FAA proposes adding a Second Barrier to Cockpit Entrances
Thread Starter
FAA proposes adding a Second Barrier to Cockpit Entrances
The things one reads that makes you just wonder who makes these things up!
The FAA is concerned about unruly Passengers acting up on flights.....aren't we all?
But now the FAA wants to require a Second Barrier to existing Cockpit Entrance Security measures.
What confuses me.....is why would security measures caused by the Terrorist Attacks on 9-11 now be seen as inadequate for unruly passengers?
Am I missing something here?
https://www.foxbusiness.com/economy/...grab-headlines
The FAA is concerned about unruly Passengers acting up on flights.....aren't we all?
But now the FAA wants to require a Second Barrier to existing Cockpit Entrance Security measures.
What confuses me.....is why would security measures caused by the Terrorist Attacks on 9-11 now be seen as inadequate for unruly passengers?
Am I missing something here?
https://www.foxbusiness.com/economy/...grab-headlines
Have there been any successful cockpit intrusions after the implementation of the post-9/11 cockpit hardening requirements? If the answer is no, this would seem to be a solution in search of a problem.
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Europe
Age: 44
Posts: 623
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As far as I understand, it’s Congress running out of patience implementing the decision they made quite a few years ago, and which the FAA have pretty much dragged their feet on.
One cannot help being sympathetic to such frustrations, considering the ruling was established in 2018. But it’s been talked about since not long after 9/11, when the hardened doors were made mandatory.
A light-weight secondary barrier is already an option at Boeing and Airbus, including narrow-bodies. They have been installed since 2003, cost is around 5K USD per installation and there are hundreds of aircraft which have been modified.
https://www.alpa.org/advocacy/flight-deck-barriers
One cannot help being sympathetic to such frustrations, considering the ruling was established in 2018. But it’s been talked about since not long after 9/11, when the hardened doors were made mandatory.
A light-weight secondary barrier is already an option at Boeing and Airbus, including narrow-bodies. They have been installed since 2003, cost is around 5K USD per installation and there are hundreds of aircraft which have been modified.
https://www.alpa.org/advocacy/flight-deck-barriers
So there are looking for something more robust when the pilots need to use the lav than a ~100 pound flight attendant standing in the front trying to look intimidating. I was in First Class on an Alaska Air flight a while back where that was literally the case - a very pretty, young woman flight attendant standing there trying to look mean and intimidating - it was almost comical to see, and I teased the young lady about it a bit later when she brought me fresh drink later 
.
That being said, uxb99 makes a valid point - maybe they're looking at the wrong problem...
.That being said, uxb99 makes a valid point - maybe they're looking at the wrong problem...
Pegase Driver
Join Date: May 1997
Location: Europe
Age: 73
Posts: 3,491
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
why would security measures caused by the Terrorist Attacks on 9-11 now be seen as inadequate for unruly passengers?
SkyGod
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Palm Coast, Florida, USA
Age: 66
Posts: 1,534
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
How about about having lav entry directly from the cockpit, with 2 armed doors: 1 door from the cabin to the lav and 1 door from the cockpit to the lav with remote locking..?
Get rid of the armoured doors. Bring back flight deck visits. Seriously how many think we really need armoured doors. I go for a walk front to back a few times. I’m not afraid I’m going to be attacked. It’s something that happened 21 years ago for ch**st sakes. If we keep just increasing security every time something happens, but never take a step back we will end up flying in a bloody mandated armed cockpit with machine guns pointed everywhere.
I’d rather just have a normal lock and bring back captains discretion to bring people up for a cockpit visit.
How many actually pay anything but lip service to cockpit security nowadays anyways? Not expecting any actual replies to that for obvious reasons.
I’d rather just have a normal lock and bring back captains discretion to bring people up for a cockpit visit.
How many actually pay anything but lip service to cockpit security nowadays anyways? Not expecting any actual replies to that for obvious reasons.
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: No Fixed Abode
Posts: 21
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I see in that ALPA link they are even calling for an armoured door to be installed on freighters as if the (rarely carried in the first place) horse/livestock courier is going to go postal on you. I mean seriously get a grip...
People are often carried on freighters either as part of the charter, employees or jumpseaters. Google FedEx jumpseater tries to crash aircraft.
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: No Fixed Abode
Posts: 21
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am aware of the Fedex case and was expecting someone to bring that up. A door would have done nothing to prevent a determined individual, intent on concealing their intentions such as in that case unless you are going to ban the flight crew from using the toilet, galley and bunks while airborne.
Thread Starter
In lieu of the second security device....how about a small biz jet combo pax seat/toilet installed in the Jump Seat.....call it the Go Seat?
Join Date: Dec 2019
Location: OnScreen
Posts: 410
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And a potential second door does not need to be more rigorous than being able to withstand a 1-minute banging, to get things cleared in front of that second door.
In the last 21 years looks like about approximately 3600 deaths from cockpit incursions and 600 from suicidal pilots. If a pilot is in fact suicidal the doors of course are meaningless.
Pre 9/11, the thinking was the very worst thing that could happen in a hijacking was for the aircraft to crash. Now we know better.
A future attempt at a 9/11 hijacking is likely to see the terrorists overwhelmed by the rest of the passengers/crew - worst case it turns into another Shanksville. No one is going to obtain flightdeck access by holding a knife at a flight attendant's throat, because the crew on the other side of the door now know something far worse could occur if they open the door.
Join Date: Dec 2019
Location: OnScreen
Posts: 410
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The only advantage of a secondary cockpit barrier, I can think of, is that unruly passengers get visually discouraged to even attempt to enter the Door 1 area to be nasty, IE, the "presumed" control stuff is now visually simply out of reach.
Thread Starter
And a potential second door does not need to be more rigorous than being able to withstand a 1-minute banging, to get things cleared in front of that second door.
Young Muffy the cute wee thing, Gladys who is 40 pounds overweight and approaching retirement (finally).....or some amateur rugby scrum from the passengers?
Join Date: Dec 2019
Location: OnScreen
Posts: 410
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
