Originally Posted by
ATOBTTR
Appreciate that. Unfortunately you never know how someone will respond to corrections over the internet which is why I preempted it in my post, but I do appreciate your responses and that you're willing to observe and learn.
He may have observed other MX personnel during engine start-ups or such. As I mentioned, I've observed how the pilots on the aircraft start the engines on the jet I fly on as an engineer. Or maybe he did learn from a flight simulator. While there's a big difference between a simulator and the real-thing, there's enough similarity too. Real pilots even train and practice on desktop computer type simulators. The differences showed up in his "flying skills" - he certainly wasn't as graceful or smooth as a trained pilot. But he could learn enough to know how to have some idea of how to handle and fly the plane. It's been a while since I've played Microsoft flight sim but even 10 years ago one could download fairly accurate cockpit models and work through a start-up sequence. Somewhere around my house, I have flight manuals and paper layouts for a Dassault Falcon that a friend gave me while doing an internship.
The insider threat is always the worst fear and that's not unique to aviation. When I was deployed to Afghanistan my biggest fear wasn't the rockets or mortars that would be shot into base or the risk of crashing or being shot down while criss-crossing the country in the back of helos. It was a Green-on-Blue insider attack from an Aghan national who was authorized to be within the perimeter of the base and Green-on-Blue happened in country frequently enough while I was there, though I was lucky that none happened at my base during the time I was there. In aviation specifically, we've already seen this in both "success" (for lack of a better term at the moment) and attempts. The Germanwings and Egyptair incidents were "successes" while Federal Express 705 was an attempt (that did drive some changes - FedEx determined they would no longer fly employees who were being considered for termination or had been terminated).
There may be some low-tech solutions but everything has a cost. A two person solution works in the air because the crew is already on the jet, can't go anywhere else, and being paid the same whether the extra person is in the cockpit as part of the two person system or on the other side of the door. On the other hand, a two-person system in the cockpit on the ground may require additional personnel or additional work hours, which drives up costs for which the FAA, DOT, and the airlines will have to evaluate the cost-benefit analysis.
What something is intended for and what it can be used for are two different things. If you have access to the jet for any reason and know how to start it, either through the job training or your own training, you have the technical access required. (See A-4 example below). As a simpler example and one that impacts you, when you hand over your keys to a valet or an auto-mechanic at the shop, besides the threat of legal consequences or job termination, what actually stops them from taking your car for a joy ride or doing something bad with your car? Certainly nothing within the car itself. They already have been given the technical access necessary to misuse your car. They could easily then take your car and use it do bad things.
And no system is going to be perfect from any potential misuse or abuse. While it was on the ground, I've been the sole person in the cockpit and even on the plane many times. Maybe I'm the first one on or the last one off. Or I went back on the aircraft because I forgot something up there. And having watched the pilots do it many times, I have a pretty good idea on how to start the engines.
EA-4 xample: Here's a case from 1986 when a maintenance guy took an A-4 for a joy-ride over California:
http://articles.latimes.com/1986-11-07/local/me-15420_1_jet-fighter
And what about people who do have the access to do their job? As I noted above, a "two person in the cockpit" rule may work in the air, but would have additional costs associated with it on the ground.
Small point. You keep talking about MX and have not noticed the revision that this guy was not MX, he was a Ground Service Agent. A baggage handler/ de-icer / tug driver/ marshaller.