Jumpseat use

[schlong hauler]

The question has probably been asked before somewhere on Pprune, however here goes. From the VJ crowd, what is your airline policy regarding jumpseat use for family members whilst you are operating? QF prohibit family members having flight deck access for the jumpseat. Their interpretation of Dept of Trans. legislation. Never realised my 12 year old daughter was a security risk.

[ITCZ]

Its not a QF thing. Its the Aviation Transport Security Regulations 2005 (http://www.comlaw.gov.au/ComLaw/Legislation/LegislativeInstrumentCompilation1.nsf/framelodgmentattachments/B02B40DC30553738CA257288000A432B) that apply to all air transport operations.

It used to be that the pilot in command could allow anyone he/she chose to occupy the jump seat....

CAR 227 Admission to crew compartment

(1) A person may enter the crew compartment of an aircraft during flight only if:
(a) the person is a member of the operating crew of the aircraft; or
(b) the person is permitted by the pilot in command to enter that compartment.

Penalty: 50 penalty units.

.... but then the Howard government introduced the ATSRs:

Regulation 4.67 Security of flight crew compartment — all aircraft

(4) A person must not be allowed to enter the cockpit after the aircraft has taken off unless:
(a) he or she is authorised to do so by the aircraft’s pilot in command or the aircraft’s operator and:
(i) is a member of the aircraft’s crew; or
(ii) is an employee of the aircraft’s operator; or
(iii) is authorised or required by the Civil Aviation Regulations 1988 or the Civil Aviation Safety Regulations 1998 to enter the cockpit; and
(b) he or she holds appropriate identification as a person referred to in paragraph (a).

(5) If subregulation (2), (3) or (4) is contravened, the operator of the aircraft concerned commits an offence.

Penalty: 200 penalty units.

(6) A contravention of subregulation (5) is an offence of strict liability.

So yes, Amanda Vanstone and the Howard government think that my kids, your kids, are potential terrorists.

[VBA Engineer]

Regulation 4.67 Security of flight crew compartment — all aircraft

(4) A person must not be allowed to enter the cockpit after the aircraft has taken off unless:(a) he or she is authorised to do so by the aircraft’s pilot in command or the aircraft’s operator and:
(i) is a member of the aircraft’s crew; or
(ii) is an employee of the aircraft’s operator; or
(iii) is authorised or required by the Civil Aviation Regulations 1988 or the Civil Aviation Safety Regulations 1998 to enter the cockpit; and
(b) he or she holds appropriate identification as a person referred to in paragraph (a).

(5) If subregulation (2), (3) or (4) is contravened, the operator of the aircraft concerned commits an offence.

Penalty: 200 penalty units.




Surely your daughter would have entered and been settled into the cockpit well before take off if she was to utilise a jump seat.

The regulation appears to restrict the inflight visitor, not an additional crew seat occupant that has been accepted by the pilot in command.

Seems the operator of the aircraft may be adding their own interpretation here.

VBA Eng.

[Howard Hughes]

Nice pick up, I will remember that!:ok:

Of course if the operators ops manual has been adapted to say no one can enter or ride in the jump seat, then that is that.:*

[LOA169]

VBA Engineer - you are correct in that the regulation restricts access after take off.

However to have access in the first place you still must satisfy one of the criteria that permit access (over and above being approved by the PIC).

Unfortunately the 12 year old daughter is still a security threat!

:ugh:

Regulation 4.67 Security of flight crew compartment — all aircraft

(4) A person must not be allowed to enter the cockpit after the aircraft has taken offunless:
(a) he or she is authorised to do so by the aircraft’s pilot in command or the aircraft’s operator and:
(i) is a member of the aircraft’s crew; or
(ii) is an employee of the aircraft’s operator; or
(iii) is authorised or required by the Civil Aviation Regulations 1988 or the Civil Aviation Safety Regulations 1998 to enter the cockpit; and
(b) he or she holds appropriate identification as a person referred to in paragraph (a).

(5) If subregulation (2), (3) or (4) is contravened, the operator of the aircraft concerned commits an offence.

Penalty: 200 penalty units.

[schlong hauler]

Yeah,
I am aware of the said regulation however that still does not answer the question re Virgin's policy. If I want to take one of my children away with me whilst operating can they occupy the jumpseat prior to departure until arrival at the gate if I worked for Virgin?

[jarjar]

Regardess of VB's policy, the above stated regs are quite clear, if you are not a member of the crew, employee of said company, and dont have casa approval as well as having valid ID then no jumpseat ride.

JarJar

[Tagneah]

How about this then:

Reg 4.67 states (among other things):

(iii) is authorised or required by the Civil Aviation Regulations 1988 or the Civil Aviation Safety Regulations 1998 to enter the cockpit

the first paragraph of CAR 227 is:

Admission to crew compartment
(1) A person may enter the crew compartment of an aircraft during flight
only if:
(a) the person is a member of the operating crew of the aircraft; or
(b) the person is permitted by the pilot in command to enter that
compartment.Penalty: 50 penalty units.

So if I know them, and can identify them, in they come.

Tag

[squawk6969]

I think Tagneah and VBA Engineer have got it right.

Maybe we have all been caught up in the hype and listened to the wrong people.

Any aviation law guru's out there wish to comment, to the layman its looking like you could take anyone, your child or not, provided the company regs are ok with it, and they are seated before takeoff.

One wonders....:hmm:

SQ

[Hugh Jarse]

If your company has more restrictive criteria than the regs or legislation regarding flight deck occupancy I suggest they would take precedence.

Why not ask your manager? He or she should know.

[schlong hauler]

Sorry I should have clarified what I was attempting to find out. Just trying to dispel a rumour that has been around for a while regarding a difference in interpretation of the regs.

[404 Titan]

LOA169
However to have access in the first place you still must satisfy one of the criteria that permit access (over and above being approved by the PIC).
You have only got to meet those following criteria if someone enters the cockpit after take-off. If someone enters the cockpit before take-off then it isn’t applicable. Infact the whole regulation isn’t applicable. Having said all that one may run into trouble if the said jump seater/s need to use the toilet during flight. Under the letter of the law they may not be able to get back into the cockpit.

At the end of the day what's in a company’s Ops Manual will determine who can ride the jump seat. I would say most companies would be more restrictive than the regs.

[speeeedy]

Read the law people....

It is clear that any person can be on the flight deck, as long as the PIC approves it, and as long as they are there before takeoff.

QF (mis)management say the rules prohibit it, but they say a lot of things. Read it for yourself (some of it has been produced above if you're lazy).

I know first hand that 4 or 5 months ago VB still used the correct interpretation of the law, as I know a member of the general public who travelled in the jumpseat with his mate who was one of the pilots.

Have they changed? I hope not!

[ITCZ]

Thank Chr!st you guys are pilots and not lawyers.

If we want to play lawyer, then we have to look at not only the one section of the regs (quoted above to give you the rough idea) but we also need to look at those regulations head of power (the Act) and also how the courts interpret the words.

Example: a rugby club mate and law student of long ago, once found a South Australian statute allowing Cab drivers to relieve themselves against the rearmost, kerbside wheel of their Cab. Dated from the 1870's when a Cab driver was taking a risk leaving their stock in trade, not to mention their horse, unattended when relieving themselves.

Quite legal he thought. So one night, this law student/cab driver parks his Yellow Cab falcon in King William Street rank, and puts his theory to the test.

And ends up in the Angas Street watch house.

You would have to be a pretty confident VB or any other jet Captain to risk 200 penalty points, disciplinary action from your airline, etc, based on a 'bush lawyers' interpretation of those words alone.

Without referring to my company's Transport Security Procedures (a company document required under ATSRs 2.29 and 2.39) I'd say the intent of the reg is -- nobody on the flight deck that isn't operating crew, company staff, or CASA.

[Big Sky Theory]

As a military ATCO, I have on occassions when travelling domestically with both VB and Qantas, asked the dispatch staff at the gate if their was any chance of jump-seating and if they could ask the Captain, supplying appropriate ID etc.
Each time has been with no luck, with a different explanation given as to why.
Controlling these acft on a daily basis, I thought there wouldn't be a problem, provided appropriate ID was provided and that the Capt. was happy you were who you said you were.

For the drivers, is having an ATCO up the front for a sector a problem. Surely the opportunity to for us to see what's going on in the cockpit and you guys to ask any questions would more than likely be beneficial for both parties?

I understand that the regs are tight these days but we can still drive on aerodromes etc without an ASIC pass and we're trusted to provide an ATC service, so what gives?

I don't believe any pilot that actually wanted to turn up and have a look at what goes on from our end, would be turned away.

I realise you guys don't make the policy, but any ideas or info would be good, particularly how (if any) way to jump seat these days.

Cheers
BST

[Angus McGherkinsquirter]

Mr Atco,

I think you will find that if you pre-arranged to be an authorised observer you'd have more luck. The gate staff don't have that sort of authority. The captain would have the option of saying yes or no if you were an approved observer, but would have to knock you back just on fronting up with your id.

I'd personally like to see a lot more of you up there like the old famil flight scene in the 80's. Could only help each other.

for what it's worth I agree with tagneah and VBA Eng. All companies have their own additional requirements which may be more restrictive than the regulators.

Gus

[Big Sky Theory]

Thanks Gus.

Anyone got any contacts for VB and QF to try and tee it up and any ideas of the process? Is it allowed if you are a fare paying passenger?

Cheers

[Taildragger67]

OK I'll start by saying that I haven't read the full regs - just those posted here.

But on the basis of those, I suggest there is a strong argument in law that a person can be in the crew compartment whilst the aircraft is in flight provided they entered prior to take-off.

The basis of my reasoning is the language:
A person must not be allowed to enter the cockpit after the aircraft has taken off unless etc.

The operative words/phrases are enter, after, and taken off.

Parliament has chosen those exact stipulations. If they'd have wanted to ban access or presence at all during flight, alternative words were available such that the provision could have read:
A person must not be allowed to enter or be present in the cockpit at any stage of the aircraft's operation unless etc.

Whilst there is a strong body of legal interpretation which takes a purposive stance, there is an equally strong body which takes a more literal view, especially where alternative language is easily available. I would suggest that, in this instance, Parliament had words available to it and by choosing exact words, has given effect to what it wanted to achieve - ie. making unauthorised entry into the flight deck during flight, illegal.

However, these regulations represent a minimum standard and, as has been argued by others, if an operator then chooses to put reasonable extensions on them, then that's their call. The difference is this: if a PIC lets his 9-y-o niece up front for departure (in contravention of company policy), then the PIC in question will probably not, on this analysis, have committed an offence. But they may fall foul of company regs and so face company disciplinary procedures. :{

[smiling monkey]

How is it that this guy gets to jump seat (http://www.airliners.net/search/photo.search?aircraft_genericsearch=&airlinesearch=&countrysearch=&specialsearch=cockpit&daterange=&keywords=sam+chui&range=&sort_order=&page_limit=15&thumbnails=&calccount=1170297&truecount=false&engine_version=6.0) inflight? There are many pics of him in the jump seat of many commercial aircraft during all phases of flight.

[speeeedy]

ITCZ,

We are talking about the law, and the law is clear.

Having said that, don't worry yourself, no pilot in QF is going to allow any old joe on the flight deck because QF has been clear in their instructions, and that is their perogative. Just becuase QF chooses a certain way does not make it law.

As far as I know VB interpret the law correctly and therefore they can (or at least could until recently) do it as per the regs.

QF managers, when asked have said the law is the reason, but the truth is they just got it wrong and changing a mistake in QF is like turning a supertanker with a 2hp electric motor.

[ITCZ]

Controlling these acft on a daily basis, I thought there wouldn't be a problem, provided appropriate ID was provided and that the Capt. was happy you were who you said you were.

I think most pilots would have no problem, and would actually welcome the opportunity to show you a little bit of our world and discuss some issues.
In fact, would be useful to get some ATCO's and BoM people up for a ride.

I'll put my hand up and admit that maybe pilots are the source of the confused reasons for the refused request. Back before the ATSR's it was quite simple - CAR 227, see above, clear cut.

So, somewhere between checking the maintenance log, interpreting the CDL to see if we have a performance penalty, just about to do the initial cockpit checks and mindful of the countdown to pushback, a gate agent walks up and asks "Okay if a military ATCO sits in the jump, Captain?

****, aah, what was that new rule... crew, company, CASA, wasn't it.... wouldn't hurt.... man, it used to be clear cut....

CAR 227 still exists, but it is overridden by the ATSRs, which are not prescriptive -- each operator has to write its own Transport Security Program. Therefore different rules. Don't know what it is like at QF or VB, apparently my outfit does have a TSP, but no pilot has been provided with a copy, and there are no copies in the base bookshelves. Apparently it is on the company intranet, but even if a pilot has a valid login (about 5% of us) you have to be 'in the know' to actually go look for it. Classic human factors - one simple rule for all in easily found federal legislation, now devolved to the operator.

Sorry, love to help him, but you know... new security rules, company policy.... please apologise to him/her, thanks..... sh!t, three minutes to boarding; hey josh, if you are done with the FMS could you ask janet which seat it was that she wanted blocked off?

How is it that this guy gets to jump seat inflight?
None of those aircraft had VH- rego... just a guess, suspect they were not subject to the Australian ATSR

[Ron & Edna Johns]

Qantas has interpreted the Aviation Transport Security Act and Regs in a way so as to forbid ANYONE on the flight-deck other than flight/cabin crew. That means our families are forbidden too. Any Captain ignoring the company rule will be sacked.

As to WHY they have interpreted the stuff this way is highly debatable. In the interests of real security? Hardly. Or, to get one up on those scum pilots? Frankly - more likely.

I'll say it again - the pilots will be sacked if you are found on the flight-deck anytime in flight. And it'll probably be the cabin-crew who dob you in, this being Qantas. So don't bother asking. Simple. It ain't gonna happen.

Qantas - The Spirit of Australia. Australia - The Cowardly Country.

[Condition lever]

As I have mentioned before - I had Jennifer Hawkins on board the other month and would have loved to offer her the jump seat - but QF requires that she be an employee and holds an ASIC.
Bad luck for me I guess.....

Rod & Edna - you are wrong, they don't have to be flight/cabin crew, just as above

[Ron & Edna Johns]

Oh, my, Condition Lever..... I am so sorry..... at 1.30am I left out the word "employees" and you want to quibble the point. Well gee, mate, I do apologise.....:ugh: Send me to the back of the class like an errant child. :ugh:

Mate - do not be so obnoxious and simply state "you are wrong". Mate - I (like you?) have to deal with this crap on a daily basis - I am well aware of what is required. And frankly I'm just wasting my time and bandwidth by debating anything with you, but for the "benefit" of all:

yes, you are right :rolleyes:, employees ARE permitted to jumpseat, but they have to remain there for the entire time. UNLESS... they need to take a toilet break. Then they ARE permitted to go into the cabin to the toilet, but ARE TO RETURN IMMEDIATELY. THEY ARE NOT TO LINGER CHATTING!! Well there's a real security risk - lingering and chatting to the cabin crew having been sitting on the jumpseat! (I will never forget: about 3 years ago when I was an F/O, we had two jumpseat riders (check-in staff) between PER and SYD. They both went out "for a toilet break". After about 5 minutes the Captain was getting all agitated about where they were. He rang the cabin. "Oh, they're out here, talking to us". Capt's reply: "Well, send them back right away, it's a security risk"............. :sad: :( :uhoh: Yup, that's what we have become, folks.)

However, no OFF DUTY employees sitting in a passenger seat are permitted to go to the flightdeck. That includes off duty pilots :ugh: I've been in QF 16 years and have travelled on A330's numerous times - but as a professional pilot, a Captain, I have NEVER even seen the flightdeck of the A330! And they wonder about engagement?

Let me restate the situation "correctly" :rolleyes: : any pilot allowing anyone other than operating crew to enter the flight deck inflight will be sacked. Employees with ASICs may ride there but must remain there to whole time - unless they say "I need a wee" - the one little exception to the previous sentence :rolleyes:. Any non-operating employee in a passenger seat is forbidden from entering. Non-employees, including family members are never allowed there ever (well, ok, at the moment they can have a look after shutdown).

I have no doubt next year there will be a move to ban ALL EMPLOYEES other than operating crew. That will include commuters - watch out. Coming soon - I'll put money on it. CM will hold off the dogs for only so long.

The rumours continue to fly that DOTARs want to ban the pilots' family members from even being on the SAME AIRCRAFT :mad: I reckon DOTARs will have their way on that in the next 1-2 years.

Perhaps by 2010 they will haver suceeded in banning even operating crew members from the flight deck.

Are you happy now, Condition Lever? Did I miss out any dots and crosses on the "i's and "t"s?

[lowerlobe]

One other element of this is the requirement of any aircraft flying through or to US airspace to adhere to their rules.Not only does this apply to flight deck access but the cabin as well.

A great example of this is the requirement to make a PA to the cabin advising the pax that it is not allowed for them to congregate outside of toilets.

Now after you have done a meal service for just under 300 pax and there are only 8 toilets this becomes an impossibility.

Practicality and indeed reality has little to do with the regs.:yuk:

[TineeTim]

Jesus H. Christ! Thank you Mr. Wellhung! The rest of you need to study up on 'netiquette' (however the hell you spell it) 2 F**king pages to get an answer to a simple question........... Moderator?????

[Ron & Edna Johns]

Boys - there's probably a pretty good reason why its taken so long - they probably want to keep it below the radar. In light of the approach QF has taken to all this I'd be keeping it pretty damn quiet too for fear that eventually "they" hear about the DJ way and go, "hmmmmmmmmm, can't have that."

Sometimes a question is just better not asked and even better not answered. And sometimes thread drift is a wonderful thing for deflecting focus.

:suspect:

[Sked]

Amen to that Ron and Edna!! :D

[Wellhung Unit]

Ron and Edna are probably correct.....

[smokey2]

Not a problem until things go pear shaped and the jump seat person suddenly turns up on the cock pit voice recorder during an overrun or some such incident. Of course the red tailed parrot has never had an overun. better keep to the rules.

[Condition lever]

Ron & Edna,

What a complete and utter over reaction!!!
To quote you: "simply state "you are wrong"." - what did I write to you? "Rod & Edna - you are wrong, they don't have to be flight/cabin crew, just as above"
You must have had a bad day!!??

All the best!