Gentlemen, the essential point in the whole argument is being overlooked. Did Pablo endanger the aircraft? Of course not. There was nothing intrinsically unsafe in his decision to allow the passenger on the flight deck.
What is being lost these days is basic appreciation of risk. I am ex RAF and have flown for a few charter airlines. Many of these companies are more than happy to pressure Captains to take commercially favourable decisions - such as pushing flight time limitiations to the limits - which have a dubious impact on flight safety.
Pablo's decision was politically risky and most of us would not have taken that risk - because we know how vindictive some companies can be. I doubt that the airline were in anyway considering that the flight had been endangered. More likely they just didn't want a 'character' kicking round the system
To survive an airline career you need to be the grey man these days. When you end your career you aim to have only three letters on file: Offer of employment, confirmation of command course and confirmation of leaving date. That's a tough call for anyone with a bit of excess personality.
Pablo did not do anything basically wrong other than being a bit naive about a politically sensitive ruling. However, he's thrown a bit of light on a system of rules that is now so rigid that normal and reasonable behaviour is sanctioned.
Remember, the Captain does have the final say in matters of safety. That's a two way street in today's commercial aviation.
Before anyone launches into a pilot who falls foul of the system just remember that pilots are in a highly vulnerable situation these days. It's possible to be a reliable and safe operator but come unstuck due to a mild clash with company culture. I have seen it many times and it's a common reason for changing employer in the airline world. The only difference is that Pablo has a public profile.
Last edited by Wig Wag; 22nd Mar 2009 at 10:27.