Icebound Posted March 27, 2015 Report Posted March 27, 2015 As a result of the GermanWings accident, Canada has mandated that 2 people must be in the cockpit at all times. In 2-pilot flights, this means that a 3rd crew-member must enter the cockpit, should either of the two pilot need to leave to go to the washroom, or whatever. Does this make the situation safer?... ...., or does it add a 33-1/3 percent chance of having yet ANOTHER possibly-unstable person in the cockpit? Quote
Boges Posted March 27, 2015 Report Posted March 27, 2015 As a result of the GermanWings accident, Canada has mandated that 2 people must be in the cockpit at all times. In 2-pilot flights, this means that a 3rd crew-member must enter the cockpit, should either of the two pilot need to leave to go to the washroom, or whatever. Does this make the situation safer?... ...., or does it add a 33-1/3 percent chance of having yet ANOTHER possibly-unstable person in the cockpit? It's like why we still can't have a full bottle of hairgel in our carry-on. It's just a feel good measure because that's how this accident happened. The bigger question is how was this guy's mental issues not known to his employers and how did they let him in that plane. Quote
On Guard for Thee Posted March 27, 2015 Report Posted March 27, 2015 The 2 crew always in the cockpit rule has been in place in may airlines in the states for some time. It isnt really meant to deal with the 1 pilot on the flightdeck going nuts, it is to make sure the other pilot can reenter if the one at the controls should have a physical emergency and become incapacitated. Its sounding now like in the Germanwings case, the cojo had some mental problems he was able to hide from company. Quote
eyeball Posted March 27, 2015 Report Posted March 27, 2015 He didn't divulge his illness to his employer. My med fitness certificate requires that I tell every doctor I see that I'm a ticketed vessel master. But, I expect some sort of reactionary legislation that requires that doctors violate patient confidentiality in cases of suspected mental illness in people in occupations where public safety could be an issue. There's no pee or blood test for mental illness so other than divulging your state of mind how this will work is a bit of a mystery. Let the witchhunts stigmatism and people hiding in closets begin. Quote A government without public oversight is like a nuclear plant without lead shielding.
Shady Posted March 27, 2015 Report Posted March 27, 2015 The 2 crew always in the cockpit rule has been in place in may airlines in the states for some time. Why is that rule even necessary? The odds of a problem with a pilot are infinitesimal. Quote
guyser Posted March 27, 2015 Report Posted March 27, 2015 Why is that rule even necessary? The odds of a problem with a pilot are infinitesimal. I dunno......except in this case it would have saved a 154 people from death. Pffft....rules shmules Quote
Shady Posted March 27, 2015 Report Posted March 27, 2015 I dunno......except in this case it would have saved a 154 people from death. Pffft....rules shmules I'm just trying to figure out some of the logic in this forum. Because there's a tiny chance of terrorism, the anti-terrorism legislation isn't necessary, and because there's other things that have a greater instance of occuring, there's jokes about having legislation for those things. Except now, with this case, when theres an even less of a chance of this occurring, the policy is very much apt, and needed. Which is it? Quote
On Guard for Thee Posted March 27, 2015 Report Posted March 27, 2015 Why is that rule even necessary? The odds of a problem with a pilot are infinitesimal. Aviation is an industry which strives to cover as many risks as are perceived. In this particular case its a no brainer fix. There are flight attendants milling around throughout the flight, having one tend the flightdeck for the few minutes it take a pilot to pee is too easy. Keep in mind those doors are now bullet proof. Quote
guyser Posted March 27, 2015 Report Posted March 27, 2015 (edited) I'm just trying to figure out some of the logic in this forum.Sure sure shady. Because there's a tiny chance of terrorism, the anti-terrorism legislation isn't necessary, and because there's other things that have a greater instance of occuring, there's jokes about having legislation for those things. Except now, with this case, when theres an even less of a chance of this occurring, the policy is very much apt, and needed. Which is it? Well, lets look at your ill-logical post , the one you jump around all knotted up to try and make a point. Who said this was done for terrorism ? It was done for many reasons which you should be able to figure out.....'should be able' that is. Edited March 27, 2015 by Guyser2 Quote
Smallc Posted March 27, 2015 Report Posted March 27, 2015 Aviation is an industry which strives to cover as many risks as are perceived. In this particular case its a no brainer fix. There are flight attendants milling around throughout the flight, having one tend the flightdeck for the few minutes it take a pilot to pee is too easy. Keep in mind those doors are now bullet proof. So you have no reason for the distinction. You could have just said it. Quote
On Guard for Thee Posted March 27, 2015 Report Posted March 27, 2015 So you have no reason for the distinction. You could have just said it. Not quite sure what you mean. Are you supporting Shadys attempt to conflate C51 and basic cockpit safety......surely not Quote
Smallc Posted March 27, 2015 Report Posted March 27, 2015 Not quite sure what you mean. Are you supporting Shadys attempt to conflate C51 and basic cockpit safety......surely not Each is an example of new rules to prevent something that has a very small chance of happening. Quote
On Guard for Thee Posted March 27, 2015 Report Posted March 27, 2015 Each is an example of new rules to prevent something that has a very small chance of happening. Really, you think asking a flight attendant to spend 5 minutes on the flight deck on the off chance the pilot at the controls has a medical problem is somehow tantamount to enacting laws that could disrupt your charter rights...sheesh! Quote
Smallc Posted March 27, 2015 Report Posted March 27, 2015 Really, you think asking a flight attendant to spend 5 minutes on the flight deck on the off chance the pilot at the controls has a medical problem is somehow tantamount to enacting laws that could disrupt your charter rights...sheesh! Laws can't override the charter. We've been through this multiple times. Quote
bush_cheney2004 Posted March 27, 2015 Report Posted March 27, 2015 I'm just trying to figure out some of the logic in this forum. Because there's a tiny chance of terrorism, the anti-terrorism legislation isn't necessary, and because there's other things that have a greater instance of occuring, there's jokes about having legislation for those things. Except now, with this case, when theres an even less of a chance of this occurring, the policy is very much apt, and needed. Which is it? I think it has less to do with the non-linear and emotional risk assessment on display here than with airline liability, financial risk, and insurance policies. Fatal and non-fatal airliner incidents are a fact of life with a very well defined risk profile that is constantly updated after crashes, regardless of cause. It is common in the USA to say that FAA regulations are written in blood. Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
On Guard for Thee Posted March 27, 2015 Report Posted March 27, 2015 Laws can't override the charter. We've been through this multiple times. So why bother trying to craft such laws. Quote
Smallc Posted March 27, 2015 Report Posted March 27, 2015 So why bother trying to craft such laws. Why not? They're vetted by experts. Sometimes they're wrong Quote
On Guard for Thee Posted March 27, 2015 Report Posted March 27, 2015 The locks on airliner doors were introduced after 9 11 for obvious reasons. The 2 person rule was put in place when having those locks provided a possible risk that has nothing to do with terrorists storming the cockpit. Quote
On Guard for Thee Posted March 27, 2015 Report Posted March 27, 2015 No but terrorist legislation does Well you are getting into thread drift again but I would ask you would, bill C 51 have stopped this pilot....Nope. Quote
Smallc Posted March 27, 2015 Report Posted March 27, 2015 Well you are getting into thread drift again but I would ask you would, bill C 51 have stopped this pilot....Nope. The point is that each is designed to prevent a rare event than when it happens is catastrophic. They should both be judged with that in mind, and aren't all that separate from each other. Quote
On Guard for Thee Posted March 27, 2015 Report Posted March 27, 2015 The point is that each is designed to prevent a rare event than when it happens is catastrophic. They should both be judged with that in mind, and aren't all that separate from each other. They are quite separate. A flight attendant sitting in for a few minutes would not likely even be noticed by you as a passenger, and would certainly not affect any of your rights as a human. An extreme difference in most peoples book. Quote
Bonam Posted March 27, 2015 Report Posted March 27, 2015 I look forward to the day when no pilot (and no cockpit) is necessary. Computers are so much less fallible than humans. Quote
On Guard for Thee Posted March 27, 2015 Report Posted March 27, 2015 I look forward to the day when no pilot (and no cockpit) is necessary. Computers are so much less fallible than humans. I think you will be waiting quite a while for that. For starters the comms required are too easily hacked. Plus I think most people would be a little skittish to climb on a plane without pilots. Quote
guyser Posted March 27, 2015 Report Posted March 27, 2015 They should both be judged with that in mind, and aren't all that separate from each other.What right is being upended, run over, ignored (both hypothetically or not) by the new rule for cockpits? Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.