Two in the cockpit
 

With bullet proof cockpit doors nowadays, we should have a 'two in the cockpit at all times' rule.:hmm:

At Ryanair we do, if a pilot needs to go for a comfort break he / she is replaced with a cabin crew member

I suspect it is standard in UK. Both airlines I worked for post 9/11 had that rule. Even better is a three-man crew (here we go again). In the military, with the luxury of a flight engineer, it was required that two of the three seats were occupied.

There is the answer, bring back the Proffessional Flight Engineer. Most PFEs I flew with in the past, could be meaner than a junk yard dog when needed to be.

Very handy when it comes to terrorists trying to gain access to the cockpit.

Also, when the aircraft breaks down, they can become even more handy.

Two in the cockpit
 

My company has that rule. You might find it is simply industry-standard but often-flouted.

We used to have that rule, however we do not have it anymore for quite some time now. Minimum is one pilot at his station, the other has to keep his absence as short as possible. Of course during take off and landing two pilots in the flight deck is the minimum, only during cruise is any absence allowed and only for very specific reasons.

I think many of us can imagine scenarios where drafting in somebody from the cabin just to ensure there are always two in the flight deck might not lead to an improvement in safety and security, and I'm not talking about the risks of distraction...........you need to choose your friends carefully ;)

I'm afraid Wiggy is correct. Tell me, how would having a sweet twenty-something or other cabin crew member sitting in the otherwise vacant F/O seat stop me from doing something I really ought not to? Will she whack me with fire axe? Will she be able to find the radio page? After I trip a C/Bs will she be able to open the door? This is a pointless box ticking exercise. One of the few defences against insane acts is a proper staff welfare monitoring program. A starting point might be something quite simple as a cup of free company coffee whilst reading through your briefing. Or a simple chat with the driver of the crew transport. But this costs money and after all, airlines sub most of these things out and buy insurance to cover themselves against losses caused by staff action. But nobody cares. Instead, we have to face the Gestapo will continue to p!ss us off with enforcement of "no yoghurts or pointy sticks" policy, yet fail to determine if we should even be where we are... Basically, provided not too many people are killed too often nothing will happen, because... nobody really cares.

Very much agreed, but that would cost.

There's the problem and I agree very much with your final point. I see no benefit and actually some risk in having someone sit behind a solo pilot on the flight deck.... there's no point unless the airlines are prepared to engage in something along the lines of (by modern standards) very invasive Positive Vetting for all crew members.

....worms, can of, open...

I think that begs the question do you think the current security check and associated certificate, for either pilots or cabin crew, is worth the paper it is written on?

I'm not sure we can go into the details here of what the check actually involves, but I'm sure you can guess my opinion.

You bet I'm serious. Let's start with free coffee. It's not the fact that the coffee is free it's the fact that someone who knows you says 'Hello' and asks how you are before you fly. It's someone who knows you who asks how your other half and your loved ones are doing. Mental support and assessment if you like. Most if us don't get that. Instead it's rush rush rush and the psychos get on the plane first. But maybe, just maybe, a caring colleague might call you in sick because they are worried about you.

Then we have to confirm that the correct people are on the aircraft. When is that done? Some airlines do it, but most don't.

Now consider lack of the keypad excuse. Firstly, few aeroplanes lack the ability to open the door from the outside but I believe all have the ability to deny access. The latter is a vital necessity. But It's only a matter of a emails or so to force all operators without external access to fit such devices. Just like what happened to force all operators to install ballistic proof doors in the first place. Simples.

And the next is a failure to think ahead: Most CC haven't a clue about the nitty-gritty of what we do but they'll know something is wrong - but by then it's too late. Whack! Unless of course we are now going to fly with really big, strong, butch CC who can crack walnuts with their eyelids. And who will stop them from taking control? Or are you suggesting that we fly with airborne security? The same half wits who man the check-points and turf out our sunscreen and toothpaste? I can hear them comment now "You are not allowed to touch the C/B panel until I say so" or "Selecting Comm 3 to voice.." Look, these guys have to wear slip-on because they can't tie laces. And who will vet and train them them? And what happens if some naughty miss-creatant empties the flight deck oxygen? More work required here I think.

Returning to CC, yes they have been cleared to the same level as us. So what?Flight 370 may reveal that more than a security check is required. And that I think is where we started.

So let's be very clear - always having to have two in the flight is a dumb rule. For it to work and be worthwhile, the additional person will have to have a significant amount of training (both technical and psychological), additional vetting and plenty of practice. Anything less will just be more box ticking theatricals, just like modern airport and aviation security.

It might be something needed in planes certified in some African country that do not have the facilities that are a fixed requirement in most first world countries. Quite surprised there are are still planes without electronic lock and camera, the retrofit period for those was over around eight years ago over here. Granted, some of the older installations are less than ideal, but they still exist.

You've missed the point yet again. A bouncer from Mothercare will not be able to stop me doing from doing what I want with the aircraft. But anybody big enough potentially becomes an even greater risk because I can hear it now; the mouth-breathing knuckle dragger walks into the cabin - "I fort dey wer about to take-over de plane. So I wacked 'em. Can anybodee fly wun of dese fings?"

Get real. Think of the problem and then the solution. Muppets in the flight deck won't work. And we also have to balance to the solution with the threat. This sort of behaviour is spectacular, but fortunately very rare. And we do not want to suffer from an ill considered over-reaction. So treat this as an engine warning in flight. So first you fly the plane and then...

If your aircraft is so poorly and dangerously equipped in so much that it has a lockable cockpit door but no method of entry from outside, then you can have two choices. One is never to leave. The other is to always replace the person who leaves with another whose sole function is that of door opener. And that is to over-come a dreadful lack of redundancy in the door design. There will be no other benefits (other than a possible improvement in your captain's morale if it's you being replaced) because an average CC member will not be able to prevent a take-over of an aircraft.

And I think if you read my previous post you'll find that the reference 'muppet' referred to people not normally found in flight decks. I was suggesting that they may placed there by pathetic, ill-considered, knee jerk legislation in the future.

I think the thing bral was objecting to is this:
Well, it looks like I was wrong. Incredibly, in the 21st century, some aircraft with highly dangerous and unsafe lockable cockpit doors with locking systems in the cockpit only are still legally allowed to fly. Because of this oversight and a failure to install surveillance cameras, an additional person always has to replace a pilot leaving the leaving the cockpit. And quite right so!

Bral's reply regarding Muppets is not worthy of a response.