The Record Journal of Meriden (Conn.), April 1, 2015
It’s difficult to imagine a more terrifying situation than an airline pilot locked out of the cockpit in midair. The co-pilot isn’t responding to knocks at the door, or pleas from the pilot to open it. Passengers on the packed jet take notice. The plane begins a descent. The pilot slams his body into the cockpit door in an attempt to push it open. It doesn’t budge. Next, he goes at it with an axe, but to no avail. Terror grips the cabin. The descent continues. Screams. Tears. Seconds later, the aircraft smashes into a mountain traveling at more than 400 miles per hour.
This was the fate of Germanwings Flight 9525, which met its brutal end in the French Alps the morning of March 24. Going by the plane’s black box recording, it appears the co-pilot, 27-year-old Andreas Lubitz, intentionally locked the pilot out of the cockpit, then set the plane on its doomed course, killing all 150 people on board.
Lubitz’s motivation remains unknown.
This horrific incident, once again, has the world pondering what more airlines can do to protect passengers from those seeking to commandeer a plane.
Fortified cockpit doors were implemented after the 9/11 hijackers simply walked up to the pilots that morning and seized control of operations.
While keeping pilots secured inside the cockpit is a wise and seemingly safe measure to dissuade such terrorism from happening again, the Germanwings tragedy showed us that even a locked cockpit door can be exploited for evil means.
So, now what? How do we prevent suicidal - perhaps homicidal is more apt - pilots from sequestering themselves away from the rest of the crew and doing what Andreas Lubitz is believed to have done, without keeping the cockpit door unlocked and open to possible intrusion?
Maybe cockpit doors should be passcode entry only, or able to be manipulated by air traffic controllers on terra firma. Perhaps at least two crew members should be in the cockpit at all times.
Genius problem solvers abound in this world. Certainly there is a reasonable solution within reach. We owe it to those poor souls who were scattered about the French Alps March 24 to find it.
The Patriot Ledger of Quincy (Mass.) April 3, 2014
The dedication of the Edward M. Kennedy Institute for the Senate was an occasion for people to remember again the friendship and service of U.S. Sen. Edward M. Kennedy.
Republican and Democratic colleagues alike told old stories while shivering on a morning much too cold for the end of March. A few tears were shed by those whose memories of the late senator are still fresh.
But the institute wasn’t built for them. Nor is it primarily a monument to the glory of the senator whose name it carries.
Kennedy envisioned the institute as a celebration of the Senate itself. It is intended not so much to perpetuate the memory of Ted Kennedy - though it does some of that, with a reproduction of his Senate office one of the main displays - as to instruct generations of schoolchildren about the nation’s legislative process.
The centerpiece of the institute, a low white building that complements, rather than competes with, the John F. Kennedy Presidential Library and Museum next door, is a full-sized replica of the Unites States Senate chamber located in the Capitol Building in Washington. Students will be able to sit at Senate desks and engage in debates over national issues of the past, present and future.
The goal isn’t just to have students role play the bitter debates that have paralyzed the Senate. The programs are intended to show that negotiation and compromise are as essential to democracy as vigorous debate. That was how Kennedy foresaw the purpose of the Institute.
The bipartisan group of speakers at the dedication - from President Barack Obama to Sen. John McCain and former Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott - said they hoped the institute will also teach the personal style that served Kennedy so well during his 47 years in the Senate. All spoke of the kindnesses Kennedy had extended to them and their families. They recalled how hard he could fight, how loudly he could denounce - and how quick he was to reach out to those with whom he disagreed.
“Ted understood that the key to unlocking the Senate was the cumulative effects of personal engagement,” Vice President Joe Biden said. “It’s hard to be petty when the man you’re debating is being grand and magnanimous.”
Obama said his friend Ted “grieved the loss of camaraderie and collegiality in the Senate, with arguments now made to cameras instead of colleagues.” That has made it far harder to bridge the partisan divide, as Kennedy so often was able to do.
It’s frustrating to think the best we can hope for is that today’s students, inspired to public service and constructive compromise by field trips to the EMK Institute, can someday make Congress work again. But it’s a worthy effort.
Please read our comment policy before commenting.