Flatcapdriver

By all accounts he's got a long history of bending the rules and the RAF wasn't overwhelmed when he left the service. Simply read his book to find that out.

I'd question his judgement if he's making decisions like this for himself which is why there are rules and regulations within the aviation industry to protect individuals from others and themselves.

mart360

So how come when all those sad punters miss there flights, and they try to get on, they ask the captian!, and invariably he says "no"

Givin controll to a desk jocky makes sod all sense. Its the captain at the sharp end, his decision!

Its good old H&S and the "claimagain" culture that his bosses run scared from..


We had a dingdong with an air stewardess, coming back from Luxembourg once. There were 10 of us on an airbus 320, 6 of which were crew!!! and we sat in the back end of the plane in our correct rows, but in the window seat as opposed to the aisle seats........

The stewardess kicked off on one saying the captain would refuse to take off, as the plane would not be balanced etc....

The guy opposite said to her "If the plane has serious handling issues, because 13 stones are not in the exact spot, i would suggest that the plane has got some bigger problems, and the pilot shouldn't be flying it".

She walked off.....and we took off without a hitch.

The cabin crew ended up sitting with us, coming into heathrow, mind you we were doing some interesting banking maneuvers, with a few full throttle bursts to counteract the weather ....... so much for the correct seating positions

mart

mart

Leslie

Yes thanks, I have not read his book.

Well it is not always possible to produce a set of regulations which cover all eventualities without reducing the effectiveness of an operational force. This was realised generally in the RAF and it was often accepted that the aircraft captain might well have to do something which was against regulations but was the only way to get the job done and did not put anyone in danger. If the aim was successfully achieved, the well known Nelson's eye to the telescope rule was likely to be adopted. In wartime this sort of thing would often be vital to a successful mission and it used to happen in peacetime operations too.

The point is, it should be acceptable to sometimes turn a blind eye in situations where no harm was likely and also where in fact a bit of good can be done. I think it is a mistake to go through life being ruled "by numbers" or mindless pettifogging regulations.

Was it really necessary to put a stop to a good man's career for this minor infringement?

Les

Flatcapdriver

Its acceptable when potentially it affects flight safety. As I said at the beginning, what would have been the position if the gentleman (used advisedly) allowed on into the flight deck had gone loco? Remember that bloke on the BA flight back from Kenya a few years ago who managed to get into the cockpit resulting in descent rates unheard of for a 744? What if that had happened here - the Scoobynet masses (with little or no knowledge of aviation) would have been crowing for Pablo's head on a plate.

'Pettifogging regulations'? The CAA is there for a reason whether we like it or not. They are there as the aviation regulator to oversee airlines and ensure that they adhere to the rules and if they don't then they are in a position to materially punish the airline. Ergo, Pablo saw fit to break his own company's SOPs (a sackable offence) which could have led to the CAA's involvement.

A colourful character maybe but apparently not the first time he'd challenged authority so on that basis he perhaps should have seen it coming. If he had/hadn't then it shows a lack of judgement.

Dieseldog

Les - I'm sure the guy knew what the rule was and was fully aware of the likely repercussions. If he wasn't then maybe he shouldn't have been there in the first place? I don't want to be flown by a "cop-who-doesn't-like-to-play-by-the-rules"...

Flatcapdriver

Just re-read the section and nothing to do with the CAA...

DfT ruling...

The DfT case is very simple, in their minds. The more people in the flightdeck, the more the cockpit door has to be opened in flight to " service" them and each time the cockpit door is opened it represents a risk.


This rule applies UK registered aircraft and all public transport aircraft of ANY NATIONALITY or REGISTER entering UK Airspace. So its operating Flight crew only, with the minor exception of flight crew who are positioning to and from their base of operation prior to, or after a flight duty.

So, the guy broke the law. End of.

Leslie

I don't deny that he broke those regulations but I meant of course that in this case, where the passengers were known since it was a charter flight that his actions were not as bad as if it had been a normal passenger flight. There was plenty of room to apply a bit of common sense.

I imagine that if the footballer was that badly affected he would not have been allowed on the aircraft let alone the flight deck. Had the footballer actually "lost it" it would have been easy enough for the pilot to retain control of the aircraft and it is also easy to restrain someone from behind in such a case. I have spent long enough having to regain or retain control of big aircraft with errors having been made by pilots under training. They don't suddenly go into spiral death dives with a bit of control mishandling.

Yes he did break the rules, but I do not believe the circumstances were serious enough for him to lose his job. My opinion is that it was a pettifogging decision.

Les

Flatcapdriver

Les, with respect I am aware of how commercial aircraft can react in similar situations possibly more so than yourself, but the simple fact of the matter is that this bloke (not for the first time, far from it) broke the law.

Breaking the law in this situation combined with various other transgressions demonstrates a serious error of judgement. Three strikes and you're out and that was the case throughout his career and its not up to him to decide what is and what is not acceptable.

The law is there to protect him and others from themselves. No access to the flight deck for unauthorised visitors. End of. Undisputable. Personal opinions about the legislation are irrelevant. Not for debate.

This bloke has a history of challenging authority and breaking rules. That is not appropriate behaviour for someone entrusted with hundreds of people's lives.

Leslie

Well I do have a good many hours on the good old VC 10 after all.

I suppose i have to admit to having too practical a mind then!

Les

Jerome

Flatcapdriver,

Speeding is breaking the law. However, speeding is not enforced absolutely to the letter of the law.

Even speed cameras are not normally set to 30.001 mph (in a 30 limit) before they flash, despite the fact that anything above 30 is breaking the law.

Some common sense and discretion is applied with respect to speeding, so why not in this case.

Pablo hardly let a drunken chav thug, on his way back from the Costa Del Sol, into the cockpit.

Flatcapdriver

Jerome. Hardly a good comparison when you consider the consequences of getting it wrong in a commercial aircraft far outweight that of a speeding car.

The travelling public demand levels of flight safety that weren't neccessary pre- September 11th and yet because some 'character' called Pablo has lost his job due to poor judgement everyone's crying foul?

Flight deck security is flawed enough as it is, without scaling down that security by allowing access to the cockpit -every time that door is opened is another opportunity for access by undesirables.

As I said before, you can moan and whinge and get all Daily Mail hysterical about it, but the bloke has broken the law and because of his general attitude it was only a matter of time before his time was up. He must have known this but he continued working to Pablo's Law - that hasn't worked.

Leslie

Is your name "Brunstrom" by any chance?

Les

Sbradley

FWIW, I used to know Pablo Mason's back seater quite well as he spent a while at Culdrose.

He reckoned that Pablo was a very good pilot and actually a pretty decent bloke. But that he considered the rules - all of them, including Queen's Regulations - as guidelines only and that he would apply his own, very loose, interpretation when it suited him.

Their Lordships weren't impressed when he unilaterally decided to make himself an MOD spokesman, for example. And they weren't too thrilled with his interpretation of low flying, safety heights and restricted areas either.

Interestingly (I thought) there was never any suggestion that he actually put his aircraft or crew in danger through his actions (combat aside) but he was considered something of a loose cannon...

In this case I'm torn. Les, I want to agree with you but the bottom line is that he broke the law. Though there are certainly mitigating circumstances, we don't know the whole background. But even if it's a first offence, the law seems to be pretty black and white so I suppose technically they're within their rights to fire him.

SB

CrisPDuk

Correction: The American FAA demand whole un-needed additional levels of flight 'safety' that wouldn't have been necessary if they had paid more attention to the ample warnings they received in the years prior to 11/9/01

mart360

Flame suit on

whats the worst case scenario??? pablo & bird buy the farm and 11 overpaid prima donnas are out of the premiership.

Flame suit off

FFS i flew from Luxor to Cairo , the pilot opened the cabin door and invited anyone up to the flight deck

Mobile phones were being used by all passengers, and the flight crew were as cool as cucumbers

Ok he was/ is a colorful character, and was considered a loose cannon. Yet the MOD considered him suitable to fly operational ops !!

if i recall Dougie Bader was a bit of a loose cannon, he lost both legs doing some unauthorised acrobatics. it didn't stop him from carrying on his career, with some decorations along the way.

Ive had some interesting domestic flights, where the pilot was going some, with some tight turns and judicial use of the throttle.

Even post 911, ive seen passengers allowed into the cockpit to visit, and stay there for the landing.

At the end of the day i think he was just a victim of circumstance.

There,s loads of doom mongering and what if,s ... The fact is there wasn't and nothing happened.

At the end of the day, he,s the captain, its his decision.

Its like saying to John Travolta, you must lock your planes cockpit door, when you fly with guests or your family... does that happen?


Mart

CrisPDuk

I don't recall Bruce Dickinson getting sacked when he had half the Glasgow Rangers team in his cockpit during their flights back from Europe either

Flatcapdriver

Nope. I just know a hell of a lot more about commercial aviation than most people in this thread. That and the fact that I don't take anything at face value.