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 24, 2019, 11:18 am
  #1  
Original Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Location: Leesburg, Virginia
Programs: http://www.maclean-scotus.info
Posts: 132
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:

During Wednesday's Aviation subcommittee meeting, [Congressman Brian] Fitzpatrick asked Sara Nelson, president of the Association of Flight Attendants International, about [replying on flight attendants and drink-carts to stop someone from rushing an unlocked cockpit door]. Nelson pulled no punches.

"We completely support secondary barriers in all of our aircraft. It's an absurd practice to have flight attendants use their own bodies as the barrier between the cabin and the cockpit."
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:

The TSA also oversees the Federal Air Marshal Service, which deploys armed U.S. air marshals on flights across the world. But critics have questioned the effectiveness of passenger screening and the air marshal program.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-u...-idUSKCN1PX2AZ
MacLeanBarrier is offline  
Old Feb 24, 2019, 1:34 pm
  #2  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: DFW
Posts: 28,010
Originally Posted by MacLeanBarrier
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:
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.


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





Originally Posted by MacLeanBarrier
I'd like to make some suggestions so that this is a productive topic.

Instead of only asserting that "this is just another big waste of money" and not offering reasons--or better: solutions--please make the argument as to why we should continue to rely on flight attendants and 3 1/2 foot drink-carts, or flight attendants alone, to stop someone from charging an unlocked cockpit.

We now have two U.S. Department of Homeland Security / Office of Inspector General reports asserting that $395 million of the TSA Law Enforcement / Federal Air Marshal Service's annual $803 million budget "can be put to better use."
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.
Spiff and nancypants like this.
Boggie Dog is offline  
Old Feb 24, 2019, 3:21 pm
  #3  
Original Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Location: Leesburg, Virginia
Programs: http://www.maclean-scotus.info
Posts: 132
Page 158 of the 9/11 Commission Report:

While in Karachi, ["9/11 principal architect" Khalid Sheikh Mohammed (KSM)] also discussed how to case flights in Southeast Asia. KSM told them to watch the [cockpit] doors at takeoff and landing, to observe whether the [pilots] went to the lavatory during the flight, and to note whether the flight attendants brought food into the cockpit.
Page 245 of the 9/11 Commission Report:

["9/11 key facilitator" Ramzi Binalshibh and American Airlines Flight 11 ring-leader / hijacker Mohamed Atta believed the] best time to storm the cockpit would be about 10-15 minutes after takeoff, when the cockpit doors typically were opened for the first time. Atta did not believe they would need any other weapons. He had no firm contingency plan in case the cockpit door was locked. While he mentioned general ideas such as using a hostage or claiming to have a bomb, he was confident the cockpit doors would be opened and did not consider breaking them down a viable idea.
Originally Posted by Boggie Dog
Toss in hardened cockpit doors and it seems that the corrections have already been made.
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":

As an example, the [Radio Technical Commission on Aeronautics DO-329 study] report concluded that some improvised secondary barriers, such as a flight attendant with a galley cart, were ineffective "as tested," and additional enhancements were required to raise the effectiveness of certain barrier methods to an acceptable level.
http://bit.ly/dotoig20170626

Originally Posted by Boggie Dog
HR 911 only calls for barriers on aircraft with more than 75 passenger seats.
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.

Originally Posted by Boggie Dog
My understanding is that security policies which did not prohibit sharp cutting tools was in part behind the success of 9/11
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.

Originally Posted by Boggie Dog
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.
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.

Last edited by MacLeanBarrier; Feb 24, 2019 at 3:28 pm
MacLeanBarrier is offline  
Old Feb 24, 2019, 4:01 pm
  #4  
 
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 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.
cestmoi123, milski, emrdoc and 5 others like this.
Maxwell Smart is offline  
Old Feb 24, 2019, 5:38 pm
  #5  
Original Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Location: Leesburg, Virginia
Programs: http://www.maclean-scotus.info
Posts: 132
Originally Posted by Maxwell Smart
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.

Last edited by TWA884; Feb 24, 2019 at 9:37 pm Reason: Personal exchange
MacLeanBarrier is offline  
Old Feb 24, 2019, 6:03 pm
  #6  
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Northern VA
Posts: 1,007
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.
Pesky Monkey is offline  
Old Feb 24, 2019, 6:14 pm
  #7  
Original Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Location: Leesburg, Virginia
Programs: http://www.maclean-scotus.info
Posts: 132
Originally Posted by Pesky Monkey
Here's the bill... 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
MacLeanBarrier is offline  
Old Feb 24, 2019, 6:50 pm
  #8  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: DFW
Posts: 28,010
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.
Boggie Dog is offline  
Old Feb 24, 2019, 7:09 pm
  #9  
Original Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Location: Leesburg, Virginia
Programs: http://www.maclean-scotus.info
Posts: 132
Originally Posted by Boggie Dog
FAM's, who have a mandatory retirement age of 57, just like all federal law enforcement officers like Bureau of Prisons Correctional Officers
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
MacLeanBarrier is offline  
Old Feb 24, 2019, 8:26 pm
  #10  
In memoriam
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Programs: DL 2MM, AA MM, DL Sky Club Life, AA Admirals Club Life, Hilton Gold Life
Posts: 1,732
I thought any rules governing in-flight operations were under the juristiction of the FAA and not congressional nice-to-have laws
Lomapaseo is offline  
Old Feb 24, 2019, 8:29 pm
  #11  
Original Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Location: Leesburg, Virginia
Programs: http://www.maclean-scotus.info
Posts: 132
Originally Posted by Lomapaseo
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
MacLeanBarrier is offline  
Old Feb 25, 2019, 1:17 am
  #12  
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 1,695
Originally Posted by MacLeanBarrier
JetBlue Airways has A320s and A321s have cockpit doors that open away from the cabin, and there are no drink-carts.
Of course there are drink carts.
audio-nut is offline  
Old Feb 25, 2019, 1:43 am
  #13  
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 7,875
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.
s0ssos is offline  
Old Feb 25, 2019, 1:49 am
  #14  
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 7,875
Originally Posted by MacLeanBarrier
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.
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.
s0ssos is offline  
Old Feb 25, 2019, 3:51 am
  #15  
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: NYC
Programs: DL PM, Marriott Gold, Hertz PC, National Exec
Posts: 6,736
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?
Spiff, jfunk138, Temedar and 4 others like this.
cestmoi123 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.