RE: My thoughts on security

Wysiwyg,

The answer to “how hard are you” is simple.

Pilots should not be placed in that position, because no one knows how they will react. I even have no idea how I personally would react, as I have never had to find out.

Solution: place the cockpit door lock on a timer. First hint of trouble, either pilot, or a stewardess via a PIN, can lock the door. The door, once locked, cannot be opened for 45 minutes except in the case of landing normally, or sudden depressurisation.

Of course, a gunshot could depressurize the cabin and unlock the door. Therefore taking control is just a matter of firing through a window or something. Risk is reduced by not allowing armed police (skymarshals) on board. It’s all percentages here.

Not foolproof, but removes the human element a little. Any comment?

RE: My thoughts on security

[updated:LAST EDITED ON 09-12-02 AT 00:26 AM (GMT)]Security will never be perfect T5. My salary will never be perfect either 🙂

But we still have to move in the right direction and practice risk reduction methodologies. Less risk ain’t the same as no risk, but it’s better than lots of risk!

1. Cockpit doors – the pilots’ safety is paramount. By guaranteeing this, we can hopefully ensure (a) nobody can fly an airliner into a building again, or otherwise crash it and (b) the aircraft can land safely and under control. Assuming the pilots are OK of course, but pilot vetting is another issue and I’m sure the likes of Wysiwyg and Monster have been assessed at some time or other.

2. Alcohol – I disagree, there is no reason to ban it. Alcohol is not bad, alcohol abuse IS bad. It always amazes me that cabin crew continue to serve someone who is drunk. If they did that on the ground, the licensee (the Captain?) would/could be prosecuted => airlines are often at fault for drunken air rage.

3. Strengthened containers. Realistically, airlines can’t carry these alone, as the weight would make them either carry less in the hold, or burn more fuel. But they are important – that’s why I suggested that a proportion of cargo/baggage carried should be put in these containers (a random collection, to include all interlined baggage and all “high risk” material). I didn’t see the Discovery programme T5, but I did see footage a few years after Lockerbie. Someone put a bomb inside a container and detonated it inside a normal container in a derilict 747. Then they used a strengthened container which gave much better results.

RE: My thoughts on security

[updated:LAST EDITED ON 08-12-02 AT 06:23 PM (GMT)]How about data linking the inflight sureveilance footage to a ground based control centre? Given that airlines are slowly moving in the direction of broadband internet access in-flight, this must be something which can be done.

The A319 I flew on…well, the reinforced door looked pretty solid! It was coated in what looked like panel beaten aluminium and there was no obvious gaps anywhere.

Another improvement could be in staffing levels. Whenever I pass through security, there are always loads of arches and x-ray machines, but only a few of them are ever manned. Therefore all pax have to pass through one or two pathways. That subconsciously puts pressure on the x-ray machine operators to hurry up, which is not good.

RE: Report!

BA have DEFINITELY lowered standards. They are not as good, in general, as Manx Airlines were. I’ve heard the same about Loganair, even if this is going back a while and involves BRAL.