Southwest Airlines begins flying first plane with secondary cockpit barrier

[-]

exadeuce@reddit

Ok folks, actual airline pilot here: A lot of you seem to think this is just some protective barrier to double up with the flight deck door. Joking about "what about a tertiary barrier?" That's not what this barrier is for at all.

Can I remind you people shitting on the idea that pilots are human beings? Human beings who sometimes have to pee? Because I'm not a fucking ghost, I have to open the flight deck door to get to the bathroom. We spent all this effort reinforcing the cockpit door against intrusion, and now I've gone and opened it for any potential attacker to get through. Couple big guys rushing the flight deck door to pry it open, and we've got a problem. You're gonna rely on the 63 year old, literally counting days till retirement he's so checked out, overweight captain to stop them? Just assume his reflexes will be fast enough to get the door closed again while he's already undoing his zipper? No. We need to secure the galley area properly, and not half-ass this.

And you people need to understand that this task is often being performed by a 23 year old, 95 pound woman who could be making more money at McDonald's. Does that sound fair to you, to ask her to defend the flight deck with her body? Or maybe we should install a little cage door that does not affect your life in any way whatsoever?

[-]

[-]

misterdarky@reddit

Oo good to know. Probably explains some of the experiences. Thanks.

I’ve definitely been through the same one a few times and had different experiences though. I recognise the added features on the person outline on the side I use

[-]

BlueLighning@reddit

I fly between the UK and Bermuda twice a month at times, other than the new scanners I haven't noticed a change. Flying out of Aberdeen/ Inverness/Manchester etc I can't ever remember a difference. Laptop and liquids out, otherwise no.

Drives me crazy in the Carribbean and sometimes states you have to basically pull all cables out and shoes off it's basically the same.

exadeuce@reddit

No, it's so that we don't have to ask a 23 year old, 95 pound woman who could be making more money at McDonald's to defend the cockpit with her life if someone tries to break in while I'm getting up to pee.

[-]

nn123654@reddit

When they put the original cockpit doors in, I got the vibe that the cockpit doors were mostly security theatre, precisely because before you could simply wait for them to go to the bathroom or for the flight attendants to bring them food, then rush the cockpit.

Out of all the security measures from 9/11, most were just security theatre, but this might actually be one of the first that finally closes the loopholes, and it only took us 27 years to figure it out.

[-]

Own_Reaction9442@reddit

The fact that no one has tried this in 27 years suggests it's not a real threat.

[-]

fellipec@reddit

This. Every time I go to an airport I can't forget that they are like they are now because the terrorists won.

[-]

NFTArtist@reddit

see it, say it, sorted

[-]

Elios000@reddit

This.

[-]

m71nu@reddit

Secondary barriers -- long sought after the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks that exposed the risks of inadequate flight detect protection -- are crucial to aviation safety, pilots unions have argued.

Shouldn't this be 'flight deck protection'?

Anyhow, weird and poor written story. What is the exact purpose? Is the cockpit door not secure? Are twoo doors better? How about flight staff who needs to go into this area? How about safety exits?

Why did this update take 24 years to introduce?

I now have more questions than before I saw this.

[-]

SpiderSlitScrotums@reddit

It’s to prevent someone rushing the door while a pilot is opening it to go to o the bathroom, get food, get relieved on long flights, etc.

[-]

PeacefulIntentions@reddit

How many times has this happened since 9/11?

[-]

Diplomatic_Barbarian@reddit

Zero. Plane hijacking was defeated 75 minutes after the first plane impact on 9/11. Passengers will revolt and crash the plane before letting themselves be used as a missile, so there's no point on hijacking planes now.

[-]

Mad_kat4@reddit

Don't forget the German wings murder suicide though. Where the door was actually a significant part of the problem. I can't imagine the terror of the captain trying to get back in while the passengers cottoned on to what's going on.

This extra barrier may mean that the cockpit door can stay open briefly if one of the flight crew needs to relieve themselves and ensuring they can get back into the cockpit in a hurry. This may be even more prevalent if the air India flight 171 concludes that it was a malicious attempt by one of the flight crew although I'll doubt we'll ever know.

[-]

United-Bet-6469@reddit

This extra barrier may mean that the cockpit door can stay open briefly if one of the flight crew needs to relieve themselves

But what's to stop the malicious actor just getting up and closing the cockpit door?

And assuming AI171 was a deliberate pilot act, I don't see how this secondary door would have prevented that anyway

[-]

Snoo-72988@reddit

Read the final report. The investigative team couldn’t even conclude that the cockpit door was 1) locked or 2) the pilot ever attempted to enter the door code.

[-]

lord_lableigh@reddit

Wait what?? The final report came?

[-]

Snoo-72988@reddit

I think we are talking about different accidents. The German wings final report came out a while ago.

[-]

lord_lableigh@reddit

Ah, makes sense.

[-]

xLaiLaix@reddit

The door was locked and the pilot attempted to enter the door code.

He kept the cockpit door locked during the descent (p. 9) At 9 h 34 min 31, the buzzer to request access to the cockpit was recorded for one second. (p. 13) To request access to the cockpit from the passenger compartment, the normal access code must be entered on the keypad. A one-second acoustic signal from the buzzer sounds in the cockpit to indicate to the crew that someone wishes to enter. The pilots can then consult their monitoring screen. (p. 21)

src: BEA Final Report

[-]

Snoo-72988@reddit

And then in the case of no response from the crew an emergency access code can be entered which results in multiple acoustic sounds in the cockpit. The absence of this sound implies the emergency code was never attempted.

The switch is never found in the lock position, so if the captain had entered the emergency code, he could have entered.

[-]

Desperate-Wall8157@reddit

So what’s the theory then? That the captain disabled the copilot, set the plane on a crash course, went to the bathroom and feigned being locked out?

[-]

Snoo-72988@reddit

No, the plane had a known auto pilot issue. The theory is that the autopilot failed when the pilot left the cabin.

The rapid breathing of the copilot indicates that they had some kind of health issue while the pilot is gone.

The evidence for this is that this accident couldn’t be replicated in a flight sim.

[-]

exadeuce@reddit

That's not what the door's purpose is and I have absolutely no idea why you'd think it is.

[-]

Mad_kat4@reddit

Nothing of course but they may be able to make it more difficult to secure or even lock the flight deck door once the cabin door is closed. Essentially tuning the forward galley and toilet area into a temporary cockpit while one uses the facilities up there. Of course this would then raise the issue if a passenger got up front and closed that door behind them the flight deck door would still need to be lockable either way from the cockpit. So the only way I'd see this working is if a pressure sensor in the each cockpit seat detects an occupant you can lock the cockpit door. If one pilot is vacant and the cabin door is closed you can't lock the cockpit door.

As for the air India reference there isn't much that could be done about that particular tragedy other than perhaps one of the flight crew being able to call for help from the cabin crew while they contend with the rogue pilot.

[-]

gefahr@reddit

pressure sensor [..] detects an occupant

There is zero chance they're adding all that complexity.

FurioGiuntaa@reddit

Which other protocols?

[-]

heisenberg070@reddit

No lone pilot/FO in cockpit. When one needs to go to loo, flight attendants temporarily go into cockpit so that there are always 2 people in there. If one goes nuts, the other can open door.

[-]

Apprehensive-Neck-12@reddit

Unless they're knocked out cold from an unsuspecting blow to the head

[-]

TheQuietLavender@reddit

May I introduce

The helmet.

[-]

Swarna_Keanu@reddit

That's the case even if both pilots are present.

Zrkkr@reddit

Pre 9/11, Hijackers used the plane and passengers as a hostages. There was a hijacking where the hyjackers wanted to go to an impossible destination and when the captian asked passengers to revolt, the sentiment that they would land prevented anything from happening.

[-]

gefahr@reddit

I forgot about this. I also can't remember any more details than this, though. I feel like it was dramatized on Air Disasters or whatever it's called.

[-]

Diplomatic_Barbarian@reddit

The passengers for the first planes stood put because they thought (and were told by the terrorists) that it was just another regular hijacking: "take me to Cuba", "free my people", "give me money", etc. Until then, nobody thought hijackers could be martyrs.

The moment that knowledge spread, passengers revolted. That knowledge is out there now, people don't forget, and that's the reason nobody has tried any more plane hijackings. Passengers are not going to wait and see if you are just a regular Cuban revolutionary, they will crash the plane in a field before you crash it in a crowded city where their family may live.

[-]

Nadamir@reddit

Yes. People forget how commonplace hijackings to get whatever small time goal you wanted were before 9/11.

They were basically flying hostage situations. Think of the kind of demands a ground based hostage taker asks for, that’s what the hijackers demands were. People assumed it was that and stayed calm until it was too late.

Not every rules has to be written in blood.

donkeyrocket@reddit

Really doesn't make any sense. Could see if this was needed if an FA wasn't available but I've always seen a FA standing looking outwards when a pilot is exiting/entering the cockpit in flight. This still requires an FA but I suppose allows them to do other stuff while the pilot is pooping.

[-]

Obstinateobfuscator@reddit

//get relieved

That takes up too much vertical space. You could triple the passengers by rolling them up into fetal positions and stuffing them into boxes. Then you could stack them.

Makes sense. Has there been an intrusion since the locked / bolstered cockpit became a thing? If anything it’s sadly been proven that the bolstered doors do a damned good job (ie Air France).

[-]

Machaltstars@reddit

As an airline pilot, I think this is fantastic and long overdue, especially with the degradation of public behavior after covid. Right now the only protection we have for the flight deck when we need to open the door is putting a galley cart across the aisle and having a FA stand behind it.

[-]

No-Business9493@reddit

Has she ever let us down?

[-]

exadeuce@reddit

Is it fair to ask her to defend the flight deck with her body?

[-]

No-Business9493@reddit

Is that something she's ever had to do?

[-]

exadeuce@reddit

I've never had an engine failure. Should I stop training for it? Is that what you want from flight crew?

[-]

No-Business9493@reddit

I'd rather you were an FFDO for this one in a billion chance occurrence than this goofiness that we'll have to deal with every single flight all day every day.

A related note, from the article:

Secondary barriers [..] are crucial to aviation safety, pilots unions have argued.

Bro if I knew I’d have written it. All I remember was that they were in the air and he was recording it when you hear someone knock and they get up right away. Comments were all talking shit tho

[-]

spacehog1985@reddit

dont_hack_me_please@reddit

An attendant is supposed to be in the flight deck as well.

[-]

Imaginary_Trust_7019@reddit

Right... but the guy could just close the door.

This doesn't do anything to prevent the Eurowings incident.

wtf are you even talking about right now

[-]

GravyxNips@reddit

What’s the point otherwise? I’m just trying to understand the reason for the extra door because the current system seems to be fine without it.

[-]

DizzyObject78@reddit

Probably to look less janky than a flight attendant with a cart

Please explain how this would do anything to change the Euro wings outcome

[-]

ConnectionLeft3964@reddit

Yeah southwest and spirit, you need that!

[-]

amd2800barton@reddit

The only ones trying to crash the plane recently have been [people in the cockpit]

Many.

Whatever they need to do to feel safe is fine with me.

Teanut@reddit

As I recall the US FAA requires a flight attendant or some second crew member to go into the cockpit while one of the pilots is using the lavatory. Europe's EASA doesn't require this (at least as of the last time it came up.)

[-]

0235@reddit

yes. To me this feels like a cost saving exercise. Currently they need at least two spare crew for these. One to stand in the aisle either with a curtain, trolley etc to block passengers getting close to the pilots, and one to be in the cabin with the remaining pilot.

I have no idea if the introduction of these gates will mean the crew which locks the gate can also be the one to go into the cabin to not leave the pilot alone, or if it will still require someone to stand at the gate.

There was that one time, back in the olden times of 2001, after which the cockpits got locked down. It hasn’t happened at pee breaks because safeguards are there to stop it from happening.

SyrusDrake@reddit

How is it a risk? No attack that has ever happened or even nearly happened could have been prevented by this, but not a regular locked door. By the logic of preventing any conceivable attack vector, it's a risk to let passengers fly in any shape or form other than naked and tied to their seats.

Correct. Currently the galley area is being secured by a 95 pound 23 year old woman with a drink cart.

BackgroundGrade@reddit

Yes. The design will have a secondary means of release if the latch fails.

Plus the emergency exits aren't used in flight.

This comes out right after the plus size people have to buy an extra seat... This is not a coincidence.

[-]

GravyxNips@reddit

So there shouldn’t be any doors?

[-]

damp-potato-36@reddit

We already have a door. It's the cockpit door. We dont need another secondary cockpit door in the passenger aisle.

[-]

pezdal@reddit

This is for when the crew opens the door to the cockpit (for example when a pilot goes to the lav).

Existing rules require a flight attendant to physically block that passageway. On my last flight that meant a 85 pound woman was acting as a linebacker against, potentially, a 220 pound terrorist with a first class ticket.

[-]

A terrorist who can only afford an economy class ticket would be defeated by the withering glares from first, premium economy and business class passengers while he barges through their sections like a filthy commoner.

[-]

Separate_Wall8315@reddit

I’d flown cross country on Sept 10, 2001. Later that day a colleague and I were discussing our trips and I literally said that airline security was to make people like us, people who weren’t planning anything, to feel safe.

That’s what this is: Performative.

[-]

exadeuce@reddit

If we hadn't changed our security methods, it would have absolutely happened more than one time, yes.

[-]

UziWitDaHighTops@reddit

You’d have to delineate what kind of terrorist attack. The definition of terrorism is the threat or act of violence to promote or further an ideology. If there’s a manifesto involved, then it’s broadly considered terrorism. A car driving through a protest and killing people, a bombing, the anthrax scare, and Russian social media influence campaigns in the West can all be categorized as terrorism. If you are talking about an attack stemming from an aircraft hijacking that kills thousands of US citizens, then there could easily be another 9/11. The TSA is security theater. There’s so many books that discuss the persistent failure we face: agencies and organizations involved in intelligence compartmentalize information for various reasons, whether it be budget allocation or security concerns, and it leads to duplicative efforts and communication failures that result in lost lives.

Sources:

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/investigation-breaches-us-airports-allowed-weapons-through-n367851
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Security_theater
https://abcnews.go.com/US/tsa-fails-tests-latest-undercover-operation-us-airports/story?id=51022188
Gen. Michael Hayden’s Book “Playing to the Edge”

[-]

Doggydog123579@reddit

If you are talking about an attack stemming from an aircraft hijacking that kills thousands of US citizens, then there could easily be another 9/11. The TSA is security theater.

I mean there cant be another attack like that because the passengers will revolt agaisnt the hijackers, but then the fact the att3mpt could even be made shows the TSAs failings9

[-]

Separate_Wall8315@reddit

Bad bot.

[-]

UziWitDaHighTops@reddit

I’m not a bot, I just know how to formulate a reply.

[-]

I do think there is a really big risk of over learning and over-indexing on the lessons of 9/11. As others have said, the next hijacking or security breach isn't likely to be flying planes into buildings. It's going to be another attack vector.

[-]

Swarna_Keanu@reddit

And there is the danger of underestimating. What is there is data on hijackings. And those dropped massively in the post 9/11 world.

[-]

flamingsheep1@reddit

I frequently get a full thermos of coffee through TSA. It's complete theater.

[-]

atlien0255@reddit

100%. It’s theater. As it has been before and since 9/11.

You’re more at risk of your pilot being suicidal and taking you for a swim in the ocean or an impromptu ski trip.

Objectively false. Pilot suicides are statistically rarer than hijackings.

There’s been no equivalent attack or attempt since. Why is this coming out now? It’s worthless.

When 9/11 happened, it was the first attack of its kind. The philosophy at that time was to let the hijackers do what they wanted because they had always wanted to defect, go to Cuba, etc.; never kill everyone onboard.

That changed, and even though nothing has happened in the past 24 years, that’s no guarantee for the future. If secondary barriers save even one plane from being hijacked 20 years from now, they were worth being implemented.

Character-Education3@reddit

So in the event of an emergency a flight attendant has to get to the door and unlock it so people can exit if they survive the crash. Good thing for southwest Elon fired all those FAA people. Sucks to be literally anyone else

[-]

robo786@reddit

that door probably costs 150 000 dollars too

[-]

Kardinal@reddit

Do they provide popcorn for this security theater?

Oh, wait, it's an airline, of course it's an upcharge.

[-]

burgonies@reddit

So the flight attendant has to sit there while I shit?

[-]

fr500c@reddit

Couldn’t a passenger intentionally deploy it to attempt to gain access to the cockpit while simultaneously blocking off passengers from assisting?

[-]

Itchy-Leg5879@reddit

What exactly is the point? There's already one locked door. What is a second locked door going to do? And it's not like we've had any increase (or any) cockpit intrusions since 9/11. So why is this a thing now?

The real and scariest concern is pilot sabotage. There have been four incidents since 2013 of pilots intentionally crashing planes - Malaysia Airlines, Germanwings, China 5735, the recent Air India.

flyingcanuck@reddit

A win for ALPA.

Flying insane asylum.

Welcome to Con-Air!

I've seen this movie!

Submission of political posts and comments are not allowed, Rule 7. Political comments can result in a ban.

skkipppy@reddit

When was the last time passengers stormed the cockpit?

Yet when was the last time the pilots up the front sabotaged the flight?

I flew a domestic united flight last week and when a pilot had to use the lavatory they put the drink cart across the hallway.

It was so impossibly asinine.

[-]

rocbolt@reddit

It’s been that way for roughly 24 years

[-]

ProJoe@reddit

No it absolutely has not. They did not block the hallway when a pilot had to piss.

[-]

UziWitDaHighTops@reddit

The bar cart block was an informal method flight crews used as an added level of security when the cockpit door was opened post 9/11. Supposedly it started as a pilot’s idea and was later adopted by other crews, but I can assure you it’s been a standard procedure for US-based majors for at least a decade.

Sources: 1. https://forums.tauck.com/discussion/13170/one-of-the-oddest-things-ive-seen-during-a-plane-flight

I have a master’s in Security & Disaster Management and have studied 9/11 and the subsequent years extensively.
I routinely flew and was aircrew for over a decade.

[-]

Candle-Jolly@reddit

Why.

[-]

ProT3ch@reddit

What is that in front of the first row of seats on the left side? They have extra toilets or something. I've never seen that in Europe. The first row of seats are usually start after the front door, sometimes with a see through wall separating it. Here low cost airlines cram every seat possible into the 737.

[-]

jillianjo@reddit

It’s storage/closet space. Ultra low cost carriers in the US don’t have that storage there either, and low cost carriers like Southwest usually only have certain planes with that amount of storage. That amount of storage is definitely not that common here, except on larger wide body aircraft.

[-]