little weaponry.
In response we must box clever,there is no point swinging wildly at were our opponent last stood lest we leave ourselves open for another punch.(Excuse the analogy)
The problem with a door impregnable when bolted from within is when the unthinkable happens and a terrorist(s)end up on the wrong side of it and it dosn't take the brains of an archbishop to come up with a few thoughts on the subject. Be it a rush or some more subtle form of infiltration and incapacitation(how well do you know your crew? how does your coffee taste? etc )These people have been in our countries for a long time.Its no good calling for help, any brave sole calling "lets role" is on the wrong side of the door even if he is a deadheading pilot.Net result one practically unarmed terrorist is in controll of a big weapon and importantly has time to use it.
Sounds far fetched granted but so did alot of things in August.Dont missunderstand me I am not against restricting access as part of a package but the bad guys need to be out thought not presented with a well intensioned opportuniy.
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Locking the cockpit door is a load of b**lox until it actually achieves something tangible in terms of improving security. If and when the manufacturers supply a door and frame that's capable of withstanding a serious onslaught, then it'll make some sense. Until then it's nothing more than a sop to the politicos who want to have their names up in lights. let's do something practical like stopping the problem before it gets to the aircraft. Pilot incapacitation and pressurisation failures are far more common than hijackings so be sensible. No point in locking the door until it actually means something. After all, the 4 aircraft that were hit all had locked doors.
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Somewhere probing
Posts: 301
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ok then Roadtrip how about this.....
Let’s say that there’s a system that records every single passenger movement in great detail, e.g. it includes ticket number, all your passport info (including pictures), check-in time, gate number, real-time facial imagery, etc.
This info is then run through a ‘profiling’ system, as well as passed on to all the ‘security services’ for them to trawl against their databases.
Well, just how do you feel about relinquishing your ‘right’ to freedom of movement / travel, albeit in the name of safety and anti-terrorism because, after all, if you’ve nothing to hide then you’ve nothing to worry about, have you ?!
Ps. I’m sure an armoured door’s just fine – as a final barrier – but, imho, right now some other much more vulnerable areas need considerable more work, e.g. reservations & check-in.
Let’s say that there’s a system that records every single passenger movement in great detail, e.g. it includes ticket number, all your passport info (including pictures), check-in time, gate number, real-time facial imagery, etc.
This info is then run through a ‘profiling’ system, as well as passed on to all the ‘security services’ for them to trawl against their databases.
Well, just how do you feel about relinquishing your ‘right’ to freedom of movement / travel, albeit in the name of safety and anti-terrorism because, after all, if you’ve nothing to hide then you’ve nothing to worry about, have you ?!
Ps. I’m sure an armoured door’s just fine – as a final barrier – but, imho, right now some other much more vulnerable areas need considerable more work, e.g. reservations & check-in.