Ever since the September 11th attacks, I have been bewildered by the revelation that, prior to the attacks, airlines were not requiring locked cockpit doors during flight. I found this especially bewildering given the fact that NYC subway cars had required locked motorman doors for decades before that time and it seemed like a pretty obvious safety issue for a department of transportation to address.
I have never been able to find anything in the FAA Title 14 airworthiness requirements requiring a lock on the cockpit door prior to 2001. Recently, however, I found this in a 1961 copy of the Federal Aviation Agency's Code of Federal Regulations; Title 14; Subchapter A (Civil Air Regulations); part 4a; Airplane Airworthiness:
I'm curious as to why that would be. I realize that the locks put in place to meet that requirement were not required to withstand a determined attack such as that of 9/11; nothing specified 'armored' doors. I also realize that having the equipment requirement does not precisely translate into a procedural requirement to keep these doors locked (though it is a no-brainer given the extensive history of hijacking during the 60's and 70's and the clear prohibitions of Title 14 regarding access to the flight deck.) But I see §4a509 as an early foundation for stronger regulations that might have prevented the attacks of September 11th. And then it just seems to disappear from the books...
This glaring oversight in aviation safety has always bothered me in the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks and I see it as one of the critical factors that allowed the plots to succeed (or even be conceived). The story of how this requirement disappeared and how this resulting oversight managed to elude FAA regulators throughout the golden days of skyjacking remains a mystery to me.
I have never been able to find anything in the FAA Title 14 airworthiness requirements requiring a lock on the cockpit door prior to 2001. Recently, however, I found this in a 1961 copy of the Federal Aviation Agency's Code of Federal Regulations; Title 14; Subchapter A (Civil Air Regulations); part 4a; Airplane Airworthiness:
§4a509 Opening between pilot compartment and passenger cabin.
All airplanes certified for air transportation services shall be provided with a door or an adequate openable window between the pilot compartment and the passenger cabin. When a door is provided it shall be equipped with a looking means which shall prevent passengers from opening such doors while in flight.
This was Title 14 as written for the Federal Aviation Agency, formed through the Federal Aviation Act of 1958, before it became part of the Department of Transportation as the Federal Aviation Administration in 1965. Apparently, the new FAA title 14 did not carry over this particular requirement. All airplanes certified for air transportation services shall be provided with a door or an adequate openable window between the pilot compartment and the passenger cabin. When a door is provided it shall be equipped with a looking means which shall prevent passengers from opening such doors while in flight.
I'm curious as to why that would be. I realize that the locks put in place to meet that requirement were not required to withstand a determined attack such as that of 9/11; nothing specified 'armored' doors. I also realize that having the equipment requirement does not precisely translate into a procedural requirement to keep these doors locked (though it is a no-brainer given the extensive history of hijacking during the 60's and 70's and the clear prohibitions of Title 14 regarding access to the flight deck.) But I see §4a509 as an early foundation for stronger regulations that might have prevented the attacks of September 11th. And then it just seems to disappear from the books...
This glaring oversight in aviation safety has always bothered me in the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks and I see it as one of the critical factors that allowed the plots to succeed (or even be conceived). The story of how this requirement disappeared and how this resulting oversight managed to elude FAA regulators throughout the golden days of skyjacking remains a mystery to me.
Comment