Recently in Africa a suicidal pilot crashed a regional jet[1], killing all aboard, after sending the co-pilot back to check something in the cabin. Due to the locks nobody could re-enter the flight deck (might not have mattered, but who knows). "[The] cockpit voice recorder and flight data recorder revealed, that the captain was alone on the flight deck, banging on the flight deck door could be heard on the cockpit voice recorder"

Passenger aircraft are supposed to NEVER operate with only one person on the flight deck, but rules are not always followed.

We don't know how many hijackings have been prevented by the locking doors. Are there any documented cases? We do know of a few cases where they have caused deaths, or at least prevented any chance to try to avert a disaster.

1: http://avherald.com/h?article=46c3abde&opt=0

> Are there any documented cases?

Could that happen? It's not that hard to know that the doors can be locked, and if so, you pretty much give up on trying to get in to the cockpit to take over the plane.

I don't know much about flying airplanes, but does a pilot really need to lock the copilot out of the cockpit for an extended period of time to crash the plane? It seems to me that it's probably not worth spending resources on securing airlines against terrorist pilots (other than doing research on the pilots, obviously).

But according to Cialidini's "Influence", there is a ten times higher chance of dying in a plane crash if you fly in the months immediately after a highly publicized suicide, so securing the plane against a suicidal pilot (as opposed to anyone wanting to carry out a terrorist attack) might very well be more worthwhile than securing it against terrorists.

(Cialdini cites research, which I'm too lazy to look up right now, that claims something as high as 40-50 excess deaths from car and plane crashes in the US per highly publicized suicide)

My claim wasn't due to the danger of a suicidal pilot, but rather the futility of securing a plane against a suicidal pilot. It seems like the problem is roughly equivalent to creating a plane that can operate entirely without a pilot.

I know. But it need not be that hard - being suicidal does not automatically mean someone is prepared to e.g. fight their co-pilot to kill themselves. In fact, most people who are suicidal are not strongly intent on going through with it - it often takes just a little nudge one way or the other to change the outcome.

A co-pilot at the helm, or an unlocked door through which someone may come in and question the pilots actions could very well make all the difference.

Monkey see, monkey do.

Discussing any behavior, especially in the media, makes it more likely.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copycat_suicide (Werther effect)

The interesting bit (from the book IIRC) is that the copiers will often wait some time so it seems like they are not copying. This is why the risk to subsequent air travel increases after some delay from the original incident. People are partially unpredictable, so it's possible to have an immediate copy as well.

Well done for researching that.

With seatbelts and their introduction there were anecdotes about people crashing their cars into ponds, lakes etc. where their lives were saved because they were not wearing their seatbelts. I think it is human nature to want to repeat the one incident where the safety measures could have led to disaster.

Since you are so adept at research, can you find this one for me?

Recently a senior New Labour politician who was responsible for bringing in TSA style checks in the UK wise-cracked about how those that complained should be offered two lines at the airport, one with the body scanners, sniffer dogs, robocops etc. and another - to a different flight - where you could just walk straight on. He wondered which flight would be chosen to go on by those complaining types.

It bugs me now that I can't find the quote or remember whether it was Gordon Brown or some other politician.

God, I wish... Non-TSA plane every single time. Suddenly it would almost be like riding the train, which is wonderful.

Those little commuter planes are decidedly less safe in bad weather, and the pilots operating them tend to be younger/less experienced. It's not a perfect trade-off.

Indeed they are but every plane needs to avoid bad weather as much as possible. Of course the bigger the plane the higher its limits.

Now on pilots, this really depends which pilots you are talking about. North American pilots, and here I am pointing at Canadian pilots more because I am in Canada and I am in the process of getting my PPL (for pleasure),however, I am sure this also applies to US pilots, very well trained. To get a job at a big airline you need experience, and where do you get the best experience, far up north where harsh weather, huge winds and tiny landing strips are located. I don't think that 3 years college will do, unless you are lucky.

I also talk to a lot of commercial pilots as my girlfriend is a flight attendant, so during the travels we go out and chat about everything.

As far as safety, over exaggerated, really. No one cares, well, people do but they shouldn't, because if someone wants to hijack I am sure they will find a way to do it. This is the big boys game on a government level. Tax payers are paying for scanners etc, whoever wins the bid makes them and they are sponsoring the next election. (I will not get into this here but you get the point). Scanners are useless.

This is an older video from 2010, scanners give better pictures nowdays but are still as useless as before. I got scanned at Schiphol 3 months ago, the scanner was not much different from the one shown this video. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=idICUSiGcqo

It is great to fly small planes, no security, quick, and more fun to fly than a big airliner.

Opinions are personal.

I was only responding to the following, which says nothing about smaller planes:

"Recently a senior New Labour politician who was responsible for bringing in TSA style checks in the UK wise-cracked about how those that complained should be offered two lines at the airport, one with the body scanners, sniffer dogs, robocops etc. and another - to a different flight - where you could just walk straight on. He wondered which flight would be chosen to go on by those complaining types."

That's a line from the movie, The Ghost Writer. Good movie actually. And I'd choose the faster line every time.

Thanks! Also reminded me of a movie I really should watch, so thanks again!

Ah, sorry. I didn't read the GP post carefully. I saw "non TSA" and was thinking about the subject of the original article (where TSA security rules don't apply to very small commuter/charter aircraft).

I would pay extra for the walk-straight-on flight. Not a lot extra, mind you, but it'd be worth at least $25 to me to reduce that source of stress and uncertainty. If there were a no-checks airline I would fly that one almost exclusively.