After the disaster with the Germanwings plane that crashed in the French Alps, the discussion about the number of pilots in the cockpit has erupted. This discussion does not pass by the readers of Thailandblog.
On the 11-hour flight from Amsterdam to Bangkok, a pilot will regularly have to stretch his legs and visit the toilet. Hence the question here; Flying to Thailand: always two crew members in the cockpit, including a pilot?
The co-pilot of the Germanwings aircraft probably deliberately crashed the plane. According to the French Public Prosecution Service, he was alone in the cockpit during the crash and refused to open the cockpit door for the captain. The OM relies on the data from the cockpit voice recorder, the only one of the two black boxes that has been found so far.
As a result of the disaster, German airlines are now adjusting their cockpit policy. They want two people in the cockpit at all times. Norwegian and Easyjet have also announced that they will introduce the 'two person rule' for the cockpit. The Canadian government now also requires airlines to prevent that there is only one person in the cockpit. KLM previously announced that it would not adjust its policy, but now seems to be returning to it. KLM now says it follows the international rules that were set after the attacks of September 11, 2001.
For safety's sake, a lagging pilot or co-pilot can now deny people access to the cockpit. Even if a crew member knows the code to enter, the person in the cockpit can continue to block the door. This is to prevent a terrorist from forcing a crew member to open the door to the cockpit.
Now to the readers of Thailand blog, the question whether the new guideline of some airlines: 'two crew members in the cockpit at all times' influences your choice of airline?
I thought that on long flights, such as AMS – BKK direct, because of the maximum hours that a pilot is allowed to fly, there is always a third pilot. That will not mean that they always sit in the cockpit with three men / women because the mandatory rest is spent elsewhere, often in a sleeping cabin on board.
See for yourself March 24, 2015 at Eva airlines 4 pilots boarded the plane.
Made me feel safe.
This was before the disaster.
Last time in November, double crew was on board on a return flight with KLM to BKK. It was also announced "if you see a pilot in the cabin, don't worry because the cockpit is 100% occupied during the flight." As has been heard before on previous flights with KLM.
No, that does not affect my choice.
When someone bases their actions on such statistically minimal chances of a fatal incident, the choice of an airline does not come up for discussion.
Such a person does not go on vacation at all.
Dear French,
You are certainly right that statistically a fatal incident is minimal, and almost impossible.
However, I am sure that many airlines will tighten their safety measures in view of the German Wings incident, to further reduce the minimal chance of an incident.
Moreover, I can imagine that the internationally mandatory safety measures will become even stricter. An airline that does not comply with these obligations has no respect for the security of its flight guest, so I am convinced that this will affect many people.
The question is not whether and to what extent stricter measures will be introduced. The question is whether, as long as different companies use different guidelines, I will let these guidelines influence my choice.
You make a mess of it. First you assume that the stricter rules will become mandatory. Then everyone always flies with two crew members in the cockpit. And then you conclude that that (the circumstances under which) will affect many people (flies).
Sorry French,
I mean that I am convinced that because of the Germanwings incident, safety regulations in Europe will become stricter.
The so-called 4-eyes system, whereby it is mandatory that at least 2 Pilots are present in the cockpit, is already being used by various airlines in Europe, and is, as far as I know, already mandatory in America. Before the last Germanwings incident, the question of a 4 eyes system did not arise at all, let alone that most people knew the need for it. If, for example, this 4-eyes system is now also an obligation in Europe, and Arabs and Asians, for example, do not follow this obligation, then I can imagine that I will be influenced by a choice.
The purpose that access can be denied from the cockpit is, of course, the intention that in the event of terrorism the cockpit would still remain inaccessible, even if someone were to obtain the access code of the other pilot or purser (because the latter also has a separate emergency access code). according to what I understood from an article)
This security measure now turns against the system. A person left alone can apparently exclude anyone he wants.
An extra person, minimum 2 people, in the cockpit is a solution to stop someone who would have suicide plans, but it does not solve everything.
This is insufficient against terrorist actions, as agreements may already have been made in advance with the 2nd person who would then come to the cockpit.
What is the solution then?
It is not easy to come up with a comprehensive system that always works. I guess there will always be a hole somewhere.
Maybe always allow access with an emergency code that has to come from outside the plane
eg via airport or company.
When entering that emergency code, the door always opens, ie the cockpit cannot refuse that code.
My condolences to the family, friends and colleagues of the victims with this loss.
Finally, don't forget the answer to the question – No I will continue to fly, and 1 or 2 in the cockpit will not influence my choice of airline. Any system will not be watertight anyway.
The emergency code can still be blocked by pilot in this system, it appears that this is now the case (BBC news today), hence the captain's attempts to force the door... and therefore the arrangement to have 2 people present at all times. to have in the cockpit
Yes I know. Maybe I'll write something else then?? By the way, it was just in the newspaper.
In response to this, I wrote that she should be able to enter a code that CANNOT be blocked by the cockpit. A code that is not on board the aircraft and that no one can access directly, but that must be requested from the airport or company. You may also want to explore the possibility of unblocking the door from the ground.
In the event that you would have to deal with one or more terrorists who end up in the cockpit together and block the door for everyone, the door could still be opened.
Technically this is not all that difficult to achieve. However, serious consideration must be given to how, with what procedure and in what circumstances the code may be passed on or when the door may be opened from the ground.
However, whatever idea, each will have its advantages and disadvantages.
The cockpit door was / is blocked from the inside by means of a sliding bolt. Doesn't help any code.
I think it's electronic when I look at images of the operation. Otherwise the pilot would have to get up every time to open or close the door. Removing that sliding bolt from aircraft wouldn't be a technical masterpiece either... You cannot undo what has happened, but you can learn from it for the future.
Flying to Thailand is usually done with B747's KLM, EVA, China etc). And there it is necessary to have 3 men in the cockpit. So then the problem is not there.
A Boeing 747? When did you last fly?
At KLM, those 747s are still flying – but that is part of the backlog in terms of equipment that they have now accumulated.
By the way, the number of pilots does not depend on the type of aircraft, but on the length of the flight.
Peter,
starting in 2013 and 2014. 1 x with KLM (747) and 1 x with China (747). By the way: China has 13 B747s and 1 B 777. So I'm not exactly sure what you mean by your comment/question?
Wasn't it about cockpit crew? Well, in those devices there are 3.
I thought so too. I have often seen 4 pilots or whatever they are called in rank at Suvarnabhumi and at least 11 flight attendants on the flights to/from Bangkok-Netherlands.
The answer to this is very simple; there is no solution to this because whatever you come up with, nothing is 100% watertight. If you can't trust pilots either, then everything stops and you can only hope that it won't repeat itself.
Dear Teun,
You're a little behind, AMS>
But the statement is; Must there always be at least 2 pilots in the cockpit?
Given the AirAsia Airbus A320, which only had 1 pilot in it and this "accident" again, I think it is high time to make this legally mandatory, one out, possibly the purser in it. And also give them minimal training on how to land their thing.
Greetings Nico
Not entirely correct. Since October, KLM has been using 747s again on AMS-BKK because they are converting the 777-200, which will take a year. We had a 747 on both flights in October and December return. And it looks like they are still flying with them now.
http://www.flightradar24.com/flight/kl875
A crew member does not have to be a pilot. And mandatory two men in the cockpit is the US standard!
By the way, the perpetrator was a normal German boy without an immigrant background. Nice guy but apparently a bit confused. He was young so it was cheap of course!
By the way, Germanwings was already planned to be closed by Lufthansa in the fall because of the losses! Was it something to do with cost reduction?
Lubitz underwent psychiatric treatment for 1,5 years.
He had to repeat his flying lessons several times due to panic and anxiety attacks, possibly due to relationship problems, before finally successfully completing his training.
Lubitz probably deliberately crashed the Germanwings aircraft in the French Alps. As a result, 150 people died on Tuesday.
So the qualification of a normal German boy seems a bit premature to me. (speculations I like to leave to the mainstream media)
He has already been given the title of Amok pilot in the media.
Very cautious conclusion given the facts now known?
Perhaps this co-pilot thought it would be nice to actually fly for a while during the absence of the captain, he switched off the autopilot and therefore flew manual, a small thing went wrong, then, just like during the lessons, he got into panicked and became anxious, blocked and then it got completely out of hand, nothing has yet shown that he wanted to commit suicide.
I will continue to fly, I assume that this was a unique situation, I also assume that the best possible solution will be found to tackle this problem.
But … strange, that the captain's absence meant that he could no longer get into the cockpit, what will happen if the co-pilot has a heart attack? So some extra eyes in the cockpit wouldn't hurt, it could influence my choice of airline.
Nico B
Nico,
If he wanted to steer himself and had a panic attack, why did he keep the door locked? Especially if you don't want to commit suicide, it would be obvious to open the door. However?
It has now emerged that he was being treated by a psychiatrist, who had already given notes several times stating that he (Lubitz) was unable to work. Also before the day of the accident. These notes were found in his apartment and part of them were torn up…
Apparently he did not dare to report to his employer that he was being treated by a psychiatrist, who did not consider him capable of doing his job. That in itself is perhaps understandable, because if that were to become known to German Wings/Lufthansa, it would mean the end of flying career. Reason enough to end it yourself.
It's idiotic, of course, to take 149 others with you.
Perhaps a psychiatrist should have informed German Wings? But yes, that will not be possible due to professional secrecy.
They have an override code for that door. So if the co-pilot had a cardiac arrest, they could have come in. Only if the co-pilot was conscious then he can keep the door closed by also blocking that override code.
One's origin or religion has nothing to do with this, of course. Nauseous how you quickly read reactions on the internet that referred to his origin / faith. Except for 9-11, the pilots who drove themselves into the ground with their plane were all "normal" people who were tied up, for example. That is difficult to overcome even if you would do a psychological test / scan once a year. The fact that colleagues keep an eye on each other throughout the year - as is of course already the case - seems to me to be a better indicator. But even then you don't know when things suddenly go wrong in the upper room or just work fine. For one person, a (combination of) relationship problems, money problems, general worries or boredom can be a trigger, for another, those worries do not have to be a trigger at all. Man remains weak, unpredictable and therefore a risk at all times.
I leave it to the international organizations that know how best to deal with these types of cases. I also expect them to investigate these types of cases (not the first time) in the broadest sense of the word. I had to think back to the words of a CEO of Ryan Air. He has been saying for years that he only wants 1 pilot on the box and a cabin crew member for communications at take-off and landing. That will certainly no longer be feasible. How many pilots are on the stand on long flights? I usually saw 2 captains and 2 copilots at China Airlines and SIA, for example. I am a flight consumer and actually know little about the rules that apply. Naive? Too much trust in airlines? Maybe so or it's my character.
A bus driver can also drive his bus into a ravine.
There is no 100% certainty in life.
So just keep flying.
Or don't take the bus anymore, of course.
You always have a chance of surviving a bus accident, which is different with an airplane that is crashed by a psychologically unstable figure. Or a plane that falls down from a great height and don't say that's rare because it isn't. I've been through a fire and an emergency landing and had to change planes countless times because of a malfunction. To come back to your comparison with a bus, I experienced in Thailand with a line bus that the gearbox flew to pieces and nothing else, got another bus. Can't imagine I'm on a plane and the engine cuts out, can you get out and switch planes?
Allowing a member of the cabin crew to sit in the cockpit when a pilot takes a piss does not offer 100% certainty either.
If the other pilot really wants to hurt, he/she will also take out that member of the cabin crew.
Exactly this is also always mentioned in the kite world. That is also the other extreme. It's about more than knocking someone out, though. It's a psychological effect. But fair. How many times has this happened in the past 50 years? And now we're going to feel even more insecure?
I think everyone's reactions are highly exaggerated.
Sjaak, it has already happened several times that a pilot crashed the plane into the ground or river. In Indonesia, the pilot crashed the plane into the river, then there was EgyptAir and there are several, it is also suspected that MH 370 crashed that way. That French plane that crashed from South America to Europe? Was also the co-pilot who did that and there are more. There are several Pilot Forums on the Internet, I would say, read them.
But who am I, I am still from a time when all transport to work was by boat and train and bus, no cell phone, no Internet, no iPad. My first flights were in old creaking propeller driven contraptions where everyone clapped their hands after a safe landing and in my eyes little or nothing has changed in aviation regarding safety, it is and remains a gamble. As far as Lufthansa is concerned, they received a package of bread with an apple when boarding the plane a few years ago.
As some blog readers already know, I worked as a flight attendant at Lufthansa for 30 years. The men and women who work in our cockpits are generally trustworthy people and I have never had any fear in all these years. But they are also people who have been selected and trained and who also like to relax after the flight during the layovers and often also have a family life. But here too there can be an exception. What I've learned is that you can't exclude anything. As bad as it was (for me all the harder, because Lufthansa and German Wings are related to me), this is not really surprising either. Exceptionally yes and I don't believe this will happen again.
My point of view is that passenger and crew journeys to airports are far more dangerous than any flight. And even with the worst Airlines it is much safer than on the street. Especially when you live in Thailand.
For me it has little impact if the cockpit is not occupied 100% of the time. But it can. Only one crew member from the cabin needs to be present by appointment. Not only to prevent suicide attempts, no, also because I don't think it's right when only one person is present in the cockpit. Usually nothing happens, but you never know what could happen.
I will soon be flying to Frankfurt with Lufthansa and feel comfortable and safe. Or the cockpit all the time
busy or not. I still have faith.
Dear Sjaak. In recent hours we have received a flood of information from the media. And almost all of us wanted to know how this was possible. The outcome of the black box was quite a shock. A fairly large proportion of Dutch people have a fear of flying. Especially after the attack on MH 17 and the Air Asia accident. Air Asia has been in the Dutch media a lot, despite the fact that it was far away for Dutch people. For example, if a ferry carrying 400 people sinks somewhere in Asia, this will be treated differently than a plane crash. We are now also having discussions between parents and schools whose children are going on exchange. There are parents who would rather not have their child fly for school. Now you can indeed tell them that flying is so much safer, etc. etc. But I don't think that will help in the short term with a large group. I have the feeling that many Dutch people are starting to experience the wet armpit feeling about flying. I'm flying again on Monday and today I received a surprising number of emails/phone calls from people who have my best interests at heart. It's different than usual for my environment.
Does anyone have experience with Etihad airlines and number of pilots in Thailand (we will soon be flying this for the first time)..?
Last year I flew with Ethihad to Bangkok. 1 set of pilots each. Flight time is also less than 7 hours each time. Stopover in Abu Dhabi. Then another plane to BKK.
Fly emrates via Dubai after BKK also check ivb 2 in the cockpit
@ Teun: Eva flies with a Boeing 777 and China with an Airbus A 340. I often fly with China to Bangkok and always see 4 pilots on board, 2 co and 2 captains. However, this does not mean that they are all in the cockpit together. There are 2 flying there and the other 2 are in a rest area directly behind the cockpit from which they have NO access to the cockpit. A similar situation as with Germanwings could therefore also occur despite those 4 pilots. I've seen a pilot come out of that rest room before, but he didn't look very fresh either.
If the Germanwings aircraft had taken off with zero pilots, it would almost certainly have landed safely in Düsseldorf. The autopilot does everything from takeoff to landing. And he's not thinking about suicide.
KLM has also just decided to have 2 authorized persons stay in the cockpit at all times.
Ever heard of those Ukrainian Pilots who were so drunk on take-off from the airport in Kinshasa that they couldn't get the plane off the ground and crashed it into a market where many people died? There are countless cases of misfires, misses and near-misses. Those two that flew on top of each other over Las Palmas with a record number of deaths? These are only the cases that I can remember but now that there is the Internet people hear more about it, although the Companies try in every possible way to shove it under the carpet and brainwash the masses with “flying is safe” well that is it not!
Dear theoS, you are absolutely right. Flying is dangerous. It is more dangerous than any occupation. And yet it is the safest mode of transport. Why? Because in no other mode of transport do so many people work together to eliminate all possible risks. Every effort is made to not only get aircraft into the air at heights where any living being would survive for only seconds, but also to ensure that no accidents occur on the routes. In all of this, the technology is monitored so closely that an aircraft does not even go into the air if a light is not on that should be on and vice versa. Very few accidents occur due to technical problems. The greatest risk factor is and remains humans.
Just for comparison: in Germany about 3000 people die on the streets every year. Around the world, 1000 people died in the past year.
I'm not even talking about the Thai roads. Strangely enough, a car is a relatively harmless device. You can survive collisions, you don't fall to pieces, when the engine fails, etc. But unlike when flying, no one checks their car before driving, rules are often broken, people sometimes drive while tired or under the influence, in short, there are many risk factors when driving that cause accidents. If the same level of safety were maintained when driving a car, the street scene would look very different. There would also be a lot fewer cars on the road, because few people could get a driver's license and lose it very quickly.
Flying is one of the highest achievements modern man has to offer. You have to respect that, despite an event like this.
I relate the 1000 deaths to air traffic.
Personally, I don't worry about this kind of thing when booking a flight.
This time it was a pilot who shuts out the other, they didn't see it coming. Next time there will be a new rule for that and something else will happen that they didn't see coming. They also did not see MH17 which was shot down coming.
As Sjaak says, the chance that something will happen to you on a flight is smaller than in traffic. And if something happens, it's probably something that people didn't see coming for a while.
In the end, these are matters that you cannot control yourself, so you can worry about it, but that does not help either.
Very sad what happened but it was not the first time that a pilot committed proven or very likely suicide (mass) murder on a scheduled flight. Perhaps the first time in Europe, which increases the shock and makes the public more aware of how it could have happened.
To be honest, it will be hard for me whether or not a society takes measures. The chance of a "normal" incident is already very small. The bus, boat, car, pedestrian, etc. are less safe. It is better to fly rationally than to walk, cycle or drive. If one engine fails, there is nothing to worry about, if they all fail, it becomes a glider that does not immediately fall vertically from the sky, although you will have to land very quickly. The safety requirements are so great that even for an insignificant thing your plane will be delayed or cancelled, the fact that people don't just fly away is a sign that puts safety at 1 where a bus will just drive. Man remains the weakest link, they make mistakes or commit suicide very occasionally. You can throw yourself into a ravine with a bus or off a bridge, you can crash a plane. Fortunately a rarity. Whatever security system, where there is a will there is a way. Even with 2 people in the cockpit at all times, a suicide action can still be taken, although it becomes a bit more difficult. But given the already marginal chance of such an idiot, it won't influence my choice.
In fact, I am a bit annoyed by the liquid rules and “no nail scissors” rules that mean that the toiletry bag cannot be taken along as hand luggage and: here too, the good safety is relatively only a minimum fraction safer. You can also make a stabbing weapon from plastic or even a toothbrush (think of prisons where creative murder weapons are made with the simplest, average means).
Humans are the weakest and most risky link, in theory you should remove humans from the chain by, for example, fully automatic aircraft.
Another practical point: if you want to travel from Europe to Asia, North or South America, there are few alternatives besides planes. So we will have to and if you take the total worldwide number of flights and compare the above-mentioned and even more accidents with flying, it will appear that flying is safer than (daily) participating in traffic. And that becomes even clearer if you calculate the number of passengers/kilometres.
We also travel to Thailand every year and when you have landed and are waiting for the suitcases you still see a lot of crew at eva air. always be there. You saw that last year with malysie's device, which probably also crashed intentionally, but you'll just sit in it.
Dutch pilot already wrote about this two months ago in the Dutch aviation magazine "Pilot and Airplane".
http://www.gva.be/cnt/dmf20150328_01603385/nederlandse-piloot-voorspelde-vliegtuigramp-in-column?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social&utm_term=gva&utm_content=article&utm_campaign=seeding
Whether this was the case or not with this disaster, the investigation will show, but something to think about.