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

The moderator of this--"Travel Safety/Security > Checkpoints and Borders Policy Debate"--section, "TWA884", has authorized me to open this thread due to this bill being recently introduced. I speak on behalf of many TSA Federal Air Marshals that this is bill will fix a critical threat which caused the 9/11 attacks, and was plotted again in July 2003:

A quote from Sara Nelson's February 13, 2019 testimony in a public congressional hearing about aviation security:

It's notable that numerous non-regional aircraft do not have drink-carts to assist flight attendants with blocking an attack of an unlocked cockpit. Cockpits either have doors that open outwards or dangerously inwards; there's a very good reason why exit hatches open away from the inside of submarines--the force of the water would breach the hatch after submerging.

https://www.theintell.com/opinion/20...faces-barriers

From Reuters News on February 9, 2019:

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-u...-idUSKCN1PX2AZ

Highlighting above mine.

My understanding is that security policies which did not prohibit sharp cutting tools was in part behind the success of 9/11 as well as policy to cooperate with hijackers at that time. Toss in hardened cockpit doors and it seems that the corrections have already been made.


HR 911 only calls for barriers on aircraft with more than 75 passenger seats.





I believe that these barriers are not needed, evidence, no attempt to force entry into cockpits since 9/11. Not sure what the OIG's reports on poor use of budget dollars have to do with this but I would suggest if cockpit barriers are mandated then there is no use to have an $8,000,000.00 expenditure for FAM's going forward.

Page 158 of the 9/11 Commission Report:

Page 245 of the 9/11 Commission Report:

The "hardened cockpit doors" are routinely opened throughout the flight--with only flight attendants and drink-carts or flight attendants alone in front of them--therefore, they are not a "correction. The 2017 U.S. Department of Transportation / Office of Inspector General Audit Report concluded those 2 methods were "ineffective":

http://bit.ly/dotoig20170626

JetBlue Airways has A320s and A321s have cockpit doors that open away from the cabin, and there are no drink-carts. A319s, B767s, and B777s also have cockpit doors that open away from the cabin. All of these aircraft seat more than 75 passengers.

Most experts know that 1-inch box-cutters did not cause 9/11, that's why TSA allows scissors with blades under 4 inches in carry-ons. Scissors can do more damage than 1-inch box-cutters:

https://www.tsa.gov/travel/security-...items/scissors

The box-cutters were to kill the pilots and prevent them from going to the back of the jets to give 33 to 81 passengers the hope to over-power only 2-3 muscle hijackers using fake bombs, box-cutters, and pepper-spray to protect the 2 hijacker-pilots.

No one knows what happened to these perfectly good aircraft in good weather: TWA Flight 800, Air France Flight 447, Helios Airways Flight 522, Egyptair Flights 990 and 804, and Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 . Only conflicting reports by the different agencies who investigated. Technology still cannot definitively tell us what happened. A cockpit rush attack could have prevented pilots to make any emergency transmissions.

You lose a lot of credibility and respect by citing these tragedies as some sort of justification for a cockpit barrier technology (one of which I believe you are peddling). Other than 370 (for which nobody knows much of anything that happened onboard) I'm not aware that any of these ever had any suggestions that unauthorized cockpit access had anything to do with them. In fact, since most of them have had the CVR's recovered, it is known that there were no "cockpit rush attacks" in them.

<redacted by moderator>

Again, I did extensive research and the different agency reports are nuanced and conflicting. Technology still cannot definitively tell us exactly what happened. A cockpit rush attack may not have given any time for the pilots to make any emergency transmissions--they would have been too preoccupied with flying the jet while defending the attacker(s). The "black boxes" have limited information.

As a Border Patrol Agent and a FAM, I've been in a number of situations--physically trying to detain subjects--where I do not stop to call for help on my mobile radio until I have the subject(s) fully detained.

The Bill:
 

Here's the bill: https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/115/hr911/text

Seems so broad as to include a service cart with locked wheels.

Wrong bill, that one was introduced in 2017. The "enhanced" bill was introduced 2 weeks ago:

https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/116/hr911/text/ih

Regardless of opinions, pro or con, I don't think the bill will come out of committee. What's then left to discuss? Between "muscle" terrorist and "supervisory" FAM's, who have a mandatory retirement age of 57, just like all federal law enforcement officers (like Bureau of Prisons Correctional Officers) and I think we've met the end of the road until the bill either dies in committee, or is introduced on the floor of the House. Just my 2 cents.

FAMs hired before 2003 can stay on the job until 60.

Other FAMs are are given numerous annual age waivers like current Orange County/John Wayne Airport (Newport Beach, California) TSA Assistant Federal Security Director for Law Enforcement Frank Donzanti who is 69 years old now:

https://pogoblog.typepad.com/pogo/20...tleblower.html

I thought any rules governing in-flight operations were under the juristiction of the FAA and not congressional nice-to-have laws

Law: Aviation and Transportation Security Act of 2001

Of course there are drink carts.

Can you show any time FAM made a difference, or the unopenable doors prevented another attack?

All I can think of is the Germanwings flight where the door basically caused the crash.

Times have changed. Terrorists have moved on. This idea is a few decades late, and relatively useless now.
People are also less passive now. They are less likely to stand by scared of people with boxcutter, as they have already stood up to people with guns (even when they don't have any themselves).

I think you advocate a society in which the government is the sole keeper of peace and security. The government is no longer viewed with the same benevolence as before, especially after Wikileaks and all the other stuff showing how the government spies on its owns. 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.

Detaining subjects doesn't mean if you weren't there the cockpit would have been rushed by the suspect.

The most recent news is the Biman Air flight. Was the hijacker prevented from doing anything because the cockpit door was hardened? I don't think so.

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?