The terrorist attacks on Paris – as well as the loss of the Metrojet A 321 over Egypt – have opened a new chapter not only in our civil life but also in aviation and its safety and security rules. The same was and is the case for the tragic Germanwings flight 4U 9525. All these events raise questions and potential controversies and it is our duty to address them.
Political decisions have to balance many different aspects, and they have to maintain this balance regardless of the various factors influencing them. This approach is particularly true for new rules that were created under the impression, pressure and influence of a single and very unique event.
Pilots across Europe have been criticising the “4-eyes” rule for the flight deck right after it was launched by EASA following the tragic crash of the Germanwings flight 4U 9525. Our arguments were strong at that time and they have become even stronger today: the flight deck of an aircraft is a security-critical zone and any possible risk in that context must be avoided.
In fact, the latest terrorist attacks are inevitable reminders that aviation has been and will remain one of the targets of terrorists and we need to face that as a fact. Therefore, it comes as our obvious responsibility to reflect on our rules and procedures and eliminate any unnecessary risks – while keeping the right balance.
The risk here stems from crew entering the cockpit for the purpose of replacement. The procedure as it is practiced today, results in prolonged cockpit door opening periods and – consequently – a higher risk of flight deck intrusion. History keeps teaching us that the threat against aviation comes from the outside, and the specific security measures were aiming at mitigating these risks. Thus, we should not lose sight of the main objective: finding the right balance between security and safety.
As a pilot myself, I see the balance of this “4-eyes” rule not given. The circumstances are changing and instead of just piling up additional sets of rules, we should have the courage to re-consider our approaches, especially in the field of aviation security!
by Dirk Polloczek
