Learjet 50
Guys and Gals
Pablo
Was doing what everbody would have done.
No he wasn't. You seem to be seriously missing the point. He was doing what everybody doesn't do. That is because in the jurisdiction it had been prohibited by the DfT. That instruction had been promulgated to all airlines and then on to all crews, and it was the deliberate violation of that instruction that resulted in the subject of this thread.
He did not invite into the Cockpit somedody he did not know
I know he should have not but so what ????
The directive didn't and doesn't permit you to invite anybody in this category to the flightdeck inflight, irrespective of the fact you may know them or not.
I Have never met him but the people I have spoke to say he was a Number 1 Aviatior
Not an assessment I am familiar with, but even if there is one, it wouldn't permit you to operate in deliberate violation of statutes, regulations and directives.
Best of luck take the basxxds for all there worth
Take the gixs for everthing ?????
P S I say again I do not work for My Travel
You are of course entitled to your opinion and your expression of sentiment. However there are a lot of people who do work for that company and it's successor, who operate to the highest standards and apply professionalism and conduct commensurate with those standards and more. I make that observation in part, from personal experience as I have trained with them in the past. Your comment does rather ignore that fact. In any event it is a moot point, since win or lose "everything" and "all there worth" is not going be what is on the table.
Old timer
It seems unfair to suggest 'Non-Professional' with regard to this matter, agreed, it was against SOP but the SOP in question wasn't (I.M.O) a flight safety or handling issue, it was of course a security issue which is very serious,
It wasn't simply an SOP, it was a legal directive from the DfT and was compulsory. The intentional violation was not within the gift of the captain. Violation placed the company and the crew in a vulnerable position. As you say, it was serious, although that was either misunderstood or ignored.
given the fact the gentleman in question is very well known publically & known by everone on board a considered judgement was taken by Pablo who is probably far more aware & capable of recognising a real threat than many others I suspect
The directive (within the jurisdiction) does not provide for exceptions in this category. It lists only those persons who may be admitted. How much of a celebrity somebody is (on either side) is
completely irrelevant. The captain (whoever he is) is not permitted to make his or her own assesmement of a passenger for the purpose of allowing them to be entertained on the flight deck (in flight) for any reason. It was astonishingly poor judgment, and displayed very poor leadership in that it placed the rest of the crew in a very difficult and awkward position, quite unnecessarily.
this was a private charter & NOT a scheduled sector - the two are significantly different.
At best you might argue they have commercial or contractual differences. From an operational and certainly legal compliance viewpoint, there is absolutely no difference at all. Most charters (in commercial air transport) are undertaken at the behest of tour operators. These operate to the same standards and rules as scheduled flights, save as to the commercial stipulations that may be specified in the contract between the buyer and seller. Even if a footballer / pop singer or other celebrity chartered the whole flight with the one sole purpose of travelling in the flight deck, the contract and stipulation would have to be refused, because it would be in violation of the statutes rules and directives that apply to these categories of Commercial air transport.
These directives seem to be well understood and adhered to by the vast majority of pilots and crews concerned. The arguments being proffered for the violation in this case, seem to centre around "protest support" and "hero worship." A mistake would perhaps be understandable, but the other justifications being trotted out are just simply erroneous. I am happy to be proved wrong on this point if anybody can link to a reference that supports the contention, but otherwise it is just hot air.