Just heard it about 1/2 hour ago..................shocked and disgusted, if you want to top yersel, there's no reason to take another 140 people with you FFS Unfortunately its not the first time, there was an Egyptair documented case and I think it was a Singapore carrier too. It also seems to be one of the leading theories in the MH370 mystery, I think it's the captain under suspicion.
I didn't realise they could leave the cockpit with just one occupant, I thought there always had to be two in case of medical emergency
Pretty sure its always been the case on shorter haul routes anyway that a pilot is allowed to leave. What you going to do, put on third pilot for pee breaks? Make them wear nappies? Possibly install a shitter in the cockpit?
Some airlines require another member of the crew (not a pilot) to be present in the cockpit whenever the pilot or co-pilot goes out. Some airlines don't.
I just hope we domino get a massive over-reaction in response. Surely having an attendant in there while they go do their business is an easy and convenient solution. This issue is not another person to fly it, I mean how far is the loo?! The issue is if something happens while second pilot is away. And now they can't break the door down, due to that earlier over-reaction to a couple of hi-jackings
This is an awfull thing to have happened but they are going to have to come up with a solution . In my mind it would be pointless putting a stewardess in there whilst the captain goes for a piss . If co pilot is that intent on murdering everyone on board then to overpower said stewardess would hardly be beyond his means .
I've thought for some years now that the flight deck should be inaccessible from inside the plane, the pilots and whoever else is needed, enter via an external door/hatchway and there is no communicating door into the fuselage/body of the plane, simply a solid bulkhead. They would be confined for the duration, making flight deck invasions/exeats impossible. Yes, it would require some redesign and the cabin to be slightly enlarged for a loo and perhaps some leg stretching, but why not? Meals could be loaded into the cabin before departure, meaning that stewards, pilots, hijackers, muggers, buggers and pimps would have no reason to enter/leave the flight deck
thats what the BBC reported when I was watching during my lunch, that he deadlocked and there is no way in
Guess you're thinking about the BA incident, think it was a Trident and they installed the wrong length screws, its a very good point. @Borgo Panigale it would have to be a bit more than a loo for a long haul. What about refreshments crew resting room for third pilot, etc: etc: I'm not saying it'd be impossible but a little impractical given every square inch is money and that counts for a lot. As @ducati2242 stated all he'd need to do is wait for a member of the crew of lesser physical stature to be the 2nd person. In fact even a 2nd person doesn't really address the issue fully. I think in the Egyptair case the second pilot was in his seat but could not overcome the guy hell bent on killing everybody. Personally I cannot think of an answer that addresses this issue fully without resulting in endangering another, as @bradders pointed out in one case. Even electronic lockouts, preventing this sort of action could go wrong or prevent pilot intervention for other different scenarios. Remember the airbus at the Paris airshow, which wouldn't allow the pilots to pull up as it had anti-stall protection. The only thing I can think of is psych evals every so often and background check periodically. Wouldn't prevent it, might reduce it, but would probably cause pilots a whole shed load of hassle they don't need. I still really feel for these people its such a tragic waste of life. Like to bring the co-pilot back and inflict some VERY unpleasant procedures to his anatomy for doing something that was so awful and cowardly.
I'm of tehe opinion its mostly fine as it is, and yyou have someone in there simply to take action of mediacl type emergency (call the pilot off the loo!) as if someone is that intent they will do it anyway...unless you have a taza armed air mashall sat in every cockpit Like I say, I really hope over reaction (like one shoe bomber and now we have to remove our shoes) doesnt happen Thoughts really go out to the families, its really upsetting how this has happened. And do the media really need to hound them for pictures?! BACK OF MEDIA VULTURES
I understand that you don't really fly an Airbus but rather make a request and if reasonable the computer will permit the action, You have to wonder why in these days the plane would let you drive it into a mountain, there cannot be a good reason to want to get close to that sort of terrain. As an aside I flew back from Dublin last Friday with a friend, he was complaining how difficult it was to get into departures as he struggles with passport control and the security scanner, apparently he cannot remember the last time that he didn't have to remove his shoes (we were a group and he was the only one that did) - his name Richard Read, he is convinced that there is some instruction to check his shoes every time - you couldn't make it up.
@Daffy That's why I mentioned the anti-stall scenario, Ok that was test pilots showing off BUT there you had a safety system that caused a crash. The more recent Air France disastair was a combination of events but kicked off by pitot icing causing the autopilot to kick out, that's not exactly a difficult one for an aeronautical engineer to forsee, but yet it happened. Then there was Quantis A380 incident where the alarms nearly overwhelmed the flight crew and they had no clue to the root cause of the problem. My point is the more safety you design in, the more complex it becomes and the more shit you have to go wrong under very bizarre circumstances. With all that complexity the pilots need time to figure what is the nature of the problem and it may take them time they don't have. You build in some system that prevents the pilot descending rapidly and I can just bet there will be an set of circumstances somewhere sometime where the pilots need to do just exactly that. Cannot remember where I seen it but I think it was Learmont who said that a common phrase by Airbus pilots is "what's it doing now" IMHO that's a pretty scary thought and has probably led to more accidents than this isolated incident, tragic though it is and I have no desire to try to diminish the horror of it. Remember the engineering adage "If its not broke, its clearly not got enough features yet" Even the Sky Marshall scenario has drawbacks what happens if it's him whose had a shitty day?
