The aviation industry at large does an incredible job focusing on safety. An endless amount of resources are poured into learning from every accident or potential risk, in hopes of avoiding a similar situation in the future. However, as I see it, there’s one glaring exception, and that’s in relation to the two person cockpit rule, and the inconsistent use of this across the globe.
I’ve mentioned this in passing many times before, but I think it’s worth a dedicated post, because I’d love to understand what I’m missing.
The concept behind the two person cockpit rule
Commercial flights generally have at least two pilots. As you’d expect, pilots sometimes need to go to the bathroom or stretch their legs, and that requires them to leave the cockpit. The policies around that differ around the world.
In the United States, for example, there’s a rule whereby there always need to be two people in the cockpit. So if there are only two pilots and one needs to leave momentarily, a flight attendant will step into the cockpit, so that there are never fewer than two people in the cockpit.
However, this isn’t the policy globally. Quite to the contrary, in a vast majority of countries and at most airlines, there’s no such rule, meaning that pilots are frequently left in the cockpit alone. I’ve gotta be honest — I’m not at all scared of flying, but perhaps the single thing that makes me most uneasy as a passenger is when a pilot is alone in the flight deck.
The issue isn’t really about pilots becoming incapacitated while alone in the cockpit. After all, there’s a code to enter the cockpit, and if it’s not rejected by the pilot in the cockpit within a certain number of seconds, the door is unlocked. That solves the incapacitation issue.
The problem has to do with pilot mental health more broadly, when they want to keep someone out of the cockpit:
- Pilots with mental health issues often have a hard time actually getting treated for their conditions and have to lie, since they can have their license revoked if they’re found to have any sorts of issues
- It horrifies me to even think this, but if you’re carrying out a suicide and/or murder plot, I imagine it’s mentally much easier to process that if you don’t have to look directly at the people you are impacting with your actions
- I think subconsciously some pilots probably feel like there’s more theoretical plausible deniability if the cockpit voice recorder doesn’t record a conversation between two people, and there’s no physical struggle between two people
Why do regulators ignore the facts about accidents?
Aviation has become incredibly safe, and so many factors that previously caused a large percentage of fatalities have been addressed. As I see it, pilot mental health is the exception.
Let’s just look at aviation safety over the past 15 years, and accidents that are specifically believed to be because there was only one person in the cockpit:
- On November 29, 2013, a LAM Mozambique Embraer E190 was deliberately crashed by the captain, after he locked the first officer out of the cockpit
- On March 8, 2014, a Malaysia Airlines Boeing 777 went missing, and to this day we don’t know what happened; however, all signs point toward the captain having locked the first officer out of the cockpit, and then flying the plane into the middle of the ocean, never to be seen again
- On March 24, 2015, a Germanwings Airbus A320 was deliberately crashed by the first officer, after he locked the captain out of the cockpit
Following the Germanwings crash, for example, the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) issued a safety bulletin, recommending that airlines always have at least two people in the cockpit, whenever possible. This was specifically intended to reduce the risk of a pilot deliberately locking the other pilot out.
However, a little over a year later, the EASA updated its recommendation, suggesting airlines assess their own risks in deciding whether to implement this policy. It’s wild to me how even Lufthansa Group — which Germanwings was part of — completely reversed this policy.
This week we’re seeing the horrors that unfolded on a flydubai Boeing 737. My first takeaway is that thank goodness there were two pilots in the cockpit, and that even after being attacked, the captain was able to just barely open the door and let others in.
The carrier doesn’t have a two person cockpit rule, so while I’m so happy this is how it ended, I can’t believe the first officer directly attacked the captain, rather than just trying to lock him out of the cockpit, and then being able to use the plane as a weapon, in any way he wanted.
I’d love if someone could help me understand what I’m missing. Do some people just deny that having one person in the cockpit has been a contributing factor to some accidents? Or do they just think several hundred deaths is a fair price to pay for saving flight attendants a little bit of time?
Bottom line
Pilot mental health, and intentional acts on behalf of pilots, has represented an increasingly large percentage of accidents over the years. That’s partly thanks to how safe aviation has otherwise become. It just seems to me like it’s hard to ignore that one of the leading methods that pilots use to be “bad actors” is to lock the other pilot out of the cockpit, and then have control of the plane all to themselves. At times, reinforced cockpit doors seem like a double edged sword.
That obvious concern is the reason we have the two person cockpit rule in the United States. Some airlines temporarily implemented this policy following the Germanwings crash, only to then reverse course. Thank goodness that in the case of flydubai’s pilot terror attack earlier this week, there was a second pilot in the cockpit, who managed to open the door, so that others could intervene.
This just strikes me as being a best practice, and it confuses me how not all regulators feel that way.
Where do you stand on the two person cockpit rule?
This is the type of question that’s heavily discussed on the interwebs. Ai can summarize and give all points for and against it easily. It mainly comes down to additional distraction of a non pilot in the cockpit, technical and staffing restrictions like some aircraft can’t have two people or airlines just don’t have the staff to do so.
In addition, for this particular case, if a flight attendant was stabbed, they would have much harder time to get the door open.
Don't disagree, but easy to imagine a pilot overwhelming a flight attendant
I assume the FA is standing and the pilot remains seated. There's no reason (and probably rules/laws against) for the pilot to get up. So, at least the FA is somewhat forewarned.
Politicians' logic, something bad happened, we need to do something, this is something, so we need to do this.
Similar chain of thought
All cats have four legs, my dog has four legs, ergo my dog is a cat.
The comments about a pilot not having much problem overwhelming or stabbing a flight attendant remind me of the (deep breath) anti-mask argument. They aren't 100% preventative so whats the point?!
Perfect is the enemy of the good or something along those lines. If we have 10 pilot incidents in the next 5 years but only in 6 of them could a flight attendant get the door open does that mean we shouldn't have the 2 person policy??
Yes, but (really not trying to revisit masking) one argument of concern in the masking issue is that it could/did put people with very low quality masks in proximity with the thought they were protected. Ditto, some may have avoided the jab thinking their flimsy mask protected them. These concerns have no clear parallel to this issue I can see.
Everyone knows that nothing matters more than money for corporations. There's no exception for the lives.
Ridiculous argument.
The payouts from lawsuits alone would be 1000x the cost of staffing a second pilot for flights.
Royal Hawaiian Air Service had Cessnas , one pilot , and a passenger in co-pilot's seat . Even Charles Lindbergh was in the co-pilot's seat on his way home to near Hana , Maui .
Good points Ben. Do you know of any plausible reasons all airlines don't have this rule and why LH cancelled the rule for their pilots?
I think the FlyDubai example actually provides a counterargument. If you allow a FA into the cockpit with one other pilot, you now have to trust an extra person unnecessarily. The FA could plan to incapacitate the remaining pilot and control the aircraft. And I can see the argument that a FA might have less to lose than a highly trained pilot (even though that sounds quite elitist).
This is more trying to provide a...
I think the FlyDubai example actually provides a counterargument. If you allow a FA into the cockpit with one other pilot, you now have to trust an extra person unnecessarily. The FA could plan to incapacitate the remaining pilot and control the aircraft. And I can see the argument that a FA might have less to lose than a highly trained pilot (even though that sounds quite elitist).
This is more trying to provide a rationale, however – I actually agree overall. On a related point, I'm not sure why pilots are allowed to use KCM at US security checkpoints with only random checks. Surely they should be subject to the same checks? Surely pilots would be more comfortable knowing their copilot couldn't have brought a weapon on board?
The solution is to eliminate the human factor altogether.
Not true. Older jets needed a navigation officer in the cockpit too, so technology has made us all more unsafe.
Lucky, you made a claim about the 2 person in the cockpit rule but not all airlines follow the rule.
You didn’t mention which airlines don’t.
Where is your evidence and what is your source?
You have lost all credibility. This is a fluff piece to hit your daily article count.
He mentions Lufthansa Group as an example, which is accurate and completly invalidating your argument.
Most airlines don't follow "the rule". For example, just about every European carrier, since there's no such "rule" in Europe, so it's entirely voluntary (and most airlines opt not to do it).
@Ho. You are a Ho. Hahaho
I would start with Ben being his own source, having flown millions of miles on almost every airline in the world, so he probably has first hand knowledge that the lay person doesn't. Beyond that, a very quick google search turned up a website from the ALPA (the Air Line Pilots Association) discussing the importance of having two pilots on the flight deck (https://www.alpa.org/advocacy/our-priorities/two-pilots-to-fly). There's a link to their white paper on the matter. Thus,...
I would start with Ben being his own source, having flown millions of miles on almost every airline in the world, so he probably has first hand knowledge that the lay person doesn't. Beyond that, a very quick google search turned up a website from the ALPA (the Air Line Pilots Association) discussing the importance of having two pilots on the flight deck (https://www.alpa.org/advocacy/our-priorities/two-pilots-to-fly). There's a link to their white paper on the matter. Thus, even without naming specific airlines (and I note that Ben did name Lufthansa group) it appears that globally there are airlines that do not follow the two pilot rule, otherwise the ALPA would not have needed to publish a white paper about the issue.
The ALPA Paper does not cover the case here at hand but provides arguments against what is called "Single Pilot Operation", meaning that only one pilot is assigned to a flight. The reasons mentioned by ALPA are pilot incapacitation, workload and a monitoring role. In no way it is meant to provide a protocol against wilful adverse actions like intended suicide or murder.
Lond story short: the ALPA paper is of no relevance in...
The ALPA Paper does not cover the case here at hand but provides arguments against what is called "Single Pilot Operation", meaning that only one pilot is assigned to a flight. The reasons mentioned by ALPA are pilot incapacitation, workload and a monitoring role. In no way it is meant to provide a protocol against wilful adverse actions like intended suicide or murder.
Lond story short: the ALPA paper is of no relevance in this discussion.
In particular the flydubai incident provides an argument against a sealed cockpit policy. If the attack would have succeeded and the pilot would have been stabbed fatally, there would not have been any possibility for anybody from the passenger compartment to get into the cockpit. Those on board were lucky that the pilot injured was still able to open the flightdeck door.
I trust the pilots on the flightdeck to get me safely from A to B. And the number of only three incidents in 15 years kind of proves my point (with the Malaysian flight being highly speculative).
There hasn't been only 3. Ben didn't mention the one in China a few years ago, and there are probably more.
We had Sept 11th… which impacted the entire nation for years, and thus sealed the deal for the US. Most other countries haven’t had this level of traumatic event connected to loosing cockpit control. They don’t think their risk factors are the same as they are for the US. Yes there are one offs in other counties, but we already know that one plane accident usually isn’t enough for a country to revamp their rules...
We had Sept 11th… which impacted the entire nation for years, and thus sealed the deal for the US. Most other countries haven’t had this level of traumatic event connected to loosing cockpit control. They don’t think their risk factors are the same as they are for the US. Yes there are one offs in other counties, but we already know that one plane accident usually isn’t enough for a country to revamp their rules and add the financial burden to their national carrier.
Without Sept 11th… I imagine the US would still be a “one person allowed” country.
It's quite the opposite: 9/11 showed everyone around the world that the biggest threat for aviation safety is outside the cockpit and the ultimate goal should be to keep everyone, who could want to enter the cockpit with bad intentions, out of it. The 2 people rule increases the opportunities for terrorists to enter the cockpit, either by being the designated person to accompany the remaining pilot or by taking advantage of the fact that...
It's quite the opposite: 9/11 showed everyone around the world that the biggest threat for aviation safety is outside the cockpit and the ultimate goal should be to keep everyone, who could want to enter the cockpit with bad intentions, out of it. The 2 people rule increases the opportunities for terrorists to enter the cockpit, either by being the designated person to accompany the remaining pilot or by taking advantage of the fact that the cockpit door stays open for a longer time while the pilot exits and another person enters the cockpit (and v.v.)
Why don't aircraft have flight SW that recognises flight changes that are out of the ordinary and stabilise the aircraft in a safe hold at lower altitude away from population and release the cockpit door.
Because it would be far more likely to cause accidents when it malfunctions during safe ops, or triggers during legitimate emergency maneuvers (plenty of which do require crew to take the plane "out of the ordinary") than to prevent one (presumably any pilot trained to fly a plane could find a maneuver that is just within the limits but still crashable).
US and Canada have it but Europeans airlines are absolutely against it, for some weird reason. The euros briefly, and dragging their feet felt, obligated to adopt it after the Germanwings tragedy but a few months later reversed course and allowed single-pilot cockpit again. If the Germanwings accident didn't convince them to adopt the two person rule, nothing ever will I fear. Which is said. The two-person rule is 100% common sense.
As a European, I fully supporte the Two Person Cockpit Rule. I'm under the impression that it was reversed due to pressure from Germanwings/Lufthansa Group. They were at this stage litigating with the victim's families and, sadly, their stance was they did not have any responsiblity whatsoever. The Two Person Cockpit Rule was perceived as admittance of a responsibility.
Lufthansa Group had it implemented for a while, then dropped it because it's incredibly inefficient, causes lot of disruption to ops, while providing negligible benefit. At the end of the day, you gotta trust the pilots, if you don't, you shouldn't be flying in the first place. Not everyone lives in a constant paranoia like 'Muricans.
Besides, how do you know that the cabin crew you force to be in the cockpit won't be the...
Lufthansa Group had it implemented for a while, then dropped it because it's incredibly inefficient, causes lot of disruption to ops, while providing negligible benefit. At the end of the day, you gotta trust the pilots, if you don't, you shouldn't be flying in the first place. Not everyone lives in a constant paranoia like 'Muricans.
Besides, how do you know that the cabin crew you force to be in the cockpit won't be the one with harmful intentions? Just reverse the situation - both pilots are fine, but an FA decided to attack the remaining one pilot, then locks themselves in the cockpit and crashes the plane... You have the same problem all over again.
It might be “incredibly inefficient” for the LH group but AC, UA, AA and DL have no problems implementing it. Does not seem to cause any efficiency problems for them. I see it myself, one goes out, one comes in, fast and easy, no issues. For LH and other Euro airlines, the problem is likely an execution issue, it is inefficient for them because they don’t know how to do it. What you talk about...
It might be “incredibly inefficient” for the LH group but AC, UA, AA and DL have no problems implementing it. Does not seem to cause any efficiency problems for them. I see it myself, one goes out, one comes in, fast and easy, no issues. For LH and other Euro airlines, the problem is likely an execution issue, it is inefficient for them because they don’t know how to do it. What you talk about is known as the Perfect Solution fallacy: interventions never get implemented because there is always a flaw in them leading to inaction and negative outcomes.
You make a good point but for me it starts with how your potential new hire pilots are vetted. Apparently this first officer was fired by another airline for his radicalized views. How would another airline, in this case Fly Dubai, learn about this. How do they conduct their background checks and how do they verify ratings and flight hours? This has to be made more difficult when you hire pilots from other countries. Maybe...
You make a good point but for me it starts with how your potential new hire pilots are vetted. Apparently this first officer was fired by another airline for his radicalized views. How would another airline, in this case Fly Dubai, learn about this. How do they conduct their background checks and how do they verify ratings and flight hours? This has to be made more difficult when you hire pilots from other countries. Maybe this near disaster will bring some needed changes.
islam is the problem
The GermanWings pilot was Christian. Any kind of radical thought is theproblem.
Most of the airlines that I have flown have the 2 person rule in the cockpit . Often it is a female cabin crew that goes in and given that most pilots are men and that most men are stronger than women ,perhaps all airlines should be looking at male security guards ( like El Al ) who are the ones to go in the cockpit ? Having said that I do not fly on...
Most of the airlines that I have flown have the 2 person rule in the cockpit . Often it is a female cabin crew that goes in and given that most pilots are men and that most men are stronger than women ,perhaps all airlines should be looking at male security guards ( like El Al ) who are the ones to go in the cockpit ? Having said that I do not fly on ''crap country '' airlines , so my airlines need to be regulated properly . I see many pilots exit the cabin to use the toilet , I presume to empty the bladder and this could be prevented by having personal small ''pee'' containers in the cockpit . A bit nasty but safer !!
You're forgetting Air India 787....
I think that Lucky wants to be conservative and only refer to confirmed cases and refrain from speculation, even though all signs point to a deliberate act by one of the pilots. (The captain allegedly)
Except he listed the MH 777, of which there is no evidence to say anyone was locked out.