New reinforced cockpit doors
Union Goon
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: New Jersey, USA
Posts: 1,097
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Actually it is my view that there should not even be a door between the cabin and the cockpit.
All future airliners should have a seperate bulkhead, and outside access only between the two areas. That way it doesn't matter what rude thing you do to the pax, there can be NO access to the cockpit and hijacking is forever ended at that point. Would it be pleasant? Not particularly, basically there would be no difference from the crews point of view if they were flying freight or they were flying passengers.
However, I know of no frieghters that have been lost because of incapacitation in a two man crew and there are plenty of those freighters out there. I do know of dozens of aircraft that have been hijacked however, and this would end that problem once and for all.
Cheers
Wino
All future airliners should have a seperate bulkhead, and outside access only between the two areas. That way it doesn't matter what rude thing you do to the pax, there can be NO access to the cockpit and hijacking is forever ended at that point. Would it be pleasant? Not particularly, basically there would be no difference from the crews point of view if they were flying freight or they were flying passengers.
However, I know of no frieghters that have been lost because of incapacitation in a two man crew and there are plenty of those freighters out there. I do know of dozens of aircraft that have been hijacked however, and this would end that problem once and for all.
Cheers
Wino
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: U.S.
Posts: 26
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Separate bulkhead--yes! That's the winner.
Excuse my "Ah Ha!" moment--but that idea is definitely the safest for crew and aircraft (by proxy--cabin crew and passengers too).
There's still opportunitistic attack to worry about--but the hijacking issue is resolved.
Now all we need to do is address flight characteristics if we bullet proof the interior and flooring with plexi or coating*--if everything seems doable from there we can put an armed marshall on the a/c to protect the cabin crew and passengers, and we've wrapped this one up as well as can reasonably be expected, I'd say.
* There's a coating that the DOD is using to prevent the pentagon structure from crumbling if it sustains another impact... I can't think of the manufacturer, right this minute, but (depending on corrosiveness and chemical volitility) it just might have applicability here.
Excuse my "Ah Ha!" moment--but that idea is definitely the safest for crew and aircraft (by proxy--cabin crew and passengers too).
There's still opportunitistic attack to worry about--but the hijacking issue is resolved.
Now all we need to do is address flight characteristics if we bullet proof the interior and flooring with plexi or coating*--if everything seems doable from there we can put an armed marshall on the a/c to protect the cabin crew and passengers, and we've wrapped this one up as well as can reasonably be expected, I'd say.
* There's a coating that the DOD is using to prevent the pentagon structure from crumbling if it sustains another impact... I can't think of the manufacturer, right this minute, but (depending on corrosiveness and chemical volitility) it just might have applicability here.
Last edited by mriya225; 24th May 2002 at 20:12.
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: 38N
Posts: 356
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wino -- "Right On" with the no-door approach. Whether Bulkhead (future) or Bamboo (now) - a no-passage partition.
Adds some cost in future design space for fancier structure, lavs, room for a nap and seats or whatever for a couple of reserves on long haul, plus arrangements for food and drink. Maybe a new job definition for someone in the main cabin who trains extra as the 'aft engineer' (puns may commence at the count of three). Savings in Insurance, relative to 'the old way', could soon offset any capital/ops cost increase several times over. The big "I" is right next to fuel as an enabler/disabler of flight ops - and flight jobs.
It is truly impressive to note how many folks just don't 'get it' in regard to changed circumstances: there's no way to fit the f****'n genie back in the bottle.
Adds some cost in future design space for fancier structure, lavs, room for a nap and seats or whatever for a couple of reserves on long haul, plus arrangements for food and drink. Maybe a new job definition for someone in the main cabin who trains extra as the 'aft engineer' (puns may commence at the count of three). Savings in Insurance, relative to 'the old way', could soon offset any capital/ops cost increase several times over. The big "I" is right next to fuel as an enabler/disabler of flight ops - and flight jobs.
It is truly impressive to note how many folks just don't 'get it' in regard to changed circumstances: there's no way to fit the f****'n genie back in the bottle.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: UTC +8
Posts: 2,626
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Future Cockpit
What's already on the drawing boards at the large airplane manufacturers is a "self contained cockpit" that includes crew lav and mini galley (microwave) to preclude the necessity of ever having to open the armored crew access door inflight.
And ETOPS 773 who said: "...4 men..weighing 10 stone each ramming it and trying to kick it down..i sure hope it can stop them too!!!"
Sir, if you are at least semi literate you would know that after "9-11" passengers would no longer sit idle while prospective hijackers are pounding on the cockpit door. Eh?
And ETOPS 773 who said: "...4 men..weighing 10 stone each ramming it and trying to kick it down..i sure hope it can stop them too!!!"
Sir, if you are at least semi literate you would know that after "9-11" passengers would no longer sit idle while prospective hijackers are pounding on the cockpit door. Eh?
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: dallas,tx,usa
Posts: 152
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wino,
You're spot on.
Sadly we both know that marketing has the final say at our airline and they'll resist any "reminder" of 9/11 being on view to the pax.
Our airplanes should have a secure no-go zone now.
Bullet proof doors are great but the fwd lav's mirror isn't going to stop a bullet hitting the Captain in the back of the head!
We even had a Captain "councelled" this week because during his p.a. he asked pax not to congregate in the fwd galley area. Two nitwit managers on board objected and had a chief admonish him!
The pax would thank us for the additional security (like they do the legroom).
Enjoy the holiday,
Cheers,
You're spot on.
Sadly we both know that marketing has the final say at our airline and they'll resist any "reminder" of 9/11 being on view to the pax.
Our airplanes should have a secure no-go zone now.
Bullet proof doors are great but the fwd lav's mirror isn't going to stop a bullet hitting the Captain in the back of the head!
We even had a Captain "councelled" this week because during his p.a. he asked pax not to congregate in the fwd galley area. Two nitwit managers on board objected and had a chief admonish him!
The pax would thank us for the additional security (like they do the legroom).
Enjoy the holiday,
Cheers,
Guest
Posts: n/a
MAXRPM has it right. THE REINFORCED COCKPIT DOOR IS TO PROTECT PEOPLE ON THE GROUND, NOT PEOPLE IN THE AIR. Personally, when I sign for an aircraft I sign for the passengers and the crew on that aircraft not the city of New York or the White House. Give me an effective way to protect my own aircraft and you will not need to think of ways to protect people on the ground, it will follow automatically.
The present attitude says I am to lock myself behind a door, to the extent of having the aircraft destroyed behind me, so that people (politicians?) on the ground will be safe. If by any chance my best efforts are ineffective an F16 will act as the tie-breaker.
Yes, we need a reinforced door but the reinforced door with no means of fighting back against even unarmed terrorists is a pathetic, self serving political ploy. We all know that six trained terrorists can secure the forward galley area against a hundred passengers. Then the aircraft is going down.
By the way, did you see that the Federal Air Marshal training requirements have been reduced so that their numbers can be increased more quickly? Specifically deleted is the requirement for advanced weapon training. Their skills are probably no better now than the average cop on the beat. About the same as can be attained by the average pilot. Feel safer now?
The present attitude says I am to lock myself behind a door, to the extent of having the aircraft destroyed behind me, so that people (politicians?) on the ground will be safe. If by any chance my best efforts are ineffective an F16 will act as the tie-breaker.
Yes, we need a reinforced door but the reinforced door with no means of fighting back against even unarmed terrorists is a pathetic, self serving political ploy. We all know that six trained terrorists can secure the forward galley area against a hundred passengers. Then the aircraft is going down.
By the way, did you see that the Federal Air Marshal training requirements have been reduced so that their numbers can be increased more quickly? Specifically deleted is the requirement for advanced weapon training. Their skills are probably no better now than the average cop on the beat. About the same as can be attained by the average pilot. Feel safer now?
Regarding the separate bulkhead idea - how is that going to make you feel when the guy to your left is clutching his chest, gasping for breath, and sweating profusely in the middle of the Atlantic? Meanwhile all you can do is listen over the intercom to the 2 or 3 physicians who happen to be traveling as pax telling you what they could do with the defibrillator installed in the back if they could only get up front. Or perhaps all he needs is a lie down – but how are the cabin crew going to be able to help you look after him?
And what about if your colleague exhibits signs of mental instability or criminal intent (e.g. EgyptAir). Who is going to help you restrain him?
Separate bulkhead & two crew operation does not seem like a sensible idea. Minimum of 3 up front would seem to be prudent under these circumstances + food provision + rest area + lav + medical supplies including automated defibrillator.
And what about if your colleague exhibits signs of mental instability or criminal intent (e.g. EgyptAir). Who is going to help you restrain him?
Separate bulkhead & two crew operation does not seem like a sensible idea. Minimum of 3 up front would seem to be prudent under these circumstances + food provision + rest area + lav + medical supplies including automated defibrillator.
Union Goon
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: New Jersey, USA
Posts: 1,097
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Stagger,
The atlantic is by and large a 3 man operation with very few exceptions. so you already get your wish. THe 757PF is configured already like you are asking for. Just put seats and windows in it.
Where it is not a 3 man operation, how can it be acceptable for feighters and not for you? If you are so concerned about the defib, it can be added to the cockpit, I can put it on the guy seated next to me without leaving the controls. Its a very minor expense.
And tell me, what did free and easy access do for Egypt Air or Silk Air? What it actually did was let the crew get further away from the bad guy, INCREASING the risk not reducing it. By keeping the captain in close quarters with the rogue F/O maybe he wouldn't have been able to push over, the captain would have been there quicker before the situation was unrecoverable.
Cheers
Wino
The atlantic is by and large a 3 man operation with very few exceptions. so you already get your wish. THe 757PF is configured already like you are asking for. Just put seats and windows in it.
Where it is not a 3 man operation, how can it be acceptable for feighters and not for you? If you are so concerned about the defib, it can be added to the cockpit, I can put it on the guy seated next to me without leaving the controls. Its a very minor expense.
And tell me, what did free and easy access do for Egypt Air or Silk Air? What it actually did was let the crew get further away from the bad guy, INCREASING the risk not reducing it. By keeping the captain in close quarters with the rogue F/O maybe he wouldn't have been able to push over, the captain would have been there quicker before the situation was unrecoverable.
Cheers
Wino
Wino
Really? During the past eight years of buzzing backwards and forwards as SLF (mainly on 767s and A330s) I've only rarely seen anything other than 2 man ops.
Errr...because I consider myself, along with the rest of the SLF to be slightly more valuable than a load of parcels and documents. And this is not meant to imply that 2 crew ops is inherently unsuitable for pax flights - just that 2 crew behind a sealed bulkhead with no possibility of assistance for one should the other fall ill does not seem sensible when several hundred lives are at stake.
Point well taken - in those specific instances it didn't help. In fact I suppose that, if implemented, a sealed flight deck would mean that it would be impossible for a single crew member to lock the other guy out. However, I still think given the considerations I've mentioned - 3 crew should be the minimum for a sealed flight deck.
The atlantic is by and large a 3 man operation with very few exceptions
Where it is not a 3 man operation, how can it be acceptable for feighters and not for you?
And tell me, what did free and easy access do for Egypt Air or Silk Air?
Last edited by stagger; 25th May 2002 at 16:22.
Forward Galley must be kept secure
Dallas Dude: Your airline's SOPs have a big security hole if people are allowed to congregate in the forward galley, especially when the single "secure" cockpit door is open. Once that door is open, it only takes one husky guy to shove aside the crew member in the doorway and lock the door behind.
Now you're F16 target practice
Now you're F16 target practice
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: U.S.
Posts: 26
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wino,
The more I thought about this no access configuration, the more it troubled me. Chalk it up to an unusually amenable disposition, induced by seeing snow on the ground yesterday--Denver weather, gotta love it.
I'm hanging on these issues specifically:
1) If there's any way for the cabin to communicate with the flightcrew (and there should be) then it's for naught. We've physically insulated you--but mentally and philosophically, we've put you in a terrible, wretched position.
Let's assume the worst here, and say these terrorist teams gain lethal control over the cabin crew and passengers (and they'd damned well better not--but if they did) what are you going to be made to listen to while you're not assisting their objective? I shudder to think of it....
I don't know, it must be the bloodthirsty American in me that knows, on the one hand, that if the cockpit is accessible, your chances of survival are very slim--but, on the other hand, I'd like to make it at least physically possible for you to leave that cockpit and commence to beating the hell out of somebody for putting you, your crew and these passengers in this position.
It's my own perspective, I know, but there's no sense in keeping you alive if you're just going to commit suicide later, because this flight jacked your head up so bad that nobody can put it back together again. Pilots are a tough breed, but still... So what? So we've spared your body--but we've discompassionately emperiled your minds in ways that I don't even have the capacity to articulate. No; I can't sign off on that.
2) I'm still not wild about your not being to get a beat on the aircraft, if something goes wrong. The argument about freighter crews not being able to do it is compelling--but not completely convincing. Between PAX flightcrews and freighter crews, if something goes wrong with their respective aircrafts... Theoretically, your odds are about even, until you factor in the pressure of knowing that you've got 200 plus people along for the ride.
In terms of beneficiaries of this advantage, Dennis Fitch on Flt232 comes immediately to mind, so I know it can be helpful. Come to think of it, you could use this same example as an argument against the no access cockpit too....
I think we can come up with a better idea all the way 'round, than this.
The more I thought about this no access configuration, the more it troubled me. Chalk it up to an unusually amenable disposition, induced by seeing snow on the ground yesterday--Denver weather, gotta love it.
I'm hanging on these issues specifically:
1) If there's any way for the cabin to communicate with the flightcrew (and there should be) then it's for naught. We've physically insulated you--but mentally and philosophically, we've put you in a terrible, wretched position.
Let's assume the worst here, and say these terrorist teams gain lethal control over the cabin crew and passengers (and they'd damned well better not--but if they did) what are you going to be made to listen to while you're not assisting their objective? I shudder to think of it....
I don't know, it must be the bloodthirsty American in me that knows, on the one hand, that if the cockpit is accessible, your chances of survival are very slim--but, on the other hand, I'd like to make it at least physically possible for you to leave that cockpit and commence to beating the hell out of somebody for putting you, your crew and these passengers in this position.
It's my own perspective, I know, but there's no sense in keeping you alive if you're just going to commit suicide later, because this flight jacked your head up so bad that nobody can put it back together again. Pilots are a tough breed, but still... So what? So we've spared your body--but we've discompassionately emperiled your minds in ways that I don't even have the capacity to articulate. No; I can't sign off on that.
2) I'm still not wild about your not being to get a beat on the aircraft, if something goes wrong. The argument about freighter crews not being able to do it is compelling--but not completely convincing. Between PAX flightcrews and freighter crews, if something goes wrong with their respective aircrafts... Theoretically, your odds are about even, until you factor in the pressure of knowing that you've got 200 plus people along for the ride.
In terms of beneficiaries of this advantage, Dennis Fitch on Flt232 comes immediately to mind, so I know it can be helpful. Come to think of it, you could use this same example as an argument against the no access cockpit too....
I think we can come up with a better idea all the way 'round, than this.
Last edited by mriya225; 25th May 2002 at 20:04.
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: 38N
Posts: 356
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The reasons that favor partitioning off the flying crew are clear enough - keep them alive and independent so as to FLY the aircraft to a successful conclusion of every flight. Prospect of no success discourages new-style hijack attempts, and all the grief that goes with them.
(For clarity, the following ignores solvable technical and mechanical issues regarding conversion of existing aircraft.)
Arguments against flight crew physical segregation from the pax, etc, seem to fall onto a short list of categories:
1) Flight crew (being especially skilled and in charge) may need to enter cabin to quell riots, deliver babies, check to see which side of horizontal tail has fallen off, etc.
2) Flight crew may require inflight rescue by pax or cabin crew due to
a) medical problems,
b) bad attitude,
c) bad food
3) Separating flight crew from the rest of the aircraft
a) changes inflight ops management concepts
b) creates various minor overheads and functional changes in the aircraft
c) ensures that f.o. has NO escape from Captain from Hell, & vv
d) takes some of the 'fun' out of it for flight crew:
--- 1) reduces inflight human contact generally,
--- 2) eliminates the opportunity to strut down the center aisle in full uniform to the admiring gaze of the pax,
--- 3) undermines any inflight social life that might otherwise be possible for flight crew - thereby impacting post-flight prospects ( for the single pilots)
What is missing from this list?
(For clarity, the following ignores solvable technical and mechanical issues regarding conversion of existing aircraft.)
Arguments against flight crew physical segregation from the pax, etc, seem to fall onto a short list of categories:
1) Flight crew (being especially skilled and in charge) may need to enter cabin to quell riots, deliver babies, check to see which side of horizontal tail has fallen off, etc.
2) Flight crew may require inflight rescue by pax or cabin crew due to
a) medical problems,
b) bad attitude,
c) bad food
3) Separating flight crew from the rest of the aircraft
a) changes inflight ops management concepts
b) creates various minor overheads and functional changes in the aircraft
c) ensures that f.o. has NO escape from Captain from Hell, & vv
d) takes some of the 'fun' out of it for flight crew:
--- 1) reduces inflight human contact generally,
--- 2) eliminates the opportunity to strut down the center aisle in full uniform to the admiring gaze of the pax,
--- 3) undermines any inflight social life that might otherwise be possible for flight crew - thereby impacting post-flight prospects ( for the single pilots)
What is missing from this list?
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Oop North, UK
Posts: 3,076
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just watched Dicovery channel " fear of flying", at least TWO of these incidents were saved in part at least by having access to the F.D., one the Sioux city DC10, the other the B.A. 1-11 that lost a window, non were impeded by this access, I can think of others where lack of crew communication has hindered an incident, ie the Midland 737. Shutting off the F.D. only makes communication harder.
Basically we are making a solution for Hijacking that then ignors ALL other aviation safety considerations.
Basically we are making a solution for Hijacking that then ignors ALL other aviation safety considerations.
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: The Valley Where the Thames Runs Softly
Age: 77
Posts: 556
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't think that any modification to the aircraft can address the single greatest problem. Locked door or no, can the FD crew sit there while somebody is slicing bits off the cabin crew, or, possibly, one of the pilot's family? The 11 September crews made their decision, and we are now better informed about what can happen. But until it happens to you, nobody can know how crew will react to the appalling reality.
I am profoundly grateful that it will never be a decision I have to face.
I am profoundly grateful that it will never be a decision I have to face.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 119
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Here's a description of the latest doors that I heard of recently that takes into account incapacitation.
Door has remote lock and video monitors to show what's going on in the forward galley area. Via interphone button/call bell/button/CIDs etc you can request the door to be opened. The flight deck door is set to an auto mode that will then unlock the door automatically after a pre-set time period (each operator can specify there own time). This is unless the FD crew either immediately open the door/cancel the auto-unlock or over-ride the auto unlock and set the door to a permanent lock.
Hope I've explanined it well enough but it allows for outside access should there be a double incapacitation (or single if the other guy/girl has gone to drain the bodily hydraulics).
You've got to believe the odds of having an attempted hijack AND incapacitated flight crew are very remote and under all normal circumstances the FD crew can keep the flightdeck secure (well as secure as a locked door can be).
Finally means I can go to the bog without the whole crew knowing about it.
Door has remote lock and video monitors to show what's going on in the forward galley area. Via interphone button/call bell/button/CIDs etc you can request the door to be opened. The flight deck door is set to an auto mode that will then unlock the door automatically after a pre-set time period (each operator can specify there own time). This is unless the FD crew either immediately open the door/cancel the auto-unlock or over-ride the auto unlock and set the door to a permanent lock.
Hope I've explanined it well enough but it allows for outside access should there be a double incapacitation (or single if the other guy/girl has gone to drain the bodily hydraulics).
You've got to believe the odds of having an attempted hijack AND incapacitated flight crew are very remote and under all normal circumstances the FD crew can keep the flightdeck secure (well as secure as a locked door can be).
Finally means I can go to the bog without the whole crew knowing about it.
