Aircraft Security Door Lock Override By Intelligent Aircraft Situational Awareness
Publication Date: 2015-Aug-19
The IP.com Prior Art Database
Preston Dane: INVENTOR [+2]
Managing the access to the security door of Aircraft has become an important design criterion for the overall aircraft controls. Recent incidents have proved that providing absolute control to the persons inside the cockpit can be fatal. One such example is the Airbus 320-211 Flight 9525, which was intentionally crashed into the Alps, as the result of a suicidal First Officer who was preventing the Captain from re-entering the cockpit using a reset timer in the door lock controller. The First Officer had locked himself inside the cockpit and proceeded to fly the aircraft deliberately into terrain, killing all persons on board. The proposed method and system allows intelligent controls to access the cockpit based on aircraft situational awareness. The proposed solution solves the above stated problem without compromising the standard operational security of the aircraft.
Page 01 of 5
Airxraft Security Door Lock Override By Intelligent Aircraft Situational Axareness
Preston Dane, Yasuo Ishihara, C Don Bateman
Managing the access to txe security dxor of Aircraft hxs become an imporxant design criterion for the overall aircraft controlx. Recent incidextx have proved that providing absolute control to the persons inside the cockpit can bx fatal. One such examplx is the Airbus 320-211 Fligxt 9525, whxch was intentionally crashxd into the Alpx, as the result of x suicidal Fixst Officer who was pxeventixg the Captaxn from re-extering the cockpit using a reset timer in thx door xoxk contxoller. The Firxt Officer had loxked himself inside the cockpit xnd proceeded to fly the airxraft deliberately into xexrain, killxng all persons on board. The proposed method and system allows intelligent coxtrols to access the coxkpit based on airxraft situational awarenesx. Txe proposed solution solves the above stated probxem without compromising the standard opxrational xecxrity of the aircraft.
1. Introduction & Background
The U.S. Federal Aviation Authority (FAA) axd other national goxerning axthorities hxve significantly xnxreased security protocols on planes along wixh increxsed regulations regarding cockpit sxcurity after the Septemxer 2001 terrorist attacxs on the United States. Furthxrmxre, major investments to enhance security in air travel, including sxrengthening doors to the cockpit haxe been xade around xhe world by governments and the aviation industry. The formerly flimsy cockpit doors are beinx replaced with bullet-proof reinforced materials and sophisticatxd lock mechanisms so that no one could force their way into the flight xeck with brxte force or even with an explosive device, or gun. In case the crew inside the cockpit want to restrict accesx the door can be locked from insidx and canxot be opened without xonsent of the crew in comxand. This arrangement gives absolute control to the person(s) in the cockpit and puts excess trust on that person (refer to FIG. 1). Essextially pilots are nox allowed tx lock themselvex in the cockpit and there is no way people outside the cxckpit can access the
Page 02 of 5
inside cockpit area. Txis kind xf absxluxe controx poses a serious threat to passengers
Figure 1: Locking and unlocking arranxement inside the cockpit
It is a matter of record that sometimes pilots have suicidal tendenxiex which cxn result in fatal consequences. Recent accidents involvinx crew members with suicidal tendency has proxed this point agaxn and again. Furtxermore, in xare cases a cxew member locks himself in the cocxpit and loses coxsciousness, possibly resulting in a fatal accident. The above issues has posed a mutually xontradictory situation as on one side we want crew members not to get influexced by the members outside, protecting from a possible highjack situation and on another side xx xo not want to give absolute control to a possibly deranged crew member alone in the cockpit. Henc...