Flight deck access
This is a practice that's commonly done by airlines in the USA and by FAA regulations, the remaining pilot on the flightdeack must wear their oxygen mask when above FL250.
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: australia
Posts: 396
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That armoured lockable door is the real threat, as we have seen on several suicide flights and at least one where pilots were incapacitated.
Where I once worked, if wasn't necessarily a flightie but often paxxing tech crew who came in when an operating pilot needed a loo stop. It was the practice to make sure a flightie knew the reason they were there and they were also told to sit on the jump seat and, if necessary, strap in.That overcame the concerns DSJ has raised.
As an exercise, ask the cabin crew what they think the purpose of them being on the flight deck whilst the other pilot uses the bathroom is. You may be surprised to find a variety of answers.
As Australia tends to not overcomplicate things, we don't have a single-pilot mask requirement until above FL450
The major issue with having Cabin Crew in the cockpit with 1 pilot is that it creates more security issues than it actually solves.
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Darwin
Posts: 339
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The major issue with having Cabin Crew in the cockpit with 1 pilot is that it creates more security issues than it actually solves.
After the new rule there are approximately 870,000 people who regularly sit in a flight deck with only one other person, each one representing a tiny risk with regard mental state or nefarious intention.
How does that solve our problem? Oh that’s right, it doesn’t , it makes it worse but the public think that the risk has been mitigated.
The public also don't like it when you shoo them away from the forward toilet because the bladder ballet has started and entrance to and from the flight deck has to be coordinated 6 times.
I’ll say it again, my company introduced FA’s coming into the cockpit during toilet breaks after Ballistic doors and key pad locks were introduced 15 years ago. It made sure access was available at all times for incapacitation issues without having to wait the 30 seconds time delay......
Since then we’ve NEVER had any problems at all with security or FA’s bumping switches......it just hasn’t happened.
You might as well ban anyone coming into the cockpit during flight but you’ll need a small galley, toilet and crew rest facilities installed in the cockpit. That ain’t gunna happen is it. So until then those pesky fumbling possibly mentally unstable FA’s will have to come in many times during flight, so live with it.....
Since then we’ve NEVER had any problems at all with security or FA’s bumping switches......it just hasn’t happened.
You might as well ban anyone coming into the cockpit during flight but you’ll need a small galley, toilet and crew rest facilities installed in the cockpit. That ain’t gunna happen is it. So until then those pesky fumbling possibly mentally unstable FA’s will have to come in many times during flight, so live with it.....
As for CAR 226 (1) (c) sorry CASA. On MY flight deck if it is convenient for the F/A to sit in a control seat while the F/O, or I, go back for a leak, then I will authorise it as Captain. I will invoke (2) of the same CAR as justification. The F/A is far safer strapped into a seat should the unexpected happen during the absence of one of the pilots
Because most jumpseats on narrow body aircraft merely get in the way it is easier to drop into a control seat and strap in. Think depressurisation, turbulence etc.
A rule that can not be enforced invites contempt. That saying “rules are for the guidance of wise men and the blind obedience of fools” comes to mind.
Change the wording from ‘CASA authorises ‘ to ‘Pilot in Command authorises’ and the whole silly argument goes away
Because most jumpseats on narrow body aircraft merely get in the way it is easier to drop into a control seat and strap in. Think depressurisation, turbulence etc.
A rule that can not be enforced invites contempt. That saying “rules are for the guidance of wise men and the blind obedience of fools” comes to mind.
Change the wording from ‘CASA authorises ‘ to ‘Pilot in Command authorises’ and the whole silly argument goes away
Last edited by Mach E Avelli; 26th Jul 2018 at 09:53.
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Darwin
Posts: 339
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As for CAR 226 (1) (c) sorry CASA. On MY flight deck if it is convenient for the F/A to sit in a control seat while the F/O, or I, go back for a leak, then I will authorise it as Captain. I will invoke (2) of the same CAR as justification. The F/A is far safer strapped into a seat should the unexpected happen during the absence of one of the pilots
Because most jumpseats on narrow body aircraft merely get in the way it is easier to drop into a control seat and strap in. Think depressurisation, turbulence etc.
A rule that can not be enforced invites contempt. That saying “rules are for the guidance of wise men and the blind obedience of fools” comes to mind.
Change the wording from ‘CASA authorises ‘ to ‘Pilot in Command authorises’ and the whole silly argument goes away
Because most jumpseats on narrow body aircraft merely get in the way it is easier to drop into a control seat and strap in. Think depressurisation, turbulence etc.
A rule that can not be enforced invites contempt. That saying “rules are for the guidance of wise men and the blind obedience of fools” comes to mind.
Change the wording from ‘CASA authorises ‘ to ‘Pilot in Command authorises’ and the whole silly argument goes away
Yeah cabin crew shouldn’t be in control seats of narrow body jets while airborne. I’ve seen pilots muck up the entry and exit of 737 control seats and they are used to it. The flight is safer with the cabin crew in the jump seat than it is with them getting into and out of a control seat.
Ah yes, the Aussie fear of strict liability is what has us all doing exactly the speed limit and not 3 kph over.
As for not strapping a F/A in to a control seat in the cruise, I would never have snared my wife but for that ploy. Better than a pub pick up any day...
As for not strapping a F/A in to a control seat in the cruise, I would never have snared my wife but for that ploy. Better than a pub pick up any day...
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: PA
Age: 59
Posts: 30
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have seen many versions of this, especially with carriers in the US. Sometimes the lead will stand in the doorway holding the door open, and not entering. Many times you can tell they are on the flight deck, but just standing there, or sitting on the jump seat, rather than get in and out.
Dont forget the ANZ incident when they argued and locked out the other driver!
(MH370 perhaps?)
Dont forget the ANZ incident when they argued and locked out the other driver!
(MH370 perhaps?)
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Perth
Posts: 305
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes, you are correct Havick, there's nothing in the part 121 FAR's about that. My head was still stuck in the CARs when I wrote that. To say CASA makes things over complicated is an understatement.
Without a FA or Jumpseater on the flight deck, how does one confirm the returning crewmember ? Does the lone pilot get out of his seat to check that the returning pilot isn’t under duress etc. etc ? Obviously camera systems negate this requirement.
It’s been in every FOM that I’ve seen. It’s also the standard practice at every airline that i’m familiar with. Only the operating crew may occupy a control seat (as listed on the dispatch release). Caveat - I’m neither all seeing nor all knowing, so there may be hundreds of airlines that allow it
Without a FA or Jumpseater on the flight deck, how does one confirm the returning crewmember ? Does the lone pilot get out of his seat to check that the returning pilot isn’t under duress etc. etc ? Obviously camera systems negate this requirement.
You seemed to indicate below that not allowing a FA in a Plots seat was uncommon
Can you point to anything in the FAR’s that specifically precludes a flight attendant from sitting in the pilot seat while another pilot goes to use the lav?
I think we’re having a human factors failure here
You seemed to indicate below that not allowing a FA in a Plots seat was uncommonI was disagreeing, and I was referring to the U.S as well. “FCOM” is a Boeing specific manual and FM1 sounds like something American probably made up.
FM1 is just another name for a company ops manual in the US, they’ve also got a myriad of other names/abbreviations.