USA FAA Mandated Security Screen Doors

[MEL_Traveller]

I wonder if there may also be a mandate in the future to have 2 people in coughpits at all time coming. In which case the FA up front would enter the coughpit while the pilot is relieving themselves thus a barrier adds extra layer with people shuffling about and such.

As for 2 people in the coughpit at all times, I'm surprised this isn't a mandate these days still given the various incidents we've had over the years with a pilot going rogue.

Many airlines did, after Germanwings. I read the FAA still mandates it in the US, and some other countries do to.

Other countries and airlines have not mandated it.

Would it prevent a committed pilot attempting to crash the plane? Dunno.

 

[HMcM]

And I haven't been talking about 'breaching the coughpit' - I've been talking about an attack on a pilot in the galley, which I'm happy for airlines to take precautions to mitigate against.

And how many times in the last 25 years has that happened? This is an obvious safety hazard to remedy a problem that does not exist.

Would it prevent a committed pilot attempting to crash the plane? Dunno.

I don't think a FA is going to do much good against a suicidal pilot who wants to put the aircraft into the drink.

 

[TheCollecter]

I also guess Airbus will have to comply if they want to continue selling aircraft in the US market.

Bombardier might also like to sell aircraft in the US… maybe a flimsy looking louvre door will be enough to blind side Uncle Donald?

 

[RooFlyer]

But that’s the very reason for the secondary barrier… to protect the flight deck when the door is opened: https://www.faa.gov/newsroom/faa-requires-secondary-flight-deck-barrier

No 'but' necessary - I'm happy with the new precaution!

I dont draw a distinction between pilots and other cabin crew when it comes to safety from attack. So if pilots in the galley are at risk, what protections are we going to provide for cabin crew?

Agree with that sentiment, and I did say 'I'd still rather have both pilots (at least) unmolested' in post #16, but the grim reality is that at 30,000 ft, a pilot or 2 are more critical to everyone's safety/survival than anyone else.

And how many times in the last 25 years has that happened? This is an obvious safety hazard to remedy a problem that does not exist.

And you may wonder why it hasn't happened in 25 years? I also say to you - do you think the bad guys have given up? Read the commentary in today's papers, for instance. EG AFR: Times have changed, but 9/11 never completely goes away

 

[MEL_Traveller]

And you may wonder why it hasn't happened in 25 years? I also say to you - do you think the bad guys have given up? Read the commentary in today's papers, for instance. EG AFR: Times have changed, but 9/11 never completely goes away

I don’t wonder… we know.

It was a one off 25 years ago because no one ever thought hijackers would crash the planes.

We responded with reinforced coughpit doors. And passengers are now willing to get involved to restrain other passengers.

Plastic cutlery went away. Having to take all your cabin baggage in a clear plastic bag (no cases) went away.

Under the new barrier rule you’d have to have three, maybe four pax all sitting in business class, waiting to spring in to action at an unknown time, which may not even occur on a domestic flight. They’d have to get past at least one FA, and the pilot closing the door as they exited.

What I can see is cabin crew on US domestics closing the barrier because the pilot indicated they might be coming out to use the WC… ‘at some time’. Or ‘we’re waiting to hear from the pilots when we can serve them their meal’.

so the barrier will be closed for extended periods and they won’t have to conduct service, allow pax into ‘their space’, or allow pax to use the forward WC.

There are other, real risks, facing airliner security. I don’t see this as being close to the top of those priorities.

 

[RooFlyer]

Under the new barrier rule you’d have to have three, maybe four pax all sitting in business class, waiting to spring in to action at an unknown time, which may not even occur on a domestic flight. They’d have to get past at least one FA, and the pilot closing the door as they exited.

Yes, reason I like this initiative.

What I can see is cabin crew on US domestics closing the barrier because the pilot indicated they might be coming out to use the WC… ‘at some time’. Or ‘we’re waiting to hear from the pilots when we can serve them their meal’.

Yes, unfortunately in the USA opportunities for service restriction is very much a thing.

There are other, real risks, facing airliner security. I don’t see this as being close to the top of those priorities.

Here we disagree. If not the top, then close to the top priority for me is keeping an airliner in the air against possible threats, either planned terrorism or a nutter acting spontaneously. On-ground security can be up there too; this new barrier thing doesn't preclude other initiatives - its only on new builds.

 

[jb747]

Would it prevent a committed pilot attempting to crash the plane? Dunno.

No, but then another pilot could well have trouble with that. I was never a fan of mandating cabin crew come to the coughpit.

so the barrier will be closed for extended periods and they won’t have to conduct service, allow pax into ‘their space’, or allow pax to use the forward WC.

I'd expect it to be closed when the pilots want to head to the toilet. I can't see anything "extended" about that.

The 380 (and perhaps some others) already had a second door between the cabin and coughpit. Entry through this placed you in an 'airlock'. It was a good system, and it enclosed a toilet and the pilots' crew rest, and would be the sort of thing I'd want on any new large airliner.

 

[LondonAussie]

In my experience European airlines such as AF, AY, BA, IB and OS don't do it.
I can remember chatting to pilots in the galley on AF in particular recently.

BA pilots usually quite happy to chat to passengers in the galley when they pop out to use the loo or grab themselves a drink.

I can recall on one occasion where there was a queue to use the toilet and I was expecting for the pilot to jump the queue and use it ahead of me, but he insisted that I was to go in first and that he could wait as they were still 30 minutes away from commencing the descent.

 

[HMcM]

And you may wonder why it hasn't happened in 25 years?

Because it relied on surprise. The reason that it worked was that previous hijackings to 9/11 were done to either force the pilot to fly the hijacker somewhere else, or to ransom off the passengers. Now that the element of surprise is gone it is no longer an effective method because we will now never give up controls of the jet and will fight to the death to prevent the jet being taken over (better to die fighting for the chance of survival than die a certain death). The lack of the element of surprise is part of the reason that United 93 did not reach its target. The people on the plane became aware of the NYC attacks and knew it was no longer a simple hijacking but that they would die if they did not fight back.

I also say to you - do you think the bad guys have given up?

Absolutely not, but they have given up on using civilian jets to fly them into buildings. That's why they haven't done it for a quarter of a century.

Read the commentary in today's papers, for instance. EG AFR: Times have changed, but 9/11 never completely goes away

The problem is that you're ignoring the costs of externalities. Locking the front exit off from passengers is not without cost and could very easily lead to deaths by slowed evacuation. It's trying to solve a problem that has been solved 101 other ways just one more way. This like anything in life is a case that you cannot make things endlessly safer without there being a cost to that.

 

[dajop]

I don't think a FA is going to do much good against a suicidal pilot who wants to put the aircraft into the drink.

I presumed that it was mainly to have someone on the inside to be able to (easily?) unlock the cabin door. But I’m sure a determined pilot might find a way to knock out said crew member anyway. Does the cabin manager or egressing pilot have the ability to open a locked coughpit door from outside the coughpit?

 

[MEL_Traveller]

I'd expect it to be closed when the pilots want to head to the toilet. I can't see anything "extended" about that.

That may be the case for foreign airlines if it ever gets adopted. In the US they’ll ask the pilot at the beginning of the flight if they’re intending to use the WC… and I bet you the barrier will then remain closed extended periods because ‘we don’t know exactly when the pilot will be coming out’.

 

[HMcM]

That may be the case for foreign airlines if it ever gets adopted. In the US they’ll ask the pilot at the beginning of the flight if they’re intending to use the WC… and I bet you the barrier will then remain closed extended periods because ‘we don’t know exactly when the pilot will be coming out’.

I wouldn't put such a big possibility of the issue squarely on the yanks. With the amount of Asian carriers that have the seatbelt sign on for a ridiculously long time while ascending something like this would further allow them to shirk doing their job.

 

[RooFlyer]

Because it relied on surprise.

And, surely, increased security measures in the air and on the ground since, as a prevention and a deterrent?.

Will never know, but I reckon without them it might’ve been tried again. Dealing with fanatics and nutters here.

Now that the element of surprise is gone it is no longer an effective method because we will now never give up controls of the jet and will fight to the death to prevent the jet being taken over (better to die fighting for the chance of survival than die a certain death).

Sure, and I think these increased security doors are part of the mix to prevent fighting to the death, at least of the pilots.

_______

I mean, other than possible decrease in service on US airlines, what an earth is the problem with these new doors? I can’t really see the cost as being a material increase per jet.

 

[HMcM]

And, surely, increased security measures in the air and on the ground since, as a prevention and a deterrent?.

Of course increased security has helped. I'm not against a locked and reinforced coughpit door. I am against blocking access to the emergency exit. We don't walk around wearing both belts and braces to make sure our trousers don't fall down. One is enough.

Sure, and I think these increased security doors are part of the mix to prevent fighting to the death, at least of the pilots.

It's a solution looking for a problem. The problem has been eliminated by hijackings no longer being "rewarded" (they're never getting into a coughpit again) and higher amounts of on the ground security.

I mean, other than possible decrease in service on US airlines, what an earth is the problem with these new doors? I can’t really see the cost as being a material increase per jet.

The problem is safety. It's a locked door preventing people from getting to the emergency exit if something were to go wrong. The door is either ineffective if it can be overridden or a safety hazard if it cannot be.

 

[esseeeayeenn]

I can't find any evidence whatsoever that any of the planes hijacked on 9/11 was hijacked while a pilot took a toilet break.
I have thoroughly read available reports of the United flight on which the passengers fought back, and managed to prevent the aircraft from reaching its target, which has been reported to have been the US Capitol building in Washington DC.
There are reports that family members of those passengers have lobbied for this measure.
This hijacking is well documented because many of those passengers made phone calls to relatives and friends while it unfolded.
There is no mention of anything relevant in those reports.
I can't find any record of any plane ever being hijacked in such a manner.
The only relevant report I can find is the German Wings flight where one pilot was locked out of the coughpit during a toilet break, while the other pilot flew the plane into a mountain. The problem then was too much coughpit security, not too little.
So this is not an evidence-based measure.
It really does seem to be a solution looking for a problem.
I hope it helps the family members who lobbied for it to feel like they are not powerless, and that the death of their loved ones has been given some meaning. I don't think it will serve any other useful purpose.

 

[RooFlyer]

The problem is safety. It's a locked door preventing people from getting to the emergency exit if something were to go wrong. The door is either ineffective if it can be overridden or a safety hazard if it cannot be.

Pilots aren’t going to come out of the coughpit during descent and taxing, so the doors will be open then and therefore whenever the emergency exits are needed,( ie on the ground). FAs will be in the usual seats in the galley. If there’s some extraordinary reason the doors were closed during descent and taxing (maybe a subdued threat), then while the FA is opening the emergency exit I guess they can open the little door as well.

It really does seem to be a solution looking for a problem.

It’s a solution that hopefully prevents a problem.