Time to move the 380 cockpit door?
 

In light of recent incidents, would it not be a great idea to move the locking flight deck door to the bottom of the stairs? This would leave us with our own bathroom, ie no pilot has to leave the flight deck and be unable to return whilst the added benefit is that there are no longer pax right up at the door - potentially- as you enter/exit the cockpit.

Discuss.....

It brings up another question.

In light of the new policy issued this morning on all Flt Plans via Conotams - short sighted IMO

Which is more likely at one of the big ME airlines (granted both highly unlikely, but...)

A rogue pilot who has had intensive training and psyche evals along the way or a rogue male CC who, under far less scrutiny, is a 'sleeper fanatic' and wants to meet some virgins in the clouds...and now has literally full access to flight deck multiple times during a flight because of new rule.

Watch your six?

f.

Now that, flion, is one of the best points made on this forum for a long time. :D

Virgins in the clouds???
 

Well let's don't mix it up here , because what happened lately had nothing to do with what you are pointing to using the words ( fanatics , virgins ) this is totally insignificant and cheap.
But I respect the main idea you mentioned about the difference between cabin crew evaluation and pilot evaluation and it makes a lot of sense.

Chances of moving the door are as good as moving the CRC to where the showers are.

halas

Brace for pampers, or the good old night pot ..... :E

Accepting that the "sleeper fanatic" scenario is unlikely, how about a cabin crew member who is just a disgruntled employee? Somebody who is overworked, jet-lagged, poorly paid and feels unappreciated by the company? Possibly with added stress such as boyfriend/girlfriend trouble, being in a load of debt and away from the support network of family and friends. This is not just a Middle East scenario, it could happen in a lot of airlines in the world.

Some airlines have tens of thousands of cabin crew. It is simple statistics that a few of those are going to be depressed and some of those will be suicidal. Thanks to the publicity of recent days they now know it is possible to bring down an aircraft with a simple turn of a knob in less than 10 minutes. And they know where the crash axe is.

It seems to me that the two crew in the cockpit rule is a knee jerk reaction which potentially could cause as many problems as it solves.

So now we have to ask the cabin crew permission to go to the lav... It´s fine on a European low-cost, you don´t have to relieve yourself on a 2 hour flight, but to counter act the total boredom on a 8.5 hour night flight we need to be able to move about... Total knee jerk reaction and just so typical...

The toilet outside the 380 flight deck is a disgrace and should never be allowed it's only a matter of time before there is going to be a serious incident with a pax gaining access to the cockpit. The regulators should not allow it but somehow Emirates get away with it.
Regarding having 2 crew in the cockpit it's a knee jerk reaction which potentially could be more problematic. Regarding fitness to fly and mental issues I really have a problem with professional pilots being unable to operate a sector without having to pray for 10 minutes...again never going to be addressed by the company for obvious reasons.

Emratty
 

What is your problem if a professional pilot prayed for 10 minutes during the flight, when it is time to pray in his religion " I mean it is only 10 minutes , so is going to the toilet --ok could be shorter lets say 5 minutes"

Totally agree about moving the door on the 380 but there is no way that will happen.

I reckon its only a matter of time before they think about providing a tiny portable camping loo on the flight deck. We'll no doubt have to take it in and out ourselves and empty it. The highlight of the day! We might even get paid a s*it allowance for using it :ok:

agree
 

agree with filon,

we have a ticking time bomb here, one days its gonna go off, with disastrous consequences

Flion, Emratty and Geordie I agree with your posts.

One point I'd like to mention is last time I took QF F I remember there being 2 sets of doors to the front, an inner and outer. The outer door seemed to keep a set of bunks and I presume a toilet away from prying eyes before the inner door to the cockpit.

The LH 748 has a toilet within the F/D.

As I understand it, the Airbus design of the A380 is for a inner an outer door for the cockpit crew. EK in their wisdom, changed this to allow passengers to use the toilet/s that were meant for exclusive crew use.

OK, so you have two crew in the flight deck..
 

just how difficult will it be..? :E all this talk about moving the toilet door or other means.. lets say there is a toilet in the flight deck.. (or a CC guarding during the flight.. same effect).. is that really going to stop a single individual that has obvious good knowledge of the a/c? What about switching it all off, and pointing it straight down? maybe a nice roll for dramatic effect? are you going to get off the crapper in time (g's) to 'safe the day'? doubt it..

But agreed, the commercially overruling design adaptations in EK are not safety enhancing.. :=

Maybe.. just Maybe some less stick and more carrot in this industry could prevent at least a few of these devastating events..

Pointer

Virgins in the clouds?? Fliion, what am i missing?! :ugh:

PG and the CPD oversaw this redesign with the CPD saying the door was entirely unnecessary. A velvet rope will do instead.

Ironically, having a CC in the cockpit whenever a pilot wants to use the lav means twice as many door openings as otherwise and twice as many opportunities for the security provided by the door to be defeated. The door is opened to admit the CC, then again when the pilot leaves and then twice more again in reverse when he returns.

If they enter/exit at the same time the door is still open for twice as long as normal as they shuffle around each other. Another kneejerk reaction in the rush to be seen to be doing something.

All of a sudden, the freighter seems like an attractive option. No cabin crew, passengers or door.

Now the only thing to worry about is the cargo and/or if it was loaded properly:ugh: Cant win:)

110 tons of lithium batteries and no cockpit door on the B777F seems to be the safest thing now! Amazing how the wheel turns!

Pointer, I think you touched on the root cause with this quote, "Maybe.. just Maybe some less stick and more carrot in this industry could prevent at least a few of these devastating events...."

Don't worry. The same policy has been introduced down the road. Someone asked the question about what this does if operating minimum crew. The response - "therefore it is now even more important to plan ahead and agree the most appropriate time to take a physiological break from the Flight Deck."

Indeed. Because I know beforehand exactly when I want to take a piss. :}

Well, I think they might need to rethink the policy of "planning and coordinating" breaks because with 'chicken tikka curry rogan josh chili' as the only available meal to the cockpit on the way back from COK at 9am in the morning, there's only one thing for sure....time will be of the essence or sh!t will hit the.................

I've asked numerous times in wash-up about Jump Seat policy and was told not going to happen for security reasons.

So now on a full flight, you could have a perfectly qualified observer who is trying to get home and who has undergone intensive back ground checks sitting there without having to interrupt Sir & Madams caviar.

Think they will do it? Well it won't be to help you and I get home ....but Sir & Madam...

Let's see if they 'walk the walk'

f.

Great point, fliion.

Some of the financial pressures on new FOs who have the equivalent of a mortgage just to cover their training should perhaps be considered at the same time as well. Some of the FOs I've flown with have had £120K loans just to get to where they are for a seasonal part time contract.....

Alloy---an article suggesting just that...
The one wild possibility missing from most of the equally baseless Germanwings speculation | PandoDaily

this will be an example of the law of unintended consequences....


(not the post above.....the new policy in general)

Trader,

That's a very interesting article !

A cabin crew member in the toilet will not prevent a determined mental suicide event from happening by deliberate pilot action. Case in point, suicide pilot and cabin crew member in cockpit. Suicide pilot decides to shut down engines and turn flight control computers off as well as carrying out a rapid decompression of the aircraft. Let's see if any cabin crew member would be able to turn that lot back on while the suicide pilot has jumped out of their seat to put the dead bolt on and started attacking the cabin crew member.

The only true way to prevent this ever happening again is for 2 pilots to be present in the cockpit at all times. Financially this will never happen as many carriers think that the cost does not outweigh the risks.

How will airlines prevent the issue of a suicide pilot nose diving the aircraft a few hundred feet up during climb out off the end of the runway. What about a landing incident a few hundred feet above a highly populated City. The prevention here is not in the cockpit, it must be done "somehow" in the doctors clinic.

I am not sure how the future will play out but some test for level of mental state or craziness is no doubt going to be implemented into medicals in the future. Guys undergoing divorces, people with money debt issues or whatever might be moved up into the higher risk braket. This is an cruise issue that can "only" be resolved by having 2 pilots in the cockpit period, but will never happen due to the accountants, they are the root cause of this and many other safety issues in airlines.


J

How about continuously pressing the little red button on the stick and pushing?
Would the cutie in the jumpseat be able to:

a) stop the jockey doing it?
b) jump up against the negative 1g and open the door for the other jockey who was surprised with his pants down in the loo?

or, as we are at it, even in a normal scenario:

a) would the jockey in the other seat be able to react if, by courtesy of Airbus, his stick is pressed dead?
b) would he be able to disconnect the computers and, with his willie-stickie working again, be able to counteract the algebraic sum of "full down" and "full up" to stop the imminent impact?
c) would a quarter-pounded jockey be able to counteract a sumo-fighting trained colleague who pushes the yoke in an interconnected tractor cockpit?

There is unfortunately little that all the knee jerk reactions of the powers can do if there is a real malicious intent by a pilot, in any machine.
It's only to please the public and to continue with minimal cost involved.

Alloy,

Lubitz trained at the Lufthansa flight training academy in Bremen and Phoenix. He had his training paid for him and would only have had to fund his living costs throughout (accommodation was also included by Lufthansa in Goodyear), he was living the dream as far as modern day flight training goes.

Living the dream?

Not according to his GF

"Maria W. told the paper: "We always talked a lot about work and then he became a different person. He became upset about the conditions we worked under: too little money, fear of losing the contract, too much pressure."

Sound familiar?

f.

Comparing it to the £120,000 loans raked up by a very significant number of young pilots today yes, it's virtually unheard of to have your training funded by the company and you bonded for the TR.

Why not put the bunks up front as well as moving the door; then you'd have 3 or 4 pilots all within a safe and secure environment who'll be able to detect any descent or abnormal attitude during flight.

As the 6ft 6", gym strengthened, half my age and twice my strength, male CC who chaperoned me the other day whilst the Captain was wizzing, said.....How could I tell if you were subtlety descending anyhow?

And God forbid you forget to take the iPad out of the Wheelie in the UK etc

That's the differentiator didn't you know?

f.

I guess that the banging on the door by the other pilot would be suspicious...

But the new procedure is just a typical reaction to make the public feel safe. (Not only EK, but other airlines are implementing this procedure as well now.)
Someone with wrong intentions (FCM or CCM) will always have other ways of taking over and this procedure makes us all look like a potential suspects unfortunately.

Seriously????

They are NOT monitoring your every move... Just there to open the doors for us. Saves me having to reach over and toggle the switch!

They are NOT chaperoning you!

Whilst I agree that this is a pointless exercise it really doesn't change much of how we operate does it? And when I need to go for a dump I will take my time - can't be rushing the good things in life...

And who decides to let in who?
If you tell him NOT to open the door, will he?
If he decides to let in his ( put in whatever you want )-buddy, can you inhibit him?

You are simply shifting the inherent problem of that friggin door from a pilot to a flight attendant.
Congratulations ......

I quite agree Glofish... A pointless exercise as I said! Anyway, the remaining pilot is the one to open or lock the door as necessary; I was being facetious...

Who would have predicted that in 2015, the centre of discussion of airline transportation would centre around the closure of a door..? No one would of course. Absurdity ?

Yes.

Reality?

Yes.

An unintended consequence of the rise of militant Islam, which is due, in part, to a global dependence on fossil fuels sourced from a specific geopolitical area, which is due.... oh enuff said.