Flight Deck Access & Design: Split topic - Was 'The dirct'n Vict'nx is heading'

[ThundahBeagle]

Moderator Edit (Huntsman)
Folks - I have split this topic - As it is no longer discussing Victorinox product plans
Original thread is here:
https://forum.multitool.org/index.php?topic=92710.msg2488415#msg2488415
Normally we don't mind digressions - But this thread is heading in a totally different direction
Thanks


All of this "bladeless for TSA compliance" crap could be circumvented if the US would just take the step of eliminating the door between the cabin and the cockpit, which they should have done starting September 12, 2001.   Not just locking it, but making it a solid wall.  Pilots to access cockpit from front- most side door only.  Nobody from the cabin in.  Done.  Then granny with her knitting needles could finish that sweater, and "Grant" with his Super Tinker could get that extra belt buckle hole awled out of the leather belt, during the flight.

Understand how much this theater of the mind has changed our flying culture unnecessarily.  Smoke and mirrors, what's real doesn't matter, and we can make anyone do anything, no matter how stupid, in the name of security as long as we scare them enough, then put on a show about what the public has to do to save society, which is completely changed by the new regulations

[BPRoberts]

Removing the door would be a trivial safety increase (unless someone is smuggling a fire axe, cutting torch, etc. onboard) compared to locking a good solid door. On the other hand, it would be a problem if there was a medical emergency in the cockpit, does happen occasionally.

[nate j]

All of this "bladeless for TSA compliance" crap could be circumvented if the US would just take the step of eliminating the door between the cabin and the cockpit, which they should have done starting September 12, 2001.   Not just locking it, but making it a solid wall.  Pilots to access cockpit from front- most side door only.  Nobody from the cabin in.  Done.  Then granny with her knitting needles could finish that sweater, and "Grant" with his Super Tinker could get that extra belt buckle hole awled out of the leather belt, during the flight.

Understand how much this theater of the mind has changed our flying culture unnecessarily.  Smoke and mirrors, what's real doesn't matter, and we can make anyone do anything, no matter how stupid, in the name of security as long as we scare them enough, then put on a show about what the public has to do to save society, which is completely changed by the new regulations

I think putting in a solid wall would require major modifications to existing aircraft.  Among other issues, there is generally not a restroom in the cockpit.

There was a proposal by TSA about a decade ago to allow small knives back on commercial aircraft.  This made a lot of sense, but drew opposition from some powerful groups, including the Flights Attendants Unions, and the plan was scrapped.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/travel/flights/2013/06/05/tsa-knives/2393139/#:~:text=Proposal%20was%20met%20with%20fierce,of%20victims%20of%20terrorist%20attacks.

[MrToolJunkie]

I have had small Allen keys for camera gear confiscated from other countries before. No way I am going to risk traveling with anything that can be deemed blade or tool.

[ThundahBeagle]

Removing the door would be a trivial safety increase (unless someone is smuggling a fire axe, cutting torch, etc. onboard) compared to locking a good solid door. On the other hand, it would be a problem if there was a medical emergency in the cockpit, does happen occasionally.

A wall is very much more secure than a good solid door.  Door lock mechanism, hinges, and a lack of solid through studs landmarks supports makes a door weak compared to a wall.

What, exactly, would any one of the passengers do if there was a medical emergency in the cockpit?  You may or may not have some sort of medical doctor aboard, but really, if they are not an ER doctor or a nurse, or an ALS or BLS first responder, there isn't much to do but land quickly.  And that's what the co-pilot is for.

The wall should be pushed a bit farther back, and they should have their own flight attendant who is BLS/ALS.  Done.

[ThundahBeagle]

I think putting in a solid wall would require major modifications to existing aircraft.  Among other issues, there is generally not a restroom in the cockpit.

There was a proposal by TSA about a decade ago to allow small knives back on commercial aircraft.  This made a lot of sense, but drew opposition from some powerful groups, including the Flights Attendants Unions, and the plan was scrapped.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/travel/flights/2013/06/05/tsa-knives/2393139/#:~:text=Proposal%20was%20met%20with%20fierce,of%20victims%20of%20terrorist%20attacks.

What's wrong with major modifications?  Boeing appears to require some, and stat.

But seriously.  Another country does it and has not has a hijacking since the 60's.  So, there's the physical design, proof of concept and template are all there.  Yes, we have more planes, but we have more labor-power too.  The tragedy happened 23 years ago.  I think we could have swapped doors out for walls by now, and let grown ups carry knitting needles, tooth picks, and swiss army knives on planes.

Or maybe I'm wrong.  Was this the same argument that was made by smokers after smoking was banned on flights in the early 1980's?  That one seemed much more obvious to me, since everyone breathes the same recycled air, and a fire and smoke aboard moves devastatingly quick, robbing all of oxygen.

I can see why flight attendant unions blocked the TSA proposal to allow small knives on planes, since flight attendants were the very first victims.  But at some point, logic and common sense go out the window, taking a back seat to feeling and perceptions.

The plane that did not hit its target was the plane where the people stood up and did something about it, God save their souls.

Just seems like we do theater to make people feel better while ignoring many of those things that would actually work.

Sorry for the rant, just I believe this is why Vic is going in this direction

[nate j]

Just seems like we do theater to make people feel better… logic and common sense go out the window, taking a back seat to feeling and perceptions

[BPRoberts]

A wall is very much more secure than a good solid door.  Door lock mechanism, hinges, and a lack of solid through studs landmarks supports makes a door weak compared to a wall.

What, exactly, would any one of the passengers do if there was a medical emergency in the cockpit?  You may or may not have some sort of medical doctor aboard, but really, if they are not an ER doctor or a nurse, or an ALS or BLS first responder, there isn't much to do but land quickly.  And that's what the co-pilot is for.

The wall should be pushed a bit farther back, and they should have their own flight attendant who is BLS/ALS.  Done.

Compared is the key word there. You don't need the door to be indestructible, you need it to be strong enough to prevent someone from forcing it open mid flight.

Putting an entire extra person in the cockpit just to maybe provide medical support in an emergency is beyond inefficient. This would also prevent them from accessing meals, etc. from the rest of the plane. You'd have to add a ton of redundancies to very slightly increase safety from hijacking. Meanwhile, planes have been landed with help of passengers when one of the pilots were disabled many times.

[Farmer X]

I have had small Allen keys for camera gear confiscated from other countries before.

Allen keys? YGBSM. I guess if I ever leave the Americas again, I'll travel over water.

As for cockpit intrusion, there is no perfect solution. An unsecured cockpit has obvious problems. Placing an impenetrable wall behind the cockpit has problems as well; those have already been discussed. There are also the issues of pilot incapacitation and what is termed "deliberate action by flight crew," such as Germanwings Flight 9525. (Based on evidence available, I believe that's the most likely cause of the disappearance of Malaysian Airlines Flight 370.) I am of the opinion that the best solution is a solid security door with a combination lock and an emergency access code that cannot be overridden and is known to the purser and air marshall.

[ThundahBeagle]

Compared is the key word there. You don't need the door to be indestructible, you need it to be strong enough to prevent someone from forcing it open mid flight.

Putting an entire extra person in the cockpit just to maybe provide medical support in an emergency is beyond inefficient. This would also prevent them from accessing meals, etc. from the rest of the plane. You'd have to add a ton of redundancies to very slightly increase safety from hijacking. Meanwhile, planes have been landed with help of passengers when one of the pilots were disabled many times.

Have passengers landed planes in an emergency more often than co-pilot? A wall is stronger than a door.  That's undeniable.  Inefficient?  Ask Capt. Oginowski's family how inefficient things became on the family farm starting 9/12.  Maybe they dont need their own flight attendant.

Other countries do it and they fly all over without incident fo 60 years. So say what you will, what works works, sir

There is absolutely nothing that could not be placed in a cockpit compartment that they wouldn't need.  Even if you had to push that bulkhead back a few feet.

The door to the cockpit was the weakest link.  Killing the flight attendant was simply a means to getting the cockpit crew to open the door, after which they were incapacitated and the controls of the plane taken over.

You could sit there and train flight deck crew not to open the door no matter what, and we know human nature will fail that.  Or you could put a wall there, and remove all possibility of cockpit intrusion. Can't open a door that doesn't exist.

[ThundahBeagle]

Allen keys? YGBSM. I guess if I ever leave the Americas again, I'll travel over water.

As for cockpit intrusion, there is no perfect solution. An unsecured cockpit has obvious problems. Placing an impenetrable wall behind the cockpit has problems as well; those have already been discussed. There are also the issues of pilot incapacitation and what is termed "deliberate action by flight crew," such as Germanwings Flight 9525. (Based on evidence available, I believe that's the most likely cause of the disappearance of Malaysian Airlines Flight 370.) I am of the opinion that the best solution is a solid security door with a combination lock and an emergency access code that cannot be overridden and is known to the purser and air marshall.

Until sometime in the 1980's it was not strange to see more than 2 member flight crew.  Sometimes 3 and even up to 5.

Most modern planes are not designed this was, but there is no reason they cant be.

Even the modern Airbus A400 and A310 have a flight crew of up to 4.

Egypt Air 990 type incidents or what we think may be what happened on MH 370, are much less likely to happen if there is a 3 or even 4 person flight crew. Air Marshals do not fly on all flights, but there is always a flight crew.  In my proposed scenario, flight crew takes care of flight crew.  Air Marshal (if there even IS one) takes care of whatever goes on in the passenger area. 

A door, however, is fraught with problems.  More complicated construction.  Hinges.  Locks.  These things fail and break.  Human nature will bring someone through.

There is just no insurmountable problem with a solid wall that can not be relatively easily solved.  And the door itself takes away the thing we claim to have been trying to prevent these past 20 years, while still allowing adults to fly without some of the current, no-use restrictions.

[ThundahBeagle]

Allen keys? YGBSM. I guess if I ever leave the Americas again, I'll travel over water.

As for cockpit intrusion, there is no perfect solution. An unsecured cockpit has obvious problems. Placing an impenetrable wall behind the cockpit has problems as well; those have already been discussed. There are also the issues of pilot incapacitation and what is termed "deliberate action by flight crew," such as Germanwings Flight 9525. (Based on evidence available, I believe that's the most likely cause of the disappearance of Malaysian Airlines Flight 370.) I am of the opinion that the best solution is a solid security door with a combination lock and an emergency access code that cannot be overridden and is known to the purser and air marshall.

When referencing GermanWings 9525 (2015) and "deliberate action by crew", you make my point for me, sir.  Lubitz waited for the captain to leave the flight deck, and simply locked him out of the cockpit before deliberately crashing the plane.  Never would have happened if the Capt didn't leave the cockpit.  They made a rule after that, stating no less than 2 crew in the cockpit at all times.  Two years after, nobody was following that rule.

Furthermore, had Lubitz's DOCTOR been mandated to inform his employer that Lubitz had suicidal tendencies and been declared unfit to work, that tragedy would never have taken place because he would never been a member of the flight crew.

EgyptAir 990 - October of 1999 same.  Captain left the cockpit and relief 1st officer was in there alone before leaving it all up to God, or some similar quote.  When the captain returned, there was a fight for control that the Captain ultimately lost.  There was a large flight crew, but evidently the other 3 crewmen were asleep elsewhere in the plane.

MH 370 (2014)...pilot diverted copilot attention to check something in passenger compartment.  He then took control and dis what he wanted.

We tell the public we are learning lessons and making things safer with so many PASSENGER RESTRICTIONS (including no Swiss Army Knives, theres the tie-in) when in actuality, the real lesson, as a common denominator in all of these incidents is that the FLIGHT CREW COMPROMISES CONTROL OF THE PLANE by opening that dang door, and some or all of the flight crew either remove themselves or are forcibly removed from the cockpit.

The door is the problem.

[Huntsman]

Folks - I have split this topic - As it is no longer discussing Victorinox product plans
Original thread is here:
https://forum.multitool.org/index.php?topic=92710.msg2488415#msg2488415
Normally we don't mind digressions - But this thread is heading in a totally different direction
Thanks

[ThundahBeagle]

Apologies.  I did not mean to divert this thread and make the mods split it.  That was not my intention.

[Huntsman]

Hi TB

Please don't apologise - We love digressions and lively debates at MTo.

I just thought it best if we discussed this in a new thread, as nearly all the later posts in the original thread were about the second topic !       

Split post - No probs!!

So please all continue the debates and discussions and post away          

[BPRoberts]

Pre-9/11 doors were not particularly strong and often kept unlocked (or even opened), they're now reinforced and locked with an additional secondary door also secured. What situation are you expecting where multiple/reinforced doors are going to be breached that couldn't also defeat a wall?

I don't see any indication that most countries have walls with no doors to the flight deck, but tons of information about how other countries handle the doors.

A cursory google search will reveal many instances where a passenger assisted in landing a plane. In many cases this was actually a flight officer deadheading it, and usually working with the copilot, but even the Hollywood "kid who played a flight sim gets help over radio" appears to happen more often than hijackings. If we magically replaced every cockpit door with a wall today, there would be more crashes and deaths in the last ten years in that universe than ours.

The real changes that matter (and more than justify letting people carry SAKs or whatever) are policy changes. Keep the doors closed, do not let the hijackers take the plane. Pre-9/11, you listened to the hijackers since the demands were usually "take me somewhere and/or give me a sack of cash." You land the plane, cops probably grab them, nobody gets hurt. Same as SOP for a hold up at a store or whatever.

Now that we know kamikaze is a valid hijacker option, pilots, passengers, and crew will actively resist and that's what will actually prevent another disaster. Putting in a wall will probably never prevent a hijacking, but it will certainly prevent aid from reaching the cockpit in situations that do occur semi-regularly.

You could reengineer planes, staffing, etc. to add a bunch of redundancies to help stop those problems, but on the balance it's unlikely actually prevent a hijacking, in exchange for a ton of extra costs and other potential issues. As far as I can tell, there have been zero successful hijackings (some attempts, but pilots were always able to land the plane). You're "fixing" a solved problem.

[Farmer X]

There is another argument against a wall behind the flight crew: in the event of an accident, it would deprive the flight crew of a means of egress and make a sweep of the cabin (to ensure that all passengers and cabin crew have evacuated) difficult or impossible.

[EMZ]

Cockpit crews died because the front bulkhead crashed their bodies during aircraft crash accidents. Some crews survived because the bulkhead hadn't the momentum (weight) to do injuries. If the reinforced wall is part of the bulkhead (and it probably is), then survival chances are lowered. That's my five cents...