Pablo Sacked from MyTravel

[Razor61]

Pablo Mason has been sacked from MyTravel after letting a footballer on the flight deck.
Not strictly military but Pablo Mason was a Tornado GR1 pilot in the Gulf War 1.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=486005&in_page_id=1770

[Whossat Forrus]

Surely not the same bloke who had to leave his last employer after breaking the rule that said "do not take off with the SPILS switched off", lost it and got the Martin Baker letdown. As he so ably quoted," rules are there for the guidance of fools" etc etc.

[Al R]

Pablo said: "Rules are made for the guidance of wise men and the obedience of fools.


:D One of my favourite maxims. Which neatly kicks into touch my advice to Hippo. Thats why I was only TG8 I guess.

edit.

PS: On a brighter note, this is another of my favourite Maxims.

http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/entertainment/2006-06/21/xin_5106032116446801162063.jpg

[charliegolf]

No loss to SH then!:)

[Shack37]

Read the thread on this topic in the Rumours and News Forum. The man is a hero, nay, he's a god and the victim in this whole sad affair. His fellow professional pilots blame everybody but him. Suppose this famous footballer had just had a snort of something white and powdery or a few tots too many before being invited to the flight deck. If the RAF got pi**ed off with Mason's antics, why shouldn't a company that carries passengers?
s37

[serf]

Did he need a higher score than an Army candidate at OASC?

[brit bus driver]

On the plus side, one more seat vacancy at MYT......if that sort of thing bothers you!

:}

[yamaha]

what a sad bunch you lot really are.

Go put your heads back where they came from, up your own backsides

[BEagle]

There's a hint of 'the final straw' about Mason's antic.....

[yamaha]

Maybe, but schadenfreude is also a fools game

[VinRouge]

I am sorry, but in my mind, the man was a living legend. I am sure you all know the story of how he crossed over from rotes to fast jet...

I am sorry to say this but he is a dying breed, currently being replaced by buffoons who think a bi-annual fitness test and wearing berets in theatre are a good thing. We need more like Pablo in the RAF right now if we are going to save it, not less.

[Shack37]

Yamaha,
That's two posts here and one on Rumours & News none of which contributed a great deal to either thread.
Defend the guy by all means but with some kind of reasoned argument.

Vin Rouge,
Agreed we need as many Pablo's as we can get in the RAF flying Tonkas and Typhoons etc but not in civil airliners.
s37

[yamaha]

not defending Pablo, just find the posts, particularly from the military, PATHETIC

Nothing more, nothing less.

[airborne_artist]

Flew back from Rhodes (as SLF) with Pablo in the LHS.

My, does he like the sound of his own voice. He was on the PA as we were boarding with his tales and homilies, and due to late pax etc. we had a good 20 minutes of him, which was about 19.30 too much. The rest of the pax were lapping it up while I was scrambling in the seat-pocket for the barf-bag.

Truly a legend in his own lunchtime.

[fantom]

Kicking a bloke when he's down was never an honourable tradition.

[buoy15]

Looks like a safe pair of hands - like flying with your dad!
As we don't have many "old, bold pilots" around anymore, this old one would probably, and safely, convince me, as long he is not related to Carlos at Lajes, in the Azores

[brit bus driver]

Maybe, but schadenfreude is also a fools game

Is she related to Emma?

:}

Back on topic, the rule may be pants but they are there for the obeyance of everyone, fools and wise men included, in the outside world. Sad, maybe, but true. Don't know Pablo, read the book and saw him on the telly as I was going through trg, but that's it. Hope all works out well for him (but my comment about spare seats still stands!!)

[ShyTorque]

The "anti" comments here say more about the folk posting than about the man himself, especially the ones who had a chance to tell him face to face but obviously didn't.

[hunterboy]

I must admit, I was waiting for an example to be made like this and hopefully highlight the complete waste of time some of the new security rules are. What if it had been Pablo's father on the jump seat? Still a security risk? What are we trying to achieve by restricting access to the jump seat.
Unfortunately, we have rules for rules sake, passed by Transec, whom I get the impression are reluctant to rock the boat. Let us not forget, we have flying staff that have access to the flight deck that haven't been security checked purely because they are resident abroad.
Do we still allow certain minorities to carry a dagger airside as it is part of their religion? If I, as a white christian tried to pass with the same dagger, would it be taken from me?
My sympathies are with Pablo, however ,I don't rate his chances of winning.

[fantaman]

Having read about Pablo many years ago, he does have quite a history. Most of which was very good and anyone who put their life on the line flying over warzones has my full respect.

However, with all that has gone on in the world over the last six or so years and especially in the aviation industry, can we really afford to go breaking rules set out by the DfT that are there to protect people?

We may not like them but as bureaucratic as they may sound, rules are rules and if you break them and get caught, you have to be prepared to take whatever crap is coming your way. Over the last few years the rules have been put into black and white with no or very few grey areas.

[sapco2]

Yesterday there was thread on this site (sensibly removed - I have to say), whereby a young student pilot faces possible dismissal from the Royal Air Force following the disputed position/action of a landing light switch. For what it's worth, I thought judgements made against him were particularly harsh.

Pablo, on the other hand, is an experienced guy who should have known better!

[Al R]

Why was that thread removed by the way? Is there an official explanation? I have an idea, but still..

[Thud_and_Blunder]

I had a sortie in NI many moons ago where, (edited owing to the tabloid dimension here on PPRuNe. Story stands.) No debrief on the way back, on return to the SH det or at any time afterwards.

The captain was Pablo. F*** all happened to him when we got back to Aldergrove. F*** all seemed to happen to him throughout his life in the SH Force, although that can't be true as he was proud of the fact that he was the most senior Fg Off in the RAF through delays to promotion to Flt Lt.

Probably the sort of tale that folk dine-out on, chuckling quietly at the exuberance of youth and the necessity for hierarchies to have "characters" to keep them human. However, the object lessons for me were:

Some folk can fool all the people above them all the time,

Some folk can talk a very good career,

and some flight commanders aren't worth the oxygen they waste.

[joehunt]

What a boy!!

Mind you if I had to fly choppers, I'd be pissed also, before I flew.

Those were the days.:)

[Stan Woolley]

Sapco2

Actually what is the max flight level for lowering the gear and can you provide a reference?

[Jackonicko]

There seem to be a lot of folk here willing to badmouth a named individual, when he's already down, from behind the shelter of their own anonymity.

That's not very elevating.

I only met Pablo once, and so I don't pretend to know the bloke. But whatever he is or isn't, was or wasn't, when I was interviewing him about Granby I was struck by the realistic idea he had of his own abilities (which he obviously thought were limited, as he'd "been lucky to get fast jet") and by his obvious loyalty to and fondness of his flight in Granby.

He also seemed to have as high a regard for the late Bob Brownlow (who I'd known from RAFGSA and ULAS days, and who Pablo flew with in the Gulf) as I did, and seemed happier to talk about Bob's sterling qualities than about himself.

He seemed a bit of a twit, perhaps, with the big moustache and the cultivated 'colourful character' persona but a fundamentally good and decent man who had done more with his life than I've done with mine, and who deserved better than the pet shop he was then running.

So I wish him well, to be honest.

[Report Line]

Guys,

I do have an issue when an individual believes rules concerning safety can be bent. Allowing people into a cockpit isn't like exceeding the speed limit by 15 Mph when the roads are clear and its 2 in the morning. This individual has been a maverick all of his life with perhaps an unfounded belief and confidence in his own abilities. I reserve judgement on the flying side but I do have a personal recollection of Pablo dating back to days in RAF Laarbruch post Gulf Story One.

He was attempting to change the oil on a BMW that he was hoping to sell. The oil wasn't leaving the car quick enough so some further action was required. The car was sitting at head height on an elevated ramp and Pablo decided to reach into the car and start the ignition. Unfortunately the car was in gear and it drove off the front of the ramp... It was saved from diving into the ground (and killing anyone) by a chain link fence and a few strands of barbed wire which caught betwen the bonnet and the left and right wings.

A trip to the 1 Sqn RAF Regt adventure training store produced enough rope to secure and thence rescue the car.

Read into this what you will - all I learnt was that I wouldn't let this man be responsible for servicing my car.

[Tourist]

Thud and Blunder.

You should add to your list of object lessons:-

Some P2s will be too spineless to refuse to fly with an obviously pi55ed captain, but more than happy to kick him when he is down and no longer scary.

[Rigga]

In my personal view - there are places where rule breaking might be accepted and places where they aren't.

Endangering an aircraft and crew for a "crucial" military purpose is one thing;
Endangering aircraft and crew for pleasure is another;
But endangering aircraft, crew and passengers for entertainment is not on - whoever you are!

It is not just a company rule that has been broken.

Obviously people working with him have ratted on him to remove him from the scene - I wonder why.

[BluntM8]

Leaving aside any judgement on an individual (don't know him, probably never will), surely the issue here is that a member of aircrew has been fired for failing to operate an aircraft in accordance with the rules laid down by those who own the aircraft, the wishes of those who pay his salary, and the legislation written by those who have a legal responsibility for the safe conduct of flight. As far as I know, when you sign for the aircraft you aren't signing for your own rulebook too!

To me, it's fairly cut and dried. You are employed by an airline to operate the aircraft in accordance with a company SOP, and a set of legal regulations. If you fail to do so without suitable reason, they are entitled to discipline you as they see fit. You don't own the aircraft and you don't write the rules. You are a very talented bus driver, that's all. Yes, signing the 700/equivalent bestows on you a degree of responsibility and with that an amount of latitude in operation, but you have a responsibility to follow the rules as you have been employed to do. By all means protest if you think they ought to be changed, but if you flout them then you can expect to be bought to earth at some point!

[ShyTorque]

I suggest this sort of public mudslinging at a named individual, by some who really should know better, is totally inappropriate.

[CYPR]

Nicely put Shy Torque.......................

[yamaha]

Spot on Shy Torque.

[Ewan Whosearmy]

This thread is a great example of the ugly side to this PPRuNe forum. Such a character assassination really does scrape the bottom of the barrel.

It is depressing to think that some of the worst posts here might come from former or current RAF officers. Yamaha is quite correct that some of the posts are pathetic, and childish responses such as '**** off then you cock' simply serve to reinforce that view.

[Thud_and_Blunder]

Ewan,
Ah, the tabloid dimension. B&gger - beyond all the invective in the PMs and within the thread you are the one person who's succeeded in getting through re my observations on Pablo Mason's history. Post duly edited, but no regrets about letting defenders of consistent rule-breakers know that the actions of some inspire many not-so-lucky or flying-skill-blessed individuals to go on to make their own serious mistakes. Pablo got away with things for a long, long time.

Lawyers? No problem - I doubt whether Pablo would gainsay anything I wrote - he'd probably treat it as another wizzo yarn for volume 3.

[Ewan Whosearmy]

T&B

Good move, I think. My post similarly edited.

[sled dog]

The infamous USAF Bud Holland got away with extreme behaviour for a long time, without being reprimanded, and we all know what happened in the end.
More extreme than the subject of this thread, but one has to wonder what various CO`s were doing at the time ?

[Al R]

I first came across this studya couple of years ago, working in an entirely unrelated field.

http://www.crm-devel.org/resources/paper/darkblue/darkblue.htm

As works go, and reaching going beyond the tragedy of the whole damned business, it makes morbid but compelling reading. I remember the flight safety vid from the early 80s.. the one where the Jaguar crashes, and it emerges that the pilot has argued with his wife that morning about his breakfast, snapped at a Cpl on the flightline.. etc. The human mind and personality at work under pressure.. fascinating stuff, however awful the conseuences sometimes.

[Al R]

Pablo makes the BBC.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/coventry_warwickshire/7034412.stm

[L1A2 discharged]

Pablo makes the BBC.

he may make a better job of it than the wasters currently frittering away the license tax :)

[moggiee]

Sacking a pilot for allowing a passenger onto a flightdeck seems a little harsh. It does beg the question as to whether it may have been the final straw - or a convenient excuse to offload a "problem".

Pure speculation - but it smells that way to me.

As for using gear to increase the descent rate - very handy trick in a VC10 when spat out of the airway at Kenet (just south of BZN) at FL14 and in need of a steep descent. It's more comfortable than using the speedbrakes (less buffet).

If memory serves, it's 254 KIAS max for lowering but Vmo/Mmo when down and locked.

[Tigs2]

This is a massive over-reaction from My Travel. It was a private charter flight for Gods sake, no body was in any danger. I doubt Blackburn will charter from My Travel again.

Just an observation. I totally disagree with commenting adversley on named people on this site. Many folks who have taken the opportunity to stab Pablo on this thread should be shown the yellow card. Think about it guy's he has probably read this thread, you would't like it would you!!

[Wigan Warrior]

I strongly agree that the public assassination of a person’s character in this forum is despicable.

I believe that MY TRAVEL had a dilemma once the story emerged and they appear to have gone down the route of least damage to themselves as an Airline operator. This however cost Captain Mason his job.
I’m sure Captain Mason will bounce back from this setback and may even profit from it.

On a slight sidetrack, reading the digs at ‘Sharky’ Ward and Pablo Mason in this forum, is there an 'anti-facial hair' sect at work in here?

I have no issue with our unshaven brethren, however my face will remain a shaven haven as long as Mr. Gillette keeps producing ‘…the best a man can get….’

One of the 2 greatest lines I ever heard in a meeting:

“Just because you’ve got hairs around your lips, there’s no need to act like one!”

[Al R]

Wigan,

As my old pops used to remind my mother; 'Listen, thou withered hag.. if a beard's good enough for Jesus Christ, its good enough for me.'.

To the matter in hand. Its impossible to speculate on the background, they'll be within their rights to dismiss him instantly if he's guilty (in their view) off gross missconduct. Employment history wil have nothing to do with it, they'll have to follow all manner of 18 point discussion/counselling/faffing about plans etc.

On a personal note, although I've never met the man (I'm sure I would have recognised that 'tache through the lens of an S6/S10), Pablo might have feet of clay, but who doesn't? Here though, is possibly not the right place to potentially defame the man.. it comes across as a bit tasteless. And he might be eccentric ~ but more needed please.

[StbdD]

Posts naming and commenting on persons not in the public eye are apparently not permitted on pprune. Like others however, Capt Mason chose to place his name in the public eye by writing and selling his autobiography. Comments regarding his fame/infamy are therefore fair game IMO.

Fame and/or infamy can make you wealthy and well known. They also have a price and the openly expressed opinions/observations of others are part of that price. If you can’t deal with the repercussions, don’t get infamous and don’t spend the cheques. If you have cultivated a rebel reputation, don’t be surprised when it bites you in the arse with ‘management’.

If you ‘feel’ management overreacted in this case (because neither the protagonists or antagonists here really know):
- Consider the position he put the company in with the authorities by doing what he did.
- Consider what his employment record might already say.
- Consider what they might know about this incident that you don’t.
- Consider the fact that he may not even have a valid license anymore since he violated the law.
Any or all of which may combine to make their action a quite sound decision.

Defending him on the basis of either “that’s a stupid law” or “he’s a nice guy, he signed my book” is irrelevant.

[Al R]

StbdD,

If he has violated company rules, and if he has committed, in their view a gross missconduct, then they are within their rights to sack him and tell folk why. He too, is within his rights to comment publically about it.

But what is different here, is dragging up tales of yore which have no relevance, just to bring the man down.. Be honest, if it wasn't for this particular incident, who would have the balls to start a thread entitled 'Pablo Mason ~ why I always thought he was a twonk'? Similarly I suspect, for the same reasons that no one told him to his face when they worked with him. I laughed at the story of him servicing a car (you should have seen me change the suspension bushes on the Alfa the other week), me and ol' Pablo even got some empathy going there for a moment. He's human, and just because he puts himself on a pedastol by daring to be different and actually having the cheek to (well).. write a book, there's no reason to release the safety catch because he's down (so it seems) on his luck.

I admit that he might have been a complete c#nt at work, I don't know. Is a bomber pilot ideally suited for work in an airliner? I don't know. But so what? Would I have been happy to have been flown by him, knowing that he allowed Robbie Savage into the cockpit? Yes, on both counts. He earned his shilling when he was in uniform, despite the more lurid tales now surfacing and from what I can see, and I know this from working with some of the grandest names in motorsport, that rarely do any of them meet the expectation. But so what? Aren't we all human? In publishing, there's an adage when considering that arguement of 'outing'. Is the tale merely of interest to the public, or is it in the public interest? Here, I suspect, its not even the former.

Cheers.

Al.

[ZH875]

Will a Muslim terrorist, who is afraid of flying, that does not get access to the flight deck, on Pablo's aircraft, be able to sue him for racial discrimination?

What if Robbie Savage had had a panic attack on seeing how high in the air he was.

There may be a lot of 'What if's' but rules are rules.

[Al R]

Do I think he made an error? Yes. Has he got a leg to stand on? I doubt it.. and you can easily argue 'rightly so'. The airlines need to be seen to be whiter than white. I just don't particularly like chuckling at aftermath of hubris.

[StbdD]

It's much safer sliding your reputation down a dull sword than one sharpened by yourself. ;)

[Al R]

Yes. But a sword in the hand is worth 2 in the scabbard and don't forget. The pen of my aunt is always left on the sideboard.

[moggiee]

There is a general point here - if you play by the rules, it's VERY hard for anyone who doesn't like you to use these rules to get rid of you for (thinly disguised) personal reasons. Just don't give them the ammo and they can't shoot you.

If you don't like rules, then aviation is probably the wrong place to earn a living!

[XV277]

Not commenting on the rights or wrong of the individual, but would this have made the press in the same way if it was another (less 'known') pilot? Or a less well known passenger?
Says something about the cult of celebrity that the individual becomes the issue and not the breach of rules.

[Tigs2]

This is all laughable. People suggesting what if he had a panic attack etc etc. Has there been a case of that before, when cockpit visits were allowed?. The reason cockpit visits are not allowed is to prevent a terrorist threat. Robbie Savage is not a terrorist he is a well known public figure. You should be more worried about the guy you sit next to on every flight. Who is the First Officer?? Flying with BA you can operate for 3 years and never sit with the same person twice. Why trust them and not Robbie Savage, at least most of you know of the celebs, you know nothing of the person sitting next to you, and trust them because they wear a uniform and carry an ID that you can get made in Bangkok for £35. Paranoia is running rife here in the industry. If we got rid of all the PC concerning safety, and profile people to find any similarities with known hijackers from the past we would save a lot of time and effort. Robbie Savage was no threat, it had been discussed with the crew before hand, and everyone said 'yes'.

Pablo has been made a scapegoat!

[Airborne Aircrew]

Sorry Tigs2, you're getting it all wrong here...

Pablo has been made a scapegoat!No he hasn't, for the following reason:-

Robbie Savage is not a terrorist he is a well known public figureSo what? There's a rule that says that passengers may not come up on the Flight Deck. It doesn't say Passengers, (except celebrities), may not come up on the Flight Deck because that would beg the question, at what point does a celebrity become a bona fide celebrity and does the fact that the American flight crew have never heard of the Australian comedian mean that he isn't celebrity enough to come up on the Flight Deck.

Rules are there for a purpose and must be enforced universally and even handedly. In today's litigious climate a company is asking for a costly lawsuit if they allow the rules to be applied arbitrarily. Mason was a representative of the company and, whilst discharging that responsibility, he publicly broke a rule so all could see. As a result, and most probably with other disciplinary issues in his personnel folder, (though this may be arguable because, if like here in America, he is an 'at will' employee then the company can get rid of him for no reason), the company decided to dismiss - as is their right.

As to "slagging him off in a public forum", while I haven't gone back and checked for accuracy, it is my impression that stories like 'drunk in NI' and 'the BMW affair' were a response to the 'OMG, he was such a great guy and there was no reason for this' posts. It strikes me that they do show a propensity for... errr... impulsive behaviour... That'll do...

In any case, whether he is a public figure or not, it is not unreasonable to counter arguments for a particular point with actual experiences and, as such, that appears to be what happened here. The fact that, whether it was deliberate at the outset or not, it seems that he has encouraged his public image and as such he becomes fair game for any truth about him, be it beneficial or detrimental. This thread has contained both and I can assure you that, having no clue as to who this man was, I have a much better picture of him now than I did when this thread began. I'd suggest that is a good thing. :D

Edited for a 'tense' issue... I'm relaxed now though... ;-)

[mole man]

From one of his crewman from 72 I wish him all the luck with his appeal

[ZH875]

Robbie Savage is not a terrorist he is a well known public figure.

Have you seen Robbie Savage play, he can wind up the best players in the world, he is not exactly the quietest footballer around. That said, he still should not have been given access to the cockpit.

If rules have been broken, then the punishment should fit the crime. If MyTravel back down on this one, then they must back down on any other case of rule breaking, and what is the likelyhood that they will do that?.

[parabellum]

The bad news is that Pablo has made himself/been made very high profile and public transport carriers will walk away from that, lest he draw unwelcome attention to them. It is quite possible that there are some employers out there, especially in the private sector, who won't be bothered.

[garden]

Did Pablo not lower the gear on a MYT 757 at FL370 .78M in order to burn more fuel as not to be over LW at LGW. I heard the aircraft subsequently took a nose dive and was only recovered several thousand feet later? Any more detail's on this. Done well to recover it I heard, and yes, MYT have been far too harsh in their action's, probably because they are shortly being taken to court by another of their captains for another more unfair dismissal, and need to prove some sort of bizare consistancy, another guy who had a character no doubt!

[Airborne Aircrew]

another guy who had a character no doubt!Or a character flaw perchance...

It's all very well to have characters... It does not grant them the right to do as they please. I have known many characters in various walks of life and not one was a character simply because he broke rules. Some did, but that wasn't what made them a "character", who they were did that.

"Characters", by their nature, tend to be likable chaps that, by our own nature, causes us to overlook their failings or pass them off as being those quaint little quirks that make him the character he is. The problem is that, by doing so, we are complicit in those failings and, as the character's manager we could be culpable when one of those failings causes an accident. Furthermore, as a "character's" career advances and they learn that they can do, more or less, as they please and become more dangerous rather than less.

lower the gear on a MYT 757Seems to me that he has two strikes against him with this company. One was an improperly considered activation of landing gear that endangered the aircraft and a couple of hundred passengers and another that was a blatant breach of the company's policy. If he was my employee he'd be collecting unemployment now too... Especially while the military is bleeding experienced pilots.

[garden]

parabellum, do you know anything about the incodent with the gear, did'nt he do well to recover the aircraft?

[Compressorstall]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but this is the Professional Pilots' Rumour Network isn't it? Pablo is a professional pilot and although he may have made an error of judgement, we're supposed to support each other - why else do we have a discussion forum? I learned to be opme and honest in my debriefs, but slagging each other off is mere tittle-tattle, unless the rest of you are perfect pilots, and I haven't flown with one of them yet, but I have flown with some really dull ones who didn't have the capacity to do anything remotely exciting. Perhaps Pablo just need some support from the people who trained to do the same job he did.

[hunterboy]

The sad thing is, you don't see Doctors or Lawyers publicly knifing each other in the back on internet forums. And we wonder why the status of pilots in falling?

[Glass Half Empty]

Leopards don't change their spots, it was only a matter of time eh Pablo!!

[soddim]

hunterboy, One of the reasons why there is a surplus of integrity in our profession is because we are not averse to criticising each other. Doctors bury their mistakes and lawyers cover for them.

[Airborne Aircrew]

Doctors bury their mistakes and lawyers cover for them.... and, sadly, Aircrew bury them too.

[BluntM8]

This thread seems to have descended into a stampede for the moral high ground - there are those who wish to throw mud at a named individual, and those who wish to throw mud at the mud throwers. It's got a bit pathetic really. I have to say, I think comments like 4 pages of a public slagging by people who aren't even pilots are at best naive, or more likely designed to be inflamatory. After all, the vast majority of people using these forums are aircrew of some sort, anddo so behind a username, and I very much doubt that everybody knows who everyone else is or can confidently say what they do for a living.

Aside from the tiresome tirades of Pablos mates vs Pablos critics, there was an opportunity here to discuss the situation in the abstract, which seems to have been lost. A sad reflection on the way this forum has been going - a lot of people with something they feel they have to prove!

[Airborne Aircrew]

a lot of people with something they feel they have to prove!At the risk of being frivolous...

You actually said that in a Military Aircrew forum? It was going to be a p1ssing match the moment Mr. Mason said "Yeah, bring him up here and let him look around"... :E

Aside from the tiresome tirades of Pablos mates vs Pablos critics, there was an opportunity here to discuss the situation in the abstract, which seems to have been lost.Frivolity aside, I agree with you here... There are several issues that are pertinent to people in all walks of life but that are particularly focused in the case of flight crew that are in play in this situation. As you say, "mates" against "critics". Silly.

[Seldomfitforpurpose]

Jut a couple of thoughts to try to shoot down some of the silly posts on here, especially from the ex/failed mil types :rolleyes:

This was a charter aircraft, chartered by Blackburn Rovers exclusively for them and only them :ok:

On a recent trip to the States we had the inevitable delays as "Brownforce" 1 taxied into Andrews Airforce Base. This was a BA aircraft "chartered" by HMG and without a doubt under the same FAA/CAA regs some twerps in here are quoting..........................so if the lying thieving ex sheriff of Nottingham had asked to and been granted permission to visit the flight deck would we now be demanding the head of the BA Captain..............:rolleyes:

[Airborne Aircrew]

This was a charter aircraft, chartered by Blackburn Rovers exclusively for them and only themAhhh... I see... That changes the rules then? The company policy changed then?

Of course not... and the company is doing what it sees fit. Remember, they didn't hire him just for the "glory" of firing him. BA should do what it feels appropriate too... You're logic is flawed... But that's not exactly a big surprise...

Before you start saying I have some axe to grind read back a few posts and note that I have no idea who this man is and really don't care...

[Seldomfitforpurpose]

I say again for the hard of reading.............

'On a recent trip to the States we had the inevitable delays as "Brownforce" 1 taxied into Andrews Airforce Base. This was a BA aircraft "chartered" by HMG and without a doubt under the same FAA/CAA regs some twerps in here are quoting..........................so if the lying thieving ex sheriff of Nottingham had asked to and been granted permission to visit the flight deck would we now be demanding the head of the BA Captain..............:rolleyes:

So both were chartered aircraft, both with "known" and absolutely no threat folk on board, so can you seriously tell us that the BA captain would be fired for letting "Golden Brown"on the flight deck...........now, it's not a spelling check so pause and breath before answering :ok:

[StbdD]

In what alternate reality is the violation of FAA/CAA regulations acceptable?

[moggiee]

Excellent 4 pages of a public slagging by people who aren't even pilots let alone know how to fly a 757.:ugh:
So you know what we all do for a living then?

For the record, I am a pilot - hence my comment about using the gear on a VC10 as a convenient, and smooth, way of increasing drag. However, as I am NOT a 757 expert, I chose not to comment upon this aspect of the discussion.

The gentleman in question has placed himself in the public eye in the past - for good and bad reasons - and as such an event like this becomes valid "news". He has a career that could best be described as "chequered" - see the post about the written off Tornado for a start - and that history indicates a possible problem when it comes to adhering to the rules. This incident would appear to back up that view..

Those who court celebrity, as Pablo has in the past, make themselves targets - especially if their professional performance is less than 100% professional!

[parabellum]

Sorry Garden, can't help you there, only heard about it second/third hand.

[Seldomfitforpurpose]

In the reality of any feckin Governmental leader saying "we hired this sharabang so give us a look"...........so google me/anyone else on here the rules and regs for that situation.

And also please quote us on here any situation where a state leader has been denied access to the fllight deck because of the CAA/FAA rules you quote..............:p

[Airborne Aircrew]

I say again for the hard of reading... And I will say again for the hard of intelligent thought... :rolleyes:

Just because a person is "of rank" does not place them "above the law". Rules can be bent, but if your superior doesn't let it go you will be punished for it. If that is too difficult a concept for you to grasp then it, absolutely, confirms what the several people who seem to know who you are in real life have stated to me in PM's: that you are equally obnoxious, ineffectual and arrogant in your current position as you are here.

My points are valid and sensible... You are simply nay saying because you are... let me see... obnoxious, ineffectual and arrogant... Come up with something of use or go away...:rolleyes:

[Seldomfitforpurpose]

If only there was a crayon option.............:rolleyes:

If Gordon Brown/Tony Blair....etc etc ......get on a chartered BA flight, chartered by HMG and say can I visit the flight deck and the Captain says yes............should he be sacked?

Common sense was used in this instance and I am sure common sense will prevail.

"confirms what the several people who seem to know who you are in real life have stated to me in PM's: that you are equally obnoxious, ineffectual and arrogant in your current position as you are here."

And my current position is.............go on list your sources chap:rolleyes:

[brit bus driver]

Should he...absolutely. It's not his country, he's just some unelected (as PM) (insert your own expletive). Unless he has gained explicit approval to do so from the CAA before-hand; he should know better than to ask. If the captain refuses, what's the worst that can happen? Error of judgement, but no transgression of the rules.

Now, had we a credible strategic VVIP outfit in the military, them's different rules, but let's not get started on that. After all, we're the only G8 nation not to have one....:ugh:

[Seldomfitforpurpose]

BBD,

Re read your last post and I can only assume alcohol was involved.

So if Abramovitch, who owns the feckin aircraft, or Branson who owns all the feckin aircraft asks...............should they also apply to the FAA/CAA for permission............christ where does this end and common sense take over.....:rolleyes:

[Talk Wrench]

Following this thread with interest. It seems that the truth is being held back yet again by speculation. Would Mr M be prepared to speak????


I am neither a fan, nor colleague, nor friend, yet I have Respect for the aviator.


And of the the truth.



TW

[doubleu-anker]

The guy probably can't talk about this now, even if he wanted to, as he is probably under advise from his lawyers.

[AARON O'DICKYDIDO]

I am not an aviator but a retired airframe technician who at least did have the pleasure of knowing Pablo Mason while on 230 Squadron. I will not comment on his professional ability as a pilot because I am not qualified to do so. But I suspect a lot of the comments made to date on this site are from unqualified self-opinionated people who have never ever disobeyed an order/instruction ! I think not.
I think there must be a pool of would-be traffic wardens out there just waiting for a job opening. ( ie They can show no discretion - rules is rules !!!) - Bollocks.

Good luck Pablo.

[RETDPI]

"Never criticise a man until you've walked a mile in his shoes"

Yes, I did work with him years ago.

[SRENNAPS]

All the best Pablo – you were one of the best Tonka Jocks I knew. I was a sooty and your presence and attitude to us ground crew was fantastic.

Oh and I forgot to say,

"AARON O'DICKYDIDO Well said".

[moggiee]

So if Abramovitch, who owns the feckin aircraft, or Branson who owns all the feckin aircraft asks...............should they also apply to the FAA/CAA for permission............christ where does this end and common sense take over.....:rolleyes:
Abramovich can go up to the flightdeck of his 767 because it operates as a private jet, not on an Air Operator's Certificate as an aeroplane for fare paying passengers - so different rules apply.

I'm not 100% sure if Sir Richard Bandwagon-Jumper would be allowed on the flightdeck of one of his own aeroplanes - although I suspect that if he was officially on the "crew" then it would be OK. However, the Captain would have the right to refuse him entry whatever the circumstances.

[Seldomfitforpurpose]

Moggie,

Now I am giggling as I think you actualy believe what you have just posted :p

[Romeo Oscar Golf]

May I recommend the "Rumours and News" thread on this subject where most of the contributors probably have a better understanding of the relevant legislation than most of the contributors on this MA forum. Furthermore the civilian operators probably understand the shortcomings of the legislation more than their military counterparts. Finally, let's not continue to slag off a fellow pilot publicly, whether his history invites it or not.:*

[teeteringhead]

"Never criticise a man until you've walked a mile in his shoes" ... apart from anything else.....


.... you're a mile away from him.....


.. and you've got his shoes......!! :ok:

[Rigga]

SFFP,

"Moggie,
Now I am giggling as I think you actualy believe what you have just posted "

As an civvy airliner-legislation-checking-and-enforcing type of guy, I suggest it might be a good idea for you to stop, and think about those who know who you are, before you get much deeper into the mire!

Rigga

[moggiee]

Moggie,
Now I am giggling as I think you actualy believe what you have just posted :p

If you'd care to explain which bits of my comments you find so amusing, maybe we can discuss then like adults.

Access to flightdeck laws do NOT apply to private jets, nor do they apply to all AOC flights (e.g. a Kingair charter for example). Therefore, Mr Abramovich does NOT have to have a "no access" policy on his private 767.

The Captain has the legal authority to bar anyone from entering his flightdeck - whether he has the will to withstand management pressure from the owner-passenger or manager-passenger is another story. I know a BA Concorde captain who barred Bob Ayling from the flight deck when Ayling was "running" BA. Ayling wanted to get back to the UK and all the seats in the cabin were taken and he wanted to use the jumpseat to get home. The captain refused, saying that having the airline's chief exec on the flightdeck was prejudicial to flight safety as it may have been a distraction for the crew.

Ops manuals may impose more stringent rules than those laid down by DfT and as those manuals are approved by the CAA as part of the process of gaining an AOC then they become legally binding. Therefore, if the MYT Ops Manual says no access then that is binding - full stop, no discussion required.

[Rigga]

Cooo. That went very quiet - very quickly!

[Airborne Aircrew]

Rigga:

Hope you weren't holding your breath... ;) You're dealing with someone who thinks that common sense trumps the rules despite what the boss thinks... :rolleyes:

[moggiee]

I think that SFFP has gone into hiding!

[Lytham Lifeboat]

What ever happened to SFFP?


....Mytravel said the company had a "zero tolerance policy" ...


I assume the CAA have the same zero tolerance policy when it comes to aviation law

I feel sorry for the chap, but rule is rules.

[Tightflester]

I have to agree with Moggie

[reallydeskbound]

I don't write regularly on this site but feel that I should express my opinion on this one!
I knew Pablo as a colleague and family friend for many years and feel there is much more to this situation than meets the eye.
There are/were/still many people who begrudge Pablo. When I knew him - when we still had a real Air Force - he was well known as an opinionated outspoken individual who stood for high standards and exhibited leadership in his own style - which made him many enemies, I doubt he changed when the transition to civvy flying took place, he did not suffer fools gladly.....
Taking Robbie Savage on to the flight deck would have been seen by the company as Pablo doing his own thing, despite the good intention of attempting to give the individual some confidence in aviation. Was this just the straw that broke the camel's back? Companies are only interested in the bottom line, sod the fare payer, and the employee who rocks the boat...
Sadly Pablo is just another victim of the small minded individuals who run companies these days, always remember airlines aren't run by pilots or even engineers, they are run by accountants who are only interested in the bottom line.
Good luck for the future Pablo fly safe

[Fareastdriver]

When you work for a civilian company you are paid to work to their rules. You don't work to their rules you don't get paid. It's quite simple.
I can arrive at an FPSO ( a tanker converted to an oil processing and storage unit) giving a roll figure of 3 degrees and is therefore out of the company limits, 2.5 degrees. I know, and anybody else with 9000 hrs on Pumas knows, that if you land cross deck and convert the roll into pitch that it can take 8 degrees eyes shut.
I throw it away. It doesn't affect my pay. The company isn't going to turn around and ask you why you couldn't do it. They set the rules, that is what you are paid to do. Once you step out those parameters you are on you own. Should it turn nasty then the lawyers are looking for somebody to nail.
If you havn't followed the book then it's going to be you.

[Rigex]

R-D- bound
Couldn't agree more. Unfortunately this is the way the PC world is going, "jobsworths" hiding behind convenient (and sometimes inappropriate) rules to achieve their desired result....especially regarding uncomfortable but perhaps nonetheless embarrassingly correct employees.

F-e-driver
Typical "I follow-the-rules-and-am-therefore-always-right" reply. How can you justify comparing compliance with defined flight limitations (if you do this , you will crash) with judgemental decisions i.e. chartered aircraft from known customer, known passenger list, therefore = risk of endangering aircraft if passenger on flight deck = zero. I see no similarity.

I didn't have the honour during my time working for HM of meeting Pablo, but have been privileged (and still am) to meet pilots who were / are prepared to make their own decisions instead of referring to the rules for support.

Pablo - fly with you anytime!

F-e-driver - not so sure.

[airborne_artist]

Rigex - reluctantly I'm with FE Driver. When you work for a company, you follow their rules. You are not paid (unless you are Chief Pilot) to query the rules, and you are certainly not paid to bend/break them when no lives are in danger.

When it's your train set, you can do as you like. Until then, it's best to follow the rules. Expect the worst if you don't. As has been said before, it's possible that Pablo had sailed too close to the wind before/made enemies in the company. It's no surprise that the wolves leapt for him when he gave them the opportunity. (Apologies for the mixed metaphors, but you get my drift).

[Basil]

did not suffer fools gladly often equals 'opinionated and cannot stand those who disagree'
As a passenger I want to be flown by a SOP crew with the FO 'in the loop' and in a position to mention deviations from standard procedure.
As a first officer I flew with several "I'll show you how I do it" captains.
They were a pain in the butt and placed their flight deck crew in a position where monitoring was well nigh impossible.
I recollect a flight engineer remarking, after a flight with a Middle Eastern operator "Aahh so that was it; I hadn't a clue what you two were up to!" (Abdul had decided to simulate captain incapacity - not that it made much difference either way)
One final point: Horses and courses, ladies and gentlemen, so if you are not an airline pilot you are not qualified to comment on adherance or otherwise to airline SOPs so lets have less of the Top Gun rubbish.

[Fareastdriver]

Typical "I follow-the-rules-and-am-therefore-always-right" reply. How can you justify comparing compliance with defined flight limitations (if you do this , you will crash) with judgemental decisions i.e. chartered aircraft from known customer, known passenger list, therefore = risk of endangering aircraft if passenger on flight deck = zero. I see no similarity.


Both of them them are the same. They are in contravention of the company's Operation Manual which is approved by the CAA as a condition of their Aircraft Operators Certificate. Compliance to the Ops Manual is a condition under which the aircraft is insured. There are mandatory requirements under the Air Navigation Act that must be followed and the prohibition of passengers on on the flight deck on a public transport aircraft above a certain weight is one of them.


It's not jobsworth, IT IS THE LAW OF THE LAND.


Outwith that you are flying an aircraft illegally and it is not insured. You can take your chances but if something goes wrong, maybe something entirely unconnected with what you are doing, you are in it, way up to your neck and beyond. It will not only effect you but also your family, perhaps for ever.


The civil aviation safety record in the developed world has been brought about by the strict adherance to Ops Manuals and SOPs. Go back fifty years to when the captain did more or less as he liked or even now in the third world where the same attitude still prevails and it is a completely different story.


I knew Pablo, briefly, and I have a lot of sympathy for him but he overstepped the mark.


F-e-driver - not so sure.

I obviously wasted my time getting a 38Grp 'A' Category.
Don't walk into Graham Bearham on a dark night.

[spectre150]

so if you are not an airline pilot you are not qualified to comment on adherance or otherwise to SOPs so lets have less of the Top Gun rubbish.

well at least that brought a smile to my face on a dull Monday morning.

[Basil]

spectre150,
Yes, it was a bit arrogant, wasn't it - aahh what the heck :E

[Wrathmonk]

... and if you're not a professional who flies the non-civilian hardware, or a backroom boy or girl without whom nothing would leave the ground, Army, Navy and Airforces of the World, then **** off the Military forum. :E

And before you all start wailing its called banter ;)

[spectre150]

Basil, I thought the comment was more patronising than arrogant :} but decided not to post that thought because I didnt want this thread, like so many others, to degenerate into a slanging match. I do agree with your sentiments about that particular brand of crew 'co operation' (showing my age, its probably CRM now or has it changed again).

Wrathmonk, Basil's commment in the context of the whole post did not seem like banter in my view. It still made me smile though :ok:

[Basil]

if you're not a professional who flies the non-civilian hardware, or a backroom boy or girl without whom nothing would leave the ground, Army, Navy and Airforces of the World, then **** off the Military forum
Aahh but once or twice upon a time I was - Army gunfitter, RAF pilot, ATCO.
Basil - who is now not sure if he's arrogant or patronising (wife says both) :)

[Lytham Lifeboat]

Possibly neither, possibly both.
However, you certainly sound Fawlty Basil :{

I'll get my coat

[Romeo Oscar Golf]

I know I've already said on this thread that the civvies are probably the best people to comment on this matter but some of the absolute crap which has sprung from some of their lips requires me to make my final comment. If there was ever any clearer indication that the military aviator remains a valuable maverick with regards flying an aircraft and commanding the project, this is the one. He/she applies knowledge, experience, application and reality to the task, is not reliant on over prescibed non aviation associated rules and procedures, and actually provides what the customer wants and is paying for. That some mindless beancounter writes stupid rules, which we may not disagree with, argue about etc., should be held up as CRM procedure or whatever,therefore is right, is absolute bolleaux. Sadly the maverick will lose his/her job 'cos we mustn't disagree with our paymasters. However it does not mean that they, the mavericks, are not right. This unfortunately seems to be the way of New Labour Britain.

[cyclic gal]

I posted this earlier in R&N before I saw this, It still stands.

My flying career as was is dotted with memories of characters, mavericks, renegades, call them what you will who are still around, still doing it and still the same, ultimately professional. Without them the world might be a sadder place than it is now. To the ones who were negligent, stupid, silly, go hang!

[FFP]

It too made me laugh on a monday morning Basil.

Will have to tell the last guy who did my Sim Check that there's nothing such thing as CRM and adherence to SOP's in the military, only airline flying..;)

[Flap62]

R.O.G. and cyclic.
There are also a great number of "maverics" who are now pushing up the daisies. In 20 odd years of military and now civvie flying I think I can safely say that there is no place for a maveric who interprets the rules as they see fit, in fact I did my level best to chop some of these hazards. Use judgement - yes, be flexible - yes, but for them to decide which rules they agree with, and so follow, and which they will ignore is nothing more than a short cut to a cat5.
The customer in the commercial sense does not pay for someone who uses their maveric skills and interprets things their way. They pay to get from A to B, completely safely,on time, in comfort and with good service. That is all! They also do not pay for some clown who thinks he is a comedian doing his amateur cabaret act on the PA.

Mr Mason's cavalier attitude was only ever ultimately to lead to an accident - oh, hang on a minute, he's already had one!!

[effortless]

I am amazed at some of the responses. Remember, some of us sit on appointment boards and those of you still with a seat should be aware of this, if you are thinking of changing it.

[Gaz ED]

All gone quiet, has it?

CHICKENS!

:E

[charliegolf]

Don't walk into Graham Bearham on a dark night

Have I missed something? I thought is was Robbie Savage on the flight deck. Was GBH there too?

I think he joined the Health and Safety nazis after the mob, he'd have said := to breaking the rules.:ok:

CG

[ZH875]

All gone quiet, has it?

CHICKENS!

:E


Nah.....




.....BORED.

[Romeo Oscar Golf]

Remember, some of us sit on appointment boards and those of you still with a seat should be aware of this, if you are thinking of changing it.


Sorry old son, don't understand the threat. Would you care to elaborate:suspect:

[effortless]

Sorry old son, don't understand the threat. Would you care to elaborate

Good lord no threat old son. Just think about the image presented.

[Basil]

Will have to tell the last guy who did my Sim Check that there's nothing such thing as CRM and adherence to SOP's in the military, only airline flying..
Yes, Just 'kin do it! and stop arguing! :}
I once flew for an airline where that was sort of encouraged:
Trainer to Basil "You got to ride that flight engineer a bit harder!"
Basil: "Perhaps you'd get the ATIS for me."
Trainer: "Perhaps I won't."
Basil: "Get the ATIS!"
Trainer: "No worries." :rolleyes:

I subsequently added 'airline' to 'SOPs' to make it clear that I referred specifically to airline operations.
I think there are differences.
We operate in a environment in which we support each other (yes, I know some of the temporarily disaffected would disagree).
In the military, on the one hand you'll probably get an expeditious approach at a friendly station but be less kindly received when visiting the bad boys.

There are those who do not understand the law as it applies to civil aviation, e.g. I think in another thread, the law as it applies to 'charter flights' is confused with 'private flights'. Big difference.
The thread (http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?t=301882&page=7) in R&N goes on a bit with ill informed comment.

No intention to suggest that the mil does not have SOPs and sorry if I've ruffled professional feathers. I've a bit of a thing about SOPs, having flown with pain in the derrier captains who thought it was cool to 'do their own thing'. As a FO, at one time, I (uncharacteristically) preferred flying with training captains because we'd just collected a bunch of captains who wouldn't have recognised SOP if they'd met it in their soup! :*

[yoffey]

Did he ever get back to flying?

[HARRIERPILOTNAS]

:OI have heard some Stories about Pablo Mason, from the Boys at Valley.. Rumours have it that Pablo the legend that he is.. Was ejected from his aircraft from the Back Seat Driver, under 'Command' ejection! I can't imagine how pissed off Pablo wud be because he was Ejected by his Nav!

[Tigger_Too]

Walt......!

[fake wafu]

Maybe his 'back seat driver' took them both out because they were in iminent danger of losing their lives. Maybe the pilot had his hands full and couldnt get to a handle. Maybe the chap in the back did them both a favour. All speculation of course but no worse than the isinuation that the nav ejected the pilot contrary to the pilots wishes.

[AARON O'DICKYDIDO]

HARRIERPILOTNAS

;)
I have heard some Stories about Pablo Mason, from the Boys at Valley.. Rumours have it that Pablo the legend that he is.. Was ejected from his aircraft from the Back Seat Driver, under 'Command' ejection! I can't imagine how pissed off Pablo wud be because he was Ejected by his Nav!

And when was this alleged incident exactly ?

[PPRuNe Radar]

29th July 1983

Hawk of 2TWU after a mid air collision with another of that ilk.

Or more likely the 10th May 1991

Ejected by nav from Tornado GR1

This from a bang seat website:

On your next Tornado entry dated 10 May 1991, you correctly note that the pilot was ejected by his navigator. I can give you a little more detail to this story. The pilot, Pablo Mason was quite a flamboyant character and possibly overconfident of his own abilities. The nav, Rob Woods was quiet and professional.

The nav had claimed that the aircraft was out of control at low level and he initiated command ejection for himself and the pilot. The pilot admitted that the aircraft was out of control but claimed that he was regaining control when the nav banged them out. He blamed the nav for the accident. The board of enquiry, with the benefit of the flight data recorder, confirmed that the aircraft would not have recovered and that the nav had undoubtedly saved the pilots life. Pablo Mason went on to sell his Gulf war stories to the tabloids and said some unpleasant things about his fellow aircrew.

[AARON O'DICKYDIDO]

Prune Radar

;)

Thank you.

[CirrusF]

On your next Tornado entry dated 10 May 1991, you correctly note that the pilot was ejected by his navigator. I can give you a little more detail to this story. The pilot, Pablo Mason was quite a flamboyant character and possibly overconfident of his own abilities. The nav, Rob Woods was quiet and professional.

The nav had claimed that the aircraft was out of control at low level and he initiated command ejection for himself and the pilot. The pilot admitted that the aircraft was out of control but claimed that he was regaining control when the nav banged them out. He blamed the nav for the accident. The board of enquiry, with the benefit of the flight data recorder, confirmed that the aircraft would not have recovered and that the nav had undoubtedly saved the pilots life. Pablo Mason went on to sell his Gulf war stories to the tabloids and said some unpleasant things about his fellow aircrew.


Can anybody elaborate how exactly he lost control?

This happened before the lessons learnt from the Czar 52 tragedy. If it had happened after, would he have been allowed to keep flying?

[Union Jack]

Very interesting sidetracking, but it seems like no one wants to answer Yoffey's question, namely "Did he (PM) ever get back to flying?"

Jack

[airborne_artist]

It seems he's taken up the pen - link (http://www.pprune.org/private-flying/348504-dodgy-hours-logging-advice.html).

[soddim]

And lost control of the pen!

[HTB]

I thought it was more by way of mishandling during a bodged 2 v 1 low level intercept (with Pablo and Rob as the aggressor), converting from a head-on at high speed in 67 wing, pulling hard to convert to stern attack with high alpha while simultaneously moving the wings to 45. Somebody with a better grasp of aerodynamics might be able to explain what happens in these conditions, but I vaguely reacall a warning in pilot's notes about the deleterious effects of doing this.

[CirrusF]

converting from a head-on at high speed in 67 wing, pulling hard to convert to stern attack with high alpha while simultaneously moving the wings to 45. Somebody with a better grasp of aerodynamics might be able to explain what happens in these conditions


You'd end up with a very high speed stall. Swept wings produce low lift/drag ratio but stall at high alpha. Unswept wings produce high lift/drag ratio but stall at low alpha. So if he moved wings forward at high alpha and high speed, and assuming he was maintaining constant alpha and power, lift would initially increase rapidly, giving marked decrease in turn radius and increase in g, and then a very sudden stall. Given the high directional stability of the Tornado probably the outside wing would have stalled first so they probably flicked upright, but not necessarily!

[Airborne Aircrew]

The board of enquiry, with the benefit of the flight data recorder, confirmed that the aircraft would not have recovered and that the nav had undoubtedly saved the pilots life. Pablo Mason went on to sell his Gulf war stories to the tabloids and said some unpleasant things about his fellow aircrew.

I never knew the man myself, (obviously), but the above paragraph speaks volumes about him. Unfortunately, none of those volumes are particularly flattering. :rolleyes:

[HTB]

Pablo was good at deflecting blame - I flew a night Taceval sortie with him, which included a FRA at Nordhorn. I think it would have been a half decent DH, except the chimp for some reason converted to Phase 2, moved the tgt bar and gave us a 1500ft long bomb (a Taceval "fail" for the sqn). At the mass debrief he claimed that I had given him Phase 2 from the back seat and he hadn't touched anything, honest guv - it was the nav's fault. All on film of course, including the the movement of the phase 2 mark from astride the bus to a nebulous point in the overshoot. Needless to say this flimsy and transparent line of defence was kicked out of court (and he later fessed up to taking phase two and moving the marker because it was obscuring his view of the bus).

I don't know how, but we convinced the Taceval team that the 3kg had a faulty nose cone, or tail ,or something equally implausible, so they wiped the score.