MOBILE Flight Deck Secondary Barrier Galley Cart System
Nov 8, 2017, 5:08 am
#31
Original Poster
Join Date: Nov 2017
Location: Leesburg, Virginia
Programs: http://www.maclean-scotus.info
Posts: 132
.
His claim that the risk is imminent is dubious at best, fabricated at worst. Terrorists won't bother with planes. For better or for worse, since 9/11 other passengers are far more likely to spear tackle any individual looking to hijack a plane, whether weaponised or not.
His claim that the risk is imminent is dubious at best, fabricated at worst. Terrorists won't bother with planes. For better or for worse, since 9/11 other passengers are far more likely to spear tackle any individual looking to hijack a plane, whether weaponised or not.
"It is unreasonable to expect passengers to consistently and effectively intervene in an abrupt and violent attack on the flight deck. They are likely to be hindered by many of the same issues as flight attendants, particularly the discrepancy between their own lack of training or physical capabilities and the presumably highly .trained, motivated, athletic attacker."
"Current intelligence indicates that the probability of such an attack is high enough to warrant evaluation of current procedures and equipment designed to thwart such an attack when the flight deck door is opened during normal flight operations, as well as proposed improvements to the same."
APPENDIX D of the RTCA DO-329 study report:
"What We Know: Effectiveness of the [galley cart and flight attendant] means, as tested, was unsatisfactory and require further enhancement to raise effectiveness to an acceptable level.
[ . . . ]
Previous testing has established the speed at which a physically fit individual can run in the cabin of an aircraft. This was confirmed on October 14, 2010 by two 52 year old males onboard this 777-.200. Therefore any physically fit individual seated in any seat depicted below (within 26 feet of the flight deck door) can reach the flight deck door before it can be closed unless there is some procedure/equipment employed to impede their progress."
[ . . . ]
Previous testing has established the speed at which a physically fit individual can run in the cabin of an aircraft. This was confirmed on October 14, 2010 by two 52 year old males onboard this 777-.200. Therefore any physically fit individual seated in any seat depicted below (within 26 feet of the flight deck door) can reach the flight deck door before it can be closed unless there is some procedure/equipment employed to impede their progress."
Nov 8, 2017, 7:06 am
#32
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: DFW
Posts: 28,129
PAGE 29 of the volunteer, non-profit Radio Technical Commission for Aeronautics (RTCA) DO-329 study report ($125 to view a REDACTED copy):
PAGE 7 of the RTCA DO-329 study report:
Again, it's a CHEAP fix that is 100% effective against a weaponless one-man with one plan to take advantage of the numerous cockpit-unlocked opportunities during a flight.
APPENDIX D of the RTCA DO-329 study report:
Just finding solutions to dangerous problems. Please don't kill the messenger...
PAGE 7 of the RTCA DO-329 study report:
Again, it's a CHEAP fix that is 100% effective against a weaponless one-man with one plan to take advantage of the numerous cockpit-unlocked opportunities during a flight.
APPENDIX D of the RTCA DO-329 study report:
Just finding solutions to dangerous problems. Please don't kill the messenger...
What is the date of this study?
Nov 8, 2017, 8:11 am
#33
Original Poster
Join Date: Nov 2017
Location: Leesburg, Virginia
Programs: http://www.maclean-scotus.info
Posts: 132
Nov 8, 2017, 9:03 am
#35
Original Poster
Join Date: Nov 2017
Location: Leesburg, Virginia
Programs: http://www.maclean-scotus.info
Posts: 132
http://bit.ly/2iFKQiI
http://bit.ly/2iGTVI7
http://bit.ly/2iFL2hW
Nov 8, 2017, 9:08 am
#36
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: DFW
Posts: 28,129
Too many, and enough to be concerned about a very easy attack on an unlocked outward or INWARD (worse) opening cockpit (flight deck) door during flight on a single-aisle aircraft.
http://bit.ly/2iFKQiI
http://bit.ly/2iGTVI7
http://bit.ly/2iFL2hW
http://bit.ly/2iFKQiI
http://bit.ly/2iGTVI7
http://bit.ly/2iFL2hW
Nov 8, 2017, 2:57 pm
#37
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: BNE
Programs: NZ*G, QF Bronze, VA Red
Posts: 563
Too many, and enough to be concerned about a very easy attack on an unlocked outward or INWARD (worse) opening cockpit (flight deck) door during flight on a single-aisle aircraft.
http://bit.ly/2iFKQiI
http://bit.ly/2iGTVI7
http://bit.ly/2iFL2hW
http://bit.ly/2iFKQiI
http://bit.ly/2iGTVI7
http://bit.ly/2iFL2hW
Nov 8, 2017, 3:11 pm
#38
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: DFW
Posts: 28,129
Therefore any physically fit individual seated in any seat depicted below (within 26 feet of the flight deck door) can reach the flight deck door before it can be closed unless there is some procedure/equipment employed to impede their progress."
Nov 9, 2017, 8:10 am
#39
Original Poster
Join Date: Nov 2017
Location: Leesburg, Virginia
Programs: http://www.maclean-scotus.info
Posts: 132
It's SSI the distance that the ready-for-an-imminent-cockpit-attack test group of supervisory/managerial Federal Air Marshals was able to respond to the "attacking" role-players unwilling to hurt themselves.
Nov 9, 2017, 9:10 am
#40
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: DFW
Posts: 28,129
Put one of these on the cockpit doors and problem ( not that there is one) solved.
Nov 9, 2017, 9:35 am
#41
Original Poster
Join Date: Nov 2017
Location: Leesburg, Virginia
Programs: http://www.maclean-scotus.info
Posts: 132
Why did an all-volunteer, non-profit, non-government group commission a study and then the unredacted report was not disseminated to Federal Air Marshal Service supervisors in charge of training, trainers, and rank-and-file?
Nov 9, 2017, 10:05 am
#42
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: where the chile is hot
Programs: AA,RR,NW,Delta ,UA,CO
Posts: 41,714
If there's no problem, why does a flight attendant stand in front with--or without--a galley cart?
Why did an all-volunteer, non-profit, non-government group commission a study and then the unredacted report was not disseminated to Federal Air Marshal Service supervisors in charge of training, trainers, and rank-and-file?
Why did an all-volunteer, non-profit, non-government group commission a study and then the unredacted report was not disseminated to Federal Air Marshal Service supervisors in charge of training, trainers, and rank-and-file?
I'm guessing whoever decides what materials become part of training looked at the materials and decided that they added nothing of value to current training.
I just don't see the threat. You're positing the existence of a Jackie Chan-like athlete on a suicide mission where everything goes right - no pesky pax steps out of his seat into the aisle during the perp's 26-foot run, no annoying pauses to open a screen between first and coach if the perp is riding in coach, no pesky FAs standing behind the cart the perp is about to dive over, plenty of room for a successful landing, ability to fight off at least two people, an FA and a pilot exiting the cockpit, it happens on a flight with no FA on board...
It's too long a shot to worry about.
Nov 9, 2017, 10:06 am
#43
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: DFW
Posts: 28,129
If there's no problem, why does a flight attendant stand in front with--or without--a galley cart?
Why did an all-volunteer, non-profit, non-government group commission a study and then the unredacted report was not disseminated to Federal Air Marshal Service supervisors in charge of training, trainers, and rank-and-file?
Why did an all-volunteer, non-profit, non-government group commission a study and then the unredacted report was not disseminated to Federal Air Marshal Service supervisors in charge of training, trainers, and rank-and-file?
Perhaps they didn't think the air marshal's needed the report or could fork over the bucks to pay for it. Who knows. To me it says that having an air marshal on board is also an unreliable security component.
Whoever commissioned the study had every right in the world to only dessiminate the document to only those groups they wanted to see it.
Nov 9, 2017, 10:22 am
#44
Original Poster
Join Date: Nov 2017
Location: Leesburg, Virginia
Programs: http://www.maclean-scotus.info
Posts: 132
Perhaps they didn't think the air marshal's needed the report or could fork over the bucks to pay for it. Who knows. To me it says that having an air marshal on board is also an unreliable security component.
Whoever commissioned the study had every right in the world to only dessiminate the document to only those groups they wanted to see it.
Whoever commissioned the study had every right in the world to only dessiminate the document to only those groups they wanted to see it.
Nov 9, 2017, 11:12 am
#45
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Baltimore, MD USA
Programs: Southwest Rapid Rewards. Tha... that's about it.
Posts: 4,332
If there's no problem, why does a flight attendant stand in front with--or without--a galley cart?
Why did an all-volunteer, non-profit, non-government group commission a study and then the unredacted report was not disseminated to Federal Air Marshal Service supervisors in charge of training, trainers, and rank-and-file?
Why did an all-volunteer, non-profit, non-government group commission a study and then the unredacted report was not disseminated to Federal Air Marshal Service supervisors in charge of training, trainers, and rank-and-file?