Originally Posted by
NigelOnDraft
I think there is now much greater awareness of the rule, and its benefits and risks. However, what is clear is that by "adding" the rule, the purpose of that second person has changed - and not insignificantly
As I understand the proposals, as I've seen it in action, as I understand what the FAA has always required (since locked doors), the purpose of the second person remains unchanged - it is to be able to "open the goddamn door". Nothing else. Otherwise could you explain what has changed on the airlines, and in regulatory environments, that already had this as SOP ?
It may or may not have helped in this case, it may or may not deter similar events (as with the locked door, we do not and will not know). What we do know, or can find out, is how many flights have been compromised by a lone pilot behind a locked door (some we know, some we can only suspect), and how many have been compromised by FA + lone pilot.