One or two flights and it will be pretty clear what the company procedure on toilet breaks is - just select an aisle seat in row 2 or 3 and be observant.

Personal view but I believe that to suggest that a FA on the flight deck during a toilet break is compromising her duties in the cabin is utter bo**ocks. The FA's duties on the FD are to ensure that legitimate access to the flight deck is not denied and that the safety of all passengers, crew and aircraft are not compromised, what, in the cruise, could be more important than that?

Given that the actions of a pilot with nefarious intent resulted in this 'policy' How precisely does the industry ensure that a similar 'murderous intent' is not present in the (FA) person just let on the flight deck?

So how does the flight deck FA do that exactly when the remaining Pilot could easily destroy the aircraft in far less time than it takes for the other Pilot to zip up and return? And how does the FA do that exactly when one Pilot could easily destroy the aircraft even with the other Pilot sitting in their designated Pilot seat?

The truth is the only duty the FA is performing in the flight deck is that of appeasing the ignorant travelling public!

Even more utter bollocks.

And fools like parabellum!

The company I worked for was one of the first to implement the two on the flight deck policy soon after the armoured doors were fitted. The policy at the time had nothing to do with the mental health of the lone crew member on the flight deck. It was implemented purely for the reason that if anything happened to this crew member whilst alone there was no possible way to access the flight deck. The door could only be opened from the flight deck side if closed and locked by one of two methods.

The trouble with F.Nose and those like him who ridicule the idea of the FA standing in is that they keep quoting the million to one chance against a FA on the FD policy and choose to ignore the rest of the time when the system works just fine. During their flying career these individuals may just discover that their life depends on a lot less than a million to one chance at times. Once out of the safe environment of European/Antipodean ATC the game is on.

ACMS...In the extremely unlikely event that the remaining Pilot becomes incapacitated during the time the other is taking a comfort break the door can still be opened via key pad in good time.

Parabellum...Are you referring to the possibility of a rogue FA taking advantage of the remaining Pilot and sabotaging the aircraft? If so I have never claimed such a risk to be a threat....read my post again carefully!

My point is that a FA on the flight deck is unnecessary and does not effectively improve safety in any way.

And - F Knows y not!

Good grief.

The cold hard facts are; The 2 on the flight deck at all times rule was mandated by the regulator in Australia as a direct result of a disturbed 'German Wings' FO deliberately flying an aircraft into terrain. However....the 2 on the flight deck rule does not prevent either Pilot destroying the aircraft and its occupants at any time.....if they so desire! So the rule does not achieve its objective other than it may have an influence on where and how the job is done.

Nobody would object if the few operators of aircraft 'without keypads' develop procedures, such as the 2 on the flight deck, to mitigate the risk of Pilot incapacitation at an inappropriate time......but that does not mean there needs to be a blanket rule for all operators on all aircraft with more than 50 seats, when in the majority of cases the risk is alleviated by other means......such as a key pad.

Fortunately, it was never mandated by the regulator in Australia.

I believe the practice was introduced by mutual agreement between the Airlines and the Australian Government to calm the noise at the time - can't find a reference right now, but that's how I remember it.

Which means it probably wouldn't be too hard for the Airlines to discontinue the practice, if they desired to.

All they would need to do is to contain any outcry by using all the appropriate PC nonsense such as "following an extensive review, risk analysis, studies of world's best practice etc etc.."

But the important thing is that those in the position to make change, have to want to make change. Where would that desire come from? It doesn't inconvenience them. Unless of course increased disruptions to cabin service start causing the Frequent Flyers to complain.