AVCANADA

It is currently Sat Oct 21, 2017 6:28 am

All times are UTC-07:00




Post new topic  Reply to topic  [ 141 posts ]  Go to page Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Sun Jun 18, 2017 6:23 pm 
Offline
Top Poster
Top Poster

Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 7:10 am
Posts: 7254
Really? Going to pee without calling back was amaaazzzzzing?

What if the Germanwings Pilot didn't go to a doctor at all, and lied when the aviation doctor asked him how he was feeling? Can you conceive of a situation where someone was having dark thoughts and maybe didn't tell anybody?



Top
   
PostPosted: Sun Jun 18, 2017 6:28 pm 
Offline
Rank 2
Rank 2

Joined: Wed Nov 05, 2014 2:08 pm
Posts: 89
*** Sigh ***

Are you still an active airline pilot?



Top
   
PostPosted: Sun Jun 18, 2017 6:37 pm 
Offline
Rank 2
Rank 2

Joined: Wed Nov 05, 2014 2:08 pm
Posts: 89
That guy at germanwing was a known as a psychiatric case, everyone freaking knew!!! German doctors couldn't disclose the information because of confidentiality BS. We are not talking here about someone with anxiety and light depresion. Even the flightschool was aware during his training. Swiss air did a thorough review of this procedure. I would be much more scared about hijacks or a FA with a 3 week training than a colleague who has spent years earning his seat in a cockpit.


Last edited by Ypilot on Sun Jun 18, 2017 6:38 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
   
PostPosted: Sun Jun 18, 2017 6:37 pm 
Offline
Top Poster
Top Poster

Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 7:10 am
Posts: 7254
Oh yes. Are you?

You didn't answer my question about the disturbed pilot who doesn't tell anybody. Expand your thinking.



Top
   
PostPosted: Sun Jun 18, 2017 6:42 pm 
Offline
Rank 2
Rank 2

Joined: Wed Nov 05, 2014 2:08 pm
Posts: 89
Waste of time!


Top
   
PostPosted: Sun Jun 18, 2017 6:45 pm 
Offline
Top Poster
Top Poster

Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 7:10 am
Posts: 7254
Ypilot wrote:
Waste of time!


Why are pilots unable to have a grown up conversation about this? You won't even answer a simple question.



Top
   
PostPosted: Sun Jun 18, 2017 6:52 pm 
Offline
Rank 2
Rank 2

Joined: Wed Nov 05, 2014 2:08 pm
Posts: 89
Rockie wrote:
Ypilot wrote:
Waste of time!


Why are pilots unable to have a grown up conversation about this? You won't even answer a simple question.


Answer mine, are you still an active airline pilot? Pretty sure you are not.
Have you ever met someone with psychiatric problems? I did, more than once, it doesn't go unseen unlike depression. Since the Germanwing accident everyone is much more sensitive to the issues of mental health. Can more be done to raise awareness? Sure.

Knee jerk reaction? No thanks!



Top
   
PostPosted: Sun Jun 18, 2017 7:01 pm 
Offline
Top Poster
Top Poster

Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 7:10 am
Posts: 7254
I did answer your question, look up a few posts. And you're not a psychiatric doctor. I'm sure real psychiatric doctors would disagree with you that spotting people with mental health issues is as easy as you claim. I've known people with severe depression who were very good at hiding it. In fact I worked many times with someone who did in fact commit suicide, and nobody even knew he had a problem until his wife pleaded for help.

Spare me your amateur expertise please.



Top
   
PostPosted: Sun Jun 18, 2017 7:10 pm 
Offline
Rank 2
Rank 2

Joined: Wed Nov 05, 2014 2:08 pm
Posts: 89
You are not either. I am going to tell you a fact, two people in a cockpit rule was on the verge to make me a nut case, and not just me. No offence but I trust my colleages.


Top
   
PostPosted: Sun Jun 18, 2017 7:13 pm 
Offline
Top Poster
Top Poster

Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 7:10 am
Posts: 7254
Oh yes I am an active pilot. Are you freaking serious? That simple little innocuous requirement bugged you that much?

Jesus wept...

What's going to happen to you when something, I don't know...serious happens? Are you going to start screaming and beating yourself over the head?



Top
   
PostPosted: Sun Jun 18, 2017 7:31 pm 
Offline
Rank 2
Rank 2

Joined: Wed Nov 05, 2014 2:08 pm
Posts: 89
I am starting to think that you liked it when the govt forced flight attendants into the cockpit, maybe it was the only way for you to make conversation :smt055 . The powaaa of the left seat. :smt040


Top
   
PostPosted: Sun Jun 18, 2017 10:11 pm 
Offline
Rank 10
Rank 10

Joined: Sat Jan 22, 2005 2:24 pm
Posts: 2413
Rockie,

Do you know better than the regulators, the experts consulted by the regulators, the government, the airlines, and the majority of the pilot community?

Let it go.



Top
   
PostPosted: Mon Jun 19, 2017 2:54 am 
Offline
Top Poster
Top Poster

Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 7:10 am
Posts: 7254
Ypilot wrote:
I am starting to think that you liked it when the govt forced flight attendants into the cockpit, maybe it was the only way for you to make conversation :smt055 . The powaaa of the left seat. :smt040


You still haven't answered my question.

altiplano wrote:
Rockie,

Do you know better than the regulators, the experts consulted by the regulators, the government, the airlines, and the majority of the pilot community?

Let it go.


I know why pilots are opposed to it, and it has nothing to do with safety. I know the government thinks the fact doctors are required to report known illnesses solves the problem, but it doesn't address unknown problems. I know pilots lobbied the government hard to get rid of the rule. I know management is made up of pilots who have the same reason as you do for hating the rule, and who also cited the same invalid safety arguments. They also lobbied the government to get rid of the rule. I know the FA's hated it because it was inconvenient, and I also know 99% of them didn't even know what their job was when they entered the flight deck. Most of the pilots didn't either.

I also know this type of tragedy will happen again. Perhaps then we can have a grown up discussion about simple mitigating strategies.



Top
   
PostPosted: Tue Jun 20, 2017 8:48 am 
Offline
Rank 2
Rank 2

Joined: Thu Jan 03, 2013 8:28 am
Posts: 61
Rockie wrote:
I know why pilots are opposed to it, and it has nothing to do with safety.


That's a fairly strong and broad statement, Rockie. Even if you did indeed "know why pilots are opposed to it", why can't you respect the consensus view? It would seem that this thread has become less about the two person rule, and more about Rockie dictating his wants on everyone else. I won't go so far as to state the word "arrogance", but your lack of ability to concede that anyone else's views may be valid, is extremely concerning. :goodman:

And yes, my own major concern was that a psychotic or ill-willed F/A had more of an opportunity to initiate a catastrophic event. Thankfully. that risk has now decreased. In general, I trust pilots more than F/A's, and I'm not ashamed of saying that. It would seem many others hold the same view.



Top
   
PostPosted: Tue Jun 20, 2017 9:49 am 
Offline
Top Poster
Top Poster

Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 7:10 am
Posts: 7254
Impact wrote:
That's a fairly strong and broad statement, Rockie. Even if you did indeed "know why pilots are opposed to it", why can't you respect the consensus view?


I don't respect the consensus view because this is a matter of safety, not hurt feelings. There are people who actually think the 2 person rule was a good idea but are silent about it because of intense peer pressure from the very vocal pilot group. I am not one of those people who will be silent and I have expressed my opinion to management.

Impact wrote:
I won't go so far as to state the word "arrogance", but your lack of ability to concede that anyone else's views may be valid, is extremely concerning.


See above.

Impact wrote:
And yes, my own major concern was that a psychotic or ill-willed F/A had more of an opportunity to initiate a catastrophic event. Thankfully. that risk has now decreased. In general, I trust pilots more than F/A's, and I'm not ashamed of saying that. It would seem many others hold the same view.


Then I'll ask you the same question I've been asking everybody else, and maybe you'll be the first to actually have the balls to answer it. Given your distrust of your crew of flight attendants and everybody else because they may pose a psychotic or ill-willed risk, are you going to bar anybody but the other operating pilot from ever entering the flight deck while in flight? Do you think a completely sterile and isolated flight deck should be a regulatory requirement due to the risk concerns you have?

Think carefully before you reply, because if a flight attendant wants to do something they can do it just as easily delivering your meal or coffee as they can during a bathroom break. There is virtually no difference in opportunity.

Also, why do you trust pilots more than flight attendants when it comes to susceptibility to mental health issues when the facts don't support you? More aircraft crashes have occurred by unstable pilots locking themselves in the flight deck than have been caused by flight attendants going crazy and attacking the crew. Look it up.



Top
   
PostPosted: Tue Jun 20, 2017 11:08 am 
Offline
Rank 10
Rank 10

Joined: Sat Jan 22, 2005 2:24 pm
Posts: 2413
Rockie. You're way out there on your own tangent and imagining your own statistics without context.

I'll ask you again. Do you know better than all the agencies, and pretty much everyone else?

I think no one typically mistrusts an FA but mandating them to the flight deck provided no added security benefit, you said yourself that most of them didn't know what their responsibilities were...

Also, any perceived benefit or detriment is offsetting and in such statistically insignificant instances to be essentially nil. ie. it didn't make a difference whether they were there or not these past 2 years and if we continued with it into the future the result would be the same...

The context error with your claims of pilots being more often responsible than observers for an accident is this:

There has been a pilot on the flight deck 100% of the time on every flight on every day since the beginning of human flight.

We can only guess how often observers are on flight decks, let's estimate it as less than 0.0001% of flight time.

So is a pilot 1,000,000x more likely to cause an accident than an observer? Maybe, but they are there >1,000,000x more than observers are...

That's the context... You put an observer on the flight deck as often as a pilot and the number of incidents attributable to each would be similar.

Anyway, rule is done, get over it and let's focus on something we can all agree needs work. You obviously have the time...

I don't know... you pick

- Getting our fatigue and duty regulations up to international norms?
- Getting Canadian pilots working together to advance our collective interests?
- Getting rid of expiring ADBs?
- National transportation strategy?
- Economic reform?
- Global warming?
- Electoral reform?
- Other?



Top
   
PostPosted: Tue Jun 20, 2017 11:30 am 
Offline
Top Poster
Top Poster

Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 7:10 am
Posts: 7254
altiplano wrote:
Rockie. You're way out there on your own tangent and imagining your own statistics without context.


I can give you a list of confirmed or strongly suspected crashes occurring because a single pilot locked himself in the cockpit and flew the aircraft into the ground or water. It's easy to look up but I'll do it for you if you can't. Can you show me a list of crashes occurring due to flight attendants attacking the pilots?

altiplano wrote:
I'll ask you again. Do you know better than all the agencies, and pretty much everyone else?


Prior to 2001 all the agencies and pretty much everyone else saw no need for secure cockpit doors despite many, many hijackings. Your point is not taken.

altiplano wrote:
I think no one typically mistrusts an FA but mandating them to the flight deck provided no added security benefit, you said yourself that most of them didn't know what their responsibilities were...


Of course it provided added security, they could open the door to let the other pilot in even if the remaining pilot didn't want them to for some reason. You can't see that? As for them not knowing, that was the company's fault for not properly training them. Lack of training is no excuse and doesn't negate the reason they were there.

There are plenty of people right here in this thread saying the FA's are a threat. It is one of the bogus excuses used by pilots to get rid of the rule, but I actually agree with you. Nobody really distrusts individual FA's because if they were known to be untrustworthy they wouldn't be working on an airplane. Same thing with pilots. It's the unknowns...

altiplano wrote:
We can only guess how often observers are on flight decks, let's estimate it as less than 0.0001% of flight time.


Now who's going out on a tangent?

altiplano wrote:
Anyway, rule is done, get over it and let's focus on something we can all agree needs work. You obviously have the time...


The nice thing about people is they can do many things concurrently and there's lots of help, so how about this?

- Getting our fatigue and duty regulations up to international norms?
- Getting Canadian pilots working together to advance our collective interests?
- Getting rid of expiring ADBs?
- National transportation strategy?
- Economic reform?
- Global warming?
- Electoral reform?
- Simple mitigation strategies to guarantee cockpit access to flight crew locked outside.
- Other?



Top
   
PostPosted: Tue Jun 20, 2017 1:49 pm 
Offline
Rank 10
Rank 10

Joined: Sat Jan 22, 2005 2:24 pm
Posts: 2413
Apparently statistical context is lost on you, and I'm not on a tangent.

if you can't recognise that 100% of the time there is a pilot on the flightdeck so of course there are more incidents with pilots on the flightdeck than with anyone else, then I don't know what to tell you...

I'll acknowledge that there have been a handful of pilot induced accidents, and I'm not going to make a list of potential third person/observer caused accidents or near accidents, but they have occurred too.

Less than pilot caused?
Sure, but again, look at it in context... pilots are always there, observers are not so it stands to reason there would be far far fewer. If you had an observer there as often as a pilot you'd see that gap narrowed to likely a near equal number of events because the probability is similar.

Here is your logic put another way...

My neighbour gets the paper every day. It gets wet by the rain on average 36.5 times/year, about 10% of the time...

On my porch there is never a wet paper (same porch design).

Your summation says:

My porch must be better at keeping papers dry. There is a 0% chance of a wet paper.

But looking deeper, the fact is there is never a paper on my porch, wet or dry, because I don't get the paper delivered... so it's not because of my porch at all but the lack of presence of a paper to begin with...

If I started getting the paper as often as my neighbour, the likelihood of getting a wet paper would be at about the same rate of 36x/year...
Or if I got it less often, say only on Saturdays there would be fewer instances of wet papers, only about 5.2 times/year, but percentage wise, over the long run, it would be about 10% of the total time there is a paper on my porch it would be getting wet...

Incidents with Pilot only in cockpit or Observer in cockpit, these statistics are unlikely to change much, because as they are, they are razor razor slim chances... so far removed they are a remote statistically improbability per flight or flight hour with or without the system you advocate it won't make a difference...



Top
   
PostPosted: Tue Jun 20, 2017 2:06 pm 
Offline
Top Poster
Top Poster

Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 7:10 am
Posts: 7254
Length of time in the cockpit is irrelevant, it's the opportunity. FA's have access to the cockpit so any of them wishing to do harm merely has to wait for you to order coffee and let them in to bash you over the head. Easy peasy. Hasn't happened unless you know of a case. Which reminds me...you haven't answered the question I've asked everybody else either.


Top
   
PostPosted: Tue Jun 20, 2017 3:04 pm 
Offline
Rank 2
Rank 2

Joined: Thu Nov 20, 2014 8:03 am
Posts: 69
Is this Rockie guy seriously an active airline pilot? That's a pretty scary thought...


Top
   
PostPosted: Tue Jun 20, 2017 3:33 pm 
Offline
Top Poster
Top Poster

Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 7:10 am
Posts: 7254
DrSpaceman wrote:
Is this Rockie guy seriously an active airline pilot? That's a pretty scary thought...


I sure am. Do you want to take a crack at my question since none of the other guys have the balls?

Do you support regulations isolating the cockpit from all but operating pilots, and will you bar anybody but operating pilots from entering the cockpit during flight?

Come on you guys, instead of just insulting me put your money where your mouth is and debate the facts.

The reason you guys aren't answering my question is because there's no way to do so without making yourselves look foolish. If you say "no" you'd have to explain either why FA's are a threat when you go to the lav but not when you order coffee, or why you're willing to accept that threat to everyone's safety for the sake of a cup of coffee.

If you say "yes" you'll have to explain why our pilot associations aren't lobbying the government to make that regulation, and why you aren't lobbying your association to do so.

Either way you look like the hypocrites that you are.



Top
   
PostPosted: Tue Jun 20, 2017 6:44 pm 
Offline
Rank 10
Rank 10

Joined: Sat Jan 22, 2005 2:24 pm
Posts: 2413
You clearly can't go beyond your narrow, blocked ideas, have difficulty grasping statistical facts and now are resorting to insults.

Good luck with that.

I'm done.



Top
   
PostPosted: Tue Jun 20, 2017 6:51 pm 
Offline
Top Poster
Top Poster

Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 7:10 am
Posts: 7254
Well I feel a little entitled to the odd insult given all the ones headed my way.

Actually I'll scale back the insulting but heartfelt things I just said, and say people's unwillingness to discuss the actual facts of this confirms my extremely low opinion of our collective response. You have no conviction behind your BS excuses for getting rid of this rule or you would be willing to discuss the facts.

You're not even willing to do it anonymously you have so little confidence in it.



Top
   
PostPosted: Tue Jun 20, 2017 8:04 pm 
Offline
Rank 4
Rank 4
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 01, 2004 9:07 pm
Posts: 252
Location: The good side of the tracks
You certainly are a Chihuahua Rockie. The rule is gone, get over it. There are two reasons most pilots don't like it, it's a useless gesture and it's a pain in the ass. Do you really think we couldn't have it upside down on one engine with the other pilot pinned to the ceiling of the toilet just because a flight attendant is there to watch? And before you come up with some swarmy reply, I'm sane and my aviation doctor knows it, so I have no intention of doing that. The rule was a lot like a bullet proof door in a gun free zone because an airplane got highjacked with a box cutter, but fortunately in this case common sense prevailed. You can try to twist it any way you want but you aren't selling anyone here. I suggest you take your argument to Parliament Hill or the CBC if you feel so strongly. Console yourself with the 1% of pilots and 10% of bureaucrats who think it's a good idea.


Top
   
PostPosted: Wed Jun 21, 2017 1:34 am 
Offline
Top Poster
Top Poster

Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 7:10 am
Posts: 7254
mantogasrsrwy wrote:
You certainly are a Chihuahua Rockie. The rule is gone, get over it.


No, I won't because hundreds of people have died and more will. I find it insulting to my profession that we behave like children with their feelings hurt by refusing to treat this as the flight safety issue that it is. This will happen again, maybe even close to home, and when it does people like you are going to have to explain to the families of the victims why your petty little ego got in the way of sensible precautions like having two in the cockpit.

It's a flight attendant in the cockpit for two minutes while the other person goes to the bathroom. They are there only to open the door if something goes wrong, nothing else. What is f**king wrong with you people? You had no problem with them being there before for any reason, and you don't have any problem with them being there now, but because TC mandated it with this rule you and everybody else lost their shit over it. What a bunch of f**king children...



Top
   
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic  Reply to topic  [ 141 posts ]  Go to page Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next

All times are UTC-07:00


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 32 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Limited
[ GZIP: Off ]

For questions/comments please send them to
avcanada@gmail.com


AvCanada Topsites List
AVIATION TOP 100 - www.avitop.com Avitop.com

While the administrators and moderators of this forum will attempt to remove or edit any generally objectionable material as quickly as possible, it is impossible to review every message. If you feel a topic or post is inappropriate email us at avcanada@gmail.com .  By reading these forums you acknowledge that all posts made to these forums express the views and opinions of the author and not the administrators, moderators or webmaster (except for posts by these people) and hence will not be held liable. This website is not responsible or liable in any way for any false or misleading messages or job ads placed at our site. 

Use AvCanada's information at your own risk!

We reserve the right to remove any messages that we deem unacceptable.
When you post a message, your IP is logged and may be provided to concerned parties where unethical or illegal behavior is apparent. All rights reserved.