Share This Page

9/11 widows push for increased security of cockpits

| Tuesday, Aug. 13, 2013, 12:01 a.m.

The widow of a pilot hijacked during 9/11 wants Congress to pass a bill mandating secondary barriers to aircraft cockpits.

Victor Saracini was captain of United Airlines Flight 175, which was crashed into New York City's World Trade Center's South Tower, killing 60 passengers and crew.

Ellen Saracini of Yardley in Bucks County hopes the Saracini Aviation Safety Act will be passed by this year's memorial observations.

“It's been 12 years,” she said. “I feel there is a real threat. Terrorism is not going away.”

Melodie Homer of Marlton, N.J., widow of United Flight 93 First Officer LeRoy Homer, is assisting Saracini in the lobbying effort.

Flight 93 crashed in Stonycreek Township in Somerset County, after four terrorists overtook the cockpit, killing all 40 passengers and crew aboard.

A Pennsylvania congressman, Rep. Mike Fitzpatrick, R-Langhorne, introduced the Saracini act in April. It would require airlines to install and maintain a secondary cockpit barrier on commercial planes.

“After the 9/11 attacks, the Federal Aviation Administration mandated the installation of reinforced cockpit doors on all commercial flights. The problem is that at some point, the pilots need to open the cockpit door to get a meal or rest. That is the exact moment when terrorists strike,” Fitzpatrick said.

The gate also could serve as a barrier against “unstable individuals” trying to enter the cockpit, Saracini said.

The bipartisan proposal is before the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, chaired by Rep. Bill Shuster, R-Hollidaysburg. His 9th Congressional District includes the Flight 93 crash site.

Saracini said she and Shuster recently discussed his work with Fitzpatrick to try to bring the bill to a vote on or before Sept. 11.

“Since 9/11, important steps have been taken to improve cockpit security including reinforced cockpit doors, arming pilots through the Federal Flight Deck Officer program, and an expansion of the Federal Air Marshal Service,” Shuster said.

“However, we must always remain vigilant, and I appreciate the input of Ms. Saracini and others as we continue to assess the security of our aviation system. Safe air travel is of the highest priority and Congress will continue to evaluate these programs and additional proposals to ensure appropriate measures are in place,” he said.

In 2003, some airlines, including United, voluntarily installed secondary barriers. The retractable, mesh gates are secured before the cockpit door opens.

“They were leading-edge, cutting-edge technology” to prevent a security breach, Saracini said.

She and Homer learned last year that United was ordering new Boeing aircraft without the additional gates.

“This is the airline my husband worked for and died for,” Saracini said.

She said the gates are a “low-cost solution,” compared to money spent on in-flight entertainment systems or the millions paid to families through the Victim Compensation Fund.

Homer said she once witnessed a flight attendant use a beverage cart to block the cockpit entrance. “That's the barrier,” she said.

United spokeswoman Christen David said the barriers remain on some of United's fleet, but she would not address the new Boeing planes.

“At United, the safety and security of our customers and co-workers is paramount. We continue to work with industry and government leaders to enhance the safety and security of the cockpit. Security measures have evolved in the years since the secondary barriers were ordered, and many more layers of security now exist,” David said in an email.

“While we don't discuss the details of the security measures that are used for a particular aircraft or a particular flight, we thoroughly carry out our security responsibilities for every flight,” she said.

The Air Line Pilots Association this year released a “call for action” endorsing secondary barriers. The group has asked pilots to urge their representatives to co-sponsor the Saracini Aviation Safety Act.

FAA spokeswoman Arlene Salac said the agency does not comment on pending legislation.

“The FAA has no present requirement for secondary cockpit barriers because current security systems and policies have proven highly successful at preventing cockpit intrusions on U.S. aircraft. Operators may add a secondary cockpit barrier as optional equipment,” Salac said in an email.

“My concern is, obviously, I would never want anything like 9/11 to ever happen again. ... It's an easy, obvious fix,” Homer said.

Mary Pickels is a staff writer for Trib Total Media. She can be reached at 724-836-5401 or mpickels@tribweb.com.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.