2.3 Alternatives

Although the conventional firearm is not the preferred defensive measure in the cockpit, pilots should have access to safer alternatives to defend themselves and their passengers while onboard aircraft because pilots are a primary target. After September 11, the number of security products available to the government increased. The increase comes from the public’s need to feel safe while traveling.

When selecting a security system, the effectiveness of the system plays a large role in the decision-making process. While some devices or methods may be completely safe to the traveling public, they fail to provide any substantial increase in the security aboard aircraft. Therefore, when analyzing the alternatives to conventional weapons, discussion centers on products or methods that are at least moderately effective in reducing the terrorist threat.

Although pilots must not utilize the traditional firearm on commercial flights, the technical feasibility of the elimination of firearms in the cockpit in the immediate future is small. A vast majority of security products on the market still depends on guns for success. Various arising technologies allow pilots to safeguard their weapon by using devices such as non-traditional ammunition and locking devices.

Alternative types of ammunition offer most of the debilitating benefits of traditional bullets, while posing less of a threat to an aircraft’s structure. Large numbers of mass protests and rebellions in Northern Ireland and Israel spurred on the development of less-lethal, less-destructive bullet technology [9]. A need existed for bullets that posed less of a threat to life, yet were still capable of incapacitating the attacker. In response to this need, the governments began development of less-lethal bullets with the goal to reduce the impulsive force imparted on the target. The relative success in quelling disturbances in these two unstable regions using this new technology prompted militaries around the world to adopt less-lethal alternative projectiles to help maintain order in riot situations.

One of the types of less-lethal bullets developed is the rubber bullet. The size (caliber) and shape of rubber bullets can vary greatly, as Figure 1 shows; however, their general construction is consistent—a metal core with a thin coating of plastic or rubber surrounding the core. Rubber bullets that are currently on the market aim to incapacitate the deviant through extreme discomfort. Their exterior coating of rubber or plastic increases the impact time with the target, thus reducing the force and energy imparted on the target when compared with traditional bullets.

Figure 1—Types of Rubber Bullets [10]

The disadvantages of normal rubber bullets are their high energy and inaccuracy. Even though energy transfer is less than that of lead-core bullets, they are still capable of penetrating an aircraft’s fuselage. However, Pine Tree Law Enforcement, in conjunction with The University of Western Ontario, have developed a rubber bullet that has a dynamic structure designed to further reduce the transmitted energy during impact and increase the accuracy of the bullet. The new gun-bullet combination in hand gun form, sold by Pine Tree Law Enforcement as the Defender 1, reduces the amount of energy transferred on impact by ten percent and increases the accuracy of the projectile over twelve times when compared to a nominal rubber bullet. Both of these improvements allow for safer operation onboard aircraft [11].

Pre-fragmented bullets also reduce the risk to the aircraft while still providing the incapacitating and probable lethal effects of traditional bullets. The design of pre-fragmented bullets, also called frangible bullets, is such that, upon impact with a hard body, the bullet disintegrates into many smaller pieces. As Figure 2 shows, a frangible bullet’s exterior looks identical to the exterior of a conventional bullet. The bullet’s exterior commonality proves beneficial because conventional firearms can use the bullets without any modifications. However, numerous metal spheres, instead of a solid core, compose the interiors of frangible bullets, allowing the bullet to disintegrate on impact.

Figure 2—Construction of a Frangible Bullet [12]

The Federal Air Marshal Program was among the first to utilize the original frangible bullet to alleviate the risk of damage to the structure and systems of the aircraft [12]. By having a multitude of spheres inside the core, dispersion of the energy of impact occurs. The dispersed energy causes the bullet to remain lodged within the terrorist instead of continuing through and penetrating additional objects. Additionally, when the bullets hit a solid object, a lower amount of pressure exerted than that of conventional bullets is generated because of the dispersed energy. In the case of an aircraft, the reduction in pressure reduces the stress exerted on the skin, windows, or avionics of the aircraft. Reduced stress on the aircraft diminishes the likelihood that the skin will exceed its material stress. Hence, an aircraft’s structure or systems will have a greater chance of remaining intact.

A different way to reduce the threat to passengers and an aircraft’s structure is “smart gun” technology. A smart gun allows only the owner, or a person recognized by the weapon, to fire the gun. There are several ways to make guns “smart.” One of these utilizes biometric technology. Biometrics use a unique biological characteristic of a person, such as eye characteristics, to produce a positive identity. In the case of a smart gun, a person’s fingerprint is the most feasible biometric attribute to use because of the contact between the fingers and the weapon. However, fingerprint biometrics has several challenges inherent to its use, such as how the fingerprint changes over time and the cost. These factors mitigate the advantages of biometric recognition as a security tool for guns [13].

There is a simpler device that can create a smart gun: a magnetic field emanating from a ring worn by a pilot. These devices make the gun a user-proprietary device, and, in order to fire the weapon, the ring must be in contact with the weapon, thus unlocking the firearm. Without the ring worn on the pilot’s hand, even if a terrorist gained access to the weapon, he could not fire it. Thus, the use of the weapon limits itself to pilots, who, by certification as Federal flight deck officers, have training in the proper use of the weapon. An example of this system 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 relatively inexpensive. While MAGLOC limits its installation to the 1911 series pistols, similar devices are available to retrofit any firearm.

Figure 3—SmartLock Magnetic Firearm Lock [14]

.

Another option for aircraft security, one that completely removes firearms from the cockpit, is the electrical defense provided by stun guns. Stun guns provide a defensive measure for pilots by generating a large electrical potential over two probes, and, in turn, use the body to transmit the generated current. The devices immobilize the assailant by interrupting the nervous system’s communication with the brain [15]. In theory, lethal results from stun guns are possible; however, in practice, stun guns use low amperages of current that do not result in death. Police forces and militaries from around the globe utilize stun guns and their variants as part of their defense arsenal, thus attesting to their effectiveness. Figure 4 shows a schematic of a stun gun.

Figure 4—Schematic of a Stun Gun [15]

Tasers are a variation of stun guns in which a compressed gas cartridge inside the device is used to detach the two electrodes from the main device. However, an electrical connection between the hand unit and the electrodes remains. The primary advantage of Tasers is the increase in distance between pilots and their attackers, usually fifteen to twenty feet, over normal stun guns [15]. This distance gives pilots greater time to react if the device fails to render the attacker immobile. Recently, development began on liquid stun guns, which, instead of detaching electrodes from the hand unit, propagates a conductive stream of liquid through the air to the assailant. Liquid stun guns offer several advantages over Tasers, namely the ability to fire multiple times, which allows pilots to fend off multiple aggressors.

All of these electrical defense mechanisms minimize 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 a benefit. Additionally, a high enough voltage can incapacitate the terrorist for a sufficiently long time to implement other, longer-lasting protection systems. Another benefit of the electrical defense mechanism is the benign effect of the mechanism’s electrical current on an aircraft. All of an aircraft’s wiring is insulated. Insulated wire can guard against outside jolts of electricity, and, therefore, a Taser’s current would not affect the aircraft’s systems.

Other, more conventional alternatives that provide adequate protection to aircraft and passengers are on the market. Knives and clubs are two examples of these conventional alternatives. Federal flight deck officers, when properly trained, can effectively transmit a significant blow to an opponent using either one of these devices. Either one of these objects can have lethal effects on the aggressor. Several benefits come from using these devices. First, unless combat using hand weapons takes place near a window, an aircraft’s risk of depressurization is minimal. A person must generate significant amount of force in order to cut through the fuselage of the aircraft, more force than a normal person can produce using either a knife or club. Additionally, these weapons pose a minimal threat to passengers aboard an aircraft because the pilot and the terrorist are in close proximity to one another during combat. Therefore, a minimization of the risk of not hitting the intended target, the terrorist, occurs. However, when a pilot is close to the terrorist, the terrorist’s modus operandi can include more options. This, in turn, places the pilot in a more vulnerable position. However, with proper training that emphasizes how to predict the actions of a terrorist and how to counteract his assaults with effective close-end combat techniques, a significant alleviation of the risk to pilots can happen.

Ideally, it is possible to defend aircraft without adding any weapons. If Federal flight 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 since their inception and emphasize control in their practice. Utilizing specific techniques from martial arts, such as jiu-jitsu and tae-kwon-do, pilots could place the attacker in a position where he would not pose a further threat to the aircraft. There are however several downsides to utilizing martial arts. Effective training in the martial arts typically requires several years. Thus, a long time lapses before a sufficient number of qualified pilots are available. Additionally, the problem of close combat arises again. Reduction of the problems posed by close-end combat can effectively be handled using training, which would take time. Both of these problems diminish the effectiveness of martial arts as a primary source of defense in the near term. However, as a secondary or tertiary line of defense, martial arts are effective.

The use of any one of these alternatives on its own would not provide a broad enough range of defense to adequately prevent terrorist actions. However, any one or combination of alternatives, coupled with existing measures such as video cameras monitoring the cabin and reinforced cockpit doors, increases the chances of a Federal flight deck officer foiling an assailant’s scheme. For example, if a terrorist on board an aircraft tried to attack the cockpit to gain control, the pilots would first see the assailant on a video monitor, affording them the opportunity to verify the cockpit door is locked. While the assailant 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 into the cockpit, the pilot could fire upon the aggressor, rendering him ineffective. It is important to note that 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 are incorporated.

In the long run, a possible and very effective alternative is the separation of the cockpit from the rest of the aircraft. Adding an impenetrable bulkhead between the cabin and the cockpit eliminates all risk that a hijacker could enter the cockpit and threaten the primary flight control systems of an aircraft. Several technical challenges prevent this from happening in the immediate future. An aircraft’s structure would have to undergo significant modifications, such as adding access doors and the bulkhead. FAA regulations require that a speedy evacuation must occur in an emergency. The expedience of the evacuation dictates to the aircraft manufacturers how many exits to include on a new aircraft. This mandate prevents the blocking of an exit on current aircraft. Additionally, relocation of the pilot rest facilities and restrooms to in front of the bulkhead would need to happen. On all but a handful of aircraft, this task is difficult. Therefore, in order to permanently separate the cockpit from the rest of the cabin, a new aircraft design would certainly be needed.