ANZ captain locks copilot out from cockpit?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2001
Posts: 62
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
MID AIR DRAMA ON AIR NZ
This reported today in the NZ Herald:
Two Air New Zealand pilots were stood down and their cabin crew offered counselling after a frightening mid-air incident on a packed transtasman flight.
The drama unfolded on flight NZ176 between Perth and Auckland on May 21, when the first officer was locked out of the cockpit for two minutes.
The captain did not respond to requests to open the locked door, alarming crew. The pair had apparently fallen out over a take-off delay.
One expert says two minutes is "an eternity" on a flight — and the incident, on a Boeing 777-200 carrying 303 people, has sparked calls for a third crew member to be added to flight decks so no one is ever alone in the cockpit.
Air NZ spokeswoman Marie Hosking said the first officer and crew became concerned after the captain did not respond to three requests over two minutes from a cabin crew member to open the cockpit door.
The first officer eventually used an alternative method to access the cockpit.
For security reasons, the airline would not say how.
"Naturally, cabin crew operating the flight were concerned about the inability to contact the captain and and safety manager Errol Burtenshaw.
They were offered the support of the company's employee assistance programme after the flight.
Both pilots were stood down — the captain for two weeks and the first officer for a week, and given counselling and additional training.
There was "some tension" between the pilots after a 13-minute delay to the flight's departure after the first officer had to take part in a random drug and alcohol test.
"This departure delay frustrated the captain who prides himself on operational efficiency."
Safety and security were paramount and the incident was "unfortunate", Burtenshaw said.
"Both pilots have learned a valuable lesson around the need to communicate better with peers."
He said the captain did not respond or open the door because he was approaching a navigational waypoint and in his cockpit monitor saw a cabin crew member rather than the first officer ringing.
The airline provided a report on the incident to the Civil Aviation Authority. Spokesman Mike Richards said it was satisfied with Air NZ's actions.
But aviation commentator Peter Clark said the incident showed it was time all airlines put a third crew member in the cockpit. "After [the disappearance of Malaysia Airlines flight] MH370 there's definitely questions being asked about whether there should be more than two people on the flight deck." quite anxious," said the national carrier's operational integrity
The Beijing-bound Boeing 777 and its 239 passengers and crew vanished after the plane left Kuala Lumpur on March 8. A Malaysian investigation last month identified the captain as the chief suspect, if human intervention was to blame.
Clark said there was no excuse for the Air NZ captain to not immediately respond to calls, given the MH370 mystery and the fate of other flights, including an Ethiopian Airlines flight hijacked by its asylum-seeking co-pilot this year.
"You can push a button and say 'I'm busy' ... two minutes is an eternity when people reflect on MH370. The transponder can be turned off, the flight co-ordinates changed, the plane depressurised.
"It shouldn't have happened."
Two Air New Zealand pilots were stood down and their cabin crew offered counselling after a frightening mid-air incident on a packed transtasman flight.
The drama unfolded on flight NZ176 between Perth and Auckland on May 21, when the first officer was locked out of the cockpit for two minutes.
The captain did not respond to requests to open the locked door, alarming crew. The pair had apparently fallen out over a take-off delay.
One expert says two minutes is "an eternity" on a flight — and the incident, on a Boeing 777-200 carrying 303 people, has sparked calls for a third crew member to be added to flight decks so no one is ever alone in the cockpit.
Air NZ spokeswoman Marie Hosking said the first officer and crew became concerned after the captain did not respond to three requests over two minutes from a cabin crew member to open the cockpit door.
The first officer eventually used an alternative method to access the cockpit.
For security reasons, the airline would not say how.
"Naturally, cabin crew operating the flight were concerned about the inability to contact the captain and and safety manager Errol Burtenshaw.
They were offered the support of the company's employee assistance programme after the flight.
Both pilots were stood down — the captain for two weeks and the first officer for a week, and given counselling and additional training.
There was "some tension" between the pilots after a 13-minute delay to the flight's departure after the first officer had to take part in a random drug and alcohol test.
"This departure delay frustrated the captain who prides himself on operational efficiency."
Safety and security were paramount and the incident was "unfortunate", Burtenshaw said.
"Both pilots have learned a valuable lesson around the need to communicate better with peers."
He said the captain did not respond or open the door because he was approaching a navigational waypoint and in his cockpit monitor saw a cabin crew member rather than the first officer ringing.
The airline provided a report on the incident to the Civil Aviation Authority. Spokesman Mike Richards said it was satisfied with Air NZ's actions.
But aviation commentator Peter Clark said the incident showed it was time all airlines put a third crew member in the cockpit. "After [the disappearance of Malaysia Airlines flight] MH370 there's definitely questions being asked about whether there should be more than two people on the flight deck." quite anxious," said the national carrier's operational integrity
The Beijing-bound Boeing 777 and its 239 passengers and crew vanished after the plane left Kuala Lumpur on March 8. A Malaysian investigation last month identified the captain as the chief suspect, if human intervention was to blame.
Clark said there was no excuse for the Air NZ captain to not immediately respond to calls, given the MH370 mystery and the fate of other flights, including an Ethiopian Airlines flight hijacked by its asylum-seeking co-pilot this year.
"You can push a button and say 'I'm busy' ... two minutes is an eternity when people reflect on MH370. The transponder can be turned off, the flight co-ordinates changed, the plane depressurised.
"It shouldn't have happened."
Last edited by Bozzo; 5th Jul 2014 at 21:40.
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: back to the land of small pay and big bills
Age: 50
Posts: 1,218
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Interesting that the F/O has been stood down also. Admittedly, a week off when you're on the 777 is pretty standard these days anyway 
but I fail to see any point in taking disciplinary action against them for being locked out.
I've also been subjected to the "Random Drug & Alcohol testing"... they tap you on the shoulder very close to departure and haul you off for the test. It's virtually impossible to achieve OTP from that point, can't blame the Captain for being pissy about it, but certainly wasn't the F/O's fault.
As for not answering the call....
but I fail to see any point in taking disciplinary action against them for being locked out.I've also been subjected to the "Random Drug & Alcohol testing"... they tap you on the shoulder very close to departure and haul you off for the test. It's virtually impossible to achieve OTP from that point, can't blame the Captain for being pissy about it, but certainly wasn't the F/O's fault.
As for not answering the call....
There should be a "circuit breaker" as part of CRM?
I have never flown co-pilot on anything. But I have certainly stopped a car and jumped out of the driver's seat when the passenger was giving me the irrits.
I concluded that I was sufficiently emotionally disturbed to be unsafe to continue driving.
I almost did it two more times before ditching that particular girlfriend!
My point would be that pilots don't have the luxury of pulling over and taking the bus home. Then again, drivers are not paid that much to drive their car (Michael Shumacher excepted...).
So my suggestion is that there should be a code-word in CRM: perhaps "Sterile Cockpit" that would be the signal to both pilots to instantly confine their remarks and gestures only to those necessary for conducting the flight.
Yes, I understand why the FO was suspended: he had a joint responsibility to stop the nonsense. What I do not understand is why they are proposing to allow the Captain to continue his career.
I'm sorry, but I don't want to be flown anywhere by a man who cannot control his emotional state sufficiently to keep the aircraft safe.
When I had a few in the pub and gave the Managing Director a free character assessment, my career in that company was over. No amount of "I am terribly sorry" or "I will ensure this never happens again" made any difference. My career was over! I did not have the right stuff to be making decisions at a senior level. They knew it, and I knew it. They did not sack me, I walked.
"Aviation in itself is not inherently dangerous. But to an even greater degree
than the sea, it is terribly unforgiving of any carelessness, incapacity or neglect."
~Captain A. G. Lamplugh, London, 1930's
I concluded that I was sufficiently emotionally disturbed to be unsafe to continue driving.
I almost did it two more times before ditching that particular girlfriend!
My point would be that pilots don't have the luxury of pulling over and taking the bus home. Then again, drivers are not paid that much to drive their car (Michael Shumacher excepted...).
So my suggestion is that there should be a code-word in CRM: perhaps "Sterile Cockpit" that would be the signal to both pilots to instantly confine their remarks and gestures only to those necessary for conducting the flight.
Yes, I understand why the FO was suspended: he had a joint responsibility to stop the nonsense. What I do not understand is why they are proposing to allow the Captain to continue his career.
I'm sorry, but I don't want to be flown anywhere by a man who cannot control his emotional state sufficiently to keep the aircraft safe.
When I had a few in the pub and gave the Managing Director a free character assessment, my career in that company was over. No amount of "I am terribly sorry" or "I will ensure this never happens again" made any difference. My career was over! I did not have the right stuff to be making decisions at a senior level. They knew it, and I knew it. They did not sack me, I walked.
"Aviation in itself is not inherently dangerous. But to an even greater degree
than the sea, it is terribly unforgiving of any carelessness, incapacity or neglect."
~Captain A. G. Lamplugh, London, 1930's
Bottums Up
Interesting that the F/O has been stood down also.
If the reporting is accurate, it seems a long bow to draw that the Captain thought it was the Cabin Crew calling. However having been enraged by the bahaviour and disruptions of security screening I guess it's not beyond the realms of possibility that the Captain was still so incensed that his mind was not completed on the job.
Bottums Up
Join Date: May 2012
Location: AUH
Posts: 31
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The fact that the first officer had to use "alternative methods" to open the door should have raised alarm bells left, right and centre, and the captains psychological fitness to retain command needs to be called into question.
Being upset with your F/O is one thing, but barring him/her from the office is entirely different. How long did he intend to keep him/her out to "teach him a lesson" for daring to agree to the drug and alcohol testing which caused the delay - 3 minutes, 5, 10, half an hour? Did he intend to keep him out indefinitely? Did he even know himself what his intentions were?
I sorry but this guy needs to be out of the LHS RFN. I wouldn't like to fly with him driving next time. What if (god forbid!) there was an issue with, I don't know, a flight attendant going sick or a pax causing a delay? What type of tantrum will he throw next?
Any of his peers care to comment or is it
?
Being upset with your F/O is one thing, but barring him/her from the office is entirely different. How long did he intend to keep him/her out to "teach him a lesson" for daring to agree to the drug and alcohol testing which caused the delay - 3 minutes, 5, 10, half an hour? Did he intend to keep him out indefinitely? Did he even know himself what his intentions were?
I sorry but this guy needs to be out of the LHS RFN. I wouldn't like to fly with him driving next time. What if (god forbid!) there was an issue with, I don't know, a flight attendant going sick or a pax causing a delay? What type of tantrum will he throw next?
Any of his peers care to comment or is it
?
Totally unacceptable, even if he thought 'it was just a cabin crew member' calling, ignoring 3 separate attempts to contact the flight deck is just ridiculous. It takes 10 seconds to answer and say 'I will call you back, just on the radio'. Childish, arrogant and in this day and age totally irresponsible. 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Australia
Posts: 313
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From another article on SMH:
Bring back flight engineers?
Aviation commentator Peter Clark called on airlines to put at least three people in the cockpit so no-one is ever alone at the flight deck.
Which is more likely?
A) the third person has nefarious intent
Or
B) the third person prevents a flight crew member from doing illegal things
I think it is still safer as is, and would be less safe if the flight deck was accessible to extra personal who each have their own chance of being bonkers.
A) the third person has nefarious intent
Or
B) the third person prevents a flight crew member from doing illegal things
I think it is still safer as is, and would be less safe if the flight deck was accessible to extra personal who each have their own chance of being bonkers.
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: NZ
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CRM
CRM. hmmmm, Captain has responsibility for keeping the flight safe and it appears that his personal dissatisfaction (petty) with a late departure not of his F/O's intent due random testing is not grounds for not letting him back on the flight Deck or even having a beef with him. That in itself shows either a lack of professionalism in getting rattled by such a mediocre occurrence and not achieving OTP. Random testing is in essence an operational requirement demanded by the traveling public, regulatory bodies and the Airline. OTP comes secondary to safety.
The NZ Herald reports "This departure delay frustrated the Captain who prides himself on operational efficiency." This is at odds with the actions of the Captain and suggests a more pressing psychological issue with the Captain and if so I am sure many of his other First Officers would have experienced odd behavior.
So is this reported, Going by what I read and that the First Officer reported the event and has been hauled across the coals for doing so and criticised for completing his duties and taking a physiological toilet and movement break, I would suspect not as who wants to put themselves in his position simply by doing what is safe and right. A reporting culture is obviously not encouraged and blame apportioned to protect a Captain.
I would not want my family flying on a plane with that Captain.
The NZ Herald reports "This departure delay frustrated the Captain who prides himself on operational efficiency." This is at odds with the actions of the Captain and suggests a more pressing psychological issue with the Captain and if so I am sure many of his other First Officers would have experienced odd behavior.
So is this reported, Going by what I read and that the First Officer reported the event and has been hauled across the coals for doing so and criticised for completing his duties and taking a physiological toilet and movement break, I would suspect not as who wants to put themselves in his position simply by doing what is safe and right. A reporting culture is obviously not encouraged and blame apportioned to protect a Captain.
I would not want my family flying on a plane with that Captain.
Join Date: Aug 1998
Location: ...second left, past the lights.
Posts: 1,100
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Here here!
- fortybelow. 
Sadly, Air Bro and many carriers in this region have such self-righteous floggers in the left seat still... pity this huge juggernaut every company now has called HR, wasn't around earlier to "pick them off" as they actively do now, even with a sniff of suspicion.
Certainly a perfect case study for them at their next CRM Refresher
...captains psychological fitness to retain command needs to be called into question.
Sadly, Air Bro and many carriers in this region have such self-righteous floggers in the left seat still... pity this huge juggernaut every company now has called HR, wasn't around earlier to "pick them off" as they actively do now, even with a sniff of suspicion.
Certainly a perfect case study for them at their next CRM Refresher
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Oz
Posts: 179
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If what the Age article says is correct maybe the Captain might want to be tested for Aspergers. Throwing tanty like that just because you're late certainly raises the aspergers/autism alarm bells. Especially if the dude ticks a few other boxes like being highly intelligent and socially akward.......