AVCANADA

It is currently Sat Oct 21, 2017 12:05 am

All times are UTC-07:00




Post new topic  Reply to topic  [ 141 posts ]  Go to page 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Fri Apr 28, 2017 7:23 am 
Offline
Rank 4
Rank 4
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jul 19, 2013 5:19 pm
Posts: 231
Wonder if this will start a trend...


German airlines to scrap requirement for 2 people in cockpit

Lufthansa aircraft in Frankfurt, Germany, on April 2, 2014. (Michael Probst / AP)


The Associated Press
Published Friday, April 28, 2017 9:57AM EDT

BERLIN -- Germany's aviation association says the country's airlines have decide to scrap rules requiring two people in the cockpit at the same time, implemented after a Germanwings pilot is believed to have crashed his own plane in France two years ago.
European Aviation Safety Agency had earlier repealed its two-person rule, introduced as an emergency measure following the 2015 crash that killed all 150 people aboard, but told airlines to perform "extensive risk assessments" of their own.
Aviation association BDL said Friday that German airlines had concluded the two-person regulation doesn't increase safety, and creates other security issues, like the "frequent and predictable opening of the cockpit door."
The airlines have implemented other measures in response to the crash, including ensuring pilots' access to psychological counselling and testing.



Top
   
PostPosted: Fri Apr 28, 2017 7:24 am 
Offline
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
User avatar

Joined: Thu Aug 19, 2004 3:49 pm
Posts: 1719
Location: of my pants is unknown.
Apologies, I didn't see this thread, I put mine about the same topic in General.

_________________
I’m still waiting for my white male privilege membership card. Must have gotten lost in the mail.


Top
   
PostPosted: Fri Apr 28, 2017 11:28 am 
Offline
Rank 7
Rank 7

Joined: Sat Jan 16, 2010 12:06 pm
Posts: 551
Sure.
EASA won't mind re-certifying a bunch of current airline types such as the A320 and 37NG as one person flight decks. I'm sure A and B will jump all over it. Manuals are easily revised. Procedures easily rewritten.
This should be fun.

Gino Under


_________________
I have an existential map. It has 'You are here' written all over it.
Steven Wright


Top
   
PostPosted: Fri Apr 28, 2017 12:31 pm 
Offline
Rank 5
Rank 5
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jul 03, 2009 9:08 pm
Posts: 340
Location: location, location, is what matters
:?:

_________________
Attempting to understand the world. I have not succeeded.

veni, vidi,...... vici non fecit.

:?


Top
   
PostPosted: Fri Apr 28, 2017 1:04 pm 
Offline
Rank 7
Rank 7

Joined: Fri Apr 08, 2011 8:31 am
Posts: 506
Gino Under wrote:
Sure.
EASA won't mind re-certifying a bunch of current airline types such as the A320 and 37NG as one person flight decks. I'm sure A and B will jump all over it. Manuals are easily revised. Procedures easily rewritten.
This should be fun.

Gino Under


Me thinks you misunderstood the post



Top
   
PostPosted: Fri Apr 28, 2017 2:29 pm 
Offline
Rank 7
Rank 7

Joined: Sat Jan 16, 2010 12:06 pm
Posts: 551
av8ts

Yes. It appears as though I did misread it..
I just read Swiss comments and understand the issue.
Now, will other authorities come to their senses?

Gino Under


_________________
I have an existential map. It has 'You are here' written all over it.
Steven Wright


Top
   
PostPosted: Sat Apr 29, 2017 10:12 am 
Offline
Rank 0
Rank 0

Joined: Fri Mar 26, 2010 4:32 pm
Posts: 12
A regulator does not simply unjerk a knee.


Top
   
PostPosted: Sat Apr 29, 2017 6:20 pm 
Offline
Top Poster
Top Poster

Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 7:10 am
Posts: 7253
Who here can tell us what the FA's job was to do when he/she are in the flight deck? I asked them many times over the last year and very few of them knew.


Top
   
PostPosted: Sat Apr 29, 2017 7:46 pm 
Offline
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
User avatar

Joined: Thu Aug 19, 2004 3:49 pm
Posts: 1719
Location: of my pants is unknown.
They probably didn't know because they had no good reason to be there other than a knee-jerk reaction to a tragic event.

Quote:
These analyses have concluded that the requirement of having two crew members in the cockpit at all times during a flight does not enhance safety, and actually introduces additional risks to daily operations in flight safety terms (such as the fact that the rule results in more and longer openings of the cockpit door).


Swiss Press Release


_________________
I’m still waiting for my white male privilege membership card. Must have gotten lost in the mail.


Top
   
PostPosted: Sun Apr 30, 2017 3:02 am 
Offline
Top Poster
Top Poster

Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 7:10 am
Posts: 7253
complexintentions wrote:
They probably didn't know because they had no good reason to be there other than a knee-jerk reaction to a tragic event.

Quote:
These analyses have concluded that the requirement of having two crew members in the cockpit at all times during a flight does not enhance safety, and actually introduces additional risks to daily operations in flight safety terms (such as the fact that the rule results in more and longer openings of the cockpit door).


Swiss Press Release


They don't know because nobody told them, or if they were told they weren't listening. Do you know what their job is?

Maybe you can also answer this while you're at it. Door opens, FA steps in - pilot steps out, door closes. Door opens, pilot steps in - FA steps out, door closes. All of which happens much faster than it took me to type it. How does that result in more and longer openings of the cockpit door?



Last edited by Rockie on Sun Apr 30, 2017 4:21 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
   
PostPosted: Sun Apr 30, 2017 4:20 am 
Offline
Top Poster
Top Poster

Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 7:10 am
Posts: 7253
.


Top
   
PostPosted: Sun Apr 30, 2017 6:31 am 
Offline
Rank 8
Rank 8
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jan 10, 2005 8:54 am
Posts: 753
Only on avcanada can you debate the process the opening and closing of a flight deck door.

This rule was useless, happy to see it disappear.



Top
   
PostPosted: Sun Apr 30, 2017 6:36 am 
Offline
Top Poster
Top Poster

Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 7:10 am
Posts: 7253
sanjet wrote:
Only on avcanada can you debate the process the opening and closing of a flight deck door.

This rule was useless, happy to see it disappear.


Do you know what the FA's job is with this rule? So far I've heard plenty of people complain about it, but no one who actually knows what they're supposed to do. In other words...uninformed opinion.



Top
   
PostPosted: Sun Apr 30, 2017 9:52 am 
Offline
Rank 7
Rank 7

Joined: Fri Apr 08, 2011 8:31 am
Posts: 506
The fa's job is to open the door for the pilot who is outside the cockpit if the pilot inside the cockpit goes postal. That's if the pilot doesn't kill her/ him first. Now if the Fa who is behind the pilot next to the axe goes postal well we'll need a new rule when that happens


Top
   
PostPosted: Sun Apr 30, 2017 11:28 am 
Offline
Top Poster
Top Poster

Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 7:10 am
Posts: 7253
av8ts wrote:
That's if the pilot doesn't kill her/ him first.


It would be very strange if the only pilot left at the controls tried to get out of their seat for any reason. If they do, open the door.

av8ts wrote:
Now if the Fa who is behind the pilot next to the axe goes postal well we'll need a new rule when that happens


Hasn't happened yet whereas the other thing has...several times. But if it ever does I guess we will need a new rule. Cross that bridge if we ever get to it along with the thousands of other "what ifs" an active imagination can come up with. By the way, if FA's are such a threat why do we let them in the FD at all? Why do we allow commuters? Why do AC pilots want family members up front who don't undergo any kind of screening period? Shouldn't the cockpit be off limits to everyone except operating pilots?

av8ts wrote:
The fa's job is to open the door for the pilot who is outside the cockpit if the pilot inside the cockpit goes postal.


Correct. Pretty simple, and if you're the one stuck on the wrong side of the door you wouldn't be thinking it's a useless rule. I don't think any of the proven or suspected incidents had a pilot go "postal" though. Mental illness isn't that obvious or these incidents wouldn't have happened.



Top
   
PostPosted: Sun Apr 30, 2017 11:41 pm 
Offline
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
User avatar

Joined: Thu Aug 19, 2004 3:49 pm
Posts: 1719
Location: of my pants is unknown.
And mental illness is what the new policies focus on, which is what they should have in the first place.

Prevention, rather than bandaids. How progressive. And obvious. (To some of us.)

Next.


_________________
I’m still waiting for my white male privilege membership card. Must have gotten lost in the mail.


Top
   
PostPosted: Mon May 01, 2017 4:56 am 
Offline
Top Poster
Top Poster

Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 7:10 am
Posts: 7253
complexintentions wrote:
And mental illness is what the new policies focus on, which is what they should have in the first place.

Prevention, rather than bandaids. How progressive. And obvious. (To some of us.)

Next.


Oh I agree wholeheartedly. However show me a mental health strategy that is 100% effective 100% of the time for screening any group never mind pilots. They couldn't even do it right for one person in arguably the most important single job in the world.

Forget alcohol testing, what's required here is a mental health check up every flight by a mental health expert that can't be fooled by dishonest answers to a few obvious questions. Looking forward to hearing the plan for that.

Absent a foolproof way of ensuring every pilot is mentally healthy before (and during) every flight, common sense dictates some other simple, 100% effective, zero cost method of accessing the flight deck as a back up.

Do you have a suggestion for that Complex?



Top
   
PostPosted: Mon May 01, 2017 7:00 am 
Offline
Rank (9)
Rank (9)

Joined: Sun Jul 02, 2006 8:11 am
Posts: 1547
Location: Manitoba
While I'm blowing into the tube, hook me up to a polygraph and ask a few questions about my desire to live or not. Simple really, you can have a database for each and every pilot who has answered control questions, then a quick input of employee number a few questions compared to previously answered control questions and voila, I'm sober and want to live or not. The computer can even notify Crewsked to call in replacement pilots after its done assessing me. Have one of these at each airport, heck lets just put this into the purview of airport screeners, this way the public can watch and be satisfied that their operating crew are mentally fit and sober.
Also, just in case something changes after I've checked in, have an FA replace me while I go pee pee



Top
   
PostPosted: Mon May 01, 2017 7:08 am 
Offline
Top Poster
Top Poster

Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 7:10 am
Posts: 7253
mbav8r wrote:
Also, just in case something changes after I've checked in, have an FA replace me while I go pee pee


One of the questions should be "Does your ego and professional pride feel threatened by a flight attendant standing in the flight deck?"



Top
   
PostPosted: Mon May 01, 2017 10:25 am 
Offline
Rank (9)
Rank (9)

Joined: Sun Jul 02, 2006 8:11 am
Posts: 1547
Location: Manitoba
It's not clear how I presented that, I'm not opposed to it, in fact I support it even if the rule changes. I will still ask an FA to come keep me or my partner company. Besides enhancement to safety it gives you a chance to get to know the people you work with.
It was supposed to be sarcastic.



Top
   
PostPosted: Mon May 01, 2017 4:35 pm 
Offline
Rank 2
Rank 2

Joined: Thu Jan 31, 2008 11:52 am
Posts: 51
Biggest concern I have of the 2 person rule is the predictability.
Pretty dam obvious now when the pilot will be coming out (FA takes position to block) making it that much easier to storm the cockpit with a choreographed sequence which has been practiced over and over.



Top
   
PostPosted: Mon May 01, 2017 5:02 pm 
Offline
Top Poster
Top Poster

Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 7:10 am
Posts: 7253
3down&loct wrote:
Biggest concern I have of the 2 person rule is the predictability.
Pretty dam obvious now when the pilot will be coming out (FA takes position to block) making it that much easier to storm the cockpit with a choreographed sequence which has been practiced over and over.


It's also pretty damn obvious the door's going to open when there's a pilot standing there on the outside trying to get in. Not only that, but anyone with trouble on their mind gets a convenient 2 minute warning when the pilot comes out. I don't know how to avoid that, but there's always closing the curtain and blocking the galley with a cart.



Top
   
PostPosted: Mon May 01, 2017 5:47 pm 
Offline
Rank 2
Rank 2

Joined: Thu Jan 31, 2008 11:52 am
Posts: 51
Rookie,
Our procedures used to require a blocker before re-entering the cockpit (not sure about yours). However, before coming out, there was no indication that you were coming out. You simply observed through the peep hole to ensure the area was free and then quickly left, and thereby the predictability was essentially non existent.
It seems many aviation authorities out there are starting to agree.
Do you feel the new procedure is better?
Curious.



Top
   
PostPosted: Mon May 01, 2017 6:02 pm 
Offline
Top Poster
Top Poster

Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 7:10 am
Posts: 7253
3down&loct wrote:
Rookie,
Our procedures used to require a blocker before re-entering the cockpit (not sure about yours). However, before coming out, there was no indication that you were coming out. You simply observed through the peep hole to ensure the area was free and then quickly left, and thereby the predictability was essentially non existent.
It seems many aviation authorities out there are starting to agree.
Do you feel the new procedure is better?
Curious.


Yes I do. It prevents a pilot from being deliberately locked out of the FD.

If a blocker is effective when the pilot goes back in - even having given any threat a 2 minute warning - why wouldn't it be when the pilot comes out?



Top
   
PostPosted: Mon May 01, 2017 6:56 pm 
Offline
Rank 2
Rank 2

Joined: Wed Feb 16, 2011 7:31 pm
Posts: 78
One of the dumbest things is having a washroom right outside the cockpit door; as on the 777, and not putting another secure door outside that washroom.

Why are pax ever in that area?

I absolutely agree that pilots leaving/entering the flight deck should be unpredictable; not as a choreographed event as per the "regulatios" made by those with no practical experience in the business.

(Ex 777 Driver)



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

All times are UTC-07:00


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 26 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.