Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

FAA Requires Secondary Flight Deck Barrier

faa.gov

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 56 posts

Re: FAA Requires Secondary Flight Deck Barrier

#31

Post by George83728 »

grepfru_it wrote: post #28
George83728 wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That isn't a thing that happens anymore, because passengers don't tolerate anybody making trouble. This double-doors stuff is alarmist theater for a fabricated threat.

> passengers don't tolerate anybody making trouble Examples of this? The shoe bomber is one, but the shoe bomber was solo. I don't know what a situation would look like in a 9/11 attack where you have 4-5 attackers. Esp in a widebody jet

Search for "restrained by passengers". Passengers and flight attendants duct-tape idiots to seats all the time.

What is that has you suddenly so afraid of a repeat of a thing that last happened over 20 years ago?

Re: FAA Requires Secondary Flight Deck Barrier

#33

Post by willcipriano »

refurb wrote: post #20
malablaster wrote: post #17

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.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=D0u6Lb6RCz4

Re: FAA Requires Secondary Flight Deck Barrier

#35

Post by ehnto »

koolba wrote: post #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.

That does sound a little janky to be honest, if they think it should be protected may as well do it properly.

Re: FAA Requires Secondary Flight Deck Barrier

#36

Post by dv_dt »

tomschlick wrote: post #11
ceejayoz wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

In light in this imho extra cockpit doors makes rogue pilots a much higher risk.

Re: FAA Requires Secondary Flight Deck Barrier

#37

Post by thakoppno »

It seems to me a second door should render the need of securing the primary door less necessary.

That Germanwings flight haunts me more than any other in-flight scenario. So keep the new door secured like the existing primary. Make the primary unlockable with a key.

Re: FAA Requires Secondary Flight Deck Barrier

#38

Post by rascul »

tomschlick wrote: post #11
ceejayoz wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> Since 9/11 everyone who has attempted something has gotten a beating and then restrained by passengers until an emergency landing could occur.

How many is everyone?

Re: FAA Requires Secondary Flight Deck Barrier

#39

Post by rascul »

George83728 wrote: post #29
ses1984 wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Should we for a hijacking to happen, then implement the solution?

Should we wait to see if a tiger lives under your bed before hiring a poacher to get it out?

Just checked, I don't need a poacher.
Post reply on HN