Following the Germanwings crash of 2015, many Regulators, including our own in Canada, implemented a Two person in the cockpit rule. This required for a pilot wanting to leave the flight deck for any reason to be replaced by another member of the crew, normally a flight attendant, while the pilot was outside the flight deck.

You will recall, that in the Germanwings accident, a suicidal pilot waited for his colleague to leave the flight deck, and kept him locked out while he put his aircraft into a dive, crashing the aircraft into the side of a mountain, killing himself and everyone on board in the process.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germanwings_Flight_9525

https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/germanwin ... -1.3010494

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa/t ... in%202015.

In Canada, this Minimum two person in the flight deck rule was in effect for 15 months.

This is a survey.

It increased my distraction. Send me a flight attendant to babysit me while the other guy is in the bathroom and I'll start missing radio calls etc while I entertain my babysitter.

Arnie Pye wrote: ↑Mon Jun 29, 2020 9:57 am It increased my distraction. Send me a flight attendant to babysit me while the other guy is in the bathroom and I'll start missing radio calls etc while I entertain my babysitter.

The obvious solution it seems is to not entertain the other person, then you won’t miss radio calls.

In 2016 EASA conducted a survey in 56 countries on this subject and only received 3784 replies.

https://www.easa.europa.eu/newsroom-and ... mmendation

I notice here that over 500 have read this survey but just over 40 gave their opinion. Yet all it takes is one click. And unlike the EASA survey, its anonymous.

The two person In the cockpit recommendation was pulled by EASA, based in part on the survey’s results and many non EASA countries, taking a cue from EASA, also pulled their own Two person in the cockpit rules or recommendation.

.

As noted there have been confirmed and suspected cases of pilots committing suicide either planned or by seizing an opportunity while left alone in a secure flight deck. This is not a hypothetical exercise. The second person in the flight deck has one job, to open the door if for any reason the other pilot is unable to gain access.

It’s impossible to see how this is not a prudent, harmless and costless precaution, particularly as having a flight attendant up front for almost any other reason is not opposed at all. In fact most pilots I know would lobby hard to permit their families up front including me.

I think it has some good and bad.

For suicidal pilots it sure helps to have a second person in the flight deck.

However for hijacking it's something else. You are calling a FA to come up front and then he/she comes up and depending on the procedure calls again to say at the door. It is also increasing the time the time the door is open for a malicious person to try and come in.

The assumption that you are making Rockie is that the FA is sane. This cannot be ascertained nor guaranteed. Pilot to pilot interaction in the flight planning room, the walk to the gate, the coffee lineup, and such, can give warnings of the mental state of each. This does not happen between FA’s and Pilots. So, one could be letting a perfectly sane pilot to the mercy of a perfectly insane FA. On the aircraft we both flew, that perfectly sane or insane FA stood to our right and slightly behind us. They were in the perfect, advantageous position to inflict quick physical harm to us. Just a thought.
Cheers.

tailgunner wrote: ↑Wed Jul 01, 2020 12:56 pm The assumption that you are making Rockie is that the FA is sane. This cannot be ascertained nor guaranteed. Pilot to pilot interaction in the flight planning room, the walk to the gate, the coffee lineup, and such, can give warnings of the mental state of each. This does not happen between FA’s and Pilots. So, one could be letting a perfectly sane pilot to the mercy of a perfectly insane FA. On the aircraft we both flew, that perfectly sane or insane FA stood to our right and slightly behind us. They were in the perfect, advantageous position to inflict quick physical harm to us. Just a thought.
Cheers.

Unless you’re a clinical psychologist, a walk to the airplane will tell you whether or not someone is in a good mood or bad mood, not that they’re suicidal, from my non psychologically educated opinion.
From what I do know, from life experience people who have real thoughts of suicide, hide them very well and generally don’t want to take others with them. I know of a pilot who flew all day, went to the hotel for the night, left a note for the hotel staff to not enter the room and just call the police. The ones that take a plane load with them are, again in my uneducated opinion, suffering from psychological issues beyond suicidal and are also good at appearing normal. Also, some have called for psychological testing, that’s a snapshot in time and unless you have weekly visits to a therapist, this won’t catch the change in life type things that lead to suicidal thoughts.
As for the original poll, I think you should ad another option, neither, unsure implies you don’t know, a neither option would fit me better.
I don’t mind not having the procedure but also didn’t mind having it, the radio calls missed is a poor excuse. I can have a conversation with the other pilot or a flight attendant and hear other calls, have I missed some, absolutely, in both situations. Obviously this is not going on during critical phase of flight.

tailgunner wrote: ↑Wed Jul 01, 2020 12:56 pm The assumption that you are making Rockie is that the FA is sane. This cannot be ascertained nor guaranteed. Pilot to pilot interaction in the flight planning room, the walk to the gate, the coffee lineup, and such, can give warnings of the mental state of each. This does not happen between FA’s and Pilots. So, one could be letting a perfectly sane pilot to the mercy of a perfectly insane FA. On the aircraft we both flew, that perfectly sane or insane FA stood to our right and slightly behind us. They were in the perfect, advantageous position to inflict quick physical harm to us. Just a thought.
Cheers.

Your logic could be applied to anybody in the flight deck. Do you consistently deny jumpseat riders all the time because of your concerns? Do you really know the person sitting behind you is more sane than the flight attendant behind the door?

You could solve all these problems by putting all the pilots in a secure ground facility and flying remotely...if anyone has issues or needs a break the plane can be transferred to another person. Reach eight hours over the Pacific? Clock out and go home and let the net person on the roster continue the flight while you sleep in your own bed! Plus the airlines would save money without hotels, per diems, crew meals, etc. Just think what they could sell the front seats for!

Having a F/A babysit the Pilots is the most absurd thing on earth and I understand that it continues in the US. So here's a true story, Captain notices the F/O behaving oddly, is in and out of the Flight Deck every few minutes, doesn't pull his seat up to the controls, saying and doing weird things.

So when the F/O leaves the Flight Deck the Captain locks him out and diverts the Airplane. F/O goes nuts trying to get back into the Flight Deck, eventually restrained in the forward galley.

Land and he is taken off the Airplane by ambulance, if I remember correctly was subsequently diagnosed with a Brain Tumor and received the help he needed.

So add the F/A babysitter to this mess, who do they believe, the Captain diverting the Airplane or the F/O wanting back in the Flight Deck? F/A's are a shining example of a "little knowledge is a dangerous thing." Conceivably a newhire F/A, after a couple weeks of training, is now the judge and jury over the Pilot in Command!

Thank goodness, FOR ONCE, the monkeys weren't running the zoo.

This is for risk mitigation, not risk elimination. If you want to eliminate risk, don’t fly.

It’s the same as two-key nuclear warheads. It’s very unlikely that two people are going to have the same crazy idea to unilaterally start WWIII. As soon as you have 1 vs 1–doesn’t matter who it is—your plans are probably going out the window. That’s why the 9/11 hijackers flew on a Tuesday, picked empty flights, and had many attackers in each cockpit in addition to their pilots.

Stu Pidasso wrote: ↑Sun Jul 05, 2020 2:17 pm Having a F/A babysit the Pilots is the most absurd thing on earth and I understand that it continues in the US. So here's a true story, Captain notices the F/O behaving oddly, is in and out of the Flight Deck every few minutes, doesn't pull his seat up to the controls, saying and doing weird things.

So when the F/O leaves the Flight Deck the Captain locks him out and diverts the Airplane. F/O goes nuts trying to get back into the Flight Deck, eventually restrained in the forward galley.

Land and he is taken off the Airplane by ambulance, if I remember correctly was subsequently diagnosed with a Brain Tumor and received the help he needed.

So add the F/A babysitter to this mess, who do they believe, the Captain diverting the Airplane or the F/O wanting back in the Flight Deck? F/A's are a shining example of a "little knowledge is a dangerous thing." Conceivably a newhire F/A, after a couple weeks of training, is now the judge and jury over the Pilot in Command!

Thank goodness, FOR ONCE, the monkeys weren't running the zoo.

So the F/A would already be in the cockpit at this point, with the F/O hammering at the door. “Oh, gee... we’d better let the crazy guy in!”

The captain says the F/O is off his rocker, so I’m diverting. You really think an F/A is going to challenge him on this? Give me a break.. of course not. Who do you think restrained the F/O in the galley and knew where the handcuffs were? The F/As with the help they directed from the passengers. Not the captain, that’s for damn sure.

Now if the captain decided after this to point the plane near some tall buildings, an F/A is the safety valve. He or she can open the door, call for help, call on the radio, try to de-escalate, or thwart or deter the captain’s actions. Again.. situations where it’s 1:1 aren’t very favourable for someone trying to do something bad. You have to have a numerical advantage—usually a hefty one—for it to work.

And this is common fucking sense. You don’t need 20,000 hours of snoozing in command to tell a dangerous situation from a non-dangerous one. I think this is egos being bruised more than anything.

Ifly....
Most FA’s haven’t got a clue on how to open the door. They have less ability to “call for help”. And most have no idea how to find a radio , a mike, and a PTT. Your suggestions that these would be things they can do is pure fantasy, and something only seen in the movies.
What they could do quite quickly and easily is cause harm to the only pilot in the FD if they wanted to. They have the physical advantage due to the seated pilot and them standing. Unless the pilot was prepared for a physical altercation, a quick strike from a determined FA could prove devastating.
I acknowledge that the chances of this is extremely remote, but so is a Germanwings scenario. The FEDEX attack in the cockpit proves that it can happen.

Your post isn't worthy of a reply ifly, leave Command of the Airliners to the adults and keep working on the crosswind landings. Pretty sure your Instructor will be sending you solo soon.

You obviously know nothing about the topic and are unable to articulate a reasoned response.

Why drag this back up?

It's done, it was a waste of paper.

I assume this was addressed to me ?

Because in this middle of the COVID crisis, the worst aviation has ever known, I want to be certain any new regulations that are implemented are thought out and science based and meant to increase safety, rather of rules whose only purpose is to make the general public believe that something was done, as was the case for this Two Person in the Flight Deck rule.

I believe that the job of the Minister is to take actions that make aviation safer.
I also believe that it is NOT the job of the Minister to take any action whose only purpose is to make the public BELIEVE that an action to make him safer was taken.

Rules and Regulations should not be implemented solely to control public PERCEPTION or alleviate FEAR.

I have a problem with applying policy to abberations. These incidents are certainly serious, but it has all gone bananas in my opinion, this obsession with security. If they had applied common sense to the security already in place in Boston those years ago, 911 would not have happened as it did. If somebody had noticed, or paid the slightest attention to the nutter in Germanwings beforehand, he wouldn't have been allowed to go to work. It has just made people fear something they shouldn't. But it is easy to say from my comfy chair at home, and thankfully I am not in charge of anything.

Stu Pidasso wrote: ↑Sun Jul 05, 2020 2:17 pm Having a F/A babysit the Pilots is the most absurd thing on earth

You don't even know what the FA's job was in the flight deck, but at least your post proves your objection is driven by nothing but a bruised ego.

tailgunner wrote: ↑Mon Jul 06, 2020 7:48 am Ifly....
Most FA’s haven’t got a clue on how to open the door.

Then how do they get out after bringing you coffee and listening to how smart and handsome you are for twenty minutes?

Rockie,
The FA’s usually just turned around and pushed on the locked door over and over and over again. The trained pilot actioned the automatic door control.
Cheers.

tailgunner wrote: ↑Tue Jul 07, 2020 10:44 am Rockie,
The FA’s usually just turned around and pushed on the locked door over and over and over again. The trained pilot actioned the automatic door control.
Cheers.

I think not. Most humans can figure out even a door they've never seen before after two tries, and since it's usually the in-charge up there they all know how to do it. You figured it out right? Did you have to be shown how to open the door your first time in the airplane?

As it pertains to this discussion, all it takes is one sentence to train the cabin crew not only what their job is up there but how to do it. One sentence. And you're implying most cabin crew aren't intelligent enough to get it. Nice.

To gain access to a flight deck you need to be a pilot or F/A (in my airline anyways).

Two questions:

- how long does it take a pilot to gain access to the flight deck? (From beginning of training until that airline job). (At least a couple of years)

- how long does it take an F/A to gain access? (From off the street to sitting in that cockpit). (A few months, if that).

Your training allows you to sit behind the controls and be one of the flight crew, not enter the door. If Transport Canada and your company didn’t trust you to safely fly the airplane you wouldn’t be regardless of any “two in the FD” policy.

Rockie wrote: ↑Wed Jul 08, 2020 3:11 am Your training allows you to sit behind the controls and be one of the flight crew, not enter the door. If Transport Canada and your company didn’t trust you to safely fly the airplane you wouldn’t be regardless of any “two in the FD” policy.

As expected, you missed the point completely. For those who didn’t miss the point, they could see where I’m going with it, and why the entire LH group, and many airlines around the world have gotten away from this procedure.

There is something called risk assessment that airlines do before making procedural s changes.

Having said that, I asked a simple question no? Not being able to answer a simple question tells a lot about someone.