altiplano wrote:Rockie you are misleading the issues talking about Airbus design in the same breath as this.
I guess we'll have to just disagree on the idea that this will enhance safety. I suppose you are a supporter of the recent 20 hour rule too.
I say neither will enhance safety meaningfully. Just like babysitters in the flight deck and my family banned from the flight deck won't enhance safety either.
Of course you don't see the parallel because you don't see how your opposition to two in the F/D is all about your ego in the first place.
The argument posited by the pilots is that having a RAIC holding member of the crew in the flight deck is unsafe, ignoring the uncomfortable fact they didn't think it was for the 70 years before TC made it mandatory. Then you turn around and say having unscreened family members is safe because you actually want them in there. Amazingly you can't see the contradiction in those two arguments.
You say having two in the FD doesn't meaningfully enhance safety. I disagree, but in lieu of that what do you suggest? Even if you were right the only explanation for your opposition to it is your fragile ego as indicated by you (and many others) characterizing it as "babysitting". You don't call it ineffective and you don't suggest an alternative - you call it babysitting. It's your ego that opposes it - not reason.
As far the two in the cockpit rule being ineffective is concerned, ask yourself this:
If you even remotely suspected the other pilot had a mental health issue and might possibly be unstable, would you leave them alone on the wrong side of an impenetrable cockpit door?
Rockie you talk yourself in circles and if you like the policy good for you. I'd say you're in the minority though.
Don't put words in my mouth or imply you know what I think.
I never said anything about FAs being a safety risk or not wanting them there. I simply think it's an unnecessary policy and I don't like sitting in the seat for 8 hours on a crossing all night and having to wait for them to come up and then feel rushed when I go back to try to wake myself up before TOD because they're in the middle of the breakfast service...
You talk about 70 years... Let's look at that... 70 years and no incidents that would have been mitigated by the policy. 60 years of family in the flight deck and no incidents... That's real data. Not feel good PR bullshit because of bad press... Hell foreign carriers are flying into Canada today with family in their jumpseats... No problems...
Rockie wrote:Amazingly you can't see the contradiction in those two arguments.
altiplano wrote: Hell foreign carriers are flying into Canada today with family in their jumpseats... No problems...
According to subpart 701, that doesn't appear to have been allowed since 2003:
Application
701.27 (1) All the provisions of this Division apply in respect of the operation by a foreign air operator, in Canadian airspace, of a transport category aircraft that is
(a) a passenger-carrying aeroplane in respect of which a type certificate has been issued authorizing the transport of 20 or more passengers; or
(b) an all-cargo aeroplane with a payload capacity of more than 3 405 kg (7,500 pounds) that was equipped with a flight deck door on June 21, 2002.
(2) Section 701.28 also applies in respect of the operation by a foreign air operator, in Canadian airspace, of a transport category aircraft that is
(a) a passenger-carrying aeroplane in respect of which a type certificate has been issued authorizing the transport of fewer than 20 passengers; or
(b) an all-cargo aeroplane with a payload capacity of 3 405 kg (7,500 pounds) or less that was equipped with a flight deck door on June 21, 2002.
SOR/2003-121, s. 2.
Admission to Flight Deck
701.28 No person shall be admitted to the flight deck of an aeroplane other than
(a) a flight crew member;
(b) a crew member performing their duties;
(c) an inspector of the civil aviation authority of the state where the aeroplane is registered; or
(d) a person who has expertise related to the aeroplane, its equipment or its crew members and who is required to be in the flight deck to provide a service to the air operator.
altiplano wrote: Hell foreign carriers are flying into Canada today with family in their jumpseats... No problems...
According to subpart 701, that doesn't appear to have been allowed since 2003:
Application
701.27 (1) All the provisions of this Division apply in respect of the operation by a foreign air operator, in Canadian airspace, of a transport category aircraft that is
(a) a passenger-carrying aeroplane in respect of which a type certificate has been issued authorizing the transport of 20 or more passengers; or
(b) an all-cargo aeroplane with a payload capacity of more than 3 405 kg (7,500 pounds) that was equipped with a flight deck door on June 21, 2002.
(2) Section 701.28 also applies in respect of the operation by a foreign air operator, in Canadian airspace, of a transport category aircraft that is
(a) a passenger-carrying aeroplane in respect of which a type certificate has been issued authorizing the transport of fewer than 20 passengers; or
(b) an all-cargo aeroplane with a payload capacity of 3 405 kg (7,500 pounds) or less that was equipped with a flight deck door on June 21, 2002.
SOR/2003-121, s. 2.
Admission to Flight Deck
701.28 No person shall be admitted to the flight deck of an aeroplane other than
(a) a flight crew member;
(b) a crew member performing their duties;
(c) an inspector of the civil aviation authority of the state where the aeroplane is registered; or
(d) a person who has expertise related to the aeroplane, its equipment or its crew members and who is required to be in the flight deck to provide a service to the air operator.
SOR/2003-121, s. 2.
It's happening. Guaranteed. First hand knowledge of one major foreign carrier flying into Canada with family in the jump.
I'm sure more - not just because of rumours - but because that's situation normal in most of the world.
I'm definitely in the minority Altiplano. You apparently don't see the need for the policy but I can give a list of crashes that occurred because an unstable pilot was left alone in the FD. You know the ones I'm talking about, and if only there was an FA there to open the door these probably would not have happened. You can deny it if you want but if you were the guy on the wrong side of the door trying to get in your opinion would be different.
It also might not be you saying the FA up front is unsafe, but plenty of people are and I got that from the horse's mouth. It is a ridiculous argument.
Plus as I said, your argument is entirely emotional because you feel insulted. Your persistence along with most pilots in calling it "babysitting" makes that obvious.
You're right Altiplano, I am in the minority of pilots who don't feel insulted by this simple, sensible, safety precaution. I don't feel mistrusted, I don't feel disrespected, I don't feel like my authority has been eroded, and I don't find it an unacceptable burden to call back if one of us needs to go. I can even wait 10 minutes if necessary because thankfully my bladder is still up to the task. If yours isn't just tell the FA to drop what they're doing and hightail it up front. No big deal...it's just a safety precaution.
Rockie wrote:I'm definitely in the minority Altiplano. You apparently don't see the need for the policy but I can give a list of crashes that occurred because an unstable pilot was left alone in the FD. You know the ones I'm talking about, and if only there was an FA there to open the door these probably would not have happened. You can deny it if you want but if you were the guy on the wrong side of the door trying to get in your opinion would be different.
It also might not be you saying the FA up front is unsafe, but plenty of people are and I got that from the horse's mouth. It is a ridiculous argument.
Plus as I said, your argument is entirely emotional because you feel insulted. Your persistence along with most pilots in calling it "babysitting" makes that obvious.
You're right Altiplano, I am in the minority of pilots who don't feel insulted by this simple, sensible, safety precaution. I don't feel mistrusted, I don't feel disrespected, I don't feel like my authority has been eroded, and I don't find it an unacceptable burden to call back if one of us needs to go. I can even wait 10 minutes if necessary because thankfully my bladder is still up to the task. If yours isn't just tell the FA to drop what they're doing and hightail it up front. No big deal...it's just a safety precaution.
In the three suicide crashes I know of, the other pilot was present and the aircraft crashed anyway
In the last the NTSB believes the Captain pulled the circuit breaker for the CVR when he went to the lav, and then dove the aircraft vertically into the water when the FO left. No one knows what happened to Malaysian 370, but it's pretty clear nobody could get into the cockpit to stop what was going on.
Gilles Hudicourt wrote:I think the Germanwings pilot waited for his colleague to go out just for convenience, but his presence would have changed nothing to the outcome.
It is true - their state of industry, zero hour cadet, buy a type rating, pay to fly an airliner with nothing industry has brought us problems. Including these 2.
2 years of being locked in - that guy would have never made it through his first job here instructing/up north/on the ramp here... let alone fit in the flight deck of an airliner.
Now this guy, who shouldn't have been here in the first place, and the BS we'll deal with as a result of his actions... Fact is it wasn't a Canadian or Permanent Resident who earned that seat passed out at the wheel... It was a European who bought his 737 type rating and thus holds inadequate value for his position and the responsibility placed on him.
The reg to put a FA in the flight deck is just another example of closing the barn door after the horses have bolted. It won't stop one single psycho pilot determined to crash a plane, just perhaps alter his/her method slightly. (Sweet! Solved it! Uh oh, the guy did WHAT with the crash axe on short final?!) Think the handful of suicidal pilots out of MILLIONS of flights wouldn't have found another way to do what they intended if the regs had been different? Want to bet the farm on it?
Oooh! That sounds scary! But wait a sec. There's a silver lining. In an industry based on managing risk, based on sheer numbers the risk of suicide-by-pilot is statistically infinitesimal. But it can't be eliminated. Sorry, but there's always going to have to be an element of trust in the drivers up front. There is zero evidence that a second person can prevent a determined person from doing what they want to do. Yet, it sorta seems or feels like maybe we should do something and this sorta seems like doing something, so hey let's do it. So we at least look like we're doing something.
I don't feel disrespected by the reg. But I do feel like a few constantly disrespect people's intelligence with their endless defence of ineffectual reasoning. The crashes didn't happen because an unstable pilot was left alone in a flight deck. They happened because the pilot was unstable. The hunt for a solution should be focused on the unstable pilot, not the flight deck. (But that would be like, hard! Compared to passing some simplistic rule!) It's that total lapse in logic that is irritating. Just another Rockie non-sequitur in a different form.
And really: when did we get to the point of being just super-eager to pile on as many rules, in every arena possible, in the interests of saving folks from themselves? Just slap the label of "safety" on anything, and it's unassailable, is that it? I honestly don't get the being so enamoured with regulation as the solution to everything. Is is the military background, this love affair with authority? Don't think, don't question, just blindly follow the rules? Because they're "safer". Mind-numbing. No wonder it's so easy to control people these days.
But that's the world we live in now. Critical thinking be damned, and always immediately default to the most cringing, fearful, overreaching "solution".
Although, I have my suspicions that Rockie just likes the rule because it's the only way he can get FA's to come up front!
---------- ADS -----------
I’m still waiting for my white male privilege membership card. Must have gotten lost in the mail.
Every safety measure in existence is a case of closing the barn door late Complex. We always find new ways to crash airplanes though and terrorists always find new ways to sow destruction, does that mean we shouldn't bother fixing the deficiencies as they're identified? Once again the FD door is a classic example, unfortunately it created other problems like we are discussing.
Two in the FD is a quick and effective means of increasing safety and reducing the opportunity for these type of events, but they are not the whole answer. Ensuring the mental health of the pilot is what really needs to be done and I'm sure there are lots of ways to do that.
Instead of just slamming the two in the cockpit rule Complex why don't you help come up with something better to replace it?
If I may. I am not aware of any Canadian or US commercial airliner being deliberately thrown at the ground by direction action from the flight crew. Yes, there were incidents by disgruntled employees attacking(FedEx) and killing(BA-146) pilots. Professional organizations have generous EAPs(Employee Assistant Program) to deal with the fragility of humans for whatever reason and no doubt that contributes immensely before things go to far. Just my view.
As a member of the airline travelling public, we don't care honestly if FA has to occupy a place in the cockpit if a pilot has to absence him/her self for whatever reason inflight. If a poll was taken, I bet same travelling airline public would say tis not a bad idea at all.
I'm just amused at how we live in age (well, a country anyway) that truly believes all risk can be eliminated if we can just...make...enough...rules...
Once again Rockie takes a swing and a miss at the actual point. Of course I'm not opposed to repairing deficiencies as they become apparent. But the whole "aviation procedures are written in blood" thing is applicable in the context of the assumption that everyone is trying to make things safer by learning from mistakes. Deliberate action to harm a flight, by someone entrusted to do precisely the opposite, is a whole different kettle of fish.
I simply disagree that the risk of suicidal pilots is a) statistically significant, (measured against the vast array of safety threats to every single routine flight), and more importantly b) is reduced whatsoever (from an already laughably low level) by having a second person on the flight deck.
In other words I don't think the rule is stupid for trying to make things safer, I think it's stupid for the fact it completely fails to do so. Now I do acknowledge that it may have some value as PR theatre for the public, sort of like TSA screening, but let's not flatter ourselves into thinking it has much practical value beyond that.
The (scary for some) reality is humans will always be able to cause harm, and can't ever be prevented from doing so completely. Build all the systems you want, pass all the rules you want, tweak procedures all day long, but once you have someone in a position of trust and responsibility working 180 degrees against them, rules are nigh-useless. In fact, they become the weapon. Just wait for the day when some depressed FA takes the axe to the meatsack in the right seat while the skipper takes a leak. I mean really, when you count the decimal points, for all intents it's statistically just as likely as a pilot. What then? A third crew member to watch the second?
The fearful approach of course, it try to build the ultimate totalitarian society, which is the direction things are going. Can't say that I see that as an improvement though.
---------- ADS -----------
I’m still waiting for my white male privilege membership card. Must have gotten lost in the mail.
Your opinion that the 2 in the FD rule is ineffective Complex is just that, your opinion. I have a different one. Since it's impossible to have statistics on events that don't happen it's not possible to say for sure. I could for instance say altitude cross checks are ineffective at preventing busts and unless you have stats proving otherwise we'll never know. We do however do altitude cross checks even though we have no proof they're effective, and altitude busts happen regardless.
What is interesting is your opposition to something that happens all the time anyway and the only difference is the timing. Do you have any valid reason not to do it? Does it decrease safety? Does it increase the chance the airplane will crash? Is your only opposition to it your uninformed, baseless opinion that it doesn't work?
If not, what would work? Or do you just think the chance is so remote we don't have to do anything? Lots of questions I know, but so far you're just another guy blabbing that whatever done isn't working without offering proof, or suggesting an alternative.
Rockie wrote:If not, what would work? Or do you just think the chance is so remote we don't have to do anything?
I think the general theme here is that you can't legislate for every eventuality. You just can't. So no, I don't think anything should be done here, right now.
Our 24/7 sensationalist fear-mongering society is causing people/governments to legislate without any thought or due diligence. Knee-jerk responses to statistically rare incidents are counter productive, and quite frankly set dangerous precedents. Using Sunwing as an example here, lets say part of the fallout is that now all pilots are mandated to piss before push-back. Even though it's an invasion of your personal privacy, in a nation where over 9,000 flights occur daily without incident, lets pretend it is now law. So then, what happens if a pilot dies in the FD at the controls? Kinda like at AC a while back. The media will be there with all it's fearful hype and ignorance, but this time they'll be pushing for biological markers. "They already pee in a cup, lets test it for everything else. And while we're at it, lets draw blood. It's only a small inconvenience!" And some of your peers will be saying "That sounds like a great idea, after all we've got nothing to hide!" ..then another incident happens. And you can bet they'll take it from wherever they left off.
You see where I'm going with this? It's not too hard to imagine being legislated out of a job. I am blowing this out of proportion but in a world gone PC crazy, I take these small threats to my personal liberty quite seriously. At what point does overzealous legislation do more harm than good? Does the minute level of risk outweigh the cumulative inconvenience and cost now levied on the vast majority? I would say, without hesitation, that it does not!
Complex isn't far off in saying that this is how you build a totalitarian society. You don't wake up in one overnight. It happens wilfully, by people giving away their liberty little by little.
No, I don't see where you're going with this. Is the presence of FA's in the cockpit something unusual? Where is the drastic change to normality here with this rule besides TC making mandatory something that routinely happens anyway?
I just don't get the opposition to this, especially when most pilots are very happy to have a cute FA up there for hours. The only difference is TC is now telling you that it's mandatory, and for some reason that makes guys lose their minds and get all offended. I don't get it.
I think a lot of pilots are against this because they see it as a useless PR move. It doesn't matter it if a flight attendant is sitting in the jump seat, an unstable pilot who was so inclined could have it upside down in the blink of an eye.
mantogasrsrwy wrote:I think a lot of pilots are against this because they see it as a useless PR move. It doesn't matter it if a flight attendant is sitting in the jump seat, an unstable pilot who was so inclined could have it upside down in the blink of an eye.
If it's an ineffective strategy people who are opposed to it for that reason should have no qualms leaving an unstable pilot alone in the FD since there's nothing they can do to stop them anyway...right?
Would you leave an unstable pilot alone in the FD?
I could not have possibly said it better than Mr. North. Exceptionally well-said, I wish I had written it myself.
Rockie still just. doesn't. get it. He's arguing something entirely different, fixating on a specific procedure when I was trying to expand the discussion to encompass the danger of passing arguably ineffectual rules to address minuscule threats. He and I just may have to agree to disagree on the effectiveness of having an FA in the flight deck as a countermeasure to the dubious threat of a suicidal pilot. My opposition is not to some procedure per se - it's to this kind of thinking, which alas, Rockie, you manage to embody over and over. I have never said there are no threats, or that we should just ignore them, just that it is counterproductive to focus on the emotional ones while there are actual, real ones.
Moving the topic back closer to the title of the thread. I've noticed in a lot of the reporting of the story, the commenting of the general public seems to think that it would be a good idea to have random alcohol and/or drug testing for pilots. On the face of it, it seems reasonable, right? Pilots are in a position of great responsibility, hold many lives in their hands, so should be held to a higher standard, right?
A side note on my own experience with this. In the UAE, at EK they have mandatory, random drug and alcohol testing. You only find out if you've been selected after you've gone through the immigration E-gate, once checking in on the company kiosk. At that point you cannot leave, you have to proceed to the testing office, where you blow in the breathalyzer and submit a urine sample. I was selected four times in nine years. On one of the tests I briefly had a false positive on the drug test. I knew it was wrong, but it's pretty stressful even for a few minutes to be in a country where such things have severe consequences. The subsequent test, of course cleared me. So, I am no stranger to random testing, lest anyone thinks I simply oppose it to be difficult. But I do strongly question the concept of emulating procedures used in countries with pitiful human, privacy, or individual rights. Is that really the direction Canada wishes to go? It does appear to be so.
Anyway, my point is more about addressing actual risks instead of perceived ones. It's easy to give away other people's rights. I'm quite certain the vast majority of the public commenting about testing for pilots aren't actually pilots themselves - so who cares if pilots have to have a new, onerous restriction put on them? It'll make things SAFER! That Sunwing story was SCARY!
Except. How big IS the threat to the traveling public posed by drunk pilots? Has there even been a single commercial airline crash in Canada with fatalities that was attributed, in part or wholly, to an inebriated pilot? Has ONE person ever died as a result?
On the other hand, in 2012 (latest stats I could find) 1,473 people died as a result of drunk drivers in Canada. Canada is ranked No. 1 amongst the 19 wealthiest countries in the world for percentage of roadway deaths linked to alcohol impairment. (Finally! Something Canada excels at!) Would we all be in favour of installing breathalyzer locks in each and every single passenger vehicle, considering the number of deaths? According to Rockie, the threshold to infringe on people's personal freedoms is much, much lower than 1,473 fatalities. So why isn't everyone clamouring for this? It couldn't be because that's a change that would affect ME, could it?
I offer this as an illustration of how selective, self-serving, and emotional human behaviour is when it comes to assessing risk. Shedding small personal liberties willingly to try and counter it is, as eloquently stated, NOT the answer.
Rockie seems to think that it should be incumbent on me to prove that the 2nd person in the flight deck isn't safer. (As if you can prove a negative). But he has it backwards. When you take away people's freedom - even in small, seemingly meaningless ways - it is absolutely the responsibility of those doing so to prove that it IS safer.
---------- ADS -----------
I’m still waiting for my white male privilege membership card. Must have gotten lost in the mail.
