UAL unauthorized MLB cockpit visitor...
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Earth until ..........
Posts: 40
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Rated
I'm not condoning the seating of a passenger on a pilot's seat. I'm just asking that you all take a step back and reflect about the rules that you have in place.
The US and the UK have the most stringent rules for cockpit access in the world. That's a fact. It means that all other countries are less stringent. It's your right to decide so but do not mount your high horses if someone suggets things could be done differently.
Then, having a passenger seat in the pilot's seat is two separate issues :
First, having a person outside the crew in the cockpit. Them being on the jumpseat or in the pilot's seat is a similar matter : if they're not ill-intentioned, it will not change anything to the flight conduct. If they're ill-intentioned, they're going to make a huge mess wherever they're seated.
Second, having only one qualified crew member seated. Is that acceptable ? The US pilots go to the toilets during flight too, don't they ? So the airplane should be fliable with only one pilot at the controls in cruise, momentarily.
The only "detail" is if the passenger has a negative, unintentional reaction when at the controls. That's why it's not possible to condone the passenger on the pilot's seat, but it's still a very remote possibility.
After that, of course, rules are rules. We have rules in our country that US and UK nationals would find absurd, and we still respect them.
It's important not to overreact to very rare occurrences.. Did Germany ban F/Os after an F/O crashed into a mountain ?
Do we carry parachutes for all passengers because on some very rare occurrences it could save everyone's lives ?
The US and the UK have the most stringent rules for cockpit access in the world. That's a fact. It means that all other countries are less stringent. It's your right to decide so but do not mount your high horses if someone suggets things could be done differently.
Then, having a passenger seat in the pilot's seat is two separate issues :
First, having a person outside the crew in the cockpit. Them being on the jumpseat or in the pilot's seat is a similar matter : if they're not ill-intentioned, it will not change anything to the flight conduct. If they're ill-intentioned, they're going to make a huge mess wherever they're seated.
Second, having only one qualified crew member seated. Is that acceptable ? The US pilots go to the toilets during flight too, don't they ? So the airplane should be fliable with only one pilot at the controls in cruise, momentarily.
The only "detail" is if the passenger has a negative, unintentional reaction when at the controls. That's why it's not possible to condone the passenger on the pilot's seat, but it's still a very remote possibility.
After that, of course, rules are rules. We have rules in our country that US and UK nationals would find absurd, and we still respect them.
It's important not to overreact to very rare occurrences.. Did Germany ban F/Os after an F/O crashed into a mountain ?
Do we carry parachutes for all passengers because on some very rare occurrences it could save everyone's lives ?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2023
Location: NC
Posts: 59
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As the thread starter I admit I'm surprised at where it has gone...I have many anecdotes too...But this day and time no way...Zero upside and UAL will push termination...The union attrnys may have something but I doubt it...Oh and the Feds...No amount of retraining will fix poor judgement and they'll probably give these guys some time to piddle around the house... Bottom line it's an FAR and there're no carve outs for family members, pets or whatever...It's about mitigating distractions, like the below 10000ft FAR...You can decide which FARs you'll adhere to but will pay the price if busted...At the very least why risk your career on such a silly thing?...Way too many ways to cluster up without doing it on purpose...
Is it a fair rule to ban the captain's wife to fly in the cockpit ? Do you really think the captain's wife would crash the plane ? Many countries allow the pilot's friends and families to travel in the flight deck. We're still yet to hear any story of that kind from these places.
As you point out, what is the upside other than good feelings or goodwill? Why can’t this minuscule (if any) upside be accomplished via other means (e.g., aircraft on ground, simulators) that present zero risk?
Did “Bam Bam” receive any additional vetting beyond normal passenger screening? Did he have any drugs or alcohol in his system as he sat at the controls of an airliner in cruise flight? Who cares, the FO was there to sort if all out, right?
Let’s recall that jump seat “Mushroom Man” on ASA 2059 was perfectly fine…until he wasn’t.
9/11 was, of course, not the first plane hijack. Before that, plane hijacks were commonplace. Not all of them lead to death, but it happened many times that a hijack was followed by death.
Hijacks had been happening for decades. There were several of them each year around the globe. There were also bombings and other types of attacks.
9/11 was the hijack with, by far, the most terrible consequences, but the concept wasn't new. The reaction was overly prudent.
Hijacks had been happening for decades. There were several of them each year around the globe. There were also bombings and other types of attacks.
9/11 was the hijack with, by far, the most terrible consequences, but the concept wasn't new. The reaction was overly prudent.
While there were suspicions pre-9/11 that hijacked aircraft could be used as a guided missile, they were just that - suspicions. No hard 'proof'. I seem to recall Israel shooting down a hijacked aircraft because they had intelligence that it was going to be used as such a weapon - IIRC they kept quiet and simply accepted all the criticism for shooting it down, rather than potentially expose how good their intelligence was.
9/11 changed all that - suddenly it was painfully clear that there was an outcome worse than a crash, and subsequent steps regarding hijackings have reflected that.
BFSGRAD "You might even argue that certain posts have ventured into trolling."
I don't see any trolls. I see people with different opinions. Do we all have to agree with one point of view to evade the troll tag? I, for instance, immediately stated that I wasn't a pilot. I did work as an aviation professional for well over 45 years. I made countless visits to the FD, many including the take-off and landing (including Concorde) and I did on a few occasions sit in either the LHS or RHS of an airliner. For sure things have since changed, some for the better and some for no real valid reason. There are clearly two sets of opinions here and that won't ever change.
I don't see any trolls. I see people with different opinions. Do we all have to agree with one point of view to evade the troll tag? I, for instance, immediately stated that I wasn't a pilot. I did work as an aviation professional for well over 45 years. I made countless visits to the FD, many including the take-off and landing (including Concorde) and I did on a few occasions sit in either the LHS or RHS of an airliner. For sure things have since changed, some for the better and some for no real valid reason. There are clearly two sets of opinions here and that won't ever change.
Growing up I had more flight deck visits than I can remember, getting the jump seat for take off and landing wasn’t unusual. Some airlines had procedures and a minimum age for pax to visit the cockpit.
I remember one visit on the BAC 1-11 as a 12 year old, the transponder had the three different emergency codes written on it, squawk number and meaning next to it except that the last one had the meaning left blank. I got some very odd looks when I asked if that was the code for a hijack.
Newer generations will have to make do with DVDs.
I remember one visit on the BAC 1-11 as a 12 year old, the transponder had the three different emergency codes written on it, squawk number and meaning next to it except that the last one had the meaning left blank. I got some very odd looks when I asked if that was the code for a hijack.
Newer generations will have to make do with DVDs.
Is it a fair rule to ban the captain's wife to fly in the cockpit
Bringing my girlfriend in the flight deck is perfectly allowed in many parts of the world but strictly forbidden elsewhere.
Is it a real risk that these countries are taking ?
Should the government put in place a screening process for anybody wanting to drive a terrestrial or aerial vehicle that could be used as a weapon ? Are you then going to screen the entire adult population ?
Yes, I do think it's fair. What do you think the passengers would prefer? If there were two lines in the airport for two identical flights, except that on one there are proper security standards and on the other the captain is allowed to let unqualified, unscreened individuals near the controls in flight, which do you suppose they would largely choose? Our passengers have a right to expect us to follow the rules - if you don't like it, I'd strongly suggest that maybe the flightdeck isn't the right place for you.
If you're unable to take a step back, think about how rules are decided, which rules are more important than others, notice that some exist somewhere but not elsewhere, whereas others are the same everywhere, then maybe the flight deck isn't the right place for you.
How can you manage complex situations with conflicting constraints if you're unable to think in this way ?
Just to clarify, I am absolutely not saying that since this FAR rule is stupid, I wouldn't respect it. I am just saying that I wouldn't put this rule in place if I was in charge. Nothing more.
With my position I have flown to the UK and will fly to the US. I will respect this country-specific rule without batting an eye. However, I will do as I see fit wherever else, where it's legal to do so.
Before 9/11, the prevailing feeling was that the worst thing that could happen during a hijack was they would crash and kill everyone onboard. So once a hijack started, the emphasis was on keeping the hijackers happy enough that they didn't crash the aircraft and so minimize the 'cost'.
While there were suspicions pre-9/11 that hijacked aircraft could be used as a guided missile, they were just that - suspicions. No hard 'proof'. I seem to recall Israel shooting down a hijacked aircraft because they had intelligence that it was going to be used as such a weapon - IIRC they kept quiet and simply accepted all the criticism for shooting it down, rather than potentially expose how good their intelligence was.
9/11 changed all that - suddenly it was painfully clear that there was an outcome worse than a crash, and subsequent steps regarding hijackings have reflected that.
While there were suspicions pre-9/11 that hijacked aircraft could be used as a guided missile, they were just that - suspicions. No hard 'proof'. I seem to recall Israel shooting down a hijacked aircraft because they had intelligence that it was going to be used as such a weapon - IIRC they kept quiet and simply accepted all the criticism for shooting it down, rather than potentially expose how good their intelligence was.
9/11 changed all that - suddenly it was painfully clear that there was an outcome worse than a crash, and subsequent steps regarding hijackings have reflected that.
The fact that Israel shot a plane down shows that authorities knew it could happen. The men in charge in intelligence services all over the world fully knew this type of information.
What changed with 9/11 is that then the general public knew it could happen.
So, as long as the risk was evaluated by rational, well-informed decision makers in the high spheres of their respective governments and administration, rational decisions were taken.
Then, when the general public started to worry, with its classic unability to assess low-probability events, idiotic measures started to be taken. Like water bottle screening, performed by underqualified workers who regularly fail the tests that some journalists put into place.
In Europe after some terrorist attacks, states started to take some measures. Many of them are just aimed at reassuring the public, even if they're counterproductive (for example : creating airport like security lines at malls, theaters, or even in some streets, and hence creating queues of people that constitute a perfect target for ill-intentionned people).
The real measures, the efficient ones, are behind the scenes. Intelligence on the short term. Public policy on the long term.
