Weary, I couldn't have said it better myself!
Old-timer, I respect your opinion but I don't understand your point. Sorry. An SOP is an SOP. It keeps things standard so the operation flows and everyone knows where they stand and what happens next. You can't cherrypick which SOP's you'll follow and which you won't.
Of course, if safety is threatened, then you can chose to disregard an SOP and justify your actions later.
But knowing the whole focus on potential threats post 9-11, you'd really be asking for it to disregard the no-one on the jumpseat rule. Doesn't matter if you think it's daft or not, you'd just be asking for trouble. That's the whole point. What kind of judgement is that?
Also, what kind of position is the poor old first officer being put in in all of this? Does he say no, yes, have an argument, refuse to fly? Puts him in the s*^*t too.
The other point is, if your own wife isn't allowed in the cockpit, it should send signals about how seriously a breach of this rule is going to be taken.
And from the security point of view, what about the safety of the other passengers? Agree or not, part of the thinking behind this is to stop someone you know being blackmailed or otherwise coerced through threats or otherwise into doing something deadly once in the cockpit.
And I know it's tempting if it was a private charter to say it makes it somehow different, but it doesn't really, does it. That aircraft could still be used for evil purposes. Might seem far-fetched, but so did 9-11 before it happened.
The point is though, with all that sort of thinking going on, why would someone fly in the face of it so to speak? Talk about asking for it.
Last edited by Maximum; 16th Mar 2009 at 00:51.