IP: ways to prevent an airliner from being used a weapon

[David Farber <dave () farber net>]

> Date: Wed, 12 Sep 2001 10:32:06 -0700
> To: farber () cis upenn edu
> From: Wulf Losee <wulf () cisco com>
> Subject: ways to prevent an airliner from being used a weapon
>
> Dave:
> I haven't heard any public discussion yet of how to prevent an airliner 
> from being used as a weapon. Given that any security perimeter in a 
> transportation hub will inevitably be porous, even under the most 
> stringent security protocols, it seems to me that we should consider ways 
> we could make our airliners more secure. In other words, how do we prevent 
> a airborne structure weighing thousands of kilos and carrying tens of 
> thousands of liters of flammable material (jet fuel) from being aimed at 
> highly visible civilian and military targets?
>
> I have a few initial suggestions, which I hope will spark more discussion 
> of this issue in the coming weeks.
>
> First: Place transponders in part of the plane which is inaccessible to 
> anyone during flight time. Give them an isolated power supply. I was 
> shocked that it was so easy for the hijackers to turn off the transponders 
> making it difficult for the air traffic controllers to identify and track 
> the hijacked aircraft.
>
> Second: Make it more difficult to access the cockpit. I understand that 
> the airlines have been reluctant to implement a double-doored entries into 
> cockpits. And I also understand their reluctance is due to the high cost 
> of retrofitting (please correct me if I'm wrong on these points). If this 
> is the case, then the Federal government should subsidize this change. The 
> double doors should be strong enough to withstand fire from small-calibre 
> weapons, and the force of heavy physical impact (i.e. the force created by 
> a person trying to kick the door in). The space between the double doors 
> should be adequate for a single person to stand. Either door should not be 
> able to be opened unless the other door is secured. Moreover there should 
> be video cameras (for the pilots benefit) on the door entry from the cabin 
> and on the space between the doors.
>
> Third: Why not have security cameras at either end of each of the cabins? 
> It would give pilots a better idea of what's happening in cabin compartments.
>
> Fourth: A co-worker of mine suggested that there be a way to flood the 
> cabin with some sort of knock-out gas. At first I laughed at the idea. 
> But, if the pilots have their own source of oxygen, why not? I'm not sure 
> of the practicality of such a scheme. Naturally there would need to be 
> safeguards in place to make sure it could only be discharged via a 
> manually-operated system with built-in fail-safes.
>
> Also, what about re-instituting the air marshals that we had in the 70s?
>
> Finally: I was singularly unimpressed by the statements I've heard from 
> the FAA and the Secretary of Transportation in the past 24 hours. 
> Naturally they all must be stunned -- so perhaps I'm being overly 
> critical. But one remark -- "We're going to discontinue curbside checkin 
> of luggage" -- seemed singularly unimaginative. Indeed, how would that 
> have prevented yesterday's disaster?
>
> best regards,
> --Wulf
>
>
> ********************************************************
> Wulf Losee
> Product Manager
> Cisco Systems, INSMBU
> email: wulf () cisco com
> vox: 408.525.1493     cell: 408.406.4914
> fax: 408.525.4251     page: 800.365.4578
> ********************************************************



For archives see: http://www.interesting-people.org/