AVCANADA

It is currently Sat Oct 21, 2017 2:56 pm

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: Mon May 01, 2017 7:57 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
Who's the bigger threat, a crazy passenger or a crazy pilot (or a crazy flight attendant)?


Top
   
PostPosted: Mon May 01, 2017 8:02 pm 
Offline
Rank 2
Rank 2

Joined: Thu Jan 31, 2008 11:52 am
Posts: 51
Rookie,
"even having given any threat a 2 minute warning - why wouldn't it be when the pilot comes out? "

Not sure what you mean here.

If you run the numbers on the chances of being locked out of the cockpit by a loonie, and still feel threatened then it would probably be in any pilot's interest never to fly again.
The odds of having a serious accident, such as CFIT,etc are many times higher than having a pilot trying to do the same thing that happened on German Wings.
It is very obvious since new rules have been implemented that pilot's that I fly with are drinking far less water and taking far less breaks than before. Not healthy.
As well I honestly believe the current practice is far more of a threat to a terrorist event then what we had before.



Top
   
PostPosted: Tue May 02, 2017 1:19 am 
Offline
Top Poster
Top Poster

Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 7:10 am
Posts: 7256
3down&loct wrote:
Rookie,
"even having given any threat a 2 minute warning - why wouldn't it be when the pilot comes out? "

Not sure what you mean here.


It's very simple. Under your plan a pilot jumps out of the cockpit surprising any would be terrorist with the randomness of his exit foiling his plot to rush the cockpit. Not being a total dummy however he alerts his colleagues that the pilot will be going back in 2 minutes later. They can watch as the pilot does whatever they do to enter, then rush him just as the door unlocks.

What good is randomness coming out when it telegraphs that he's going back in 2 minutes later?

I did actually run the numbers.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suicide_by_pilot

Now, how many times has the cockpit been successfully rushed since 9/11?



Top
   
PostPosted: Tue May 02, 2017 3:50 pm 
Offline
Rank 7
Rank 7

Joined: Sun Oct 09, 2016 8:57 am
Posts: 624
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.


Whos gonna block for you when you only have one FA and they are in the cockpit? Bigger AC that isn't a problem but with smaller regional planes it's an issue.



Top
   
PostPosted: Tue May 02, 2017 4:08 pm 
Offline
Rank 2
Rank 2

Joined: Thu Jan 31, 2008 11:52 am
Posts: 51
Rookie, you said
It's very simple. Under your plan a pilot jumps out of the cockpit surprising any would be terrorist with the randomness of his exit foiling his plot to rush the cockpit. Not being a total dummy however he alerts his colleagues that the pilot will be going back in 2 minutes later. They can watch as the pilot does whatever they do to enter, then rush him just as the door unlocks.

What good is randomness coming out when it telegraphs that he's going back in 2 minutes later?

I did actually run the numbers.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suicide_by_pilot

Now, how many times has the cockpit been successfully rushed since 9/11?

So 18 Suicides.
Flights currently per year- 36 500 000. (over past 5 yrs = 182 500 000)
Lets say on low end average 18 400 000 flights per year from 1980-2012 = 588 800 000 flights + 182 500 000 Total=771 300 000 flights
Odds it will happen are 1 in 42 850 000 flights (rough calculation of course) I think you get the picture. I can't even figure out percentage as my calculator comes up with values so small I don't know how to write it.



Top
   
PostPosted: Tue May 02, 2017 6:48 pm 
Offline
Top Poster
Top Poster

Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 7:10 am
Posts: 7256
Since 9/11 and the advent of the reinforced cockpit door there are two known cases of pilots crashing airplanes after locking the other pilot out:

LAM 470, and;
German Wings 9525

183 dead.

That doesn't count the suspected cases of the same thing like Malaysia 370, nor the cases before 9/11 like Egyptair and Silkair.

Number of successful airborne cockpit breaches since 9/11...zero.

Deaths...zero.


I don't know, you tell me. At what point does reality supercede probabilities?



Top
   
PostPosted: Wed May 03, 2017 12:45 pm 
Offline
Rank 5
Rank 5
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jan 29, 2010 4:46 pm
Posts: 322
Location: In a van down by the river.
The removal of this rule is due to a threat assessment.


Top
   
PostPosted: Wed May 03, 2017 1:45 pm 
Offline
Top Poster
Top Poster

Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 7:10 am
Posts: 7256
Jack Klumpus wrote:
The removal of this rule is due to a threat assessment.


Nonsense. If that were true the flight deck would be permanently closed to everyone except operating pilots.



Top
   
PostPosted: Thu May 04, 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.
Personally, I'm amazed that Swiss/LH hasn't hired an A320 pilot from Canada, who apparently knows far more about such things than they do. What is WRONG with them? :mrgreen:

Myself, I'll celebrate a small, rare victory for common sense. And hope it's contagious.

But it's hard to cure stupid when people actually seem to prefer to be ill.


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


Top
   
PostPosted: Thu May 04, 2017 7:50 am 
Offline
Top Poster
Top Poster

Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 7:10 am
Posts: 7256
Do you have something other than insults to offer this discussion?

For instance how is safety decreased by having a foolproof, reliable, alternate means of accessing the flight deck?. How is safety compromised by a FA being in the flight deck while the other pilot is in the bathroom, when it hasn't been for seven decades previously for any other reason? And won't be after this rule goes away? Why is a FA commuting full time in the flight deck not a hazard, but is when they're in there for 2 minutes in compliance of this rule? Same goes for pilots who aren't part of the operating crew?

Like you I'm looking for some common sense here.



Top
   
PostPosted: Thu May 04, 2017 9:42 pm 
Offline
Rank 5
Rank 5
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jan 29, 2010 4:46 pm
Posts: 322
Location: In a van down by the river.
Rockie wrote:
Jack Klumpus wrote:
The removal of this rule is due to a threat assessment.


Nonsense. If that were true the flight deck would be permanently closed to everyone except operating pilots.


What are you basing your "nonsense' comment on? Just personal opinion I'd say.

I'm basing mine on information from Lufthansa, but who knows, perhaps they are wrong and you are correct.

It's too bad you only saw a threat assessment equal to locking down the door forever. There is a thing called risk mitigation, which we do before every flight. Using your logic, we won't fly at all (never open the door). But we do fly, and we discuss how we will mitigate our threat. Them not using a cabin crew inside to relieve us, is a threat mitigation.

Does that better help you understand how your reply to me was completely useless?



Top
   
PostPosted: Fri May 05, 2017 3:36 am 
Offline
Top Poster
Top Poster

Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 7:10 am
Posts: 7256
Other airlines are choosing to keep the rule. Explain that.

Jack Klumpus wrote:
It's too bad you only saw a threat assessment equal to locking down the door forever. There is a thing called risk mitigation, which we do before every flight.


Explain the threat to having a flight attendant in the cockpit for two minutes, and measure that threat against having people in the flight deck for other purposes than relieving pilots to go to the bathroom.

I had a flight attendant in the cockpit yesterday commuting, could just as well have been a pilot I've never met before. Explain why that isn't a threat, but having a FA in the cockpit for two minutes for a bathroom break is.

I see a threat with mental health combined with a non-breachable door backed up by actual real world events that I've listed. Explain some good reason not to have this rule.



Top
   
PostPosted: Fri May 05, 2017 4:47 am 
Offline
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
User avatar

Joined: Thu Aug 19, 2004 3:49 pm
Posts: 1719
Location: of my pants is unknown.
Quote:
"Other airlines are choosing to keep the rule. Explain that."


What's to explain? Are you suggesting that every airline has identical policies in all areas? Good grief. This proposed change came out, what, 3 minutes ago?

Attempting to convince you of anything is pointless, Rockie. A true debate is only possible if one has a mind open to the possibility of being changed. I've expressed my satisfaction with some sanity prevailing, and am moving on. Will this change of rule spread? I hope so. Of course, there will be outfits that cling to outdated procedures. That's always been the case.

So, if it's some sort of justification you truly want (doubtful), why not contact Swiss/Lufthansa/Austrian directly and ask them for a more satisfactory explanation as to their decision than we AvCanada minions can possibly hope to provide? I'm sure they'd be delighted to engage with you and receive the benefit of your uh, logic.

Swiss International Air Lines Ltd.
Media Relations
P.O. Box, 8058 Zurich Airport
Switzerland
Phone:+41 848 773 773
media@swiss.com
SWISS.COM

Please post their reply for all of us.


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


Top
   
PostPosted: Fri May 05, 2017 5:36 am 
Offline
Top Poster
Top Poster

Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 7:10 am
Posts: 7256
You haven't presented any argument Complex. You've just blathered on about how nonsensical the rule is without explaining why. Explain why an alternate means of accessing the cockpit is bad. Explain why a FA in the cockpit is a threat when it has never been before this rule. Explain why having people in the cockpit commuting or on pass travel is not a threat, but a FA in there for a bathroom break is.

Come on Complex, I challenge you to use your brain instead of your fragile ego and insults, and let's have a discussion.



Top
   
PostPosted: Fri May 05, 2017 8:06 am 
Offline
Rank 5
Rank 5
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jan 29, 2010 4:46 pm
Posts: 322
Location: In a van down by the river.
Rockie, I will not explain why no other airline hasn't changed their policy. This is not detrimental to this conversation, nor is there any reason for it. Why does lufthansa always say their callsign first and then the clearance? No other airline does that. Right.

Why is a flight attendant a threat? By reading your replies, it's clear that you haven't recognized the possible threat. I'm not the one who will post it online. As far as what I said earlier, I'll say it again. It was due to a threat assessment.

Ask some lufthansa pilots, they'll explain it to you.

I'm trying really hard to explain but you're just not accepting anything.

Rockie wrote:

I had a flight attendant in the cockpit yesterday commuting, could just as well have been a pilot I've never met before. Explain why that isn't a threat, but having a FA in the cockpit for two minutes for a bathroom break is.


Really? A flight attendant is the same as a pilot sitting in that seat? I don't agree at all. How long did it take that flight attendant to be in that seat? From day one of their career? Couple of weeks of ground training? Howbout the pilot. To become an air Canada pilot. How many years doea it take for someone to be a pilot at air Canada?

You see, the two are very different, hence you're logic and thought are wrong. And for this reason, you are not understanding the threat.

Also, this is not yet policy at lufthansa.



Top
   
PostPosted: Fri May 05, 2017 8:13 am 
Offline
Top Poster
Top Poster

Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 7:10 am
Posts: 7256
No Jack, explain why you think FA's in the cockpit are a threat. Then explain why they weren't prior to 13 months ago, and won't be in June.

As for your somewhat conceited rant about pilots vs. flight attendants, what qualifications do you need to sit in the jump seat?



Top
   
PostPosted: Fri May 05, 2017 10:02 am 
Offline
Rank 2
Rank 2

Joined: Thu Jan 03, 2013 8:28 am
Posts: 61
Scrapping that illogical requirement to have an F/A in the flight deck is a good thing.

What it boils down to is this: Do you trust a pilot more than an F/A?

I'd be far more likely to trust a pilot who has went through the career scrutiny to be at the controls of an aircraft, than an F/A who may have just walked off the street and went through a 6 week course.

The Germans showed leadership and courage by taking this recent course of action. I commend them.



Top
   
PostPosted: Fri May 05, 2017 10:34 am 
Offline
Top Poster
Top Poster

Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 7:10 am
Posts: 7256
So...you think flight attendants are a threat and should never be permitted in the flight deck then?

And what does the length of their course have to do with it? They are RAIC holders who have undergone security screening and are members of your crew entrusted with all kinds of things including YOUR safety if there's a fire in the cabin or a real threat to the cockpit. It's also likely that person has spent entire flights sitting right behind the pilots in the jump seat commuting or travelling on passes, and will still in the future, yet now all of a sudden they're a threat for the two minutes it takes you to go to the bathroom?

Really?

Explain why you think the rule is illogical.



Top
   
PostPosted: Fri May 05, 2017 11:00 am 
Offline
Rank 2
Rank 2

Joined: Thu Jan 03, 2013 8:28 am
Posts: 61
Rockie wrote:
So...you think flight attendants are a threat and should never be permitted in the flight deck then?


:lol: Nice try. I suggest that you don't try to put words in my mouth.

All things taken into account, I trust a pilot more than I do an F/A. Don't get me wrong. I harbour no ill will against F/A's, however on a scale of who do I trust more, I'd choose a pilot.



Top
   
PostPosted: Fri May 05, 2017 11:19 am 
Offline
Top Poster
Top Poster

Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 7:10 am
Posts: 7256
I was asking you, not putting words in your mouth. Feel free to answer the question. Also it's got nothing to do with who you trust more, it's a safety measure that's all. Explain what's illogical about it.


Top
   
PostPosted: Fri May 05, 2017 11:27 am 
Offline
Rank 5
Rank 5
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jan 29, 2010 4:46 pm
Posts: 322
Location: In a van down by the river.
Rockie, this isn't going anywhere with you. You don't seem to answer anything that I say.

Tell me then. Why you you think lufthansa did this?



Top
   
PostPosted: Fri May 05, 2017 11:37 am 
Offline
Rank 2
Rank 2

Joined: Thu Jan 03, 2013 8:28 am
Posts: 61
Rockie wrote:
Also it's got nothing to do with who you trust more, ......


Actually, it has everything to do with who you trust more. That's the crux of the issue. :goodman:



Top
   
PostPosted: Fri May 05, 2017 12:26 pm 
Offline
Top Poster
Top Poster

Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 7:10 am
Posts: 7256
I think LH is doing away with the rule because they're offended by it, just like you and many other pilots. You still haven't told me why the rule is illogical, and I suspect you don't know why the FA is up there to begin with. Again, just like most FA's and pilots who are against it.

There are carriers keeping the rule, so I'm guessing their pilots egos aren't as fragile.



Top
   
PostPosted: Fri May 05, 2017 12:36 pm 
Offline
Rank 8
Rank 8

Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2004 1:46 pm
Posts: 990
Location: south saturn delta
Glad it's gone. The baseline assumtion for an airline pilot is that he/she is sane. Has to be. Ergo, the policy is stupid. Who can forget that it was implemented on what, two days notice? As a reaction to an incident yet to be investigated where the wreckage hadn't even cooled off yet. It's just not nessessary. That some airlines are keeping it doesn't make it valid. Lots of airlines have policies that are, how to put this, less than sensical.


Top
   
PostPosted: Fri May 05, 2017 12:38 pm 
Offline
Top Poster
Top Poster

Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 7:10 am
Posts: 7256
Dockjock wrote:
Glad it's gone. The baseline assumtion for an airline pilot is that he/she is sane. Has to be.


You can guarantee that?



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: Google [Bot] and 22 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.