The process of having a person coming and going to the cockpit on a procedural level creates a potential entry point for a malicious intent. The whole cockpit closure scenario should be reassessed from the start.

lot of awful discriminating and stupid posts here even by professional pilots, except the ones who have a little bit of understanding, insight and perhaps self experience of mental health issues.

Years ago we had Hitlers and Stalins, destroying whatever they could.
Now we have Breiviks and Lubitzes. As long as there are humans there will be madness. As sad and tragic as it is.

Perhaps some madness could be prevented by a better understanding of it?
But this chap could have had an underlying serious personality disorder, making him depressive as he was not functioning as he wanted? He could not fulfill his own expectations? This is where some societies or the culture of a country fails every so often. For example, look at Japan and their demand for perfection but then the suicide statistics ...

As sad and tragic as it is, it was a question of when and where.

Hi Dieseal8I am giving, I admit, a rather extreme example. But it does get to the basis of the issue.

So if my example is invalid, maybe you can give the most extreme scenario where the CC could be trained in when and how to intervene and countermand the actions of the (acting) aircraft Commander?

Two in the cockpit
 

Perhaps I missed something, but as a retired air carrier pilot, and former Airbus driver, who just happened to be working on 9/11, I was under the impression that the requirement for a cabin crew-member to come to the flight deck in the event of one of the pilots having to leave the flight deck was primarily to look through the peep hole and verify who was trying to enter. It's true that on the "Bus," and other two pilot A/C, you can unlock the door without leaving your seat, but without CCTV, you can't actually check who is on the other side without getting out of the chair. Emergency entry code or no code!
Also it was FAR regulations that above FL250 when one of the pilots left their station the other had to be on and breathing oxygen. Above FL250 not only would you have to actually leave the seat but you would have to remove the mask. Of course "secret code" knocks were arranged to circumvent the regulation but the rule still was in place.
I don't recall it ever being mentioned that the purpose for the two on the flight deck rule was to have the F/A subdue the sole remaining pilot if he or she should go "over the edge."
As I recall the policy was crafted out of a concern that someone from the cabin might attempt to take advantage of a pilot leaving the Flight deck to somehow take control of the controls. Similar to the ban on congregation near the forward lav.

As I said, I might be mistaken. It wouldn't have been the first time I was daydreaming when something relevant was discussed in ground school.

Can everyone who is harping on about the cockpit doors please stop and think before posting rubbish.

A pilot could destroy the plane with the other pilot strapped in next to him and the Chief Pilot in the jump seat. Chuck bloody Norris in the jumpseat. It's easy. You've got the controls.

Forget about the door. It is not relevant.
Forget about the door. It does what it was designed to do.

There could be times when access to the flight deck during flight is in the best interest of flight safety.

All very true.

@Murexway: It obviously detects when the aircraft is in landing config although EGPWS is still active.

About the FA being present in cockpit rule, if the FA hears someone banging from outside how will they prevent who-ever is in cockpit to stop denying entry? All FAs need to be taught how to use the cockpit lock switch operation?

astroduffer:Spot on :ok: Hence my questions to others about moving to your second sentence...

...and they are given the authority to override the Commander to do so?

Again
This guy is solely responsible for this

The fact that 1/4 US women are on psych meds speaks more to the profit motivation of the industry than their state of mind

I'm not sure I believe that number either
That equates to 40,000,000 mil females

Self medication with medical assistance
How many drink
Do illegal drugs
Over eat
Are all mentally ill

Everyone is mentally ill to some degree
Just as they are physically ill

Mental illness has become an industry and an excuse

Not to be rude, but I'm going to go out on a limb here and guess you are not a pilot on these types of airplanes?

To open the cockpit door?

On 9-11 I was flying as a captain for a major U.S. carrier. After going through some interim procedures to prevent breech of the cockpit door (serving carts blocking the aisle with flight attendants standing behind them, F/C pax volunteering to tackle anyone trying to get over the cart, etc.) we finally got the reinforced doors. We then went to having an F/A stand just inside the door anytime one of the pilots needed to use the lav. Their sole functions were (and are) to raise the alarm in case the sole pilot at the controls collapses, and to physically open the door for the returning pilot in case the electric lock mechanisms malfunction.

So they are panicking saying we need to have stricter screening, pilots with emotional problems banned for life and license taken away...

This is going to do more harm than good, as the genuine pilots who want to seek help and get better will now bottle it up and not disclose for fear of losing their careers!

It's one incident! Very sad but no need for drastic action to be taken...

Aviation is still safest

Unfortunately we've reached the stage where the only solutions looked at are the imposition of new rules, which inevitably lead to the Law of Unintended Consequences biting us all in the ass. This applies to society as a whole, not just aviation. Kids scrape their knees? Don't let them play, then wonder why they're getting fat. Drug might have nasty side effect? Ban it and let the people who need it die. The list is endless.

From the BBC website:


'In a statement (in German), prosecutors said they had seized medical documents from Mr Lubitz's two residences - his Duesseldorf flat and his parents' home north of Frankfurt - which indicated an "existing illness and appropriate medical treatment".
The "fact that, among the documents found, there were sick notes - torn-up, current and for the day of the crash - leads to the provisional assessment that the deceased was hiding his illness from his employer", the report states.
Germanwings confirmed it had not been given a sick note for the day of the crash.
Duesseldorf's University Hospital issued a statement (in German) saying Mr Lubitz had attended the hospital on 10 March and last month.
Adding that it had handed his medical records over to prosecutors, it said reports the co-pilot had been treated there for depression were incorrect.
Germany's Rheinischer Post newspaper, which spoke to the hospital, quoted its own unnamed sources as saying Mr Lubitz had been suffering from a physical, rather than a mental, illness.'

I had wondered if he was ill, I mean physically ill, yesterday thus my post asking about the dates of his medicals (I think he had one due in June).

My answer to you is yours above! Firstly the probable cause of this was the fact that the FO was secure and alone with whatever dreadful thoughts he had.
Had the Captain burst through that door that peace would have been shattered and the FO would probably have collapsed into a snivelling nervous breakdown to be carried off by the medics on landing you presume he would be aggressive and fighting the Captain to death?

Secondly with the door open not only the Captain but also members of the Cabin crew would assist in overpowering him It has happened with violent PAX and cabin crew.

lastly even on your own if you know someone is trying to kill you and 150 people you will be surprised at the strength you will find [stick your fingers in his eyes he will soon stop)[/QUOTE]

Please use your loaf. If the pilot wanted to prang the plane all he has to do is stamp on a rudder at the wrong time or start lever to cutoff at 500 feet or rotate, pitch up, pitch down roll. It's all over red rover.

The door will not help you against crew. Geddit?

I do not cease to be amazed by the mono dimensional comments of people posting (hopefully not airline pilots or engineers!), stating that simply the FO was guilty and that no external factors or bodies or people bear any responsibility in these cases.

The world is not as simple as that. the entire environment of this young man will need to ask themselves questions and learn what they could have done better.

We are all the complement of our DNA, our environment and our experiences.

I agree completely with the need to support any pilot who develops mental health issues during their career. But I think that is quite different from hiring a pilot who had the serious problems during training that Andreas Lubitz displayed. If the precautionary principle had been applied, Lubitz's ambitions would have been frustrated, but 150 people would still be alive.

Just wanted to clear up some misunderstandings regarding confidentiality within a doctor-patient relationship. Breaching confidentiality isn't something we do lightly, but there are numerous situations where NOT doing so would be illegal; for example, doctors have a legal obligation to inform vehicle licensing authorities if someone develops a medical condition rendering them unsafe to drive - epilepsy, for example. In the case of pilots, the list of such conditions is much longer, and rightly so. Any doctor who suspected a pilot of being unsafe to fly and who failed to breach confidentiality and inform his employers as well as the relevant licensing and safety organisations would leave themselves open for criminal negligence proceedings.