[Peetwo]

The changing paradigm of hijacking / terrorism

Unfortunately people quickly adapt to mitigate new security measures.

Hijacking / terrorism used to be about getting a gun (or bomb) onto a plane. So we Increased airport security and made that increasingly difficult.

9/11 was about getting a few people with some flying skills onto the plane. So we fitted toughened doors prevented unauthorised access.

The threat now is the mindset and ideology of the pilot sitting forward of these toughened doors. After MH370 and this latest incident, that threat is going to require some thought.

Yes slats a very disturbing confirmation last night after the New York Times scoop yesterday - Germanwings Pilot Was Locked Out of Cockpit Before Crash in France 

Prior to that confirmation I was going to draw attention to IMO an excellent article from ATW Online Editor Karen Walker on the subject of the extreme speculation from the 24/7 media scrum on the cause of all these tragic high profile heavy tin prangs in recent times: 

Today’s news that a Germanwings A320 has crashed in France, with no survivors expected among the 150 passengers and crew, is tragic.

The immediate priorities, of course, are to locate the aircraft wreckage, retrieve the bodies and care for those who have lost loved ones. The crash investigation ultimately will bring the answers as to what, how and why? And if there are lessons to be learned, the air transport industry will work together to ensure they are incorporated so that airline travel becomes even safer than it already is.
Note that 2014, even with the high profile crashes of Malaysia Airlines MH370 and AirAsia QZ8501, was the global airline industry’s safest year ever. According to IATA figures, and as measured in hull losses per million flights of Western-built jets, the global accident rate was 0.23 -- the equivalent of one accident for every 4.4 million flights. (The shooting down of Malaysia Airlines MH17 does not count as an accident).
None of these incidents are linked except for one thing – the never-ending rush by the media and “armchair experts” to determine the cause, no matter how little is known or established.
Coverage of the Germanwings 4U9525 incident is already following that pattern. Even the BBC, after beginning its coverage by saying the cause of the crash was not known, then contradicted itself with this sentence, “The BBC's Transport Correspondent Richard Westcott says it seems most likely mechanical failure was behind the crash.”
Even more shameful is this headline in the Washington Post: "A lingering question after Germanwings jet crash: Just how safe is the Airbus A320?"
There is no factual basis or evidence whatsoever for those statements, which are speculative and implying of known causes even before the wreckage was located.
But perhaps worst of all are the photos being circulated on Twitter that are purported to be the Germanwings aircraft, but which are actually images of other totally unrelated crashes.
In a February speech in Washington DC at the International Aviation Club, US Aerospace Industries Association president and CEO Marion Blakey – a former FAA Administrator and NTSB chairman – noted how much media coverage has changed over the years. She said that while she dealt with some tough questions on crash investigations during her time at FAA and NTSB, media coverage was mostly fair, accurate and based on facts. Today, Blakey said, she is appalled by some of the coverage. In particular, she pointed out that the disappearance of MH370 stirred some of the worst speculation, including one TV presenter who actually asked an industry “expert” if the aircraft might have fallen into a black hole.
I have commented in this column before on this type of ridiculous nonsense masquerading as “coverage”. Investigators are not swayed by this, of course, but in their immediate shock and grief, the relatives and loved ones of people deserve better than to also have to deal with wild and potentially distressing media speculation.

 
However from the time of release of the NYT article - till the confirmation last night - the story developed that fast it was almost a blurr, perhaps this was best highlighted by a cursory view of the recent posts on the Planetalking web page.

But for commentary on the slats post new paradigm in airline on-board terrorist threats - i.e. one pilot locking out the other & then crashing the aircraft - go to Ben's article -  Cockpit security has been turned inside out by Germanwings crash :

Cockpit security used to be about keeping the baddies out of them. From today it is also going to be about preventing a rogue pilot from being alone in them.

This terrible new reality has forced itself on airlines and regulators because of reports that one of the Germanwings pilots left and was then locked out of the cockpit of the A320 before it lost height and crashed in the southern French alps this week, killing 150 people.
Airlines have known about such risks for a long time, but chosen to look away from them, as if the possibility is too horrible to contemplate.
Past incidents such as the Silk Air 737 disaster near Palembang in Indonesia in 1997,  are considered a classic instance of one pilot apparently murdering another with a safety axe and then diving the jet steeply and at a high mach number into a shallow tidal river.
There is an appalling record  of such incidents down the years, and no doubt lists of such atrocities will be in tomorrow’s or even tonight’s newspapers and news sites.
Overwhelmingly, such dreadful events have been brushed aside by airlines and the authorities, and reporters often ‘encouraged’ not to dwell on them.
But things have changed. There are numerous You Tubes circulating showing in detail how various airlines manage their cockpit security measures, including where the key panel is.
There are already social media discussions as to how the well intentioned protocols for keeping A320 cockpits secure could be gamed to prevent a locked out pilot regaining his seat before a flight similar to that being made by Germanwings had been deliberately destroyed.
A licensed aircraft engineers union even boasted recently that a paddle pop stick could be used to thwart the locking system on a BAe146 jet.
In July last year Air NZ stood down two 777 pilots after one locked the other out of the cockpit because he didn’t like him. That was an act of madness on the flight deck, considering that in flight emergencies can happen without notice and require two pilots to deal with.
Seen with rear view mirror vision, Air NZ actually told the world how what is now claimed to have happened on the Germanwings jet could have happened on its 777.
Qantas, understandably, isn’t prepared to go into any details about its cockpit security protocols, other than to say “The Qantas Group has multi-layered systems in place to protect the flight deck.  Understandably, the detail of these systems is confidential.”
That includes of course Jetstar.
However commendable those policies are, as well as those of other groups like Lufthansa, and its Germanwings subsidiary, they will from today have to be reviewed in the light of the crash in the French alps that lie behind its Riviera coast. (Even if the report of the lock out is untrue, because the telling of the story, true or not,  leaves the airlines with no option but to counter such risks.)
The threat isn’t just external but internal. It is a horrifying development.
Regular flyers will have noticed that many airlines already have a procedure that seeks to block unauthorized access to a cockpit when one of the pilots uses the forward toilet.
This is usually done by either blocking access from the cabin, or putting a trolley in the rather tight space leading to the cockpit door, or both.
All this achieves in the situation said to have occurred on the Germanwings flight is to allow the rogue pilot to prevent the other pilot from regaining his place at the controls, putting aside the issues as to what might then ensue.
Will there be a regulatory overreaction? Can the airlines act to restore any damage to passenger confidence this alleged behavior will have done?
There are enormous risks inherent in any procedure to allow remote overriding of controls in an airliner, including that of similar criminal interference.
This incident will cause immense heartache all around, as well as inflame the very strong suspicions of criminal acts onboard missing Malaysia Airlines flight MH370.

It is also worth reflecting on this statement from the Jamie Freed SMH article  - [url=http://www.smh.com.au/business/aviation/germanwings-plane-crash-a320-pilot-says-copilot-can-be-locked-out-of-cockpit-20150326-1m82vb.html][/url]Germanwings plane crash: A320 pilot says co-pilot can be locked out of cockpit:

In the US, many airlines have a "two in the cockpit" policy which means if one pilot exits to use the toilet or for any other reason, a flight attendant must then enter the flight deck.

 
{Ps Ignore the comment from I RONBARtsch of negative Prune fame}

MTF...P2