Live data from Hacker News

FAA Requires Secondary Flight Deck Barrier

faa.gov

11–20 of 56 posts

Re: FAA Requires Secondary Flight Deck Barrier

#11
post #4

Maybe this will finally mean a reduction in security theater on the way to the plane. One can hope, anyway.

Probably not. The armoring of cockpit doors already stopped hijackings. I'm a bit baffled as to the benefit of a second one.

Passengers already know to not comply with hijackers. Since 9/11 everyone who has attempted something has gotten a beating and then restrained by passengers until an emergency landing could occur. I can't see an extra door helping much knowing that.

Re: FAA Requires Secondary Flight Deck Barrier

#12

On current domestic flights the flight door hinges are 2 inches from bathroom hinges. So if there's now the need for two doors (an airlock) will they be lengthening the plane 3 feet to allow for this?

My guess is that some kind of retractable grate will be installed between the bathroom and the passenger cabin.

Re: FAA Requires Secondary Flight Deck Barrier

#14

Maybe this will finally mean a reduction in security theater on the way to the plane. One can hope, anyway.

Not a chance. This is more security theater, meant to remind people to be afraid.

It's such a ridiculous theater. If a terrorist really wanted to bring down an airplane, nothing the TSA or the airports are currently doing will stop them. There's way too many holes.

Re: FAA Requires Secondary Flight Deck Barrier

#15
post #4

Maybe this will finally mean a reduction in security theater on the way to the plane. One can hope, anyway.

Probably not. The armoring of cockpit doors already stopped hijackings. I'm a bit baffled as to the benefit of a second one.

Do you know how they have that curtain on some airplanes to separate you from first class? It's kind of like that. It's probably the flight attendants want something they can pull across to keep you from coming up and bothering them.

Re: FAA Requires Secondary Flight Deck Barrier

#16
post #7
post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

the idea is to create an 'air-lock' between openings to prevent a rush towards the cabin opportunistically during an assault when a crew member traverses between the portal. "physical secondary barrier that protects the flightdeck from unauthorized intrusion when the flightdeck door is opened." worst case I suppose you could lock a bad-actor into the in-between until landing? not exactly sure how it'll all be impleme…

Yeah, it’s funny what happens when the pilots need to access the head. The flight attendants move a cart to block the pathway while the cockpit door is open. I tend to agree with FAA that this is an unnecessary vulnerability if we can easily add a secondary secure door between the cabin and the galley.

How many hijackings has this resulted in, though? The existing solution seems to be good enough.

Re: FAA Requires Secondary Flight Deck Barrier

#18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not a chance. This is more security theater, meant to remind people to be afraid.

It's such a ridiculous theater. If a terrorist really wanted to bring down an airplane, nothing the TSA or the airports are currently doing will stop them. There's way too many holes.

If you want to bring down the airplane in general, there are multiple things you can do, but if you want to bring it down in a specific location, you either have to somehow hack the control systems, or break into the cockpit. For example if you want to crash the airplane into a skyscraper.

Re: FAA Requires Secondary Flight Deck Barrier

#19
Is this supposed to be an actual barrier to handle when the pilot goes to the bathroom?

The current protocol has the flight attendant block off the aisle with the food cart to block someone from rushing the flight deck. Or at least slow them down enough for the co-pilot to lock the door.

Re: FAA Requires Secondary Flight Deck Barrier

#20

It would be cheaper to install a two way drawer on the existing security barrier that would allow flight attendants to pass food and beverage to the cockpit and allow pilots to pass their faeces out.

They could pee in bottles and we'd have pilot bombs instead of trucker bombs. But you can't use the word bombs on airplanes so they'd need to call them something else.
Post reply on HN