<![if !supportEmptyParas]><![endif]>
Although the conventional firearm is notthe preferred defensive measure in the co*ckpit, pilots should have access tosafer alternatives to defend themselves and their passengers while onboardaircraft because pilots are a primary target.After September 11, the number of security products available to thegovernment increased. The increase comes from the public’s need to feel safewhile traveling.
When selecting a security system, theeffectiveness of the system plays a large role in the decision-makingprocess. While some devices or methodsmay be completely safe to the traveling public, they fail to provide anysubstantial increase in the security aboard aircraft. Therefore, when analyzing the alternatives to conventionalweapons, discussion centers on products or methods that are at least moderatelyeffective in reducing the terrorist threat.
Although pilots must not utilize thetraditional firearm on commercial flights, the technical feasibility of theelimination of firearms in the co*ckpit in the immediate future is small. A vast majority of security products on themarket still depends on guns for success.Various arising technologies allow pilots to safeguard their weapon byusing devices such as non-traditional ammunition and locking devices.
Alternative types of ammunition offer mostof the debilitating benefits of traditional bullets, while posing less of athreat to an aircraft’s structure.Large numbers of mass protests and rebellions in Northern Ireland andIsrael spurred on the development of less-lethal, less-destructive bullettechnology [9]. A need existed forbullets that posed less of a threat to life, yet were still capable ofincapacitating the attacker. Inresponse to this need, the governments began development of less-lethal bulletswith the goal to reduce the impulsive force imparted on the target. The relative success in quellingdisturbances in these two unstable regions using this new technology promptedmilitaries around the world to adopt less-lethal alternative projectiles tohelp maintain order in riot situations.
One of the types of less-lethal bulletsdeveloped is the rubber bullet. Thesize (caliber) and shape of rubber bullets can vary greatly, as Figure 1 shows;however, their general construction is consistent—a metal core with a thincoating of plastic or rubber surrounding the core. Rubber bullets that are currently on the market aim toincapacitate the deviant through extreme discomfort. Their exterior coating of rubber or plastic increases the impacttime with the target, thus reducing the force and energy imparted on the targetwhen compared with traditional bullets.
<![if !supportEmptyParas]><![endif]>
<![if !vml]>
<![endif]>
Figure 1—Typesof Rubber Bullets [10]
<![if !supportEmptyParas]><![endif]>
The disadvantages of normal rubber bulletsare their high energy and inaccuracy.Even though energy transfer is less than that of lead-core bullets, theyare still capable of penetrating an aircraft’s fuselage. However, Pine Tree Law Enforcement, inconjunction with The University of Western Ontario, have developed a rubberbullet that has a dynamic structure designed to further reduce the transmittedenergy during impact and increase the accuracy of the bullet. The new gun-bullet combination in hand gunform, sold by Pine Tree Law Enforcement as the Defender 1, reduces the amountof energy transferred on impact by ten percent and increases the accuracy ofthe projectile over twelve times when compared to a nominal rubber bullet. Both of these improvements allow for saferoperation onboard aircraft [11].
Pre-fragmented bullets also reduce therisk to the aircraft while still providing the incapacitating and probablelethal effects of traditional bullets.The design of pre-fragmented bullets, also called frangible bullets, issuch that, upon impact with a hard body, the bullet disintegrates into manysmaller pieces. As Figure 2 shows, afrangible bullet’s exterior looks identical to the exterior of a conventionalbullet. The bullet’s exteriorcommonality proves beneficial because conventional firearms can use the bulletswithout any modifications. However,numerous metal spheres, instead of a solid core, compose the interiors offrangible bullets, allowing the bullet to disintegrate on impact.
<![if !supportEmptyParas]><![endif]>
<![if !vml]>
<![endif]>
Figure 2—Constructionof a Frangible Bullet [12]
<![if !supportEmptyParas]><![endif]>
The Federal Air Marshal Program was amongthe first to utilize the original frangible bullet to alleviate the risk ofdamage to the structure and systems of the aircraft [12]. By having a multitude of spheres inside thecore, dispersion of the energy of impact occurs. The dispersed energy causes the bullet to remain lodged withinthe terrorist instead of continuing through and penetrating additionalobjects. Additionally, when the bulletsh*t a solid object, a lower amount of pressure exerted than that ofconventional bullets is generated because of the dispersed energy. In the case of an aircraft, the reduction inpressure reduces the stress exerted on the skin, windows, or avionics of theaircraft. Reduced stress on theaircraft diminishes the likelihood that the skin will exceed its materialstress. Hence, an aircraft’s structureor systems will have a greater chance of remaining intact.
A different way to reduce the threat topassengers and an aircraft’s structure is“smart gun” technology. A smartgun allows only the owner, or a person recognized by the weapon, to fire thegun. There are several ways to makeguns “smart.” One of these utilizesbiometric technology. Biometrics use aunique biological characteristic of a person, such as eye characteristics, toproduce a positive identity. In thecase of a smart gun, a person’s fingerprint is the most feasible biometricattribute to use because of the contact between the fingers and theweapon. However, fingerprint biometricshas several challenges inherent to its use, such as how the fingerprint changesover time and the cost. These factorsmitigate the advantages of biometric recognition as a security tool for guns[13].
There is a simpler device that can createa smart gun: a magnetic field emanating from a ring worn by a pilot. These devices make the gun auser-proprietary device, and, in order to fire the weapon, the ring must be incontact with the weapon, thus unlocking the firearm. Without the ring worn on the pilot’s hand, even if a terroristgained access to the weapon, he could not fire it. Thus, the use of the weapon limits itself to pilots, who, bycertification as Federal flight deck officers, have training in the proper useof the weapon. An example of thissystem is Smart Lock Technology Inc.’s MAGLOC [14]. Figure 3 shows a picture of MAGLOC. MAGLOC is easy to install and, at less than $100, is relativelyinexpensive. While MAGLOC limits itsinstallation to the 1911 series pistols, similar devices are available toretrofit any firearm.
<![if !supportEmptyParas]><![endif]>
<![if !vml]>
<![endif]>
Figure 3—SmartLockMagnetic Firearm Lock [14]
.
Another option for aircraft security, onethat completely removes firearms from the co*ckpit, is the electrical defenseprovided by stun guns. Stun gunsprovide a defensive measure for pilots by generating a large electricalpotential over two probes, and, in turn, use the body to transmit the generatedcurrent. The devices immobilize theassailant by interrupting the nervous system’s communication with the brain[15]. In theory, lethal results fromstun guns are possible; however, in practice, stun guns use low amperages ofcurrent that do not result in death.Police forces and militaries from around the globe utilize stun guns andtheir variants as part of their defense arsenal, thus attesting to theireffectiveness. Figure 4 shows aschematic of a stun gun.
<![if !supportEmptyParas]><![endif]>
<![if !vml]>
<![endif]>
Figure 4—Schematicof a Stun Gun [15]
<![if !supportEmptyParas]><![endif]>
Tasers are a variation of stun guns inwhich a compressed gas cartridge inside the device is used to detach the twoelectrodes from the main device.However, an electrical connection between the hand unit and theelectrodes remains. The primaryadvantage of Tasers is the increase in distance between pilots and theirattackers, usually fifteen to twenty feet, over normal stun guns [15]. This distance gives pilots greater time toreact if the device fails to render the attacker immobile. Recently, development began on liquid stunguns, which, instead of detaching electrodes from the hand unit, propagates aconductive stream of liquid through the air to the assailant. Liquid stun gunsoffer several advantages over Tasers, namely the ability to fire multipletimes, which allows pilots to fend off multiple aggressors.
All of these electrical defense mechanismsminimize the risk of harm to an aircraft’s systems and passengers. Because the devices are not lethal,passengers in the line of fire face less risk, which is certainly abenefit. Additionally, a high enoughvoltage can incapacitate the terrorist for a sufficiently long time toimplement other, longer-lasting protection systems. Another benefit of the electrical defense mechanism is the benigneffect of the mechanism’s electrical current on an aircraft. All of an aircraft’s wiring isinsulated. Insulated wire can guardagainst outside jolts of electricity, and, therefore, a Taser’s current wouldnot affect the aircraft’s systems.
Other, more conventional alternatives thatprovide adequate protection to aircraft and passengers are on the market. Knives and clubs are two examples of theseconventional alternatives. Federalflight deck officers, when properly trained, can effectively transmit asignificant blow to an opponent using either one of these devices. Either one of these objects can have lethaleffects on the aggressor. Severalbenefits come from using these devices.First, unless combat using hand weapons takes place near a window, anaircraft’s risk of depressurization is minimal. A person must generate significant amount of force in order tocut through the fuselage of the aircraft, more force than a normal person canproduce using either a knife or club.Additionally, these weapons pose a minimal threat to passengers aboardan aircraft because the pilot and the terrorist are in close proximity to oneanother during combat. Therefore, aminimization of the risk of not hitting the intended target, the terrorist,occurs. However, when a pilot isclose to the terrorist, the terrorist’s modus operandi can include moreoptions. This, in turn, places thepilot in a more vulnerable position.However, with proper training that emphasizes how to predict the actionsof a terrorist and how to counteract his assaults with effective close-endcombat techniques, a significant alleviation of the risk to pilots can happen.
Ideally, it is possible to defend aircraftwithout adding any weapons. If Federalflight deck officers received training in the ancient practice of martial arts,carrying of weapons aboard aircraft would no longer be necessary. Martial arts have proven effective sincetheir inception and emphasize control in their practice. Utilizing specific techniques from martialarts, such as jiu-jitsu and tae-kwon-do, pilots could place the attacker in aposition where he would not pose a further threat to the aircraft. There are however several downsides toutilizing martial arts. Effectivetraining in the martial arts typically requires several years. Thus, a long time lapses before a sufficientnumber of qualified pilots are available.Additionally, the problem of close combat arises again. Reduction of the problems posed by close-endcombat can effectively be handled using training, which would take time. Both of these problems diminish theeffectiveness of martial arts as a primary source of defense in the near term. However, as a secondary or tertiary line ofdefense, martial arts are effective.
The use of any one of these alternativeson its own would not provide a broad enough range of defense to adequatelyprevent terrorist actions. However, anyone or combination of alternatives, coupled with existing measures such asvideo cameras monitoring the cabin and reinforced co*ckpit doors, increases thechances of a Federal flight deck officer foiling an assailant’s scheme. For example, if a terrorist on board anaircraft tried to attack the co*ckpit to gain control, the pilots would firstsee the assailant on a video monitor, affording them the opportunity to verifythe co*ckpit door is locked. While theassailant attempted to take down the door through brute force or other means,then the pilot could prepare by arming himself with a Taser. Then, if the assailant managed to break intothe co*ckpit, the pilot could fire upon the aggressor, rendering himineffective. It is important to notethat success relies on proper training.This training, already part of the Federal Flight Deck Officer Program,would need modification to include whatever new defensive measures areincorporated.
In the long run, a possible and veryeffective alternative is the separation of the co*ckpit from the rest of theaircraft. Adding an impenetrablebulkhead between the cabin and the co*ckpit eliminates all risk that a hijackercould enter the co*ckpit and threaten the primary flight control systems of anaircraft. Several technical challengesprevent this from happening in the immediate future. An aircraft’s structure would have to undergo significantmodifications, such as adding access doors and the bulkhead. FAA regulations require that a speedyevacuation must occur in an emergency.The expedience of the evacuation dictates to the aircraft manufacturershow many exits to include on a new aircraft.This mandate prevents the blocking of an exit on current aircraft. Additionally, relocation of the pilot restfacilities and restrooms to in front of the bulkhead would need to happen. Onall but a handful of aircraft, this task is difficult. Therefore, in order to permanently separatethe co*ckpit from the rest of the cabin, a new aircraft design would certainlybe needed.
<![if !supportEmptyParas]><![endif]>
