AVCANADA

It is currently Sat Oct 21, 2017 12:08 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: Fri May 05, 2017 12:42 pm 
Offline
Rank 8
Rank 8

Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2004 1:46 pm
Posts: 990
Location: south saturn delta
Nothing is guaranteed. Don't be a pedant. Life is a series of probabilities.


Top
   
PostPosted: Fri May 05, 2017 12:51 pm 
Offline
Top Poster
Top Poster

Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 7:10 am
Posts: 7253
Glad you realize it's not guaranteed. Speaking of probabilities there are literally hundreds of abnormal ECAM and QRH procedures that I don't expect to ever see in the course of my long career, yet they exist. Given the certain and suspected cases of pilot suicide after locking the other pilot out why does this procedure get people's panties so twisted? It's just a harmless procedure, and even if you think it's pointless that doesn't explain the level of animosity towards it.

You're offended by it. Just admit it.



Top
   
PostPosted: Fri May 05, 2017 2:06 pm 
Offline
Rank 8
Rank 8

Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2004 1:46 pm
Posts: 990
Location: south saturn delta
I readily admit that. I am professionally offended by the implication that, when the other pilot goes to the toilet, I will commit murder/suicide. It is deeply, deeply offensive more so because the policy isn't grounded in any kind of reasonable risk probability. Why do we have an MEL? Why do we only have two engines? Why aren't all pilots required to sleep at the airport the day before their duty so that startup OTP isn't contingent on highway traffic or driving conditions? Why give police guns? What if they shoot somebody? What if they're crazy themselves? Who will police the police?!

My point is that the probability of that particular risk is too low to make the hassle, insult, and increase in other risk factors worthwhile to keep the policy.



Top
   
PostPosted: Fri May 05, 2017 2:31 pm 
Offline
Top Poster
Top Poster

Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 7:10 am
Posts: 7253
Finally someone who's honest about it at least.


Top
   
PostPosted: Fri May 05, 2017 2:44 pm 
Offline
Rank 8
Rank 8

Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2004 1:46 pm
Posts: 990
Location: south saturn delta
Not sure what you've proven but you sure seem satisfied.


Top
   
PostPosted: Fri May 05, 2017 3:11 pm 
Offline
Rank 2
Rank 2

Joined: Thu Jan 03, 2013 8:28 am
Posts: 61
Rockie wrote:
It's just a harmless procedure, .....


Actually, it's not. As others have said numerous times, it's introducing another (more significant?) threat into the flight deck.

The Germans have come to the conclusion of exactly that. Hopefully other regulatory bodies will follow suit.



Top
   
PostPosted: Fri May 05, 2017 3:19 pm 
Offline
Top Poster
Top Poster

Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 7:10 am
Posts: 7253
Dockjock wrote:
Not sure what you've proven but you sure seem satisfied.


I'm happy that someone finally admitted they want a safety precaution eliminated because their feelings are hurt, not veiling it behind a false safety argument. Like this:

Impact wrote:
Actually, it's not. As others have said numerous times, it's introducing another (more significant?) threat into the flight deck.

The Germans have come to the conclusion of exactly that. Hopefully other regulatory bodies will follow suit.


Door opens - FA steps in, pilot steps out - door closes.
Door opens - pilot steps in, FA steps out - door closes.

Please explain how this increases risk. If you think it does I presume you will also refrain from ordering coffee or a meal as the door opening for that also increases risk. Presumably you will refuse all requests for jump seaters as a result of the increased risk as well. Door remains closed with only operating pilots permitted access to the F/D...period.

If pilots don't agree to that it betrays the safety argument for what it is, a smoke screen.



Top
   
PostPosted: Fri May 05, 2017 6:48 pm 
Offline
Rank 8
Rank 8

Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2004 1:46 pm
Posts: 990
Location: south saturn delta
The idea that I can't be unsupervised in the cockpit of the airplane of which I am in command is offensive. Ditto for the second in command. Don't make it sound like I'm sad about it, incredulous is more like it. I don't subscribe to the idea that the flight attendant themself is a threat, we have FAs up front for dozens of other reasons on the regular with no problem. The problem is, the procedure is guarding against an event so unlikely, so deep down a hole of other failed checks and balances (an undiagnosed suicidal murderous pilot, or diagnosed as paranoid and unreported) AND it introduces other perhaps more significant threats in the process that, on balance, the net effect on safety and security is negative.


Top
   
PostPosted: Fri May 05, 2017 9:10 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.
Impact wrote:
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:


It has everything to do with who you trust!

Rockie, you really do a great job of making a fool out of yourself. Go through the whole convo, see if just once I stated my opinion. I did not. Look at your last post directed to me. You tell me what my opinion is? Really, only a fool would do that. This proves that you don't read my posts, you make the scenario in your head, and you believe it.

For this reason, I won't go any further with discussing this with you.

One day you will learn why they did this, and you will see that I gave you so many hints, but due to your pre determined thoughts, you couldn't see them. It's a real shame. As pilots, it's extremely dangerous for us to have a pre determined or pre conceived thought about something, basing that notion on a "made up" reason that we created. Evidence based practice my friend. Look up the meaning. It's your friend.



Top
   
PostPosted: Sat May 06, 2017 12:54 am 
Offline
Top Poster
Top Poster

Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 7:10 am
Posts: 7253
Yes Jack, go back and read the thread. I asked you for your opinion on why FA's are a threat which you still haven't answered, and I still don't know. It was a question, not a statement.

Dockjock wrote:
The idea that I can't be unsupervised in the cockpit of the airplane of which I am in command is offensive. Ditto for the second in command. Don't make it sound like I'm sad about it, incredulous is more like it. I don't subscribe to the idea that the flight attendant themself is a threat, we have FAs up front for dozens of other reasons on the regular with no problem. The problem is, the procedure is guarding against an event so unlikely, so deep down a hole of other failed checks and balances (an undiagnosed suicidal murderous pilot, or diagnosed as paranoid and unreported) AND it introduces other perhaps more significant threats in the process that, on balance, the net effect on safety and security is negative.


Yes I know for you it's a personal insult. I am acknowledging that and congratulating you for your honesty. It would be nice if everybody was as honest in their reasons then we could dispense with this silly argument FA's are a threat. Then we could start addressing the silly argument that you aren't trusted to fly the airplane safely.



Top
   
PostPosted: Sat May 06, 2017 6:30 am 
Offline
Rank 2
Rank 2

Joined: Thu Jan 03, 2013 8:28 am
Posts: 61
Actually, I'm not personally insulted. I just think it was a bad decision.

Rockie, until you acknowledge that F/A's are a thread, this discussion will continue in its predictable circular fashion.

The Germans and Swiss are acknowledged for their analytical skills. Obviously, after analyzing the threats logically, they've determined it is safer to revert back to what was in place all along. Essentially, they trust pilots more than F/A's, which I can't disagree with.



Top
   
PostPosted: Sat May 06, 2017 7:20 am 
Offline
Rank 2
Rank 2

Joined: Thu Jan 03, 2013 8:28 am
Posts: 61
Dockjock wrote:
Not sure what you've proven but you sure seem satisfied.


Reminds me of when a dog lays in a ditch waiting for a car to drive by, briefly chases it, then proudly trots back home satisfied that he protected his home. Repeat. Happy dog. :)



Top
   
PostPosted: Sat May 06, 2017 7:11 pm 
Offline
Top Poster
Top Poster

Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 7:10 am
Posts: 7253
For there to be a mature discussion about this certain facts need to be realized:

1. TC, your employer and the travelling public trust you to fly the aircraft safety. If that weren't true you'd be kicking a can down the road somewhere looking for a non-flying job.

2. Pilots are not immune from mental illness.

3. The flight deck door is just as effective at keeping the good guys out as the bad.

Impact wrote:
Rockie, until you acknowledge that F/A's are a thread,


Explain if you can why they are a threat and you are not.



Top
   
PostPosted: Mon May 08, 2017 7:42 am 
Offline
Rank 11
Rank 11

Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 2:33 am
Posts: 3084
Location: YYC 230 degree radial at about 10 DME
Rockie wrote:
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.


Pretty sure it's to unlock the cockpit door when the other FCM gives the secret knock.



Top
   
PostPosted: Sat May 13, 2017 8:27 am 
Offline
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
User avatar

Joined: Thu Aug 19, 2004 3:49 pm
Posts: 1719
Location: of my pants is unknown.
Rockie,

Did you ever take my advice and contact Swiss and ask them directly for their reasoning behind the change?

Or are you just too afraid of the logical, rational answer they'll give you, and want to continue getting yourself a new one torn by various other posters?

Sorry, but I will no longer engage in your false arguments. You say you want answers, but are unwilling to hear ones you don't agree with. So what's the point?

The dog chasing the car analogy was particularly apt.


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


Top
   
PostPosted: Sat May 13, 2017 8:42 am 
Offline
Top Poster
Top Poster

Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 7:10 am
Posts: 7253
complexintentions wrote:
Did you ever take my advice and contact Swiss and ask them directly for their reasoning behind the change?

Or are you just too afraid of the logical, rational answer they'll give you, and want to continue getting yourself a new one torn by various other posters?


Their rationale is public, they are unlikely to give me the real reason. You however still haven't given me a logical, rational reason why the policy should go. All you and anyone else you claim are tearing me a new one say is that the policy doesn't do anything, introduces a threat, or are insulted by it. Insulted by it by the way is the most honest and accurate reason I've ever heard. Your precious, tender little snowflake feelings are hurt by it. You should be embarrassed.

So go ahead Complex, give me an actual logical reason that I can't discredit in two sentences....



Top
   
PostPosted: Fri Jun 16, 2017 5:38 pm 
Offline
Rank 5
Rank 5

Joined: Mon Feb 01, 2010 6:46 am
Posts: 331
Seems Transport Canada is also lifting the rule.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa/transport-canada-two-flight-crew-cockpit-1.4164592


_________________
A mile of road will take you a mile, but a mile of runway can take you anywhere


Top
   
PostPosted: Sat Jun 17, 2017 1:54 pm 
Offline
Rank 2
Rank 2

Joined: Thu Jan 03, 2013 8:28 am
Posts: 61
This is very good news. Common sense has prevailed.


Top
   
PostPosted: Sat Jun 17, 2017 5:36 pm 
Offline
Top Poster
Top Poster

Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 7:10 am
Posts: 7253
Until the next time. And tragically there will be a next time...


Top
   
PostPosted: Sun Jun 18, 2017 7:56 am 
Offline
Rank 2
Rank 2

Joined: Thu Jan 03, 2013 8:28 am
Posts: 61
Rockie wrote:
Until the next time. And tragically there will be a next time...


Yes perhaps, however the risk of a different tragedy associated with an ill-willed/psychotic minimally vetted F/A has just decreased.

I salute TC for doing the right thing. It has made our industry in Canada safer.



Top
   
PostPosted: Sun Jun 18, 2017 8:18 am 
Offline
Rank 10
Rank 10

Joined: Sat Jan 22, 2005 2:24 pm
Posts: 2413
Rockie wrote:
Your precious, tender little snowflake feelings are hurt by it. You should be embarrassed.

So go ahead Complex, give me an actual logical reason that I can't discredit in two sentences....


You should be embarrassed, Rockie. Swallow your pride.

You were wrong, the pilot community at large, the operators, and regulators around the world think your view is wrong. Discredit in 2 sentences? Give me a break, you've already discredited yourself with bullshit snowflake arguments.



Top
   
PostPosted: Sun Jun 18, 2017 2:40 pm 
Offline
Top Poster
Top Poster

Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 7:10 am
Posts: 7253
"Baby-sitters"
"Bathroom monitors"
"Asking permission to go to the bathroom"

These are all anybody refers to it by in private conversations. Nobody ever cites the threat flight attendants pose because you all know it's 100% undiluted b*****it, and here's why in only one sentence:

NONE of you have ever, nor will ever, deny an IC flight attendant access to the flight deck because you think they might be a threat.

As a group we've put our precious tender feelings before safety, so most definitely yes...snowflakes.



Top
   
PostPosted: Sun Jun 18, 2017 4:49 pm 
Offline
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
User avatar

Joined: Thu Aug 19, 2004 3:49 pm
Posts: 1719
Location: of my pants is unknown.
Rockie wrote:

2. Pilots are not immune from mental illness.


I do concede you make a strong case for that point. You come across as more angry and upset about all this, than anyone you accuse of having their feelings hurt. ("100% undiluted bs", etc) There are professionals you could speak with, you know. Is your CAME aware of your anger issues?

Quote:
NONE of you have ever, nor will ever, deny an IC flight attendant access to the flight deck because you think they might be a threat.


Total, utter, logic fail - a perfect encapsulation of the type of arguments you make constantly. You don't seem to grasp that it is precisely the trust required to allow the IC into the flight deck that MOST of us already place in our colleague sitting next to us.

But tell us, Rockie - do you intend to keep having a FA come in and out of the flight deck every time you go take a leak? Even without the rule, there's nothing to prevent you from doing so, since you think it's "safer", right?

Not doing so would make you somewhat of a hypocrite, would it not?


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


Top
   
PostPosted: Sun Jun 18, 2017 4:58 pm 
Offline
Top Poster
Top Poster

Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 7:10 am
Posts: 7253
I might do that Complex, depends on company policy. My concern though is the industry safety as a whole, not the individual sitting next to me which is your logic fail. In a similar vein I'm confident the person next to me won't make stupid life threatening mistakes. I monitor him though just as I'm supposed to, and I don't go into a weepy snit fit when he monitors me just like he's supposed to. I'm pretty sure you don't either, which makes yours and others selective application of hurt feelings extremely puzzling.

Now my question to you is, are you going to prohibit anyone including your FA's from entering the flight deck during flight since you don't trust them? Not doing so would make you somewhat of a hypocrite would it not?

As for the CAME and our so called mitigation strategies, after he asked me the requisite "how do you feel" questions the conversation went like this:

Me: How do you know I'm telling you the truth?

Him: I don't.

Me: How do you know I won't suffer a breakdown before our next chat?

Him: I don't.

Silence.........................



Top
   
PostPosted: Sun Jun 18, 2017 6:11 pm 
Offline
Rank 2
Rank 2

Joined: Wed Nov 05, 2014 2:08 pm
Posts: 89
Rockie, are you still flying as an active airline pilot?
Yesterday's flight was just amaaazzzzzing, no more screwing around and begging for you to go pee.

In the germanwing case, even though the guy went to visit one or two different doctors per week, they couldn't disclosed medical or mental health issues the legislator.



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 Adsense [Bot] and 27 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.