Cockpit Security - Doors
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: bedfordshire, england
Posts: 19
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Earlier in this thread I made several points, one of which was a stronger, locking flight deck door would maybe be a way to go.
This has been met with several responses, some good points, some bad, some ridiculous.
As another of my points was there should be cameras in the pax cabin, pilots would be able to see if it was safe to exit the flight deck to investigate problems in the cabin (of a technical kind).
True, a possibility exists where many passengers may be injured or even killed if terrorists are on board an aircraft, but this is better than the terrorist being able to take control of the aircraft and use it as a weapon. This of course will mean the deaths of all souls on board as well as the loss of countless lives on the ground.
My final idea hasn't been commented on, perhaps because it sounds crazy or extreme. You must all excuse me if I am being naive or ridiculous, but it seems to me, once the flight deck is secure and sealed, with its own air supply (no recirculated air), the use of gas to 'knock out' all those in the pax cabins would prevent the hijackers from doing too much damage. Sure they would have time to do a certain amount of damage, but their time would be limited.
Once unconcious they would no longer pose a threat and the aircraft could land asap where the terrorists could be dealt with.
Even if this is not the right method to use, it seems to me that disabling the terrorists in some way BEFORE they can seize control of the aircraft has to be the way to go.
This has been met with several responses, some good points, some bad, some ridiculous.
As another of my points was there should be cameras in the pax cabin, pilots would be able to see if it was safe to exit the flight deck to investigate problems in the cabin (of a technical kind).
True, a possibility exists where many passengers may be injured or even killed if terrorists are on board an aircraft, but this is better than the terrorist being able to take control of the aircraft and use it as a weapon. This of course will mean the deaths of all souls on board as well as the loss of countless lives on the ground.
My final idea hasn't been commented on, perhaps because it sounds crazy or extreme. You must all excuse me if I am being naive or ridiculous, but it seems to me, once the flight deck is secure and sealed, with its own air supply (no recirculated air), the use of gas to 'knock out' all those in the pax cabins would prevent the hijackers from doing too much damage. Sure they would have time to do a certain amount of damage, but their time would be limited.
Once unconcious they would no longer pose a threat and the aircraft could land asap where the terrorists could be dealt with.
Even if this is not the right method to use, it seems to me that disabling the terrorists in some way BEFORE they can seize control of the aircraft has to be the way to go.
Join Date: Sep 1999
Posts: 15
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There will always be a risk, no matter what you do. The question is whether the benefits of air travel outway the risk of travel. Not just against terrorism but any accident.
This is the first time this has happened in 100 years of aviation. That is acceptable, as long is it does not become a regular occurrence.
More viable would be to restrain the passengers, like in a roller coaster ride (this would also add to their safety!) and allowing them to get up in a controlled fashion as the need arises (ie toilet stop or stretching). This way, flight crew could ensure that 5 hyjackers could not get up at the same time and storm the plane!!
This concept may take time for some people to absorb, but it is the most viable and in many ways pratical.
This is the first time this has happened in 100 years of aviation. That is acceptable, as long is it does not become a regular occurrence.
More viable would be to restrain the passengers, like in a roller coaster ride (this would also add to their safety!) and allowing them to get up in a controlled fashion as the need arises (ie toilet stop or stretching). This way, flight crew could ensure that 5 hyjackers could not get up at the same time and storm the plane!!
This concept may take time for some people to absorb, but it is the most viable and in many ways pratical.
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Total Obscurity
Posts: 27
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
On the DC10 the whole panel in the lower part of the door Kicks-In/Out depending which direction you do it from.
As they bend their head to get in, you can scratch their eyes out with your plastic fork!
Over reaction or what?
As they bend their head to get in, you can scratch their eyes out with your plastic fork!
Over reaction or what?
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2001
Location: EIDW,Eire
Posts: 63
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
PPRUNE RADAR
i agree that adding to the aircraft weight reduces the amount of passengers but one could always lose the gained weight say in the cargo area....and reduce the weight in checked luggage rather than changing the number of seats.....more than one way to skin a cat....don't just jump at the passenger loads...having been to Boeing in Seattle and seen how they put together an aircraft there are many ways to combat the fact that there is a steel door at the cockpit.
BMpilot 21
Yes what you say is true could you actually stay inside the cockpit and risk having the whole cabin killed a tough decision but now with this whole new situation i say that it would be hard thing to do but rather than have your aircraft crash into a city,building such as the WTC then,yes I WOULD land first and try and avoid something like what we have seein on Tuesday.
I was flying that same hour and my collegues discussed this very situation once on the ground in Miami...
If there is a likely hood that the terrorist could fly the plane and from now on i don't think we can discount this fact, then i would try to stay in command of the aircraft as long as i could and avoid such a tragedy...
Yes yes i know in the past we have been trained to do as they say but can we believe this now in the shadow of WTC....don't think so......
That's my personal opinion.....i had relatives staying in the hotel in WTC who luckily checked out at 745am that morning and i certainly wouldn't have wanted to met them there that day in my aircraft....
My thoughts are with the people in NYC and WAS...and hope that the cowardly terrorists are brought to justice.....
i agree that adding to the aircraft weight reduces the amount of passengers but one could always lose the gained weight say in the cargo area....and reduce the weight in checked luggage rather than changing the number of seats.....more than one way to skin a cat....don't just jump at the passenger loads...having been to Boeing in Seattle and seen how they put together an aircraft there are many ways to combat the fact that there is a steel door at the cockpit.
BMpilot 21
Yes what you say is true could you actually stay inside the cockpit and risk having the whole cabin killed a tough decision but now with this whole new situation i say that it would be hard thing to do but rather than have your aircraft crash into a city,building such as the WTC then,yes I WOULD land first and try and avoid something like what we have seein on Tuesday.
I was flying that same hour and my collegues discussed this very situation once on the ground in Miami...
If there is a likely hood that the terrorist could fly the plane and from now on i don't think we can discount this fact, then i would try to stay in command of the aircraft as long as i could and avoid such a tragedy...
Yes yes i know in the past we have been trained to do as they say but can we believe this now in the shadow of WTC....don't think so......
That's my personal opinion.....i had relatives staying in the hotel in WTC who luckily checked out at 745am that morning and i certainly wouldn't have wanted to met them there that day in my aircraft....
My thoughts are with the people in NYC and WAS...and hope that the cowardly terrorists are brought to justice.....
Union Goon
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: New Jersey, USA
Posts: 1,097
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This is an interesting dilemma. But basically, it is unlikely the 4-5 people could kill everyone on an airliner without access to the cockpit. You could cut a couple of throats, but then the rest of the pax are likely to start fighting back eventually atleast slowing the terrorists progress if not stopping them completely. IN the meantime, you can hustle the aircraft onto the ground where you can get some armed intervention.
As soon as a terrorist gets into the cockpit, he only has to kill 2 people (the pilots) to kill the rest of the people on the aircraft. Handgrenades inside the cabin aren't sure to bring the aircraft down either, unless you throw a lot of them....
Certainly on a 747 the easiest way to kill 400 people is with the controls in the cockpit.
As to the needs of going back to the cabin. The freighters never have that option. the 757PF that UPS flies has the number one door moved way forward. Behind it is a solid bulkhead. In the cockpit area is a mini galley and a lav. Use that as the new standard and place the pax cabin behind the freight bulkhead with no cockpit to cabin access.
As to evac routes, the pilots still have their outside door plus 2 windows. Cockpit windows are never included in the certification for an evacuation so that doesn't change anything either.
Inspection of gear ports and what not can be done with video cameras.
Cheers
Wino
As soon as a terrorist gets into the cockpit, he only has to kill 2 people (the pilots) to kill the rest of the people on the aircraft. Handgrenades inside the cabin aren't sure to bring the aircraft down either, unless you throw a lot of them....
Certainly on a 747 the easiest way to kill 400 people is with the controls in the cockpit.
As to the needs of going back to the cabin. The freighters never have that option. the 757PF that UPS flies has the number one door moved way forward. Behind it is a solid bulkhead. In the cockpit area is a mini galley and a lav. Use that as the new standard and place the pax cabin behind the freight bulkhead with no cockpit to cabin access.
As to evac routes, the pilots still have their outside door plus 2 windows. Cockpit windows are never included in the certification for an evacuation so that doesn't change anything either.
Inspection of gear ports and what not can be done with video cameras.
Cheers
Wino
Moderator
Join Date: Jul 1997
Location: Europe
Posts: 3,228
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ontheairwaves
My point was not to do with the weight (I don't think I mentioned it), rather the fact that the forward doors would no longer be available to passengers. Not such a problem in heavier metal but very restrictive to evacuation in the 737/A320 class of aircraft. That's what would restrict your pax load since you need to be able to get everyone off in 90 seconds (yeah, right !!).
Wino
I wasn't particularly worried about cockpit crew egress. As you say, they have multiple routes whatever the configuration.
My point was not to do with the weight (I don't think I mentioned it), rather the fact that the forward doors would no longer be available to passengers. Not such a problem in heavier metal but very restrictive to evacuation in the 737/A320 class of aircraft. That's what would restrict your pax load since you need to be able to get everyone off in 90 seconds (yeah, right !!).
Wino
I wasn't particularly worried about cockpit crew egress. As you say, they have multiple routes whatever the configuration.
Grandpa Aerotart
Geiginni,
You don't need to fling the aircraft all over the sky to hurt someone, I can bounce you all around the back with very gentle control inputs.
To everyone with strange,expensive and unrealistic ideas about redesigning aircraft etc get real....the only affordable option is HIGHLY trained 'Sky Snipers'.
A minimum of two on every aircraft likely to be a target of this kind of obscenity, seated wide apart but with NO-ONE on board knowing who or where will be the only way to stop these things ending badly.....NOTHING can be done to stop them starting.
The best part about it they already exist and are already trained and the Govt already pays them to play at their jobs....they're called SAS!
Chuck.
You don't need to fling the aircraft all over the sky to hurt someone, I can bounce you all around the back with very gentle control inputs.
To everyone with strange,expensive and unrealistic ideas about redesigning aircraft etc get real....the only affordable option is HIGHLY trained 'Sky Snipers'.
A minimum of two on every aircraft likely to be a target of this kind of obscenity, seated wide apart but with NO-ONE on board knowing who or where will be the only way to stop these things ending badly.....NOTHING can be done to stop them starting.
The best part about it they already exist and are already trained and the Govt already pays them to play at their jobs....they're called SAS!
Chuck.
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: Bechuanaland
Posts: 183
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
To everyone with strange,expensive and unrealistic ideas about redesigning aircraft etc get real....the only affordable option is HIGHLY trained 'Sky Snipers'.
Here's another:
The answer to defeating unlawful interference might lie with this solution:
CLICK this LINK
Here's another:
The answer to defeating unlawful interference might lie with this solution:
CLICK this LINK
Grandpa Aerotart
Yeah right...and the day the system malfunctions....which it will, an aeroplane with possibly 400 pax crashes with the pilots unable to intervene.
For f**ks sake! DO NOT LET THE ENGINEERS HIJACK US AS WELL!!!!!
Chuck
For f**ks sake! DO NOT LET THE ENGINEERS HIJACK US AS WELL!!!!!
Chuck
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: Bechuanaland
Posts: 183
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Chimbu Chuckles
If you look at the credentials of the chap (Rainman) giving the endorsement of the whole idea, he is THE Boeing and McDD auto-flight control expert. He writes extensively upon the subject on the Bluecoat glass-cockpit technician's closed forum. He has many years in the field; in fact many more years than the autoland systems that he does the design accreditation of. Those systems are fail-safe and that is the key. Having the Robolander as a fall-back position would at least avoid the thousands of casualties (that will now grow exponentially because of the many years of war to come).
The religious wars of the 21st Century are going to go on for many decades and will despoil the earth and deprive my children of what might have otherwise been a quite joyous life. And what's more worrying, I am not at all convinced that, once a Jihad is called by the clerics, that Freedom and Democracy will prevail. We lack the mindless conviction of the other side and just may not make it through to "Last Man Standing".
My government has decided to invest in a significant number of Global Hawks. They only did that after looking at the warrantied failure probabilities. They are far lower than your chances of winning the national lottery.
The concept is described in detail at this URL
If you look at the credentials of the chap (Rainman) giving the endorsement of the whole idea, he is THE Boeing and McDD auto-flight control expert. He writes extensively upon the subject on the Bluecoat glass-cockpit technician's closed forum. He has many years in the field; in fact many more years than the autoland systems that he does the design accreditation of. Those systems are fail-safe and that is the key. Having the Robolander as a fall-back position would at least avoid the thousands of casualties (that will now grow exponentially because of the many years of war to come).
The religious wars of the 21st Century are going to go on for many decades and will despoil the earth and deprive my children of what might have otherwise been a quite joyous life. And what's more worrying, I am not at all convinced that, once a Jihad is called by the clerics, that Freedom and Democracy will prevail. We lack the mindless conviction of the other side and just may not make it through to "Last Man Standing".
My government has decided to invest in a significant number of Global Hawks. They only did that after looking at the warrantied failure probabilities. They are far lower than your chances of winning the national lottery.
The concept is described in detail at this URL
Guest
Posts: n/a
What do you need your own gally and washroom for? If you cant eat your own sandwiches and pee in a bottle for your $100,000 a year then your in the wrong game. Re-building the A/c is not an option, just armour the cockpit door and lock yourself in.
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A little sidestep from the flightdeck door, if I'm allowed. In my airline we don't use incapacitant spray(nor had I ever heard of it). What is it and what does it do, specifically.(Do you believe it, there's no questionmark on this keyboard!)
How about a double door where only one door can be open at a time (like photography darkrooms) to a narrow passage that requires you to enter sideways (watch your waistline) that can only hold one person at a time? This would stop hijackers from bursting in with the next sharp object held against a hostage's throat. The cockpit could have a switch to open both doors on the ground for evacuation and ground servicing. Once pasengers are boarding, the passage would revert to secure mode.
Additionally the galleys must be protected so that one or more hijackers can not quietly sneak up to an isolated cabin crew member to make a hostage of her. It's much easier to make the initial hostage grab in the galley where there are no passengers to interfere. These people tend to do their dirty work in dark corners.
Additionally the galleys must be protected so that one or more hijackers can not quietly sneak up to an isolated cabin crew member to make a hostage of her. It's much easier to make the initial hostage grab in the galley where there are no passengers to interfere. These people tend to do their dirty work in dark corners.
Keeping Danny in Sandwiches
Join Date: May 1999
Location: UK
Age: 76
Posts: 1,294
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The answer surely is to take the pilot out of the aircraft and manage it on the ground. Modern autopilots Sat nav and one or two other gizmoes should mean that we can sit at home managing the flight and writing to PPRuNe.
Now - who's that at the door?
Now - who's that at the door?
Union Goon
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: New Jersey, USA
Posts: 1,097
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Oh great, I can see the headlines, 9 year old hacks 7 aircraft all crashed...
Just make sure there is NO access from the cabin to the cockpit, then it doesn't matter what happens in the back , the aircraft cannot be used as a weapon.
Cheers
Wino
Just make sure there is NO access from the cabin to the cockpit, then it doesn't matter what happens in the back , the aircraft cannot be used as a weapon.
Cheers
Wino
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: Bechuanaland
Posts: 183
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RoboLander Updated with some added links, inputs, facts and ideas.
Actually requires reading, analysis and some thought - versus shoot-from-the-hip superficial dismissal.
Actually requires reading, analysis and some thought - versus shoot-from-the-hip superficial dismissal.
some thoughts to add:-
Doors can be made stronger with kevlar,
not cheap, but VERY strong,it
wouldnt be beyond the wit of man (or design engineer) to achieve a satisfactory fix
fairly easily (it worked for concordes tanks)
Cabin crew protection:-
issue lightweight 'flak' jackets ??
not too bulky of course, but a lightweight version able to withstand personal attack,
probably not really practical though ?
How about issuing anti-personal sprays too ?
(those 'mace' type sprays that provide
temporary impairment to an attacker)
Its a tough call though, how do you
cope with madmen intent on death &
destruction ?
maybe armed sky marshalls would work ?
hope we find the right answer,
keep safe folks,
Doors can be made stronger with kevlar,
not cheap, but VERY strong,it
wouldnt be beyond the wit of man (or design engineer) to achieve a satisfactory fix
fairly easily (it worked for concordes tanks)
Cabin crew protection:-
issue lightweight 'flak' jackets ??
not too bulky of course, but a lightweight version able to withstand personal attack,
probably not really practical though ?
How about issuing anti-personal sprays too ?
(those 'mace' type sprays that provide
temporary impairment to an attacker)
Its a tough call though, how do you
cope with madmen intent on death &
destruction ?
maybe armed sky marshalls would work ?
hope we find the right answer,
keep safe folks,
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: canada
Posts: 147
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I agree with BmPilot21 and Erik. The law in the U.S. to lock the door didn't stop them. Personally I don't like being made a prisoner in my own 'plane. That's not why I joined the airlines.
Everyone assumes that the hijackers are on the aircraft. How about preventing them from boarding in the first place?????????
Better yet, how about finding out just WHY we have hijachers in the first place.
If we as humans could learn to co-exist on this GOD given planet instead of drawing lines all accross the land and pretending that it belongs to us so nobody can set foot on "our side" of the line, and if we would stop teaching our children to hate others, maybe, just maybe we could leave the cockpit doors open. THINK ABOUT THAT !!!!!
All this talk of guns, locked doors, sprays, marshals etc makes me SICK.
Nobody should take the fun out of flying. NOBODY.
Everyone assumes that the hijackers are on the aircraft. How about preventing them from boarding in the first place?????????
Better yet, how about finding out just WHY we have hijachers in the first place.
If we as humans could learn to co-exist on this GOD given planet instead of drawing lines all accross the land and pretending that it belongs to us so nobody can set foot on "our side" of the line, and if we would stop teaching our children to hate others, maybe, just maybe we could leave the cockpit doors open. THINK ABOUT THAT !!!!!
All this talk of guns, locked doors, sprays, marshals etc makes me SICK.
Nobody should take the fun out of flying. NOBODY.