ANZ captain locks copilot out from cockpit?
When would you conduct the tests otherwise?
(Don't get me wrong: I think they are a complete WOFTAM, unless there is reasonable suspicion that a particular person may be D or A affected on duty. But it seems to me to be a bit pointless carrying tests out hours before the person is about to carry out safety critical functions. There would also be the practicalities of finding the person ...)
(Don't get me wrong: I think they are a complete WOFTAM, unless there is reasonable suspicion that a particular person may be D or A affected on duty. But it seems to me to be a bit pointless carrying tests out hours before the person is about to carry out safety critical functions. There would also be the practicalities of finding the person ...)
So we have a Captain who is psychologically unstable, evil, unable to control his emotional state, childish, arrogant, obviously with Asperger's or Autism and who shouldn't be allowed back in the cockpit or allowed to continue his career ever? Anyone else with anything to add?
This all concluded in under 20 posts and from information gathered from a newspaper article.
It IS truly amazing what conclusions can be drawn when the intelligentsia of pprune put their collective heads together, fascinating stuff gentlemen.
This all concluded in under 20 posts and from information gathered from a newspaper article.
It IS truly amazing what conclusions can be drawn when the intelligentsia of pprune put their collective heads together, fascinating stuff gentlemen.
Join Date: Aug 1998
Location: ...second left, past the lights.
Posts: 1,101
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Compylot- yep, that's right! 
Any further questions ?
... No!
Ok then, case closed...
Next on our Sunday Ledger is... "Bottle-fed Sexist Australian Captains who lock..."
Any further questions ?
... No! Ok then, case closed...
Next on our Sunday Ledger is... "Bottle-fed Sexist Australian Captains who lock..."
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: Domaine de la Romanee-Conti
Posts: 1,691
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes
on
1 Post
*If* it's true, then it sounds like a pretty daft thing for the skipper to lose his cool over
I agree that random drug tests are a complete WOFTAM but, once the pr!cks turn up on your flight deck, what exactly can you do about it, refuse?
I agree that random drug tests are a complete WOFTAM but, once the pr!cks turn up on your flight deck, what exactly can you do about it, refuse?
Was the captain trying to replicate MH 370?
Air NZ cockpit lockout and MH370, is there a common factor? | Plane Talking
Air NZ cockpit lockout and MH370, is there a common factor? | Plane Talking
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Not NZ anymore sadly!
Age: 62
Posts: 307
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Peter Clarke
Why does this 'av expert' keep getting quoted?
Air NZ must be loving the press they should have 3 person crews on short haul flights!
Remember he questioned use of twin engined jets on long haul on TV back when MH 370 was news.
Air NZ must be loving the press they should have 3 person crews on short haul flights!
Remember he questioned use of twin engined jets on long haul on TV back when MH 370 was news.
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Australia
Posts: 313
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What's wrong with calling a FA into the cockpit when the pilot needs to have a leak?
If the second body on the flight deck isn't familiar with the operation of the aircraft, how are they going to recognise when the PF is up to no good, let alone do anything about it? Especially if we use an FA as an example, who could well be a young lady of small build with potentially half the body mass of the ne'er-do-well pilot.
The flight deck should be off limits to anybody other than those that need to be there (Pilots, engineers, F/A's etc). DAMP, get them in the crew room without interrupting or delaying vital pre flight procedures. Does the legislation include a "no contact or disruption" clause?
When a crew is delayed, stress levels rise and workloads increase to compensate for the reduced time and commercial implications. The potential for error rises dramatically when the crew is late and rushing to make up time. Imagine if they missed some vital pre flight action or entered some erroneous data as a result of "last minute DAMP" and an accident or incident occurred (other than the lockout!). CASA and the DAMPers would have to be a contributing factor.
When a crew is delayed, stress levels rise and workloads increase to compensate for the reduced time and commercial implications. The potential for error rises dramatically when the crew is late and rushing to make up time. Imagine if they missed some vital pre flight action or entered some erroneous data as a result of "last minute DAMP" and an accident or incident occurred (other than the lockout!). CASA and the DAMPers would have to be a contributing factor.
Sorry, but where does it say that the random testing happened on the flight deck? I've only ever heard of it occurring at sign-on/flight planning. I think if I had testers turn up on my flight deck at T-25, I'd be putting a 45 minute delay on the flight and suggesting we conduct our business elsewhere. But like I say, I haven't heard of it happening.
787/travel
Very good points, if it's true the testers stumped up to the cockpit.
I reckon that if a test is going to be carried out on any crew, it should be before they enter the aircraft.
If the legal technicality is that the crew aren't performing safety critical tasks until they are on board, change the law. (But I still reckon it's a WOFTAM, absent reasonable grounds in specific circumstances.)
(But perhaps we are ignoring the obvious explanation for the behaviour, which explanation accommodates other facts: Does anyone know what the results of the test were ...
)
Very good points, if it's true the testers stumped up to the cockpit.
I reckon that if a test is going to be carried out on any crew, it should be before they enter the aircraft.
If the legal technicality is that the crew aren't performing safety critical tasks until they are on board, change the law. (But I still reckon it's a WOFTAM, absent reasonable grounds in specific circumstances.)
(But perhaps we are ignoring the obvious explanation for the behaviour, which explanation accommodates other facts: Does anyone know what the results of the test were ...
)