Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Flight Deck Forums > Rumours & News
Reload this Page >

Germanwings crash: Have cockpit doors changed?

Rumours & News Reporting Points that may affect our jobs or lives as professional pilots. Also, items that may be of interest to professional pilots.

Germanwings crash: Have cockpit doors changed?

Old 3rd Apr 2016, 16:48
  #41 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: I wouldn't know.
Posts: 4,436
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
- post 9-11, with intrusion proof door and before cameras installed, what means were used to comply with visual check requirement with a pilot returning from loo?
Never happened. Reinforced doors alway were installed with a CCTV system. At least at the airlines i worked for. However, if i remember correctly, the rule about the locked door didn't came into force until 2002 or so due to limited supply. There was no point in locking doors which could be opened from the outside even if locked...

And yes, we can take jumpseaters, but only company flying staff with a valid ticket (until a couple months ago any pilot from any airline, until the unmentionable airline became unhappy about it) except on flights to and from the UK, US and Israel. Since we do not fly to the UK, it is only about the other two countries for us.

Anyway, the EASA recommendation is just that, it is a recommendation which is currently under review. Not a rule (yet). Quite some airlines in europe didn't follow that recommendation and those that did, had mixed experiences with it. Hiring hundreds or even thousands of muslim and eastern europeans as cabin crew each year can make security assessment results rather different than with other carriers.
Denti is offline  
Old 3rd Apr 2016, 17:07
  #42 (permalink)  

Only half a speed-brake
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Not commuting home
Age: 44
Posts: 4,043
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Cool reply. To a point.
Hiring hundreds or even thousands of muslim and eastern europeans as cabin crew each year can make security assessment results rather different than with other carriers.
I wonder if these shady characters are forbidden from making coffee for flight deck, as per the different outcome of security assesments.

I do not to wish end confrontational. Thanks for pointg out the recommednation part. Horse alive then.

Quick question 3:
- what is the resolution for single-cockpit memeber incap. behind locked door whilst the other pilot is out?
FlightDetent is offline  
Old 3rd Apr 2016, 18:13
  #43 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: The Winchester
Posts: 6,375
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I wish you guys well who feel upset about and endagered by this (for you) new rule. I wish you did not need to do it, but the presented arguments are not tangible.
Not tangible to you but I really think both sides of this debate perhaps need to accept this is a classic case of: "To understand another man's point of view, you need to walk a mile in his shoes" (or in this case work for the airline he/she works for...).

Quick question 3:
- what is the resolution for single-cockpit memeber incap. behind locked door whilst the other pilot is out?
The possibility of simple straightforward incapacitation is catered for in the design of the systems I'm aware of and/or have used - I'm not going to spell it out here - I'm sure it's all on the internet - but I must admit I'd have thought anyone engaging in a debate on the pros and cons of the various flight deck doors and access systems must be aware of the fundamentals of how they work?
wiggy is offline  
Old 3rd Apr 2016, 18:34
  #44 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: UK
Posts: 45
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
what is the resolution for single-cockpit memeber incap. behind locked door whilst the other pilot is out?
Wouldn't you like to know! Rest assured there is one.
DuctOvht is offline  
Old 3rd Apr 2016, 19:03
  #45 (permalink)  

Only half a speed-brake
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Not commuting home
Age: 44
Posts: 4,043
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Obviously I lost my sanity before writing that! I salute your alertness a shall now retire to vertical, with my best regards.
FlightDetent is offline  
Old 3rd Apr 2016, 19:43
  #46 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Tring, UK
Posts: 1,727
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Why is the locked door there in the first place? To stop unauthorised access from the cabin. That’s it.

For those without CCTV and remote unlocking (is anyone still in that position?), I can see the need for another person. Otherwise, it adds risk.

What is the function of this extra person on the flight deck? EASA is silent on this one. As an alternative view, if you wanted to decrease risk, no non-pilot should be allowed on the flight deck unless there are at least two pilots present...
FullWings is offline  
Old 3rd Apr 2016, 23:51
  #47 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Wor Yerm
Age: 66
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
What is the function of this extra person on the flight deck?
To be the target of an axe? To wonder why the aircraft is now silent engine wise but very noisy bell wise? To see what the world looks like upside down?

I'd ask EASA, but I bet these muppets find it hard remembering where they work and what they are meant to do when they actually do get into their ivory tower.
Piltdown Man is offline  
Old 4th Apr 2016, 05:24
  #48 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 1996
Location: Check with Ops
Posts: 741
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Never happened. Reinforced doors alway were installed with a CCTV system.
It most certainly did happen and, no, they weren't.

When this was the case, one of the pilots had to get up and check the peephole before admitting the member of cabin crew. Pilot would disappear for a 'physiological break' and, on return, the peephole would be checked by the aforementioned member of cabin crew before being the pilot being let back onto the flight deck.

The appearance of the TVs made it a lot easier (as did doing away with the deadbolt requirement) but when the locked doors first came into being there was a fair amount of hokey kokey going on, with stand up, sit down nonsense.
Pontius is offline  
Old 4th Apr 2016, 07:35
  #49 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Australia
Posts: 1,302
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
It most certainly did happen and, no, they weren't.
+1

On some fleets, the addition of electronic door control (post-911) and cameras was progressive. Were cameras even initially mandated? (or as an afterthought)
NSEU is offline  
Old 4th Apr 2016, 08:16
  #50 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: I wouldn't know.
Posts: 4,436
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
It most certainly did happen and, no, they weren't.
You did forget the next sentence in your quote though. Never had a reinforced door without a CCTV system in any airline i worked for. I believe it was due to a demand from the local CAA to that effect. The non-reinforced doors could be locked, but from the outside with a key that could open all cockpit doors in the fleet, the door had no peephole and even if locked could be kicked open, so anybody who wanted to enter could crawl in. There was even a big fat safety note to that effect on the outside of the door. It was, as usual in security, pure window dressing.

So no, we never had to work with a two person rule on the flightdeck as normal procedure before, not even when the non-reinforced doors had to be locked. It wouldn't have served any purpose.

I'm very well aware though that it might have been different elsewhere.
Denti is offline  
Old 4th Apr 2016, 10:08
  #51 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: BRS/GVA
Posts: 342
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
To the OP. Do you think if they had changed, if there was a way to override, or a pass-code known only to pilots, that anyone would make that public on a forum?
hoss183 is offline  
Old 4th Apr 2016, 12:17
  #52 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Tring, UK
Posts: 1,727
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
To reiterate: the door is there ONLY to stop people coming in. To do that properly there must be no “secret” way round it. This was proven effective in the GermanWings accident.

If a pilot wishes to crash the aircraft, there is nothing anyone can do about it and that includes the guy sitting next to them (or behind them). The answer is to not have mentally ill people coming to work.
FullWings is offline  
Old 8th Apr 2016, 12:50
  #53 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Singapore
Posts: 7
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
How does it work for Cargo Pilots? Usually there are two pilots without cabin crew. Sometimes one pilot has to leave the cockpit to go to the lavatory, making food or checking the freight etc..
yst_01 is offline  
Old 9th Apr 2016, 01:14
  #54 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Here and there
Posts: 2,872
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
There's no cockpit door in our freighters so you can't get locked out.
AerocatS2A is offline  
Old 9th Apr 2016, 02:24
  #55 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Canada
Posts: 576
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Re freighters , so far no glory in taking down a cargo aircraft so no worries unless///////
Longtimer is offline  
Old 16th Apr 2016, 21:04
  #56 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: very close to STN!!
Posts: 523
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Maybe safer if...

When one needs to go to the toilet, then both pilots come out and leave the flight deck empty so no one can do anything bad? Then when both finished, enter the open code both go back in together.

Problem solved!
stator vane is offline  
Old 18th Apr 2016, 10:56
  #57 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: EGMH
Posts: 207
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I wonder if this apparently similar incident in Botswana/Namibia which took place in November 2013 might be relevant to the discussion at all. Final Report just out.


Crash: LAM E190 over Botswana/Namibia on Nov 29th 2013, captain intentionally crashed aircraft
susier is offline  
Old 18th Apr 2016, 14:06
  #58 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Dortmund
Age: 53
Posts: 63
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by susier
I wonder if this apparently similar incident in Botswana/Namibia which took place in November 2013 might be relevant to the discussion at all. Final Report just out.
BEA certainly found it relevant, it is mentioned in section 1.18.1 of their report, "Previous Events".

The sad thing is: I suspect that even if the following recommendations had been made earlier (in a perfect world, the final report could have been completed by November 2014), it wouldn't have prevented the Germanwings disaster.

Originally Posted by Aviation Herald
DAAI recommends that Mozambique Civil Aviation Authority should come up with a mechanism to ensure that the procedure of two people in the flight deck is adhered to at all times as laid out in LAM’s Manual of Flight Operation Chapter 10.1.4, Page 5 of 36, Edition 3 Revision 8, (Absence from Flight Deck).

DAAI recommends that ICAO should establish a working group that should look into the operation and the threat management emanating from both side of the cockpit door.

DAAI recommends that ICAO should establish standards that implement recommendations of the working group, formed under safety recommendations number 002/2015 LAM to suitably avert the locking out of the cockpit of authorized crew members.
noske is offline  
Old 23rd Apr 2016, 00:47
  #59 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Elsewhere
Posts: 541
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
In the months after the introduction of the 2-person rule, my outfit had:

F/As attempting to occupy the LHS as the captain departed on toilet breaks;

A F/A asking the F/O "Are you sure you should be touching that?" as the F/O made an adjustment to the MCP/FCU to avoid wx or comply with ATC; and

A large male F/A telling an S/O (and not joking) "Don't touch anything!" (Or else what? )

While this points to either inadequate education or an unusual level of stupidity in the individuals concerned, it hasn't made me feel any safer.
itsnotthatbloodyhard is offline  
Old 23rd Apr 2016, 06:49
  #60 (permalink)  
Plumbum Pendular
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Avionics Bay
Age: 53
Posts: 1,117
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
While this points to either inadequate education or an unusual level of stupidity
A bit of both I would have thought but maybe your FAs should have been told that their responsibility was to let the other pilot back in to the FD and not to supervise the pilot on the FD.

It does highlight the complete farce that this policy is.
fmgc is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information

Copyright © 2022 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.