Originally Posted by J.O.
Please quote for us which regulation said, "Thou shalt do a head count".
Never mind. There wasn't one. Head counts were simply a means to ensure compliance with regulations for things such as weight and balance and security requirements. Nowhere did those regs say that the head count was a mandatory step for compliance. The only requirement was, and still is, that the operator establish a suitable means of compliance. If the operator proposes a reasonable alternative to head counts as a means of complying, how exactly would a regulator say it wasn't acceptable? I have personally witnessed alternative processes at other carriers that are quite simple and yet highly effective. It isn't rocket science.
So unless someone can quote specific examples where the new process has broken down and threatened safety, why don't we dispense with this red herring and move on.
JO, out of curiosity, what kind of animal do you consider yourself to be? A corporate one perhaps, who believes that regulations, regulators and compliance are hurdles to which lip service is always paid, and notice is never much taken unless it becomes uncomfortable not to, and which or whom might form a suitable whipping boy or horse or hiding place behind which you can perform profit making risky new ideas? Or have I marked you out unfairly?
As to how would a regulator refuse to accept a suggested alternative to a head count ? - well perhaps they might open their eyes and take a few flights.