What New Security Measures?

Eventually, the question of what new security measures need to be implemented will arise. As such, I put it before you.

My initial thought is that airport security, as it currently stands, is adequate to the task of ensuring the passengers are not a threat. Complacency is the real enemy. As such, “more of the same” (such as hand-searching carry-ons and questioning passengers) is not the answer. I believe we should implement new procedures for the aircraft crew, and each airport should carry out security excersises on a random, but not infrequent, schedule.

The cockpit door should be closed from gate to gate, and that the pilot is not to leave the cockpit under any circumstances. I assume the cockpit door would need to be modified from its present design to prevent forced entry.

In this way, we can ensure that any person who has hijacked a plane with the intent of getting to a different destination, who doesn’t actually want to kill anyone, can be placated. The hijacker can communicate with the crew, but can not physically assume control of the aircraft. Events such as those yesterday will effectively be impossible.

Again, these are my initial thoughts; I await your response and critique.

Many of the measures proposed have been in place in Europe, which had to deal with serious terrorist hijackings for a long time. There is no simple answer. The best defense is a layered, multi-tiered one. The most successful in this regard are the Israeli, but whoever flew El-Al knows how invasive these measures can be. Questioning a passenger has its value, but it must be done by {B]highly trained personnel{/B], (read $$$ ), not as an extra routine step in the check-in process. Blocking access to the cockpit has its value and it is standard procedure on many airlines. A terrorist simply has to threaten the life of a passenger or flight attendant to gain entry, but at least the pilot will have time to radio flight control, or send a pre-arranged signal via the transponder. Tracking and profiling passengers has its value. The airlines have vast databases on their customers and they can be used to separate the friendly from the suspicious. Hijackings performed with knifes and boxcutters could have easily been prevented by a skymarshal or armed guard – standard on-board issue on many airlines of this world. No defense will ever be perfect, but an imperfect defense is much better than none at all. The final question is , like so often, cost: How high is the cost to gain access, how high is the cost to prevent access, and who will pay for it? Also, if the threat diminishes, a natural reaction is to let your guard down.

Amen, I asked this very question to my friends last night. Can the pilots on the board tell me why it is necessary for the cockpit to be accessable from the passenger compartment? There has been more than one occastion recently where an irate passenger has threatened the cockpit. It seems like a terrible idea to have access to the cockpit at all.

I would think that the guarantee that no access to the cockpit is available at all, under any circumstances, would mitigate the ‘threaten a passenger to get access’ scenario, no?

It would amount to an armored door with a time release or which would only open when plane is on ground. Impossible. The pilots need to go to the bathroom, need to be fed, they need access to the plane. If the pilots can open the locked door (S.O.P. on European airliners), then they can be threatened to do so.

But if there is no access to the cockpit then consider the following incredibly plausable scenario:[ul][li]Both pilots get wiped out in a freak cheese incident or something[/li][li]The message goes out, “Is there anybody on board who knows how to fly the plane?”[/li][li]Of course, there is. There always is.[/li][li]Disaster! No way to get to the cockpit![/li][li]Plane, with both pilots cheesily incapacitated, goes down.[/ul]How to prevent such fromage-tragedies?[/li]
pan

No no, kabbes both pilots would get wiped out because they ate fish for dinner and got food poisoning. Surely, you knew that!
tracer, and don’t call me Shirley.

Ah yes - but then you could just switch on the autopilot.

Remark on the sky marshal or armed guard:

The live ones are trained to keep a very low profile if the plane is hijacked by a group wielding automatic weapons, grenades and other serious equipment. He will hide his gun (equipped with special ammo that doesn’t penetrate the airframe) and hope for the best. 3 guys with knifes and box cutters (unless at the throat of a passenger or attendant) would be no problem.

There are/were some odd regulations which prohibited a loaded gun during takeoff and landing, which sent the guard to the bathroom to attend to his sidearm. Loading and unloading a gun can lead to mistakes, and it did. There were several incidents where bathroom walls were punctured and bullets ended in a First Class seat. These incidents were played down. The jury is still out on what is more dangerous, a loaded gun on board, or none. No discussion about its usefulness during yesterday’s occurrences.

I would recommend that the aircraft be redesigned to take pilot needs into account. I pilot behind a locked armored door can only be threatened in one of two ways:

Indirectly, in that the hijacker threatens passengers until the pilot complies with demands. We assume that there is no reasonable action that requires a hijackers physical presence in the cockpit. As such, the pilot can be instructed to comply with hijacker demands which do not threaten human life (“Take me to Cuba!!”).

Directly, with the destruction of the plane. If the terrorist is willing to destroy the plane over access to the cockpit, the we assume his motivations are more sinister than merely getting to Cuba. As such, the pilot should most certainly not allow access to the cockpit, and attempt to land at the nearest opportunity.

Given this policy, it is conceivable that passengers will come to harm due to non-compliance with terrorist demands. I contend this is an acceptable risk, due to the infrequency of hijackings and the potential for damage in a successful hijacking.

With most airlines, a pilot is trained with the safety of his passengers at the top of his priority list. He is instructed not to attempt any heroics. He will comply with the terrorist’s demands if it prolongs the life of his passengers. He will not fly the airplane into a building. He will open the door if opening the door saves a life.

Here is a good discussion of what El Al, Israel’s major airline, does for security. Expect a lot of this to become s.o.p. in the U.S. now.

I have also heard that El Al has undercover, armed security personnel on every flight, but I don’t know if this is true.

As one of the WTC survivors said on NBC yesterday, through tears, “You know those delays you always complain about at the airport? Well, don’t complain anymore. A lot of people lost their lives today because of it (too lax airport security).”

And end hundreds, if not thousands.

What definitely worries me is hearing on the news just now that passengers are (were) routinely allowed to bring knives up to 4" in length onto the plane.

Anyhoo, with regards to my original post here, Beelzebubba sums up my thoughts very nicely. If a terrorist is willing to kill to get into the cockpit, what else is he willing to do once he gets in there? As a passenger, I probably would prefer to take the chance that a terrorist kills a passenger rather than give him access to the controls. Especially given what has happened yesterday.

Previous to WTC, I never thought that a human would have been capable of doing such a thing, that’s all changed.

Armed guards are an interesting idea, but we then have the possibility of a terrorist gaining access to the marshal’s weapon. Do the benefits outweigh the risks?

Last time you went on a plane, and you walked by the cockpit, and the door was open, and you looked inside, and the pilot saw you and smiled at you, was your reaction: “Oh my god, they’ll kill hundreds, if not thousands?”

And before yesterday, if some nutcase would have put a knife to a passenger’s throat, and would have screamed “open the door” - and the pilot wouldn’t have opened, and the throat would have been cut, what do you guess would have happened to that pilot?

Hindsight is 20/20. And hearing that knives will be against the law from now onboard (guess I’ll have to leave my Leatherman at home,) and that skymarshals will be used more than before, and that the pathetic minimum-wage-rent-a-cops at the security check will receive some attention, I’m bowing out of the discussion.

Exactly. Which is why I call for change.

This is the type of “more of the same” which I initially said I don’t favor.

To put it another way, what method do you suggest be implemented for preventing sharpened pieces of plastic from getting onboard every aircraft?

This thread I started in IMHO speaks to some specific changes that could be made.

http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?postid=1603360#post1603360
-Waneman

I always thought the cockpits were sealed like bank vaults, and anybody wanting in would (at least) get identified through a peep-hole. Why should the security measures for my house be better than the cockpit of a passenger aircraft-turned missile?

Well it turns out, according to the Boston Herald, hijackers gained access to the cockpit by first killing the flight attendants, prompting one of the pilots to come out of the cockpit to see what was the matter.

Pilots may have acquired a sense of complacency in recent years… in other words, he was stupid and let his guard down. In my opinion, an airplane cockpit should be more secure than an armored car, complete with gun portals in the door.

Banks & prisons have taken care of this by putting slender access slots in doors & gates. Or use one of those “only one side opens at a time” compartments like at the post office. Open one side, insert contents, close & lock door, and then and only then can the opposite side be opened. This is a very low-tech but effective method.

But what if the autopilot deflates?

Actually we’ve had a discussion a while back about knives that you could or could not bring onto an airline. Including brands and models that would pass security. IIRC, the credit card knife was very popular. Many men carry pocket knives everywhere they go. I’ve carried a pocket knife since I was about 12. This includes bringing them to school, church, and on airlines. I guess the airlines part is over for good.