Cabin Surveillance: Industry Debates the Need for Video

Monitoring the area behind the cockpit door is an important factor in flight security and safety. FAA's response, a notice of proposed rulemaking issued in September 2005, permits procedural as well as technological responses to cabin surveillance. Which way will the industry go?

By David Jensen

FAA officials are reviewing the responses to the agency's notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM), titled "Flight Deck Door Monitoring and Crew Discreet Alerting Systems." The NPRM--docket number FAA-2005-22449, amending Part 121--represents the agency's second step towards securing the flight decks of air transport aircraft. (The first step was the locking of hardened cockpit doors.)

Now that pilots are secure in their cockpits, the issue is twofold: assuring a protected means for the pilots to exit the flight deck for, say, physical needs, and providing a means for the cabin crew to discreetly communicate with the flight crew, should security breaches or emergencies occur in the cabin area. The NPRM calls for approved equipment and/or approved procedures to achieve those objectives. It applies to Part 121 aircraft with 60 passenger seats or more and a maximum weight of more than 11,310 pounds (45,500 kg). The agency proposes a two-year period for compliance to the rule.

All comments to the proposed rule were due in November 2005. FAA officials say they could not give "a definite, or even approximate, date for the publication of a final rule," in response to an Avionics Magazine inquiry. "Generally, Congress gives us 16 months after the comment period closes to act on the proposal." Action on the NPRM, therefore, may not occur before early 2007.

"That action could range from implementation of the proposed rule without changes all the way to withdrawal of the proposal entirely," FAA officials add. Withdrawal probably is unlikely, as the NPRM allows compliance without requiring new equipment. Thus, little investment is required of the U.S. carriers, most of which remain cash-strapped.

The NPRM allows at least two methods to comply with the proposed rule covering monitoring from the flight deck. One method would be a video system that allows the pilots to view the area just outside the cockpit door on one or more screens. The other method would involve some other means of monitoring the door area, including the conventional peephole. Both methods would require audio confirmation to the flight deck by a cabin crewman that the door area, indeed, is clear for pilot egress, as is the lavatory. Since virtually all cabin doors have peepholes, compliance to the proposed rule, therefore, would be procedural, requiring little training.

Organizations such as the Coalition of Airline Pilots Associations (CAPA) see little reason for video systems. In its comments to NPRM, the group states, "There are only a limited number of reasons for the [cockpit] door to be opened once it has been secured for flight." The association adds that "judiciously established procedures allow safe and effective passage into and out of the flight deck." CAPA goes on to say the video cameras "can be defeated and may provide a false sense of security and comfort."

In a comparable vein, Boeing states in its comment that "adopting a procedure using existing aircraft equipment [emphasis placed on "existing"] that accomplishes the intent of this requirement is robust enough to ensure security without potentially exposing some operators to a large retrofit investment."

Still, the NPRM states that there is "a consensus that cameras to monitor and view the area outside the flight deck door may add value." And a rapid response team (RRT) for aircraft integrity and security, created by the Secretary of Transportation, recommends that the "industry evaluate the use of cameras and lighting outside the flight deck door within six months." FAA also encouraged the use of such surveillance when it awarded $3.3 million in grants to 11 U.S. airlines to test video systems.