Old May 24, 17, 12:39 pm
  #6  
televisor
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Programs: 1 thousand
Posts: 2,109
Originally Posted by Transpacificflyer View Post
Unfortunately, those of us who are expected to purchase the product are not allowed to read this "safety review". We are expected to accept it as is. In my line of work, one review does not a policy make. Studies undergo peer review and analysis in a transparent manner. The claim that the rule requires a longer opening of the door is a feeble reason. The german wings crash had the pilot lock the cockpit door such that the other pilot could not enter. The Swiss policy does not address this risk.

Swiss cannot guarantee that we won't have another incident with one of its own highly strung pilots. Considering the fact that the Swiss pilot demographics are the pool from which suicides are more likely (male, caucasian age 35-55) compounded by the fact that this group has a higher rate of suicide than other groups in Europe and is also higher than the world average, Swiss is playing with fire. (These numbers do not include assisted suicide.)

Swiss isn't immune to cockpit problems or pilot illness. and is making a mistake. In any case, I won't be onboard while they test out this new procedure.
You do know that the cockpit doors can be unlocked from the outside (except in the case where the remaining pilot _chooses_ too override that)?

Which means that the _only_ risk is a malicious pilot. (And it's possible the door locking system has been changed in the meantime.)

And when you take that into account, and compare it to the risk of a malicious FA, you'll realise why this policy change was made. (Note: cockpits include tools that are useful in emergency situations...)

I won't fly swiss because of their terrible seating and baggage policies, but not for safety related reasons.
televisor is offline