Originally Posted by
Transpacificflyer
Really? Perhaps you haven't kept up with developments. The Minister's decision along with several airlines to implement the change in procedures comes as a result of the audio recording showing that the pilot was intentionally locked out of the cockpit. When safety is at stake, the law, and ethics compels one to err on the side of caution. Had the airlines not acted, knowing the current circumstances they would be sitting with a significant liability exposure the next time this happens as well as the moral responsibility for not engaging in a relatively easy risk management strategy.
This isn't the first incident of this kind and I draw your attention to Egyptair flight 990 where the relief flying officer intentionally crashed his B767 killing 217 on board. The airlines have to deal with this risk, no matter how remote it might be.
Just playing devil's advocate here, but if the Ministry is so diligent on safety and risk mitigation, and not the
appearance of mitigating true risk then why did they allow 1:50 on narrowbodies? Surely staffing a FA at every emergency exit is the safest thing to do
If I were to answer my own question, I would say....because staffing 1:50 increases risk, but its negligible.
So is what we're talking about here