Hacker News Reader

Comment by ceejayoz | Hacker News Reader

Probably not. The armoring of cockpit doors already stopped hijackings. I'm a bit baffled as to the benefit of a second one.

View on HN

Passengers 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.

In light in this imho extra cockpit doors makes rogue pilots a much higher risk.

> 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?

I 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...

all of them

the 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.

Yeah, 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.

How many hijackings has this resulted in, though? The existing solution seems to be good enough.

Should we for a hijacking to happen, then implement the solution?

Should we wait to see if a tiger lives under your bed before hiring a poacher to get it out?

Just checked, I don't need a poacher.

That'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.

Tiger 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.

Well, 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.

Let 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.

I'm not scared, I live in a country with some sanity. But jetliners around the world also have flight deck doors. You are being a bit silly, airflight was new, a few pretty serious incidents occured, we put in some doors and the potential for it to happen again goes away.

It's less like an imaginary tiger and more like patching a really obvious risk with a cheap solution. Rather than relying on some wild dramatic movie hero scenario to play out, just close a little door. No big deal.

> But jetliners around the world also have flight deck doors.

That change (arguably itself unnecessary) was made in response an incident that happened shortly before that change was made. This new change is being made in response to... that same incident 20 years ago, which hasn't repeated.

The tiger doesn't exist.

Yes. This is not a useful line of argument since it has no boundaries. So yes, proposals need to be somehow justified.

That 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.

Do 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.

Indeed, I’m trying to figure out what is the reasoning here? Is it just regulation for regulation sake or what?

Block 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.

Has it? I've only read news stories about passengers jumping anyone that tries any thing.

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.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com