I am very cautious about believing anything the press writes about aircraft incidents.

If the doors on these aircraft are of the intrusion resistant type I don't think there is a way to remove them from the outside. Otherwise they wouldn't be intrusion resistant!

If you read that carefully, "crew" could still mean the first officer and cabin crew on the flight deck were the ones removing the door from its hinges.
Cheers,
Rich.

Anyone who has read the article “It Won’t Happen to You, of Course...But What if it Does?” by Bob Merrick in Transport Canada’s Aviation Safety Letter 3/2006 will no doubt be wondering exactly what the First Officer and/or Flight Attendant used to remove the hinges. For those who have not read it, the article strongly makes the case that in the event of a forced landing or crash the occupants of a plane might be dependant for survival and safety solely on what is in their pockets or on their person. Flight crews and pax should be appropriately dressed and should carry on their person the necessary survival gear. As he states: “Sure, there is survival gear in the aircraft, but sometimes airplanes burn following unusual landings, the survival stuff goes with it, and you’re left with what you have on your back and in your pockets.”
Apart from wearing suitable clothing, a pilot should have on him such items as matches in a waterproof container, mosquito repellent, a signalling mirror, a Mini Maglite and of course a Swiss Army knife or similar multi-purpose tool. Was it a Swiss Army knife that the CRJ crew used? I presume a CRJ’s cockpit does not normally contain a tool kit with suitable screwdrivers as part of its standard equipment. A crash axe would probably be too big to undo the sort of screws used for hinges. This would seem to indicate a Swiss Army knife or similar tool was used. If so, well done to the crew for being properly equipped. It supports the case that pilots should always carry Swiss Army knives and Mini Maglites on their belts. You never know when you might have to remove the cockpit door.
What about airport security personnel objecting to pilots carrying Swiss Army knives? Transport Canada has supplied the answer. Pilots have a duty and responsibility to themselves and their passengers to carry essential survival equipment on their person! Where I fly in Africa it is normal for both professional pilots and the smarter private types, such as farmers and missionaries, to carry a Swiss Army knife and Mini Maglite on their belts. As far as we are concerned these are no-go items, an essential part of our job equipment. Apart from possible survival use to build a fire to keep hungry wild animals (hyenas and lions here and bears in Canada) at bay or for warmth or to create smoke or for cooking or boiling water, I always check round the plane at each stop and find that the screwdriver blades of my Wenger Ranger knife come in handy from time to time to tighten loose fasteners or screws on various panels or the engine cowlings. Twice at remote locations I have been unable to start one engine and the boss and his engineering staff have had to come to the rescue in another aircraft. On both occasions at his request, because he knew I carried a Swiss Army knife, I was able to save considerable time by using my knife’s screwdriver blades to undo the myriad of fasteners and screws to remove the offending engine’s cowlings and covers before they arrived.
In several years in Africa, flying through numerous international airports in different countries as well as the bush strips, I have not heard of any pilot carrying a Swiss Army knife or similar tool having a problem with over-zealous security personnel. Security personnel here apply some common sense and intelligence to the carrying out of their duties. Most countries have laws regarding unlawful interference with air traffic or obstruction of aircrews in the performance of their duties. Trying to deprive aircrews of essential small repair and survival equipment would fall under this. If bothered by such obstruction, refuse to go without the necessary items, call the police and insist that the offending security person be charged. Make sure your dispatch knows the situation. Take note of the ID of both the security person and the cop and ensure that the matter is followed up. Security personnel are supposed to be there to help flight crews and air operators conduct a safe flight, not hinder them!

Meanwhile, back in the real world.........

Pretty shabby grammar if that is the case!

Pilots should carry useful items such as meanwhile the gestapo running security check points at uk airports won't let pilots through with bottles of water - to take a knive through you will be put against a wall and shot....

*If* the door was indeed removed from the flight deck side, perhaps you need to look at the statement from the other direction too:

"The first officer had remained on the flight deck, but was unable to open the jammed door, forcing the crew to remove it from its hinges with only 30 minutes remaining in the flight from Ottawa to Winnipeg, she said."

For the journalist responsible for paraphrasing (no doubt) the person directly commenting, the above use of grammar appears to have worked brilliantly: it's technically accurate but it's convinced you and no doubt many others that the door was removed from the cabin side. Job done, n'est ce pas? :)

Cheers,

Rich.

Wasn't the poor guy locked up in the lavatory in stead of locked out of the flight deck? makes more sense to me, especially with the lifting of the door out of its hinges and everything....Lavatory doors are made to be opened from the outside by lifting them out of their hinges. I had a look at my flight deck door, and it is utterly impossible to lift it in any way.

Fox Niner, that would seem to be a more plausible story. If it should eventually turn out that that's what happened, this will need to go down as the most grossly misreported inflight aviation event of the year. :=

On the other hand, if that were the case, one would also expect whoever Jazz has for "spin control" to be all over themselves setting the record straight. :confused:

How did they manage to get a screw driver through the security? :}

On a serious note, what if there was nothing to unhinge the door with!?

Isn't the lav in the back? :confused:

I'm sorry mate but whichever way you look at that sentence, it is clear that door was NOT opened from the flight deck side. It's not some journalistic trick, read the rest of the story.

Cheers,

Mixmaster:ok:

I remember years ago on a BAC 111 ,having the door jammed shut.It was my job to turn it into fragments with the axe.Took a while and finished with..its all part of the service sir to the front row pax as l emerged on their side.Just as well the sector was 2 hours
Ps we were jammed on the flight deck side of the door

Guilty as charged :D I'm not sure which site I originally read about this on but if the "The pilot eventually busted into the cockpit" in the first link isn't conclusive then the comments about terrorism in the canada.com one certainly seem to be (unless the person commenting also misunderstood) ;)

Which does rather beg the question, "What the hell are the hinges doing on the outside of a supposedly (next-to) impenetrable door?".

Cheers,

Rich.

It doesn't take a screwdriver on the RJ, but that's only true from the flight deck side.

Free Water.
 

Only a Canadian would want to go to the pisser moments before landing after drinking a bottle of free water.

CRJ-100 are 50 seaters thus no need for intrusion resitant doors. Non intrusion resitant door are more likely to jam (less elaborate anti-jam construction). If these doors jam some of them might be opened from the outside by lifting the hinges. But this is no breach in security.

Seems you learn something every day on this thread! :) Rather makes the whole thing a non-story then!

Cheers,

Rich.

Just out of interest why does a 50 seater plane not need an intrusion resistant door but one with say 100 plus passengers does? I would have thought, hypothetically speaking, that a hijacked 50 seater could be capable of doing a fair amount of damage!

I guess FAA and EASA had to draw a line somewhere. Otherwise we would need intruision resistant doors on 10 seat commuter planes, where the manufacturer had not even planned a cockpit door at all. So they set the limit to 60 seats.