Peter Mugridge
Veteran Member
Will some airlines move the door back so the front toilet becomes staff only?
El Al have done this for years haven't they?
Will some airlines move the door back so the front toilet becomes staff only?
This may be to stop someone forcing their way into the cockpit when the door is opened for the returning pilot. In which case a second crew member might be needed, one to go into the cockpit and the other to guard the door.
Will some airlines move the door back so the front toilet becomes staff only?
El Al have done this for years haven't they?
El Al really are a special case. I would think what they do security wise would be hard to impossible to realistically repeat for most airlines.
I'm not suggesting that everything should have all the hi-tech anti missile defences etc fitted to El Al aircraft... merely pointing out that they have the front toilet within the designated flight deck area behind the security door.
Firstly, I would hesitate to speak certainly on the situation, since although the initial findings point towards foul play, a fully comprehensive case with more evidence has yet to be compiled.
There are various challenges in keeping the flight deck closed to potential terrorists but open to crew members. The current system with the camera and controlled access system on modern aircraft was well thought out, but obviously can't override a rogue crew member.
I'm not sure whether any rule changes, secondary doors or even a private WC would reduce the risk enough to justify the cost and/or inconvenience. If an ill/ill-intentioned crew member is determined to act maliciously mid-flight, there will always be a way.
Instead I think the focus should be on reinforcing and strengthening the medical and integrity checks in place. However, a mental illness is not always easy to pick up on and can be well hidden. All employers have a duty to their staff and should know that they can seek help with them. How does this fit in with highly responsible positions such as airline crew where a loss of license is feared? There's no easy answer in my view.
Surely whatever changes you make, those who work within those rules will be able find ways around them if determined enough.
Totally correct.
Indeed, with the usual knee jerk reactions that the Americans especially usually come up with, the changes will only result in more potential ways for someone who knows the system to beat the system. I remember having such a discussion with an Air Marshal years ago about this.
Even having two people in the cockpit at all times for instance, unless both are qualified pilots then how would a flight attendant by able to know if the remaining pilot is pushing all the right buttons? Its impossible, unless you start giving flight attendants to give them sort of cockpit procedures training (which adds another expense to an airline for dubious benefit). It is nothing but something to give people a warm fuzzy feeling.
The only real way to improve things is actually to do away with pilots all together - but there would be no warm fuzzy feeling in that at all, even though a pilot is really only needed to handle the taxiing and take off. Every other phase of flight can be handled automatically including the landing (provided all airports were equipped with the appropriate equipment). Most modern airliners are so reliable and so well monitored that their reliability is staggering.
Even taxiing and take off could potentially be automated if necessary I am sure.
In the meantime, I would be more concerned about getting rid of the toggle lock code override switch...
Totally correct.
Indeed, with the usual knee jerk reactions that the Americans especially usually come up with, the changes will only result in more potential ways for someone who knows the system to beat the system. I remember having such a discussion with an Air Marshal years ago about this.
Even having two people in the cockpit at all times for instance, unless both are qualified pilots then how would a flight attendant by able to know if the remaining pilot is pushing all the right buttons? Its impossible, unless you start giving flight attendants to give them sort of cockpit procedures training (which adds another expense to an airline for dubious benefit). It is nothing but something to give people a warm fuzzy feeling.
The only real way to improve things is actually to do away with pilots all together - but there would be no warm fuzzy feeling in that at all, even though a pilot is really only needed to handle the taxiing and take off. Every other phase of flight can be handled automatically including the landing (provided all airports were equipped with the appropriate equipment). Most modern airliners are so reliable and so well monitored that their reliability is staggering.
Even taxiing and take off could potentially be automated if necessary I am sure.
In the meantime, I would be more concerned about getting rid of the toggle lock code override switch...
In the meantime, I would be more concerned about getting rid of the toggle lock code override switch...
Could aircraft be designed so that they can be operated remotely if, in the airline's opinion, something has gone wrong with the pilots?
I think removing this would be another knee-jerk reaction . . .
Here's my idea to help cover the further risk of the maniac overpowering the second person. A completely independent communications console in the passenger cabin which could allow a direct dialogue between the crew in the cabin and ATC. In conjunction with this, a system (perhaps a second secret keypad code previously unknown to anyone on board) to allow the door lock to be released in a non-overridable manner, only when authorised by ATC via the communication console.
Quite easily, but securely? Possible but inherently difficult.
Controls are generally 'fly by wire' anyway so would just need the remote control interface.
Interesting thought, but how would the ATC establish that the people talking to them from the cabin are who they say they are and not potential hijackers who have overcome the cabin staff and want to get into the cockpit? Bearing in mind that they can't ask the pilot...
Same system as used for military drones, where a pilot somewhere in Texas can take out a jihadist leader in Afghanistan. Or alternatively an innocent wedding party.
But I think most potential passengers would prefer to take their chances with a rogue pilot or a hijacker on board than the perceived risk of someone "hacking" the plane (or capturing the control centre that can do so legitimately) and flying it to their destination of choice. Even if the method of takeover was 100% secure against tampering the perception of risk would probably still be unacceptable.
Interesting thought, but how would the ATC establish that the people talking to them from the cabin are who they say they are and not potential hijackers who have overcome the cabin staff and want to get into the cockpit? Bearing in mind that they can't ask the pilot...
opinions about depression etc would make even Katie Hopkins look tame
It all seems to be knee jerk reaction. This entire situation is horrible but given how unusual it is I'm not sure it's worth rewriting the entire method of working for planes. There comes a point where it is not worth taking action to improve safety because the costs are just not worth it.jonmorris0844 said:So true, and I do wish some people would stop coming up with 'foolproof' solutions. Not so much on here, but I've read the thread on the Digital Spy forum and some of the comments on there (both how to solve the problem, as well as opinions about depression etc) would make even Katie Hopkins look tame.
It all seems to be knee jerk reaction. This entire situation is horrible but given how unusual it is I'm not sure it's worth rewriting the entire method of working for planes. There comes a point where it is not worth taking action to improve safety because the costs are just not worth it.
At least one airline has a toilet that's inside the cockpit (well, the door is further back) so perhaps that's one thing that could be done relatively easily and with some possible benefit and no real downside, besides losing a toilet for passenger/other crew use.
I actually don't think we need to do anything but consider this a freak incident, although I guess people might just want change because they'll be terrified to fly in the future. If passenger numbers did fall (who knows if they will) then airlines might make changes for that reason alone.
Hopefully this was a freak incident that won't ever happen again but nobody can take that chance so I think doing nothing just isn't an option, people will want reassurances.
As awful as this incident was if the plane had come down in a built up area it really doesn't bear thinking about.
Something has been done - the rule of two.