Breaking OUT of LGW

[what_the_hell_was_that?]

Can someone please explain why you have to show your ID to get from Airside back into Concorde House at LGW?

I can understand the reason for having a security officer there to stop people using the exit to gain access to Airside as that would be an obvious security risk but why does the little Adolf in the glass booth always demand to see your ID on the way back in? For Christ sake, who the hell wants to break OUT of the Airport and into Crawley?

I know that you have to make sure your ID’s visible at all times but it often means that you have to walk sideways like a bloody crab to let them see it if it’s pinned to your left lapel on your jacket/blouse. That’s not too easy when you’re weighed down with a flight bag and a case of 24 San Migs from the crew shop at Malaga.

Is it a case of jobsworths or is there a reason behind this madness?


The second reason for this post is more of a CRM issue for F/Os out there…..

Scenario: You’re operating as PF and you’re in the decent into somewhere that you’ve both been many a time. For various reasons you’re slightly high on the profile so you’ve wound the speed up to get the aircraft down. You’re below 10000’ but ATC has asked you to keep high speed so you reckon that 290kts is fine and the profiles coming back in nicely. Then the Captain (who you know has a reputation of being a bit of a tos*er and a number of F/O’s have told Crewing that under NO circumstances will they fly with him again) makes some comment about not being happy with the decent and grabs the speed brake, hits V/S to slacken off the decent and starts winding the IAS bug back. Remember, it’s YOUR sector as PF and up until this point there hasn’t been a single comment about the decent from him in the left seat and as far as you could see there was nothing dangerous going on. He then hands control back to you when he’s happy again.

What would you do?

(By the way, this story was told to me by an F/O at another airline. I don’t know of anyone in my company and certainly not on the fleet that I fly on that would do this. There would have been some sort of discussion LONG before it got to this stage)

His outcome? Bit his tongue and a very quiet flight home (I think he said the longest spell without conversation was about 45 minutes)

Answers on a postcard please to the usual address…….

[maxalt]

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size="2">has a reputation of being a bit of a tos*er and a number of F/O’s have told Crewing that under NO circumstances will they fly with him again</font>

What company do you work for!?

F/O's refusing to fly...what!!

Sounds like you're the tosser.

[autobrakemedium]

I would say "You have control" and let him fly the rest of the sector.

Then at the end of the day, consider discussing it with him.

I have experienced similar, but he has not actually taken control, just told me that I didn't need speedbrake, when I evidently did, I ended up having to drop the gear early and we spooled up at about 600'.

As a pilot it is part of your job to deal with people like this. I am not one who goes in for all the CRM psyco-babble but I think that one of the best peices of kit is the Parent/Adult/Child psycology.

[fireflybob]

First of all I presume that "decent" means "descent" - sorry, but just had to get that one out the way first!

In the situation described I would hope that I would take over control when it was handed back to me (with the words "I have control") and then (hopefully) complete the approach and landing without further "incident".

It is counter productive to attempt to have anything other than a cordiale atmosphere whilst in the air but I would hope that after landing I would summon up the courage to have a mature "discussion" about what took place.

It is my experience that when these sorts of events take place (which in most companies are mercifully rare) that the actual "event" has been preceded by many other matters.

Does the Ops Manual for your company impose a maximum of 250 kts below 10,000 ft at all times, irrespective of ATC instructions/advice? In which case this might be what was bothering said captain.

Increasing speed below 10,000 ft has little effect in regaining the profile in most aircraft or, if you do, you are going too fast at the bottom to complete the approach safely.

I am not defending what this particular captain did but we should remember that the captain is just that - the captain - and you are obliged to obey all legal commands which he/she makes.

When I first stared flying commercially in 1970 there were many more "difficult" captains to fly with. I made it a personal rule that I would always fly with whoever I was rostered to fly with on the basis that I could always learn something new from them, even if it was the wrong way to run the flight deck!

The other rule I had was to ignore any comments/rumours from other sources about what Capt. Bloggs was like and treat people as I found them. Guess what? Surprise, surprise I quite often found that the captains with "reputations" were easier to fly with than some of the others and I learned a lot from them. In short, it takes two to tango.

I am not saying that if there is a "problem" Captain (or First Officer, come to that!) that it should be ignored because we are all concerned with flight safety but that there are two sides to this arguement.

------------------

[JPJ]

Security is the worst job in the world.

A shiftworker on about £5 per hour upsets an egocentric celebrity, and is all over the papers.

Said security person inconveniences an aircrew person, and becomes a 'jobsworth'.

Security lets one wrong'un through in ten years and finds that he is a Sun reporter, and security person is fired.

Please give a bit of space to security types. You, the aircrew, are tired, dying to get home, and possibly grumpy. They are badly paid, poor, tired, dying to get home, and desperate to avoid screwing up.

Just a plea for tolerance!

[what_the_hell_was_that?]

Maxalt,

If you'd taken the time to read the post properly, you'd have seen that this is NOT about the company that I work for (not that it's any of your bloody business anyway) and I'm merely telling the story as it was told to me.

I suggest you keep taking the pills and with a bit of luck you may be allowed out UNSUPERVISED sometime soon.....

[Magplug]

Security at crew check-out points from airside is a DOT requirement. They figure that if some stowaway gets as far as jumping out of an aircraft hold and legging it he will still have to get past ADI or whoever.

Also it is an added deterrent for a terrorist attempting access airside for illegal purposes - getting out is not easy either. He has to have a reasonable expectation of getting away before he will go for it in the first place. Terrorists reading this please take note.

Gents - surely we can keep the intellectual level a little higher than calling each other tossers ???

[StressFree]

JPJ,
Fair call old chap, I agree that these guys get the sh*t end of the stick whatever they do.............
But who is the jerk that makes the rule that you have to fully ID yourself as you leave the secure area. Try going through Cologne (I have to do this many times a week), the security as you leave is far tighter than getting airside as you arrive, I agree that ALL security is there for our benefit but prioritising security efforts towards the most risk area is the key to success.

http://www.pprune.org/ubb/NonCGI/tongue.gif

------------------
'Keep the Stress Down'

[what_the_hell_was_that?]

Magplug,

Thank you for an educated and civil response to my question. That's cleared it up, thank you.

JPJ, I've had my share of shift jobs whilst trying to finance my way through flying training and know what it's like to work long hours for bugger-all money.We all realise that they have a job to do and that if the DOT check that they're not doing it properly then they get into deep sh*t.
Unfortunatly there are a few that take it to the extreme such as having to walk 20ft across the apron from the terminal to the a/c (not at LGW but another airport, fairly close to MAN..)If we have to wear them for the short walk then surely the passengers should be issued with them as well, but let's not get started on that one)

As far as personal insults, well, he started it ;-)

[caulfield]

WTHWT,
Never never interfere with or question security personnel at airports..not only is it bad manners but a bad judgement call.They make our lives a lot safer.
As for the other point..he is the Captain.CRM shouldnt be used as an excuse for eroding the Captain's position.The flight deck is not run by mutual consent.However,the F/O has the perfect right to say to the Captain "You have control..show me what you want"

[tilii]

WTHWT

What a superbly mature thread. I am so very impressed.

First you heap the manure on security at LGW, who do a sterling job IMHO. I guess it is a little tough on you, what with having to cope with the ‘San Migs’ while being asked to produce your ID. Ooooh sooo macho!

Then you launch into precisely the same age-old antagonism that CRM was intended to render obsolete. I most sincerely hope you are merely on a wind-up. In case you are not, I recommend you go back to your books and firmly establish the difference between PIC and PF.

Perhaps you should consider a career in cocktail waiting rather than in aviation. :) :)

There. I think the above should fit on a postcard as requested.

[This message has been edited by tilii (edited 11 June 2001).]

[Eagle18th]

WTHWT
I was also very cynical when they introduced the mandatory flourescent vests a few years ago.
The reason for making them compulsory, as I understand it, was that an unfortunate Ground
Engineer was killed by an F27 prop.
Although obviously the vest itself would not have saved him the logic was that if he'd been more visible, the Crew or other Ground Staff may have spotted him in time, which may in turn have prevented the accident.
Whilst most of us agree the wearing of vests can be a pain, if everyone gets used to wearing them as second nature, it may just save one life, in which case it's worth it.

However, I agree that occasionally Security Officers could do with a few more manners, and a bit of common sense.

[what_the_hell_was_that?]

Perhaps the light hearted quip at what was an honest question at the validity of requiring a security check to get out of airside has fallen a little flat. If I've offended anybody then I am truly sorry.

As for the CRM issue, I was merely regurgitating a story that was told to me and trying to get a response from F/O's as to how they would have dealt with the problem. There is only one person in charge of the a/c, and I know where he sits (the seat that has the best view of the totty boarding).

However, there are many ways to skin a cat as they say, and in this instant I'm sure the majority of people will agree that it could have perhaps have been handled a little better by perhaps both of the parties involved.

Now before someone sends 'the boys' round to my pad to break my legs could we call the subject closed and move onto something much more interesting and relevant.

Yours humbly,

WTHWT :-(

[tilii]

WTHWT

Your 'humble' last post (no pun intended) gratefully noted. All is forgiven.

As for the closure you suggest, perhaps the best way forward would be for you to go to the edit function and use the delete facility that only you can access and thereby remove the thread in its entirety.

It takes little to be wrong but much to admit same. Well done.

[maxalt]

And don't come back!