Can someone confirm whether or not that BA no longer utilises a 2 person cockpit policy? If this is the case, then it is indeed worrying.. The United States adopted a 2 person cockpit policy immediately after 9/11 so why wasn't this policy also adopted across Europe?

For a whole bunch of reasons:

Assessment of effectiveness of 2-persons-in-the-cockpit recommendation included in EASA SIB 2015-04

Do you really expect an answer to that or any security related issue on an open forum?

As to your further comments about the US situation - have a read of the EASA SIB Dave R kindly posted a link to.

A solution for one problem can create a separate and entirely different problem. Super secure cockpit doors have led to pilots being able to down aircraft when alone in the cockpit with no way for others on the aircraft to regain "control" of the cockpit. This anti terrorist door created the opportunity for those pilots who are unwell or misled to kill everyone on board for whatever reason they may have.

Perhaps it's time to rethink this strategy. Let's go back to regular doors and screen passengers better. Once you let on terrorists , having a secure door does not solve ALL of your potential problems. It is impossible to be reasonably sure another pilot is not going to use the opportunity of being alone in the cockpit to once again down the aircraft. But we need to ask ourselves if the problem of having pilots down aircraft behind secure doors is greater than the problem of terrorists gaining access to the cockpit. Which problem is greater?

Now AvHerald jumps in....

Crash: Germanwings A320 near Barcelonnette on Mar 24th 2015, first officer alone in cockpit, initiated rapid descent, aircraft impacted terrain

"Assessment of arguments

The evidence suggesting incorrect investigation proceedings appears very strong and thus clearly underlines that there is a need to conduct further investigation to clarify all those points. It remains fully open whether such investigations would lead to a completely different scenario of how this aircraft came down possibly exonerating the first officer or whether these investigations would bring about firm evidence proving the first officer's guilt beyond any reasonable doubt."

Translation: "Here at Avherald, we have an extremely flimsy understanding of the way an accident investigation is carried out, its scope, and (perhaps most importantly) its purpose. But we're not going to let that get in the way of some free publicity."

Have to say I'm struggling with the AvH take on this on this.

You can argue about legal process perhaps, but.....

P1 can't enter flightdeck. Why? Because according to AvH there's no evidence he entered the emergency code ( well AFAIK there wouldn't be...) or it might due to a mystery defect reported previously.

Then somehow (presumably AvH think due to another fault, coincident with the door remaining locked) the aircraft begins a descent that ends with ground impact....

Indeed. Still don't understand why Lubitz used his oxy mask....

:D
This means AvH has lost any remaining shreds of credibility in my eyes.

AvH has gone downhill. Last week the author was saying that the laptop restrictions were a threat to safety because of the batteries and had some seriously overly dramatic headline. Completely ignoring the fact that it was to reduce the risk of a terror attack.

I'm waiting for a 'new take' on MH370 (perhaps aliens?) or 9/11 being missiles dressed up as airliners and all of the passengers are being held in Area 51.

It seems AvHerald is trying to go more mainstream. RIP AvHerald.

Elvis alive?

AVherald's strong side in my view has always been listing global incidents and accidents fast and fact minded, in their no nonsense, easy to read standard format. Now going into the accident-analysis or possibly even the comments branch might stretch it a bit too far it seems. That goes beyound what a small company can do.

I hope they keep their trustworthy core business as that made them almost unique.

So do I.

Isn't it a one man site?

They're not all that. I can think of a couple of incidents I've witnessed/heard and nothing has appeared. And these were incidents which were a lot more serious than smoky ovens or strange smell incidents which seem a staple of AvHerald these days.

Then you've got the idiotic comments that accompany each post.

Simon did good when it came to the Wideroe near catastrophe which was brushed off by the crew and operator but it seems this Germanwings incident is not going to have the same outcome.

The facts are fairly solid. That is Andreas Lubitz took the plane down. As sad and as uncomfortable as it is to believe that one of us could do that, all of the evidence points to that being the chain of events.

We don't know how much pressure is put on sites like that to stay quiet, withdraw stories and such. It's big business lawyers you might interfere with all the time.
Under these conditions AVherald does quite a good job.

Yes indeed.

But don't think the Germanwings crash will have a different outcome.

Maybe those who are critical of the AVH in this subject should ask a different question.

I don't think what triggered that article was the question of guilt, but the question whether there were things in this investigation which deserve scrutiny because they are either wrong or at least do not live up to the standards of a normal accident investigation.

I remember when the accident happened that I was taken very much aback when the French held a press conference before even the FDR was found and declared they knew what happened. That is just not how ANY accident investigation is done, nor are the police or state lawyers the people to communicate this.

Think about it. This fact alone put a undue and uncalled for bias on the whole thing and probably some of the questions asked in the AVH article are more than justified. AVH are not the only ones asking that either.

My own take of this whole thing is that I would want to know if this investigation went wrong and if it did why and for what purpose. And I am quite certain that this is the purpose why AVH decided to publish this article. I think they are well aware of the risk of voicing their concerns but they have not been known to shut up when they thought something needed to be investigated. The Windroe incident proves that I think.

Whether the final outcome is the same or not is not the issue at all. The issue is, that there appear to be quite a bit of questions which need answering as to the nature and content of the final report.

The french state prosecutors went public early with some precise factual information. No complaint about that. There was a huge public interest given the unique circumstances that couldn't wait years for some proper investigation to finish everything.
I clearly prefer this over unofficial leaks bit by bit where you never know where they come from.

You may think and wish that but FWIW the French system often appoints an examining magistrate with serious powers immediately very very quickly after any fatal accidents, road, rail, sea or air, and they can and do sometimes talk to the press.

I saw the said press conference and whilst you are right, the some of the comments were surprising and yes, the FDR hadn't been found or read at that stage the conclusions that had already been drawn at that stage from ADS data seem to have stood the test of the subsequent investigation by the technical teams involved in the investigation over the next several months.