Ending hijacking

We do not know how the terrorists, who hijacked those four airplanes on September 11, gained access to the cockpits, but one thing is sure: As long as there is a door between the flight deck and the cabin, it can and will be opened. Consider the following scenario:

Hijacker: (on intercom phone to cockpit) “We have taken one of your flight attendants hostage and we are prepared to kill her if you don’t meet our demands. We are asking for money and safe passage to our destination. Open the door and no one will get hurt.”

Captain: “I’m sorry, I can’t do that.” There is silence and then screams are heard.

Hijacker: “We are sorry that you made us kill your flight attendant. I found this pretty little nine-year old girl in the main cabin.” A child’s sobs are heard. “She is next. Are you going to be responsible for her death too?” The crying is louder now. “We will kill all the passengers, one by one if we have to, and then blow up the plane. Just open the door and no one else will get hurt.”

At the present time, most of the discussion on airline safety has centered on putting sky marshals on planes and making the door between the cockpit and the cabin stronger. These are Band-Aids. The people who are waging this war can stick an extra hijacker on board to smoke out the sky marshal. And there is no door that cannot be opened somehow, someway – a patient hijacker simply can wait until one of the pilots, heeding nature’s call, opens it.

I live on a runway, which I share with a number of pilots. All have more than a passing interest in flying. Many are now, or have been, employed by the airline industry. Many have built planes on their own. One of my fellow aviators, Chris Gentry, brought me an idea to end hijacking that is breathtakingly simple. It is cost effective, doesn’t require sky marshals, government partnership or bailouts.

I was not surprised to discover that someone had proposed the idea in a Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee hearing just last Thursday: Just eliminate the door between the cockpit and the cabin.

Instead of laying off thousands of aircraft builders, we ought to put them on overtime installing non-removable, Kevlar (bulletproof) bulkheads between the cabin and the cockpit of all commercial aircraft.

On some aircraft an outside access door and some type of port-a-potty would have to be installed in the cockpit. On others, the flight deck could be enlarged to include the door and lavatory that now are adjacent to the cockpit. This area could hold the food necessary to sustain the pilots and give them some maneuvering room.

Also, a system to deliver non-toxic sleeping gas through the air-conditioning system could be installed. It would be desirable to have the cockpit on a separate air-conditioning system. However, this would not have to be an immediate priority because pilots can go on oxygen in the event of a threat.

These retrofits would not have to be perfect in terms of ease of access, appearance and function. The important thing would be to make these changes to all aircraft quickly and get them back in the air. New aircraft could be especially designed to completely isolate the fight deck from the cabin, with all appropriate considerations for the comfort of both pilots and passengers.

A terrorist, bent on self-destruction, still could climb aboard with some type of explosive device and set it off. That type of thing could happen anywhere. However, after the retrofits, it would be less likely to occur on an airliner, especially with beefed-up security.

These simple cost-effective changes would make our commercial aircraft virtually impossible to hijack. It would eliminate the possibility of using commercial planes as lethal weapons and immediately restore public confidence in the safety of air travel and eliminate the need for sky marshals. That done, the airlines and the rest of the travel industry would bounce back on its own.

Unfortunately, all the Senate Commerce Committee did last Thursday was discuss the idea. It didn’t act on it. On Friday, a hastily crafted $15 billion bill to bail out the airlines was rushed to the Senate floor and it passed 96 to 1, with Peter Fitzgerald, R-Ill., casting the only negative vote. The House of Representatives is taking up the measure this week.

And need I remind you that this bill falls under the category of “emergency spending.” It won’t count against the numbers in the final budget.

This is typical of what happens in Washington. It is so much easier to throw money at a problem than to solve it. Somebody might object to walling off the cockpits of commercial aircraft? Who could possibly object to spending more of the taxpayer’s money? After all, there is plenty more where that came from.