5 ms·
Maybe this will finally mean a reduction in security theater on the way to the plane. One can hope, anyway.
by thenewwazoo 3y ago
Maybe this will finally mean a reduction in security theater on the way to the plane. One can hope, anyway.
- ceejayoz 3y agoProbably not. The armoring of cockpit doors already stopped hijackings. I'm a bit baffled as to the benefit of a second one.
- serf 3y agothe idea is to create an 'air-lock' between openings to prevent a rush towards the cabin opportunistically during an assault when a crew member traverses between the portal. "physical secondary barrier that protects the flightdeck from unauthorized intrusion when the flightdeck door is opened." worst case I suppose you could lock a bad-actor into the in-between until landing? not exactly sure how it'll all be implemented really.
- ghayes 3y agoYeah, it’s funny what happens when the pilots need to access the head. The flight attendants move a cart to block the pathway while the cockpit door is open. I tend to agree with FAA that this is an unnecessary vulnerability if we can easily add a secondary secure door between the cabin and the galley.
- dehrmann 3y agoHow many hijackings has this resulted in, though? The existing solution seems to be good enough.
- ses1984 3y agoShould we for a hijacking to happen, then implement the solution?
- George83728 3y agoShould we wait to see if a tiger lives under your bed before hiring a poacher to get it out?
- rascul 3y agoJust checked, I don't need a poacher.
- ehnto 3y agoThat's not exactly a logical comparison. We know the threat vector exists, we are already taking steps to defend against it (moving food cart in the way). It's just a door, I am pro literal defenses and against security theatre. Maybe if we shore up the cabin we can relax some of the other bullshit theatre going on.
- George83728 3y agoTiger attacks are far more common than plane hijackings, thousands of people are attacked by tigers every year. Listen, I know a guy.. he works for free if you let him keep the carcass. You don't want to take risks with tigers.
- ehnto 3y agoWell, let me know when a tiger grounds tens of thousands of flights, prompts an invasion and ushers in the post 9/11 security and privacy policies brought in by the war on terror. The tiger could probably jump over the cart though, maybe we should be worried.
- George83728 3y agoLet me know when lack of double doors does any of that. That sort of issue was resolved more than 20 years ago when passengers learned they need to fight back or die. The threat no longer exists. You're scared of imaginary tigers.
- jacobr1 3y agoThat is probably an argument to not require a retrofit of existing planes. It still might be a better approach if baked into new plane designs.
- tomschlick 3y agoPassengers 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.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- dv_dt 3y agoIn light in this imho extra cockpit doors makes rogue pilots a much higher risk.
- rascul 3y ago> 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?
- runlevel1 3y agoI don't have exact numbers, but a Google Image search for 'airline passenger duct taped' returns quite a few results: https://www.google.com/search?q=airline+passenger+duct+taped&tbm=isch https://www.google.com/search?q=airline+passenger+duct+taped...
- Brian_K_White 3y agoall of them
- Simulacra 3y agoDo you know how they have that curtain on some airplanes to separate you from first class? It's kind of like that. It's probably the flight attendants want something they can pull across to keep you from coming up and bothering them.
- refurb 3y agoBlock off access from the lavatory forward so at no point in time is there an open door to the cockpit. Right now, when pilots use the toilet, the cockpit door is wide open.
- lettergram 3y agoIndeed, I’m trying to figure out what is the reasoning here? Is it just regulation for regulation sake or what?
- adrr 3y agoHas it? I've only read news stories about passengers jumping anyone that tries any thing.
- ceejayoz 3y agohttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germanwings_Flight_9525 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germanwings_Flight_9525 provides a grim example of how hard it is to get through these newer doors. If they're locked, no one's getting in if the pilot doesn't want them to.
- George83728 3y agoNot a chance. This is more security theater, meant to remind people to be afraid.
- Simulacra 3y agoIt's such a ridiculous theater. If a terrorist really wanted to bring down an airplane, nothing the TSA or the airports are currently doing will stop them. There's way too many holes.
- tyingq 3y agoThe passengers, however, will stop them. It only used to work because the passengers thought it was a hijacking they could maybe survive. Once that hope was gone, it stopped working. Both on 9/11, and several times afterwards.
- Vecr 3y agoIf you want to bring down the airplane in general, there are multiple things you can do, but if you want to bring it down in a specific location, you either have to somehow hack the control systems, or break into the cockpit. For example if you want to crash the airplane into a skyscraper.
- George83728 3y agoThat 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.
- grepfru_it 3y ago> 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