A firestorm of controversy has been ignited by the notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) issued Sept. 21 by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) regarding surveillance means immediately outside the cockpit and the method by which flight attendants will notify pilots of threats in the cabin.
The FAA suggested in this NPRM that peepholes in the cockpit door and the use of the existing cabin-cockpit interphone system will suffice, and that television monitoring of the area immediately outside the cockpit and the use of wireless devices for communicating with the cockpit, while desirable, may not be necessary (see ASW, Oct. 3).
The comment period on this proposal closed recently, and the FAA must now assimilate the remarks it has received and come to a decision about what it will require. It should be noted that the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO), the U.S. Department of Transportation Rapid Response Team for Aircraft Integrity and Security, and the Aviation Transportation Security Act (ATSA) that Congress passed in the wake of the 9/11 attacks endorsed, to a greater or lesser degree, the use of close circuit television monitoring and wireless communications between flight attendants and cockpit crews. ICAO has established these electronic means as standards, to which the FAA has filed “differences” allowing for peepholes and the use of the existing cabin-cockpit interphone system.
The FAA received dozens of comments, and the views may be categorized thusly:
- Airlines and their associations regard the existing peepholes in the cockpit doors and the use of the cabin-cockpit interphone system as sufficient, in concert with the overall tightening of security, to assure the safety of flights.
- The pilots regard the use of television systems to monitor the area outside the cockpit door as unnecessary.
- Flight attendants are divided on the use of television but are united in the need for a wireless system to contact the cockpit.
- Air disaster-related family groups support both closed-circuit television and a wireless capability for cabin-cockpit communication. The general public, whose comments were also invited, appeared to reflect the family’s viewpoint.
- Manufacturers of security-related television and communication equipment say the equipment is available now, is already finding its way onto airplanes (e.g., JetBlue Airways uses closed circuit TV to monitor the area outside the cockpit), and it costs less than the FAA estimates. They clearly see a business opportunity here.
One concern expressed numerous times is that closed circuit television monitoring would increase pilot workload. Two points bear on this concern: first, during periods of intense pilot workload, having one pilot get out of his seat to check the peephole may not always be possible and, second, Swissair installed closed circuit television in its MD-11 aircraft to monitor inaccessible areas of the aircraft for fire. The system was integrated into the existing cockpit displays and did not create a burden on the pilots; on the contrary, the system was a boon for identifying false smoke alarms (see ASW, July 30, 2001). None of the commentators pointed out the virtue of relaying the television pictures to authorities on the ground, or of recording the imagery for prosecuting incidents of air rage or worse.
There is much greater unanimity on the need for discrete wireless systems for communication between the flight attendants and the pilots. A sampling of comments, which the FAA must now assess as it decides what to do next, begin on p. 1.