from Casa....

Air operators should take an operational approach to maintaining the so-called ‘two in the cockpit’ practice. This is the advice from CASA following a review of the practice and consultation with the aviation industry. The operational approach to ‘two in the cockpit’ is in line with the position taken by the European Aviation Safety Agency. The ‘two in the cockpit’ practice was adopted as a precautionary approach in aircraft with a seating capacity of more than 50 passengers following the German Wings aircraft crash in early 2015.

The review of the practice in Australia found there were unintended consequential risks, including the second person in the cockpit potentially distracting the pilot, making inadvertent contact with cockpit switches and taking cabin crew away from their safety role in the cabin. It was also found the practice complicated flight crew access to the cockpit and introduced an additional risk of flight deck incursion.

The recommendation is for air operators to evaluate their own safety requirements and make an operational decision on whether to maintain ‘two in the cockpit’ in their standard operating procedures. CASA’s aviation medicine branch will continue to monitor pilot mental health and maintain a high level of awareness among pilots of mental health priorities and sources of assistance.

Hopefully common sense will prevail and we will ditch the dopey two in the flight deck rule

What about toilet visits?.
So do you issue nappies. or fit pee tubes into your two crew aircraft??

Why so complicated, we’ve been having cabin crew come into the cockpit on toilet breaks for over 10 years now with absolutely no problems at all. “Distracting or bumping switches” what clap trap. So how would the crew get food and drink delivered then? I suppose the Pizza is slipped under the ballistic door is it.....oh and forget the cabin crew ever coming in to discuss any issues they need assistance with.......they might bump a switch or distract the poor Pilots.

rubbish.

I am baffled that some pilots are making the case to continue with this knee jerk nonsense.

We have become an industry which is amazingly safe, and we did so with considered, well thought out rules that manage risk in an appropriate way. Just look at the number of “adverse outcomes” in medicine and compare that figure with aviation and it is very clear that we, as an industry, are exceptionally good at managing risk and safety.

This rule, however, is utter nonsense and does little to nothing to improve safety.

It probably isn’t a big issue with hitting switches etc in the bigger aeroplanes, but the 50 seat and above turboprops and smaller jets there is a real risk of people getting in the way of each other and the controls when entering and leaving the flight deck, plus add the fact that in many cases if it not possible to get one in the flight deck standing, another manoeuvring themselves out of a control seat without the flight deck door being open and it seems to me that this policy created as many risks as it supposedly mitigated.

I would love to see some studies done on the impact on the rule on the health of pilots. Rubbish I hear you say, but if we are honest, how many of us manage our fluid intakes because the ability to jump out and take a leak is significantly more difficult now than it was before? Things like kidney stones, headaches etc are all a function of dehydration and kidney stones have a direct impact on our medicals.

I agree that we need to be cognisant of the mental health of both ourselves and our colleagues, however bunging a cabin crew member in the flight deck is not the way to manage that.

100% correct. Current rostering software is by far a greater risk to pilot mental health than anything else. I’d go so far as to say it’s the biggest risk factor the industry faces at the moment. FRMS by itself will not make for better rostering practices. If there are not hard legal limits that no FRMS can cross, it may well be worse.

Arm all crew with guns. Teach them to shoot to kill. Paint yellow line on floor aft of cockpit. Remove dangerous lockable door.
During welcome aboard PA advise that anyone who crosses the yellow line will be shot. During induction advise crew ditto if they act irrationally....or serve cold coffee.....or do a bad landing.
Israelis may be willing to share how they stopped all this hijack crap, but I bet they don’t agonise over switches being bumped or 60kg Flight Attendants going berserk. FFS.
That armoured lockable door is the real threat, as we have seen on several suicide flights and at least one where pilots were incapacitated.

They are kidding themselves. How are they monitoring the mental health of pilots? Once a year medical that does not even broach the subject. What about the rest of the year? That does not equal "monitoring".

High level of awareness? Again, they are in dreamland. Where is the guidance and education material?

Interesting discussions. Vote 1 Snakecharma for President, Mach E Avilli for Minister of Defence. ;)

Lets hope they lighten up on the jump seat as well.

Don’t know what your doctor asks you Icarus, but mine reading the questions out that CASA gives them it does broach the topic.

However, how many pilots are going to really say “yeah I’m depressed and want to kill myself”? Probably not many if any.

DSJ as you know the FAA tend not to over complicate things. 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?

You are sounding a little hypoxic Capn.
​​​​​​​Part 61 licence as example one.

Agreed. Prior to the new rule there was approximately 290,000 people who regularly sat in a flight deck with only one other person. Each one of those people represented a tiny risk with regard to mental state or nefarious intentions.
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.

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.....

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

Love your work Mach!

I suggest you read the Criminal Code then for the meaning of Strict Liability.

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...

Giddy up Cowboy

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.

I know this is an Aussie thread, but I was referring to ops in the USA of which just about every FM1 or FCOM has such restrictions.

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 uncommon

I 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. :E

sorry typo on my phone. I meant NO such restrictions in my earlier post.

FM1 is just another name for a company ops manual in the US, they’ve also got a myriad of other names/abbreviations.