Go Back  FlyerTalk Forums > Travel&Dining > Travel Safety/Security > Checkpoints and Borders Policy Debate
Reload this Page >

Congress introduces (H.R. 911): Install of cockpit secondary barriers on ALL jets

Congress introduces (H.R. 911): Install of cockpit secondary barriers on ALL jets

Old Feb 25, 2019, 5:22 am
  #16  
Original Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Location: Leesburg, Virginia
Programs: http://www.maclean-scotus.info
Posts: 132
Originally Posted by audio-nut
Of course there are drink carts.
Unless they installed them just recently, JetBlue Airways Airbus jets do not have drink-carts.

Originally Posted by s0ssos
because the cockpit door was hardened
Cockpit doors are not "hardened" if they open with only flight attendants and 3 1/2-foot drink-carts in front of them, or just flight attendants alone protecting them.

Originally Posted by cestmoi123
To ask a question that I asked in the last thread, but to which I never got an answer:

If this is such a significant threat, then why is there zero evidence that anybody has successfully carried out one of these attacks in the past eighteen years?
I posted earlier that there are several tragedies that investigators have not been able to definitively prove what happened. Case in point: MS804 and MH370, both jets had doors that swing into the cockpit. Existing technology has been unable to present all of the evidence. Both of those jets zig-zagged before disappearing in good weather and both had no prior maintenance issues.

The recent protest by the President of the flight attendants union before Congress is serious. She declared that it's "absurd" that her and her members are tasked with having to stop a raging attacker sprinting at them while they just stand alone, or with a 3 1/2-foot cart.

All of the pilots unions are also for cockpit secondary barriers.

Last edited by TWA884; Feb 25, 2019 at 7:24 am Reason: Merge consecutive posts by the same member; please use the multi-quote function. Thank you.
MacLeanBarrier is offline  
Old Feb 25, 2019, 6:38 am
  #17  
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Israel/United States
Posts: 1,234
I regularly fly ElAl. They have a double door. There is a waiting space between the 2 doors. I guess that’s a secondary barrier. All i know is that when the door is open to allow the FA to being something in, all you see is another locked door. That door isn’t opened until the first is closed. They also have a private lav and rest area. The flight crew doesnt come out while the plane is in the air.
SoonerRed and MacLeanBarrier like this.
awayIgo is offline  
Old Feb 25, 2019, 6:58 am
  #18  
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: NYC
Programs: DL PM, Marriott Gold, Hertz PC, National Exec
Posts: 6,736
Originally Posted by MacLeanBarrier
I posted earlier that there are several tragedies that investigators have not been able to definitively prove what happened. Case in point: MS804 and MH370, both jets had doors that swing into the cockpit. Existing technology has been unable to present all of the evidence. Both of those jets zig-zagged before disappearing in good weather and both had no prior maintenance issues.
So, the most you can come up with is two cases where we don't KNOW that it WASN'T someone rushing the cockpit. BTW, for MS804, there's very strong evidence it was a fire in the cockpit, so claiming that that flight MIGHT have been someone rushing the cockpit is doubtful, at best. That said, even if we assume that both of those flights were someone rushing the cockpit, that's two out of over 600 million flights. So, in the most generous possible interpretation, these barriers would reduce my risk of dying on a commercial flight by 0.0000003%. Not super-compelling.
cestmoi123 is offline  
Old Feb 25, 2019, 9:04 am
  #19  
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 4,752
No, this is like, Deja Vu, like, like I've been here before...
Spiff, cestmoi123, aidy and 1 others like this.
JoeBas is offline  
Old Feb 25, 2019, 10:29 am
  #20  
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 1,695
Originally Posted by MacLeanBarrier
Unless they installed them just recently, JetBlue Airways Airbus jets do not have drink-carts.
They have had them since day 1. How do you think they get drinks on the planes? They only recently started using them in the aisle for drink service but they have always had carts.
nancypants likes this.
audio-nut is offline  
Old Feb 25, 2019, 11:05 am
  #21  
Original Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Location: Leesburg, Virginia
Programs: http://www.maclean-scotus.info
Posts: 132
Originally Posted by audio-nut
They have had them since day 1. How do you think they get drinks on the planes? They only recently started using them in the aisle for drink service but they have always had carts.
I just contacted a TSA Transportation Security Inspector (TSI). The TSI just badged onto a JetBlue Airways A320 and verified that there were no drink-carts on it.

Originally Posted by cestmoi123
So, the most you can come up with is two cases where we don't KNOW that it WASN'T someone rushing the cockpit. BTW, for MS804, there's very strong evidence it was a fire in the cockpit, so claiming that that flight MIGHT have been someone rushing the cockpit is doubtful, at best. That said, even if we assume that both of those flights were someone rushing the cockpit, that's two out of over 600 million flights. So, in the most generous possible interpretation, these barriers would reduce my risk of dying on a commercial flight by 0.0000003%. Not super-compelling.
No, there are 4 more unsolved mysteries; and 4 solved: TWA Flight 800, Air France Flight 447, Helios Airways Flight 522, and Egyptair Flights 990; and then the 4 on 9/11:

We cannot definitively prove there was or wasn't with limited technology and a video of every angle of what happened.

NOTE: The moderator has warned me about repeating responses, but I'm only responding to repeated questions.

Originally Posted by JoeBas
No, this is like, Deja Vu, like, like I've been here before...
Agreed. I recommend that others read the closed threads on this. I'm politely replying to repeated questions in different formats for hopeful clarification.

Originally Posted by awayIgo
I regularly fly ElAl. They have a double door. There is a waiting space between the 2 doors. I guess that’s a secondary barrier. All i know is that when the door is open to allow the FA to being something in, all you see is another locked door. That door isn’t opened until the first is closed. They also have a private lav and rest area. The flight crew doesnt come out while the plane is in the air.
This has been the case for at least 16 years. Thank you for your input!

April 4, 2003 CBS News article about the pilots union ALPA complaining about the lack of cockpit secondary barriers:

Israel's national airline, El Al, has among the most stringent security requirements. All its planes have double doors separated by a narrow hallway, said Offer Einav, former security director for the airline. Pilots must close one door before opening the other, he said.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/bulletp...ors-a-reality/

Originally Posted by s0ssos
Can you show any time FAM made a difference, or the unopenable doors prevented another attack?
Many agree with you including the U.S. Department of Inspector General / Office of Inspector General--from 2 weeks ago on CNN News:

The inspector general said [on December 17, 2018] it "identified $394 million in funds that could be put to better use." The most up-to-date budget documents from the department show the budget for the Federal Air Marshal Service, or FAMS, is about $803 million.
[ ... ]
After its first report in November 2017, the then-inspector general, John Roth, told Congress that air marshal funding "gets wasted basically fighting the last war."
https://www.cnn.com/2019/02/12/polit...-ig/index.html

Originally Posted by s0ssos
All I can think of is the Germanwings flight where the door basically caused the crash.
There would be almost nothing to stop a suicidal/homicidal pilot at the controls of an aircraft. A flight attendant inside the cockpit would not have the time nor have known how to wrestle back the controls, and then unlock the cockpit door. Most, if not all, pilots can bypass most screening requirements and bring a weapon to incapacitate a fellow pilot or flight attendant inside the cockpit.

The "2-man rule" would do nothing to stop another Germanwings tragedy by a suicidal/homicidal pilot. Terribly, the fate of that flight was set as soon as its wheels went up...

Originally Posted by s0ssos
Times have changed. Terrorists have moved on.
Vehicle ramming attacks still happen--a harder task that does not kill as many people:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vehicle-ramming_attack

Originally Posted by s0ssos
People are also less passive now.
13 months before 9/11, these passengers on Southwest Airlines were not "passive" and killed a cockpit intruder:

As many as eight of the 120 passengers on the Boeing 737 subdued the man, Jonathan Burton of Las Vegas, who was removed from the jet after it landed and taken to a Salt Lake City hospital, where he was pronounced dead. Federal investigators and prosecutors declined to provide details of the incident or the inquiry that followed, including the names of the other passengers involved in the incident.
https://www.nytimes.com/2000/09/21/u...th-on-jet.html

Originally Posted by s0ssos
They are less likely to stand by scared of people with [one-inch blade] boxcutters
TSA allows scissors with blades under 4 inches from the pivot point.

Originally Posted by s0ssos
Many people have lost trust in the government, with partisanship becoming more vicious and officials seemingly not caring what happens to the common person, as long as they "win" (whatever they means). And the government policing itself? I doubt any intelligent American believes that anymore.
I agree with some of this, but Wikileaks violated U.S. laws. Until those laws are rescinded, they are still LAW and consequences for violating them.

I absolutely do not "advocate a society in which the government is the sole keeper of peace and security" -- <deleted by moderator>.

Last edited by TWA884; Feb 25, 2019 at 3:26 pm Reason: Merge consecutive posts by the same member. Delete content outside the scope of moderator's permission to discuss here.
MacLeanBarrier is offline  
Old Feb 25, 2019, 11:27 am
  #22  
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Under the Cone of Silence
Programs: UA Gold; AA Dirt; HH Diamond; National Emerald; CONTROL SecretAgent Platinum; KAOS EvilFlyer Gold
Posts: 1,497
Originally Posted by MacLeanBarrier
No, there are 4 more unsolved mysteries; and 4 solved: TWA Flight 800, Air France Flight 447, Helios Airways Flight 522, and Egyptair Flights 990; and then the 4 on 9/11:

We cannot definitively prove there was or wasn't with limited technology and a video of every angle of what happened.
Huh? I'm not sure what you're saying here.

Are you suggesting that TW800/AF447/Helios522/MS990 are "unsolved" because we don't have video of every angle, and therefore it's impossible to prove that bad guys DIDN'T rush the cockpit??

There are CVR recordings of each of those crashes that continue all the way to the time of impact, I don't believe ANY of them had any indication of unauthorized cockpit access.

I'm not going to weigh in on the pros/cons of your cockpit barrier system, but your continued attempt to use these accidents as some sort of supporting justification for a barrier is bordering on the ridiculous, in my opinion.
cestmoi123, milski, emrdoc and 2 others like this.
Maxwell Smart is offline  
Old Feb 25, 2019, 12:15 pm
  #23  
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 4,752
Originally Posted by MacLeanBarrier
Agreed. I recommend that others read the closed threads on this. I'm politely replying to repeated questions in different formats for hopeful clarification.
No, this is like, Deja Vu, like, like I've been here before...
JoeBas is offline  
Old Feb 25, 2019, 12:19 pm
  #24  
 
Join Date: May 2010
Programs: Delta Kryptonium
Posts: 1,144
Passengers/FAs in this day & age would not allow an attack, or would jump the attacker(s) as soon as they realized an attack had started.
rubesl is offline  
Old Feb 25, 2019, 12:42 pm
  #25  
Moderator: Travel Safety/Security, Travel Tools, California, Los Angeles; FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: LAX
Programs: oneword Emerald
Posts: 20,481
Exclamation Moderator's Note

I have permitted a new thread on the topic of H.R. 911 on the condition that previous arguments and information that has already been extensively discussed in the closed thread not be repeated here.

Please confine all future comments to the progress of the legislation, not arguments for or against the need for secondary cockpit barriers; the latter subject has been exhausted and rehashing those arguments is a violation of FlyerTalk Rule 12.3 - Disruptive or repetitive posting:

Disrupting a forum by repetitively posting comments of the same general theme or 'piling-on' by posting merely to reinforce or bump a prior post of a disruptive nature are both examples of disruptive posting and not permitted.
If you don't have something new to contribute, DON'T!!!

Do not discuss each other and do not question other members' motives, etc.

Future posts that violate this directive will be summarily deleted. Repeat offenders will be subject to discipline.

Please consider this to be your one and only warning.

TWA884
Travel Safety/Security co-moderator
TWA884 is offline  
Old Feb 25, 2019, 1:27 pm
  #26  
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: NYC
Programs: DL PM, Marriott Gold, Hertz PC, National Exec
Posts: 6,736
This legislation looks to me like a classic case of Congressmen latching onto an issue that they think will make them look good ("what, you're against airline safety?"), but won't require them to actually directly spend any taxpayer money, since the costs are imposed on airlines (and hence, passengers). It's also a classic case of concentrated benefit (big upside for the companies that might be able to sell these barriers), dispersed downside (slightly higher costs for the traveling public).
Spiff and nancypants like this.
cestmoi123 is offline  
Old Feb 25, 2019, 2:01 pm
  #27  
Moderator: Travel Safety/Security, Travel Tools, California, Los Angeles; FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: LAX
Programs: oneword Emerald
Posts: 20,481
Angry Warning!

Folks,

For the final time, this thread is about H.R. 911, not about the OP's MOBILE Flight Deck Secondary Barrier Galley Cart System or his United States Supreme Court Case.

The next posters to discuss anything except H.R. 911 in this thread will have their posting privileges suspended for a minimum of seven days.

There will be no further reminders.

TWA884
Travel Safety/Security co-moderator
TWA884 is offline  
Old Feb 25, 2019, 2:09 pm
  #28  
Original Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Location: Leesburg, Virginia
Programs: http://www.maclean-scotus.info
Posts: 132
Originally Posted by cestmoi123
This legislation looks to me like a classic case of Congressmen latching onto an issue that they think will make them look good ("what, you're against airline safety?"), but won't require them to actually directly spend any taxpayer money, since the costs are imposed on airlines (and hence, passengers). It's also a classic case of concentrated benefit (big upside for the companies that might be able to sell these barriers), dispersed downside (slightly higher costs for the traveling public).
Myself and many other TSA Federal Air Marshals 100% believe that the law passed last year was absolutely reckless. That publicized law announced to all potential bad actors that there's a serious safety lapse, but ONLY NEW aircraft build after October of this year--a FUTURE date--will get the fix. Now everyone knows to only attack the 7,304 existing aircraft and avoid the ones to be built in the next 7 months...

These 10 bipartisan members of Congress actually did their job and did it well, and the U.S. Office of Special Counsel is backing them with its January 18, 2018 5 U.S.C. 1213 referral on my behalf.
MacLeanBarrier is offline  
Old Feb 25, 2019, 2:54 pm
  #29  
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: NYC
Programs: DL PM, Marriott Gold, Hertz PC, National Exec
Posts: 6,736
I'd actually support this legislation, if (a) the gov't paid for the barrier installation, and (b) it funded those payments (and a lot more besides) by dramatically scaling back or eliminating the FAM program. Once that barrier is in place, then any rationale for having FAMs on board completely goes away.
Spiff, milski, windscar and 2 others like this.
cestmoi123 is offline  
Old Feb 26, 2019, 7:50 am
  #30  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: DFW
Posts: 28,010
Originally Posted by cestmoi123
I'd actually support this legislation, if (a) the gov't paid for the barrier installation, and (b) it funded those payments (and a lot more besides) by dramatically scaling back or eliminating the FAM program. Once that barrier is in place, then any rationale for having FAMs on board completely goes away.
The only way government can pay for anything is by collecting taxes and fees, like the security fee passengers pay when flying.
Boggie Dog is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Manage Preferences - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service -

This site is owned, operated, and maintained by MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Designated trademarks are the property of their respective owners.