Originally Posted by NigelOnDraft View Post
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.
Please consider the following scenario
- Buzzer goes off, Capt & FA in cockpit.
- Capt assess the person requesting entry is a security hazard and wishes to deny them entry
- FA decides the person outside the door is to be permitted entry.
and now please answer:
- Under the "policy", whose decision is final?
- In practical terms, should they disagree, whose decision is the one that can be made to apply?
I do not know whether the airlines with the policy have specified the above, my employer did not have the policy so I cannot help. But were I to operate as Captain under the policy, I would wish to ensure the policy made the answers (and others) clear to all.
I believe life has moved on since last week, and risks that were not apparent prior to last week are now known world wide. IMO this policy adds clear new risks, now the "2 in cockpit" rule is so widely known and practiced.