Germanwings crash: Have cockpit doors changed?
Plumbum Pendular
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Avionics Bay
Age: 55
Posts: 1,117
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Germanwings crash: Have cockpit doors changed?
How is Sean Maffett qualified to comment on something that he is totally uneducated about:
"The concept of always having more than one person on the flight deck is an improvement, argues aviation analyst Sean Maffett, although this is an added expense for cash-strapped smaller airlines who need to train staff."
Germanwings crash: Have cockpit doors changed? - BBC News
It is absolutely not an improvement.
"The concept of always having more than one person on the flight deck is an improvement, argues aviation analyst Sean Maffett, although this is an added expense for cash-strapped smaller airlines who need to train staff."
Germanwings crash: Have cockpit doors changed? - BBC News
It is absolutely not an improvement.
Sean Maffet .....
......is a very experienced ex RAF transport chap. He is also a very well respected commentator and broadcaster on aviation matters and posts in these hallowed halls from time to time under the name "Airsound".
You may want to moderate the censorious tone of your OP.
The Ancient Mariner
You may want to moderate the censorious tone of your OP.
The Ancient Mariner
Last edited by Rossian; 25th Mar 2016 at 22:12. Reason: typo
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: UK
Posts: 730
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Rossian, RAF Transport Command experience does not qualify one for commenting on airline ops. Being a commentator, broadcaster or journalist is often a disqualification; look at the usual pundits on BBC and Channel 4 and you'll agree. Only if he has airline experience does have some qualification to comment. I don't know him, so I am making no judgement.
As to whether the policy is beneficial, for most companies it is a hindrance, having to wait until a cabin crew member (who is not psycologically screened) reports to the cockpit, which often takes considerable time, and sometimes is too late, arriving after the aircraft is descending and the workload too high to safely leave the cockpit. However, some airlines played dispicably cheap with the regulations and only installed the armoured door, not the cameras for the pilots to see who is outside the door, needing someone to physically check through the spy hole (disgracefully, many are too lazy to do so), which obviously can't be done if one pilot is alone in the cockpit, so the cabin crew can do that check and open the door for the returning second pilot.
So, the policy's benefit depends on the company.
As to whether the policy is beneficial, for most companies it is a hindrance, having to wait until a cabin crew member (who is not psycologically screened) reports to the cockpit, which often takes considerable time, and sometimes is too late, arriving after the aircraft is descending and the workload too high to safely leave the cockpit. However, some airlines played dispicably cheap with the regulations and only installed the armoured door, not the cameras for the pilots to see who is outside the door, needing someone to physically check through the spy hole (disgracefully, many are too lazy to do so), which obviously can't be done if one pilot is alone in the cockpit, so the cabin crew can do that check and open the door for the returning second pilot.
So, the policy's benefit depends on the company.
Presumably Sean Maffat was aware of the actual wording of the actual EASA recommendation (EASA SIB 2015-04, datd 27th March 2015) when writing his piece- here's the important bit:
It's short paragraph worth a careful read.....
operators are recommended to
implement procedures requiring at least two persons
authorised in accordance with CAT.GEN.MPA.135 to be in
the flight crew compartment at all times, or other equivalent
mitigating measures to address risks identified by the
operator’s revised assessment.
implement procedures requiring at least two persons
authorised in accordance with CAT.GEN.MPA.135 to be in
the flight crew compartment at all times, or other equivalent
mitigating measures to address risks identified by the
operator’s revised assessment.
Last edited by wiggy; 26th Mar 2016 at 07:52.
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: JAAland
Posts: 70
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Does any airline have provisions for ferry flights? That is do you carry an extra crew member so that the cockpit crew are able to comply with the EASA recommendation in case they should need to go to the lavs?
Mine doesn't, and I'm yet to receive a decent answer why ferry flights should be operated in accordance with EASA safety recommendations.
Mine doesn't, and I'm yet to receive a decent answer why ferry flights should be operated in accordance with EASA safety recommendations.
OP BBC article:
Exactly! One event; no repeats.
also:
The way we have to go.
The pilot had no way to get into the cabin because of one event - 9/11.
also:
The Israeli airline El Al effectively has a toilet within the secure part of the cockpit.
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: I wouldn't know.
Posts: 4,497
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Does any airline have provisions for ferry flights? That is do you carry an extra crew member so that the cockpit crew are able to comply with the EASA recommendation in case they should need to go to the lavs?
Join Date: May 2001
Location: England
Posts: 1,904
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The two person rule is more practical for some aircraft types/cabin set ups than others. If it works for you then you are clearly not facing the issues some of us are.
Ignoring the security element of it for one minute (i.e. you now introduce MORE predictability as to when a door is going to open. I.e. If a CC member has gone into the FD, rest assured a pilot is going to come out within 30 seconds and vice versa), it's damn awful not to be able to have a pee when I choose. Instead someone else decides. We fly fully laden 220 passenger A321s with average sector length at 4 hours, with only one toilet forward of row 19.
Everybody from that row onwards and a good portion of those behind row 19 want to use toilet number 1 (lack of education on this also pisses me off). As such, timing is of paramount importance. We used to be able to look at the camera screen, see the area is clear and jump out for a pee. Not now, by the time you've got the attention of a CC, they have come in and you get up, there could be 2 or 3 people standing in the forward galley. If it's a granny or a little kid, you think twice about asking if you can go in first. It's not a healthy setup, especially if like me you pee as often as a water fountain at altitude (I'm fine on the ground). Whatever timing you had in mind when you were sitting and and thinking of a pee, is now gone through the window. Now you're standing and holding it. Yes, we are not children - we should be able to hold it! But holding it 3 or 4 times a day for longer than I would if I were on the ground, AND for the rest of my flying career? That's got to be doing some long lasting damage!
Yes, my airline doesn't curtain off the forward galley or station a cart in between. It considers it too impractical.
Ignoring the security element of it for one minute (i.e. you now introduce MORE predictability as to when a door is going to open. I.e. If a CC member has gone into the FD, rest assured a pilot is going to come out within 30 seconds and vice versa), it's damn awful not to be able to have a pee when I choose. Instead someone else decides. We fly fully laden 220 passenger A321s with average sector length at 4 hours, with only one toilet forward of row 19.
Everybody from that row onwards and a good portion of those behind row 19 want to use toilet number 1 (lack of education on this also pisses me off). As such, timing is of paramount importance. We used to be able to look at the camera screen, see the area is clear and jump out for a pee. Not now, by the time you've got the attention of a CC, they have come in and you get up, there could be 2 or 3 people standing in the forward galley. If it's a granny or a little kid, you think twice about asking if you can go in first. It's not a healthy setup, especially if like me you pee as often as a water fountain at altitude (I'm fine on the ground). Whatever timing you had in mind when you were sitting and and thinking of a pee, is now gone through the window. Now you're standing and holding it. Yes, we are not children - we should be able to hold it! But holding it 3 or 4 times a day for longer than I would if I were on the ground, AND for the rest of my flying career? That's got to be doing some long lasting damage!
Yes, my airline doesn't curtain off the forward galley or station a cart in between. It considers it too impractical.
Last edited by Superpilot; 31st Mar 2016 at 10:26.
The two person rule is more practical for some aircraft types/cabin set ups than others.
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Wor Yerm
Age: 68
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The two people in the flight deck rule is complete and utter bollocks. It suggests that just before one person leaves, another comes in (or one leaves and the other comes in). And in that time, the aircraft had to be flown and communications have to be monitored. At the same time, nothing must be touched that would compromise the aircraft. Then we are invariably left with cabin crew monitoring us. And prey tell me, what could they do? Would they know you have just done something that will jeopordise the aircraft? (There are no prizes for the correct answer). So if Mr Moffat is unable to see the problem with this shyte dictat, then he was little more than talking ballast.
Do I stick to the rule? Yes. Of course I do and compromise flight safety in the process because it does creates unnecessary hassle. But as ever, the practitioners of onastic practices in EASA have fudged and fumbled to try and weasle their way out the problem. The problem is that there are are (too many) people flying public transport aircraft who shouldn't be.
ps. Are there any pilots in EASA? I get the impression it is made up of wannabes and ner'do'wells.
Do I stick to the rule? Yes. Of course I do and compromise flight safety in the process because it does creates unnecessary hassle. But as ever, the practitioners of onastic practices in EASA have fudged and fumbled to try and weasle their way out the problem. The problem is that there are are (too many) people flying public transport aircraft who shouldn't be.
ps. Are there any pilots in EASA? I get the impression it is made up of wannabes and ner'do'wells.
Piltdown Man
Agreed, but if it's a rule, as in a "must", it didn't come from EASA.
...
Might be, but the problem might be closer to home..
If the EASA recommendation is causing so much grief where you work then is it worth trying to get your management in your own company to read again what EASA actually wrote, perform their own risk assessment and then implement " other equivalent mitigating measures"....or would that cost them too much?
The two people in the flight deck rule is complete and utter bollocks.
...
Are there any pilots in EASA?
If the EASA recommendation is causing so much grief where you work then is it worth trying to get your management in your own company to read again what EASA actually wrote, perform their own risk assessment and then implement " other equivalent mitigating measures"....or would that cost them too much?