15 year allowed to fly, Turkish pilot fired

[hardhatter]

Form nu.nl, Dutch news site:

Turkse piloot laat 15-jarige achter stuurknuppel
Uitgegeven: 23 september 2008 10:51

ISTANBUL - Een piloot van de Turkse luchtvaartmaatschappij Anadolujet is ontslagen omdat hij een 15-jarige passagier de stuurknuppel van het toestel had laten overnemen.
http://www.nu.nl/img.db/1755639+s(120!x120!)

Dat gebeurde volgens Turkse media dinsdag op 10.000 meter hoogte op een vlucht van Ankara naar Erzerum.
De jongen is gek van vliegtuigen en heeft al geoefend in een simulator. Hij had op papier een reeks van vragen voor de piloot van de Boeing 737-400, waarop die hem uitnodigde in de cockpit.
Toilet
Toen de piloot naar het toilet moest, mocht de jongen in de pilotenstoel plaatsnemen achter de stuurknuppel. Op dat moment bestuurde de co-piloot de Boeing.
De media kregen lucht van de zaak nadat de piloot een foto van het voorval op internet had geplaatst.


This translates roughly to:

A pilot form the Turkish company Anadolujet has been fired for letting a 15 year-old passenger take control of the aircraft. This happened, accoording to Turkish media, at 10.000 metres altitude on a flight from Anakara to Erzerum. The boy was fascinated by planes and had practised in a simulator. He had a number of questions for the pilot on paper. The pilot then invited him to the cockpit.
When the pilot needed to visit the toilet, he allowed the boy to take place in the pilot's seat. At that moment the co-pilot was flying the plane.
After a picture of the boy in the pilot's seat was placed on the internet by the pilot, the media caught the scent.

[Flintstone]

Except he didn't actually 'take control' did he? He sat in an unoccupied crew seat.

As things are though the pilot should have known better.

[spinnaker]

Can't see the problem myself, when you consider the ten year olds in management. :eek:

[ORAC]

Aeroflot Flight 593. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aeroflot_Flight_593)

[Jumbo744]

yeah but of course the pilots are not going to GIVE him control :ugh: what's the big deal? when I was 8 the Captain had let me sit on his seat for a minute to take a picture. It was a A310 of Sabena, I remember him clearly making me understand to NOT TOUCH ANYTHING, JUST WATCH! Then I remember I got gifts from all the cabin crew. This airline along with UTA was my favourite airline :D

[Finn47]

Thing is, in the picture the boy is clearly holding the controls, so it´s no wonder the captain got into trouble. See here:

Yolcuya kokpitte poz verdirdi THY kaptaný pilotluða indirdi - Hürriyet (http://www.hurriyet.com.tr/ekonomi/9961129.asp?gid=254&sz=87455)

Now, where exactly is the A/P disconnect button again? Under his thumb perhaps? :hmm:

[His dudeness]

wellwellwell, when a certain british captain let a football player VISIT his cockpit on a PRIVATE charter, almost the whole world of pprune cried out loud of how bad it was to break the closed cockpit door rules.
Now on a regular airline flight its about A/P or not. Strange.

A pre 9/11 non-event, nowadays gives ya the boot...this boy had probably the experience of his lifetime, being allowed in the seat of a 37, and its spoiled because he knows the pilot is being sacked for it. Not to talk about the spoiled career of a fellow pilot.
I remember being allowed on the F/D of a Trident, early seventies and the cap let me even switch some stuff (probably lights or so)...I was 5 or 6 years old and will NEVER forget it.

The only thing that was just plain stupid, was putting it on the inet.

[NOLAND3]

His thumb is nowhere near the disconnect button. Pre 9/11 this kinda thing would happen a lot more then you think, but more often on the ground. The flightcrew where foolish but some peoples reactions here make it seem like they where seconds from a 'Fiery plunge of death!'

And to try and compare this to the Aeroflot incident is ridiculous...

[1800ed]

I would have thought the real problem here is letting non-flight crew through the locked door. The FO was the PIC, and even if the auto pilot was disconnected, I would have thought the FO would notice quite quickly!

When I was younger I remember asking nicely to be able to sit up front for a few minutes and being allowed to. Was great fun!

[Romeo India Xray]

FO was PIC? Interesting, that would imply that he was a both steat trained TRI or TRE assessing a line captain - can you please confirm? And if this was an assessment or training flight then the probability of a flight deck visitor is pretty slim, wouldn't you agree? Then again, if you know some more could you please shed some light?

As for the flight deck visitors, when I was a wannabe nipper I regularly used to get flight deck visits - taught me quite a bit about what would be involved in my eventual career. Anyway, as of next year I will be flying an aircraft where they can see (and walk into) the flight deck at any stage (although poking their head in would be a bit on the naughty side!).

RIX

[skyloone]

Not sure what most airlines have as a policy, but would assume that once a/c anticollision light on (for both engine or tug movement), then none other than an engineer or qualified pilot may sit in either seat. Think its somewhere in the depths of air law? Open to correction.

[A Very Civil Pilot]

FO was PIC? Interesting, that would imply that he was a both steat trained TRI or TRE assessing a line captain - can you please confirm?

For the pedants, he probably meant PF.

[Avman]

:hmm: Here we go again!

How many of you pilots out there are pilots because you had the opportunity to take a seat in the front office? There's a distinct difference between lightly holding the yoke for a photo and actually "controlling" the aeroplane.

The AFL accident involved two kids and NO pilots at the controls. Quite a difference!

Spent many an hour in the front left or front right seat myself in the past.

What a pathetic world we now live in. :mad:

[737 Checker]

He's not even looking out the window. How can he be looking for traffic?

:eek:

More fine media discouraging kids to have careers in aviation.

[flash8]

whether it was safe or not (in my opinion I wouldn't have considered it a risk) the issue here is not risk exposure but judgment, along the same argument lines of the more sensible pablo posters.

[FrequentSLF]

SLF here.

Safety on aviation is based on following rules and regulations.
Pilots have to follow regulations, if they do not comply they will jeopardize safety. Pilot shall not judge if the regulations are appropriate or not, they should just follow them.
No matter what was the rule 10, 20 or 30 years ago.
Regarding if the punishment was appropriate, I will let pilots to judge it.
Thanks

[KingCaptain]

The management had no option but to let him go. We all know it was quite safe, but the unwashed masses of Chicken sandwich munching SLF do not. As well as the hysterical media interest in anything aviation. Seconds from disaster, flaming inferno, death plunge. So they had to move him on, as you cannot easily fight already entrenched opinion, no matter how wrong it is. Pax numbers would have fallen to zilch, even now the Chicken eaters will probably consider switching. Probably the kid posted the photo, not knowing that kicking a hornets' nest is a BAD idea

KingCap :sad:

[fledermausszg-dxb]

This Picture is taken from behind...
presumeably from the door area...
So there was a third person in the Flightdeck... It must have been the Cpt himself...

[ballyboley]

"unwashed masses of chicken sandwich munching SLF"... LOL! Excellent

ASFKAP, so are we supposed to remain locked in there for hours and end without food, water or toilet breaks?!

[lomapaseo]

ASFKAP
............. I have no time for operators or individuals that adopt an 'A la carte' approach to regulations......

As a Passenger your opinion is registered. However, in your post above the support for your opinion is suspect to me.

Passengers typically do not know what regulations are in affect and apply to the flight that they are on. The crew is much more in tune with the regulations and the latitude permitted by them in their decision making.

Of course I am making no judgements in the specific case cited in the opening thread post.

[brak]

Aeroflot 593 was already mentioned but I'll re-mention it just in case. That was also an "innocent attempt to please a kid". Many people are dead.

It is amazing to me that on the one hand in threads parallel to this one there are highly technical discussions of minute details that may have caused one accident or another (and numerous deaths and injuries) and right here I see people defending captain that permits unauthorized untrained person to be at the controls of flying aircraft, no matter for how short of a time.

Would it be a fair game, then, to have someone's child who is very interested in medicine hold a scalpel or poke around inside while there is a patient being operated on? Would it even be ok to let same 15 y/o drive a car just a little bit on a busy highway? Didn't think so.

[egbt]

Perhaps

There really is no respect to the airline crew anymore.

Is related to..

Message to ASFKAP: no you don't pay our wages. The company does. You are a client of the company because you've choosen to fly with us (perhaps for the fare offered, the service, the schedule or the safety records ). As such you are 'accepted' on board of OUR flight.

I happen to have a great deal of respect for the guys who fly me (and pro's who I fly with in GA) but postings on here put a strain on that, even allowing for those that only fly MS Flt sim.

And for the record many business passengers have in practice little choice who they fly with due company policy, route structures, or as you say the schedule.

[manrow]

egbt

I understand your thoughts on the subject.

No doubt you are aware that the flight crew are constantly demanding appropriate behaviour from their passengers.
Hence it doesn't strike me as unreasonable that the travelling public should demand that all flight crew are obeying all the rules too.

[dwshimoda]

ASFKAP

Thanks for the insult as a First Officer - glad you are so in tune with the world of which you profess to be a frequent traveller.

A couple of things spring to mind:

1) It was a visit to the flight deck of a Monarch 757 in 1989 that first kindled the desire in me to be a pilot

2) Now, at the age of 35 I am finally a "flap operator" as you put it (and which shows your lack of knowledge of things aviation) on a 757 - would I be here if I hadn't had that flight deck visit years ago?

3) It saddens me now that I can't share my enthusiasm with new visitors, and that in the first 130 hours of my 757 life, only once have we had a visitor to the FD - on the ground in EDI - who was a wide-eyed boy of about 10 who claims to want to be a pilot - he was a delight to have up front for 5 minutes, and I hope he goes on to become a pilot.

So ASFKAP, you don't pay my wages, and I think you are a fool - I hope you do not fly on any of my flights - and if you do, perhaps you will be horrified to hear that I actually do fly the aircraft and not just operate the flaps. Now why don't you Flap Operate off you :mad:?

Edited to say: 5 days on (inc 2 min rests) - now got 3 days off and am knackered and had a glass of wine - hope this makes sense to all who care (except ASFKAP, 'coz I don't care what that idiot thinks!)

[Ladusvala]

Brak,
I´m sure the kid didn´t fly the aircraft, the autopilot did.

FrequentSLF wrote:
"Pilots have to follow regulations, if they do not comply they will jeopardize safety. Pilot shall not judge if the regulations are appropriate or not, they should just follow them."

Most regulations are there for a good reason but sometimes, not many but for example when the **** hits the fan, pilots may well have to think outside the box to stay safe. It doesn´t always work, to fly by the book.
You can´t write procedures or emergency checklists for every possible situation.
However, I don´t think that applies to this discussion.

Visiting okay but sitting in the pilot seat, no.

[liemel]

Magic post "Enjoy the view". I think the lovely days are over but we still now what it is worth. And I trust that some pax do as well!

[BelArgUSA]

Let me give you an example.
xxx
I am a captain and I fly 747-200s... 3 crewmembers... (2 pilots, 1 F/E)
I am an old man. Drink a lot of coffee.
Means my bladder gets full very often. I often go to the toilet.
When I go to the toilet, the F/O receives control of airplane.
xxx
If there is a "cockpit rider" flying with us, as I go out, I may tell him to occupy MY SEAT.
The cockpit rider might be another pilot (qualified 747 or other type)
Or might be a flight engineer;
Or might be a aviation technician (mechanic) with the airline.
Or...
xxx
These people occupy MY SEAT - they DO NOT FLY the airplane.
I rather see them there to help the F/O in case of need (explosive decompression) while I am out.
xxx
Get me fired... anyway, retiring in 55 days.
:suspect:
Happy contrails

[Jumbo744]

There really is no respect to the airline crew anymore. Finished the times when passengers used to applause on landing or say thank you to the crew after a nice flight. That makes me sad really. I thought when I was a kid than being an airline pilot meant something to the general public, a well respected position, admired by all. Nowadays when standing outside the flight deck to greet the passengers, I realize that not many are looking at us or even saying hello. They probably see us as 'bus drivers' and unskilled 'button pushers'. (the auto pilot does it all anyway)

Absolutely "Enjoy the View" :ok:. I wish we could back to that time where people were actually AMAZED that a human could safely fly a airplane from A to B. Today, as you said, when you look at the passengers it's like they don't care, it's normal to them, as if they were taking the bus. I think it's a disrespect not only to the actual crew flying the plane, but also to all the great aviators who sacrificed their life so that we can safely fly today. I think as pilots we should carry on that image we had of airline pilots that motivated us to become one.

[FrequentSLF]

Personally I do not mind if the Pilots let people inside the cockpit (I used to ask to visit before 2001) because I am confident that they are in control.
However if regulations say that people cannot enter the cockpit, I do not understand why many people in this thread try to justify the actions of the Turkish pilot. He broke a rule, and as I said before we might argue if the punishment was to harsh, but we should not justify is actions.
How many silly rules we have to follow on our daily routine?
Regarding that the pilots shall stay all the time inside the cockpit, unless they are provided with they own galley and toilette how they will be able to do it?
And finally, I still appreciate if the pilot have a walk on the cabin, it is a nice way to let understand us that we are not SLFs.

[Jofm5]

I can see both sides of the coin on this one, although I cant say I agree with the slate on the right hand seat function whatsoever.

August 98 I got married in Poland, on the flight back from Warsaw my best man tipped off one of the stewards and the wife and I got invited to the flight deck (B737) to be congratulated by the captain. Was very interesting and hugely fascinating to me - discussing and learning about the multiple autopilots and the capability of landing in fog (as I had done a month or so before at LHR apparently by autopilot). So whilst I remain pure SLF (still toying idea of a PPL) I learnt more about a subject that fascinated me and I have maintained that interest down the years. Indeed I would love to do the jumpseat for landing sometime but alas with the climate nowadays I doubt that would be an easy thing to achieve. On a side note - it appeared the pilot was allowed to smoke in the cockpit - ash all over the center column - wish he would have let me have had a smoke hehe - I bet thats not allowed now.

On the other side of the coin, should SLF be allowed in the cockpit nowadays, well the rules say no and I do think for it is for good reason. I entirely agree that it should be down to the flight deck to make a judgement call on whether that person poses a threat or not but it also leaves a window of opportunity for those less savoury characters to pounce if not when going into the flight deck but when coming out. My personal view is not that non qualified slf should not go on the flight deck, but it be pre-arranged beforehand so that they fly jumpseat - thus negating the possibility of the unsavoury monitoring and judging movements between the cabin and the fd.

Its a shame in this day and age that the crew cannot give those with an interest a glimpse of what actually does go on at the pointy end as it is inspiring but thats the times we live in nowadays I'm afraid.

There are some things that can be done to allow those such as myself with interest in what goes on up front access to observe what is going on.

1) An AA flight into san diego I took broadcast the flightdeck radio over the entertainment system on a particuler channel. Highly interesting and where I first learnt about the handing over between areas etc.

2) On a finair flight there was a camera on the nosewheel, no doubt so the FD could monitor pushbacks etc, this was broadcast over the entertainment system so I watched both take off and land - well wierd watching the ground come up to the nose wheel and feel the plane touch down whilst the nose is still quite visably clear of the ground. Where I learnt about the flare and grew respect for what the guys on the flight deck must be able to see during this and judgement involved.

3) Not seen this yet but cctv (and I know you guys would hate that) but being able to see what is going on on the flight deck would be great.

Of course I am sure all these systems are/could be controlled from the flight deck so what you dont want ppl to see/hear would not be. Although it could never compare to the visit to the flightdeck I think it is the nearest thing to it that can be granted safely in current times.

So as not to drift from the thread too much, I think in this instance I agree that it should have been allowed within the judgement of the crew to allow the guy onto the flightdeck if deemed safe to do; regulations withstanding, with the proviso that the guy only went so far as the jump seat (if fitted - I dont know if this/all airliners have one) and then allowed back to the cabin post landing. As with the Aeroflot example mentioned previously - whilst there was no intention of anything going wrong in that instance the pressure applied partially disenganged the autopilot leading to a disaster - its best not to have anyone unqualified within reaching distance of any of the controls is my view.

Regards,

Jofm5

[llondel]

I think it's a great shame that kids can't visit the flight deck. I can understand not letting them sit in the hot seat in flight. My son (6) was thrilled to be able to sit up front a couple of times while the aircraft was at the gate and I certainly enjoyed a visit or two pre 2001. I never did get the chance to jumpseat for a landing, that would have been fun, especially at night.

[PJ2]

B737NG;
I am sure I will miss the love and the passion of my life but not the Airline.
Yep - it's a huge dichotomy and tugs at you from both sides.

You will miss it - retired almost a year now and I still miss the airplanes and the wonderful people I flew with. But miss the airline business? - you have to be kidding! Good riddance. I'd never advise anyone to go into it today, and that's sad because I ached for it all my young life, did career-day talks to young high school students, opened my cockpit door to everyone, even did film work about the job, it was so great. What a turn the last seven years have been - I am so glad to be retired I can't stop smiling every day. BelArgUSA - you'll love it, you'll welcome it and won't believe what a relief it is to be away from the business this has become. How very sad it all is - not a moment was ever wasted or is today regretted, but man, it's good to be away from it.

[Bealzebub]

Without wanting to comment on this particular case, because I am unfamiliar with the rules prevailing in Turkey and because, thankfully the only reporting seems to be media reporting rather than an official accident report, I would reply generally as follows.

In 2001 my son was 12. At that age and at that time it was permissible for me to make an application to allow him to travel with me, on the jumpseat of the airliner I was operating. On a few occaissions he did just that. He is now well on his way to his own professional career. At the end of 2001 the regulations were changed such that it was no longer permissable. He has travelled with me many times since, but of course never on the flightdeck. To that end, I am dissappointed, he is dissappointed, and any perception of common sense is completely irrelevant in this regard.

Even prior to 2001, and certainly since then, unless there are exceptional and compelling reasons to the contrary, nobody but nobody should be sat in either of the pilots seats unless they are required and qualified to be there, or in the extremely rare circumstance when one pilot is incapacitated and the other pilot in command or assuming the command, deems it to be operationally necessary and prudent. Beyond that (other than in the most extreme situation) there is absolutely no reason for anybody else to be seated at the controls and nor should they be.

However ridiculous or unfair the rules either are or seem to be, the assumption of command imposes an obligation of duty and trust to properly and lawfully discharge those obligations at all material times. For the benefit of some non flyers who may think otherwise, the overwhelming majority of pilots do just that at all times. There are occaissions when in the interests of safety or in the seriously considered judgment of the Captain and crew, a course of action is prudent and necessary that would violate an otherwise routine regulation or rule and the provision exists to apply that discretion. However it is exeptional, considered, subject to review and judgement, and not for the purpose of acting contrary simply to satisfy a personal belief or opinion.

Having passengers in the flightdeck (in flight) is subject to the routine discretion of the commander only where it is permitted by law. In all other cases it would be an extreme violation and subject to serious penalties, except in rare situations where it might comply with those overriding safety or emergency requirements, already mentioned. Having anyone not suitably qualified or sanctioned, sat at the controls in flight is inappropriate, unnecessary and unsafe.

Again for the benefit of anyone who might believe otherwise, pilots generally and commanders specifically are selected (amongst other things) for their demonstrated maturity. It doesn't matter how anybody benefitted from a previous history of flight deck visits. The rules have changed and like it or not the requirement to apply them is routinely absolute.

[Old Fella]

Some of the posts have left me contemplating whether or not I should stay firmly on the ground in all but an aircraft of which I am in control. The days of 'open cockpit door' flying are gone, thanks to the actions of a small number of terrorists. Airlines spend vast amounts of money in making the flightdeck as secure as is possible and, whether it is popular or not, entry to the flight deck is restricted to crew or other authorised persons. Personally, I think many people are now denied an experience which they have previously been able to enjoy and which often gave them an insight to what happens at the sharp end. That said, it is for the benefit of all on board that the restrictions apply. As for those who 'nit pick' about whether or not the FO was PIC during the absence of the Captain, does it matter? The Captain would have had difficulty handling an emergency from the confines of the toilet, so for all practical purposes the FO was the PIC.

[aviatordom]

Very sad to see that the minority in this world affects it for the majority!

I had an absolutely massive grin on my face and felt amazing inside, even when i was allowed to visit a flight-deck after landing, i can only imagine how great i would of felt if the flight crew happily let me go up front at 39,000ft.

====

back on topic, if THY's SOP's state that no passenger is to visit the flight-deck in-flight then so be it, the crew broke the rules and they new them.

[dwittig]

I don't wish to comment on this incident beyond to say that when I was 6 or 7 I was allowed to sit on the pilot's lap as he landed a Pan Am 747 at JFK. Seeing the runway lights at night from the air was a beautiful experience for me, and that image is permanently ingrained - to this day I remember that sight. As a child I'd always been fascinated by airplanes (that was my first word incidentally) and I'm extremely grateful to the pilot that allowed me to have that experience. It was the coolest experience of my early childhood.

In an unrelated story, when I was returning to college from Costa Rica in '97 or '98 on an overbooked flight, my dad somehow talked the ticket agent and flight crew into letting me ride in the jump-seat the whole way up to Miami. I suppose he's an extremely persuasive man to have arranged for these two improbable but highly memorable experiences for me.

[Ancient Mariner]

1990, FBU to EWR on SK B767. Wifey, 9 year old daughter and I. Me suffering from FoF at the time in aisle seat, daughter other side of aisle. Had explained to her all I knew about flying as a pax (not much, but hey..), but had forgot one major issue. Noise!
She totally freaked out when we accelerated down the runway and I'm afraid I was not much help. This was noticed by one of the CC seated behind us and she came and asked us if all was OK. She then told to my daughter that she would check with the Captain if she could visit the flight deck later. She could, and she spent the better part of one hour there. We then flew around Canada and USA for four weeks and the only complaint we had from our daughter was lack of turbulence. She totally enjoyed it, she still does and she has been all over the world now. Her two daughters (5 and 6) also love flying and they both love the story of their mother visiting the cockpit of a big jet (and of how scared their grand dad was).
If any of the crew on that flight remember this episode from the summer of 1990, thank you so much!
Too bad my grand children will not be able to have that same experience.
Per

Edited because it is bad form to spell from......form. Now corrected.

[xplorer]

I fully agree with Avman, many might not admit to getting a chance to sit upfront but it definately was and still is a motivator to many.... now putting it in the media limelight, considering the heavy implications it might have on the crew involved, my personal opinion is it wasn't wise :bored:

[sharksandwich]

What would the response have been if the boy had been wearing a hijab, however keen on flying, I wonder.

[EI-CFC]

A raised eyebrow and directed to apply to become cabin crew, perhaps? ;);):oh:

[HeathrowAirport]

This Picture is taken from behind...
presumeably from the door area...
So there was a third person in the Flightdeck... It must have been the Cpt himself...


Exactly, So were did someone bring up the idea that he went to the lav? The SUN ?

I not long ago asked to go into the Cockpit of a First Choice 757-28Y... Not knowing what the Policy is and was and was denied access. Obviously i fully agree after 9/11 and other attacks. But i got to go in at the end of the flight. So no complaint there... What's the policy for airlines such as FCA and BA anyway. Don't post here PM me to deny the Likes of the media get there hands on it.

2004 i got to sit in the Captain Seat of a MyTravel A321-XXX but this was once again on the Ground.

A quick question, why do i see many latest pictures of people sitting in the Jumpseats off American Airliners (No not AAL) just those in general and other airlines. No British Airlines but mostly those i just mentioned.

How do they get in? I hear that they have to stay in the cockpit for the whole flight if they want to stay in there.. and can't come out.

Regards,

R...

[ExSp33db1rd]

What would the response have been if the boy had been wearing a hijab, however keen on flying, I wonder.


As Commander, I once strolled around the F/class cabin of a 707 ( as we used to do ) and invited a lonely blonde with big t*ts to go and talk to the other two men on the Flt. Deck and cheer them up. Dark, swarthy, man in front asked if he could also visit the Flt. deck next - looked Arabic to me ( yeah, I know, I know ) so said it was not allowed, he said he heard me invite the girl and so why not him too ? No answer to that, so said I would escort him when I returned. Back on the Flt. deck we started a conversation during which I asked him where he was from. He told me he was a Palestinian Arab - and then roared with laughter and said that of course they weren't all terrorists, which is true. I had recurring nightmares about the potential headline - "Captain invited hijacker to Flt. deck." Still do.

We hold surgeons and judges in high respect ( don't we ? ) because we never get into their Operating Theatre or their Private Chambers, so never really know what goes on and therefore retain a bit of awe. Pilots made the job look too easy, and look where the profession is going now. Bullsh*t Baffles Brains, so keep it up. Sorry kids. ( and of course I've done my share of giving The Dream a kick-start, nevertherless - enjoyed it, too. )

[cockney steve]

The Captain's authority IS and SHOULD be, ABSOLUTE.

"The rules" allowed Oxy cylinders to be carried.....Quantas recently had one go bang....so has some f-wit pen-pusher decreed a total ban? -no.

In the case of 9-11 the unthinkable happened because , again, beurocrats cocked it up. they were so busy protecting their little patches of turf from each other, they lost sight of their JOB...IMHO they are the real reason those events unfolded. I'm not saying that NOTHING would have happened, but I have the sneaking suspicion that lots of people would still be alive.

Aircrew are highly trained and aware that if they foul up, the pointy end cops it first....in the air, flight rules and procedures enforce safe passage. the crew should have the discretion to handle their human-cargo management .

just because some desk-wallah has decided that an Asian Pax with 99mil of liquid and a blunt plastic teaspoon, is a threat, DOESN'T MAKE IT A REALISTIC PROBABILITY.

Kids can still visit "the flight deck"...find a local airfield that still has local sightseeing jollies , take them up :D

My kids got a front seat, a full set of controls and instruments and were low -enough to easily pinpoint potential targets.

Wake up, people, the rules are there for the makers' benifit....to keep you frightened and them in control. all this "security is b:mad:x I seriously question the rationality of anyone who thinks otherwise.

"crowded" (or was that "busy" sky....the aircraft had a "space" of @30,000 feet all round it and even a determined 10-year old hercules would have difficulty overriding the inputs of the PIC.....but he wasn't...he was a kid having the thrill of his lifetime....the CAPTAIN had judged he was safe.

rule makers want a good dose of reality :mad: :mad: :mad:

[Old Fella]

Dwittig. Surely not. If your recollection is correct I cannot think a much more irresponsible act by a pilot. :ugh:

[Pace]

I think it would be Most Likely that the Captain did NOT take the picture.

he would be the only one who had access to the data on his mobile or camera and would have had to have incriminated himself by placing it on a site where others had access to it (unlikely)

Maybe the Captain and first officer had a bad case of the runs, the first officer left for the loo shortly after the Captain leaving the Lad in control for a while and took the shot on his return ;) ???

Pace

[SLFguy]

You didn't really think that through before you posted did you?

Why would he be using his own camera/phone? He would have used the kids and given it back.

Wonder if he asked the kid 'if he liked to wrestle'? :hmm:

[AOB9]

Airliners.net;airlinepictures.net........where do the cockpit pictures come from???????

I remember visiting the cockpit of a 737 as a child,that memory has stayed with me to this day. It's a shame that this has become such an issue.

PJ2; it saddens me to read that you have no time for the modern industry with all it's rules and regulations. It must be terrible for the modern pilot to finally realise his dream only to dislike his job.I also work in an industry that's becoming more and more regulated as a result of the actions of a few. It really knocks the good out of day to day living.

ASFKAP; Sometimes you can allow judement to prevail. Zero tolerance also has it's failings.

[Pace]

SLFguy

>You didn't really think that through before you posted did you?<

Actually yes ;) it was a jokey response.

The Captain would equally be asking for trouble taking such a picture with the Kids Camera and knowing it would more than likely end up on a site for the lads mates to see and the rest of the world.

More likely the Kids dad or Guardian while the Captain was away.

Very sad world since 9/11

Pace

[drivez]

But in that incident the kid was allowed to turn the yoke, press buttons and he inadvertently partially disconnected the autopilot transfering the ailerons to manual control whilst keeping other flight systems connected. Then after this the g's became so extreme the captain couldn't replace his son. whilst the bank took place the autopilot made the nose of the aircraft rise to 90 degrees virtually stalling the aircraft and by the time the captain replaced his soon they were to low to recover.

The main causes of the crash were yes the allowance of the children to enter the flightdeck, but also the fact that the crew did not know that on that aircraft the autopilot did not make an audiable sound when dis-engaging. They also did not realise that the aircraft's autopilot had not fully disengaged.

Just out of curiousity is allowance on to the flightdeck prohibited even once at gate with all engines switched off?

[sharksandwich]

A raised eyebrow and directed to apply to become cabin crew, perhaps? http://static.pprune.org/images/smilies/wink2.gifhttp://static.pprune.org/images/smilies/wink2.gif:oh:


Ha, ha! I wasn't intending to suggest cross-dressing, I was looking for the term for traditional male dress, and trying to be a little pc!
The point was addressed further down by ExSp33, but of course the "terrorist profile" does not mean a great deal.
The 22 yr old Finn who unexpectedly became homicidal after buying a gun is a case in point.
A few years ago at our local flying club, a business man learnt to solo with the sole intention (it later transpired) of diving into the sea and ending his life in a blaze of glory.
He took no-one with him, but who can judge who might intentionally or unintentionally do something completely unexpected?

[PJ2]

AOB9;
PJ2; it saddens me to read that you have no time for the modern industry with all it's rules and regulations. It must be terrible for the modern pilot to finally realise his dream only to dislike his job.
The statements need a bit of elaboration. I loved the job from Day One to the last day when I pushed the VNAV knob for the last time and set the parking brake at the gate, for the last time. I love aviation, welcome the regs as necessary in a highly disciplined profession, welcomed passengers, especially the young ones with stars in their eyes to the cockpit, had FoF passengers in to see that their crew were real people with families etc and spent a great deal of time doing pilot association/representative work, flight safety/flight data work (which I still am doing) and thoroughly enjoyed the layovers, the people and the life - there simply is nothing like it anywhere else!

What has been taken from the profession and a life in aviation is not only what 9/11 and subsequent US reactions has done but the unbelievably parsimonious approach to aviation employees who are today disrespected and treated merely as impediments to profit instead of the highly-skilled and dedicated workforce it was once viewed as. Loyalty in aviation is a lifeline and actually a safety factor but loyalty to employees in all corporations has evaporated, and the "favour" is returned, just like many skilled jobs which have been sent off-shore. While 'twas ever thus in aviation, especially after de-regulation, and especially the last decade has been largely a horrendous experience for airline employees who, because fuel and suppliers' costs are far less controllable than wages and benefits, have watched their careers turn into McJobs, wholly disrespected by an increasingly distant management focussed on cost. True it can be done more cheaply by a legacy carrier and I would never say that an employer is responsible for an employee's "happiness" but the airline business reflects what has happened to corporate America where CEO's are rewarded with millions for failures under the blatant excuse that such largesse is required to "attract the talent", while employees watch as pensions are stolen, wages are higher almost everywhere else and benefits such as basic healthcare programs are under pressure.

Flight crews are not immune to this; you may be surprised to learn but more than a few major carriers pay highly-trained, experienced flight crews who may be new at an airline but who are veteran aviators, less than nurses or teachers fresh out of university- about $28,000 to $36,000 year roughly. A veteran aviator just joining an airline perhaps from the military or from a corporate job cannot raise a family on what airlines pay new pilots. Pensions are heavily regulated in Canada but in the US where companies can use Ch11 to dump pension responsibilities onto the US government, (a precursor to today's disastrous economic circumstances where corporate "governance" has dumped their "mistakes" into government/taxpayer laps).

Sorry to go on, but my comments were made ex-context, and I hope the above provides a bit of perspective. I know of no pilots who do not love their work and are passionate about it - just read their contributions here to know how passionate and dedicated pilots are to their profession, their passengers and even their airline. I have said for years now that the highest form of loyalty is the willingness to look at the warts and criticize one's own heavily enough to effect change, and we do so, regularly.'

The "de-regulation of safety" under "SMS" is a distinct concern where yet more areas of the public regulatory domain are privatized, downloaded to corporate entities for their handling and responsibility. If you have run across my posts elsewhere, you will know that this is a growing concern within our industry, at the very same time that criminalization of accidents is rising.

Having spent 40 years in aviation, 35 of them at a major carrier, it is disappointing and saddening to see how commercial aviation has devolved from a highly respected enterprise to a base, instrumental tool where investors punish swiftly without the slightest sense of the "long view", welcome the harsh treatment of "expensive employees", tolerate CEO bonuses and malfeasance, and have absolutely no notion of what it takes to make, and keep this business safe.

But the smell of the electronics in the cockpit, the smell of castor oil as Connies, DC7's and Northstars fired up, is as intoxicating today as it was when I first set foot in an airliner cockpit in the late-fifties - aviation was the first "blood-borne disease" and what a wonderful one at that! No other profession I know, has that allure, that charm and that power to draw.

PJ2

[AOB9]

PJ2;
Thank you for that excellent insight into the mind of a dedicated aviator. And for what it's worth I (and many of my friends) have the utmost respect for your profession. We spend hours trawling through website footage and forums like this to feel part of what is truly one of the best jobs in the world. I agree with you that "profit above all" is the order of the day in almost every business now, and I also agree that this must be eroding what is otherwise an occupation with immense job satisfaction.
But this is happening to us all. I work for a HUGE multinational pharma company that are worth BILLIONS. But they are cutting jobs all over the world (including mine) for a number of reasons, not least of which is to keep shareholders happy. People that have spent thousands of their parents and guarantors money to gain PHD's are now being paid a pittance in order to be in employment. Bright youngsters in their twenties are wishing they chose an alternative career and this is in a country where science graduates are at a premium. It's a sign of the times and it's affecting us all.

On a side note; passengers have to suffer too. The thoughts of being on an a/c with some clown blabbing into his mobile phone only 12" away from me is enough to make me stick to my Microsoft Flight Simulator for the view.

Now, someone is going to tell me I'm gone off point so I leave it there. Once again thank you for your long response.

[PJ2]

AOB9;
You're entirely welcome - it's a sad message to be sure - the "job satisfaction" aspect remains outstanding, which is part of the problem!

I hear you loud and clear re jobs/careers/professions the world over and know that the airline sector/industry merely reflects the worst aspects of this drive to extract maximum profit for minimum investment.

Certainly investors must make a return but it is the way it's done, devaluing the very thing being invested in - it's an old story: Investors and their "co-dependant enablers" our governments, more than ever know, "the cost of everything and the value of nothing" because culture, the arts, the sciences, knowledge, enquiry, right down to the last parsimonious detail: Physical Education in our elementary schools, do not provide an instrumental "return on investment" - an out-of-shape generation with all attendant health costs notwithstanding.

The short-sightedness is profound and while such instrumental attitudes and metrics towards education (elementary through post graduate) have ruled our society since the early '70's, perhaps one aspect of the present fundamental upheavel, is a profit-at-all-cost system "coming home to roost".

I'm not naive enough to believe that there isn't a great deal that is of exceptional value in the way our society "does" economics and politics, but excess, greed, both capitalist values essentially unregulated to a proven harmful degree (now admittedly so in the US) have wrought the terrible opposite of the promise of growth and prosperity within a vibrant democracy. So much more could be said but as such circumstances relate to aviation, the twin drivers of aviation, our spectacularly good safety record and the "romance" of aviation, are sadly today, at "clear and present" risk, and the worst of it is, when the rate begins to climb and when people no longer flock to aviation as a desireable profession, the reasons will have long since been forgotten and down the memory hole. The cyclical nature of the business will bring it around again and employees may yet prosper but the fugoids are pretty spectacular and quite beyond any one sector's ability to respond to and control.

That's the end of the thread drift - I appreciate the tolerance of both the moderators and the members.

PJ2

[Pugilistic Animus]

Ideed --PJ2---you have given a ggod glimpse of how sad it is nowadays as an aviator---great post but sad---this thread--and it's associated 'drift' inspire great debate alas 9/11 and thirty years of greed:(---as well as the uptight FD enviroment with endless callouts/SOPS/ regulation and other mgmt. CYA material--that's why I'd rather fly a Kingair or even a Seneca to big iron----but you are correct t'is a sickness;)

[hardhatter]

:sad:...

I just have to make one more comment: it saddens me to hear that aviation, once my dream job (alas not to be for me in, professionally), has become a....glorified McDonalds job, I have no other words for it. Such low wages, such pressure on crew, not even the slightest sympathy form passengers..:ugh::ugh:

My hat off to all you men and women who still keep doing their jobs, in spite of such hard circumstances, and still manage to gove me and my wife a smile during flight and a visit to the flight deck after landing.

Sorry for the thread drift, carry on.

[hetfield]

Ooooops,

http://www.streem.com.au/s/media/images/articles/48be05b486b70.jpg

Jetstar stewardess caught in captain's seat

Streem / News / Jetstar stewardess caught in captain's seat (http://www.streem.com.au/breaking-news/6119-jetstar-stewardess-caught-in-captains-seat)

[sharksandwich]

The minority make the lives of the majority less pleasurable.

The real stupidity is first, taking the photos, and second, posting them on the internet!

[ExSp33db1rd]

Britannia 312 - Captain and Co-pilot seats were slightly elevated on a low platform above the flight deck floor ( well pilots do have to be on a pedestal, don't they ! ) Young boy was asked if he would like to sit in the Captains' seat - Ooh ! yes pls. - at which he grabbed the arm rest of the seat with his left hand, and a fistful of throttles with his right hand - the better to lever himself up !!

[ExSp33db1rd]

707 - Young lady requested visit to the flight deck and stood bearing a small baby in her arms. F/o vacated his seat to visit toilet and suggested that the visitor might like to have some relief from carrying child, and promptly placed said child in his seat - and baby reached forward and touched control column. Very droll, until F/o produced a camera - at which point I vehemently objected ! Altimeter and Machmeter clearly visible. You canna be too carrrrreful.

I echo PJ2's sentiments about the unique experience of the profession - not job - it's ( it was ) above that mundane description. Even my first experiences as a Navigator, crossing the Oceans and the deserts at night, using a sextant and Astro, and the incredible appreciation that only I, as a 23 yr. old, knew precisely where we were ( or at least I thought I did ! ) and science and maths. actually worked, none of this winking lights, electronic, stuff. Magic, glad I didn't miss it. ( tho' I caught myself using two GPS's in a Microlight the other day - to save having to reprogramme one of them for a cross check !! )

[Pace]

> at which he grabbed the arm rest of the seat with his left hand, and a fistful of throttles with his right hand - the better to lever himself up !!<

There should be plenty of data on passenger induced accidents from visiting the flight deck pre 9/11

I can remember spending hours on the flight deck travelling to the USA, before that taking my kids up front with the excuse of they wanted to see the flight deck :)

Back in the 80s as a low time PPL i remember the whole flight up front from Milan to the UK and shock of horrors even being allowed to bring back the thrust levers in the descent standing behind the captain.

Now I captain a business jet and it is those sort of experiences which sow the seeds for future pilots.

If anyone wants to indicate what potential horrors might occur you have donkeys years prior to 9/11 where the passengers and crew inter communicated.I am sure a whole stack of evidence of jets being brought down by passenger accidents while up front.

For me the world took a dive after 9/11 gone are the days where people had fun, where we did not take things too seriously.

In its place are Big Brother states, liability laws, regulators, beurocrats, so much personal data that they even know what colour pants you wear! and a finger pointing attitude to even blinking.

Pace

[ExSp33db1rd]

Pace - do you really think pax. visits to the flt. deck caused accidents ? I would be very surprised. The incident I related only caused a minor heart attack in the Flt. eng. - who nearly broke the lads arm and saved the situation before any harm was done.

I'm reminded of the Flt. Eng. who was questioned by a Boeing Stratocruiser Captain as to why he wore white gloves ? Remember that there were 4 throttles, 4 propeller pitch control levers, 4 mixture control levers, 4 carb. heat levers etc. etc. The answer was that in the event of an unexpected engine failure, that Flt. Eng. needed to know which hands were his !!! :ok:

[Pace]

>Pace - do you really think pax. visits to the flt. deck caused accidents ?<

NO, with the volume of flight deck visits prior to 9/11 other than the C of G problems as as the whole aircraft PAX moved forward en masse to get their turn :ok: I am sure the practice would have been stopped had there been any serious consequences of the visits. ( other than the odd fly me to Cuba variety :eek: but even that must have made the flight to the unplanned destination more interesting :)

Think I will stick with the business jets and the occasional ferry which are still fun in the wrecks and destinations I often get ;)

Pace

[gianmarko]

"So what are we saying? Deviation from authorised precedures is ok as long as its in the interests of nostalgia or future third party career options?"

if authorized procedures were all you need to fly a liner, there would be a couple computers in the cockpit.

you seem to be one of those people who think that brains are just there to fill the void in the skull. in fact, you seem to be perfectly applying this principle

those guys sitting in first row know what they are doing. the armoured cockpit doors are not there to stop the crew from leting in people, but to allow the crew to stop people trying to enter the cockpit.

for sure, there are way too many silly rules, which add no safety to anything, but in the illusion of doing so just limit everybody freedom

sacking that pilot was a very stupid thing to do.

[Pace]

Glanmarco

>"So what are we saying? Deviation from authorised precedures is ok as long as its in the interests of nostalgia or future third party career options?"<

No just thinking back to prior 9/11 and how things have changed so dramitically since. Not a lot for the better in my humble opinion.

Pace

[Airbubba]

I remember around Y2K there was a big thread here about how the UK airlines would never lock their cockpit doors like those silly Americans. Similar 'I wanted to be a pilot when I sat on the captain's knee' sob stories were offered to show how it would be the end of aviation as we know it. 'I am the captain and nobody will tell me I can't invite pax to the flight deck!' was the cry of some of these Sky Gods.

Twenty years ago today the captain of Pan Am 81, a B-747 JFK-LAX allegedly put a flight attendant in the left seat. He was fired for doing this. The idea that only pilots occupy the seats is not a novel one in America and certainly predates 9-11 by quite a while. My friend eventually got his job back but the seat swap on a revenue flight was considered a pretty serious offense even two decades ago.

As BelArgUSA mentions, in some outfits it is the custom to allow deadheading pilot crewmembers to sit in the seat to give the operating crew a break. There was specific mention of this in the Pan Am FOM and it was not uncommon in practice. In recent years however, the feds have tightened up on this sort of thing to the point that even the normal seat swap with a rostered relief pilot will be questioned if done before top of climb, which can be a while for a flight departing congested airspace. At least that's the way it is with our POI.

It has been the polite custom where I work for a deadheading crewmember in uniform to offer to do the walkaround preflight inspection. In the past this was welcome, especially on a two pilot crew. Nowadays, I usually decline the request lest some issue arise about who discovered a maintenance defect and whether he, she or it was an operating crewmember. The FAA has the heat on these days about logbook writeups, signatures, dates and other documentation issues.

I agree with some sadness that airline flying has evolved into a somewhat paranoid pursuit where you are more worried about noise abatement, digital camera pictures and forgetting to sign the logbook than whether you're going to hit the mountain.

[JW411]

Airbubba:

There you go; I cannot tell you how many times I have done the walk around when I was deadheading as a matter of courtesy.

Now you have had to give this practice up because of the good old American ambulance chasers.

Where will it all end?

[Airbubba]

Now you have had to give this practice up because of the good old American ambulance chasers.


Yep, the multicultural UK is the envy of the world when it comes to streamlined aviation regulations. I've been told I couldn't do a walkaround on my own aircraft there because I didn't possess the local ramp credentials.:)

[JW411]

Airbubba:

Indeed so, I well remember an intellectual peanut at STN telling the Loadmaster that he could not get back on the aircraft (that he had just got off) and would have to go through a security point in the passenger terminal because he wasn't aircrew!

With an intellect like that, how can we possibly fail?

On another occasion, I was going through the cargo security point at STN and I had a couple of deadheaders with me. The deadheading captain was about to go through the metal detector and I jokingly said "Have you told them about your pacemaker Geoff?"

The sh*t hit the fan.

"You can't go through there with a pacemaker, we need to get a doctor to check you".

"Don't be daft" said I "I am only joking. How many captains do you imagine come through here wearing a pacemaker?"

No, the fun has gone in the main but I am sure that most of the guys still find something to laugh about. Without humour, life is simply not worth living.

[PJ2]

JW411;
No, the fun has gone in the main but I am sure that most of the guys still find something to laugh about. Without humour, life is simply not worth living.
How about the captain who was hassled because of the bagged knife and fork set, one of hundreds from the airplane, that he was harbouring through the detector after the layover? After dealing with the security troopers and continuing to the airplane, he returned from the cockpit, exited through the usual passageway and returned to security with the fire ax under his tunic. When all hell broke loose he indicated that it was "part of the accessible cockpit equipment" and there would be serious repercussions for any delays or interference with said equipment, (I know the guy). He actually made it back to the cockpit...Not the wisest move in these days of watchful minions with tazers and whatnots but a point none the less...Life was certainly worth living THAT day with a lot of laughs at how stupid it had all become.

[tuskegee airman]

Agree with ASFKAP

AVMAN if you are referring to the Aeroflot A310, I believe there was one child in the seat (capt's son).There were three other pilots in the cockpit:
F/O in his seat
Capt (proud dad) and
Capt's brother (proud uncle), who I believe was also an Aeroflot pilot.

They all thought it was safe. They all considered the risks and perhaps
thought ....."what could possibly go wrong"

This Turkish crew missed an opportunity to impress upon an aspiring aviator the fact that flying transport airplanes around was serious business, that sitting in "the front office" was not to be taken lightly. Would this 15 y/old's love for flying/aviation have been so negatively impacted by the capt POLITELY refusing the flight deck visit during flight but encouraging him to come up when the aircraft was safely parked at the gate. I've seen crews spend a bit of time posing for pictures, answering questions etc for a short period post flight.

[AMEandPPL]

I know some of you don't agree with what I'm saying

Maybe not, but I do. Once rules or laws are in place in a law-abiding society they should be oberved by ALL, with no exceptions. In our kind of societies (though not all worldwide, of course) those who disagree with laid down rules have plenty of democratic ways available of trying to get change effected.

[Pace]

ASFKAP

I do not think that anyone here has suggested that anything will return to pre 9/11. They are reflecting a sense of sadness at the madness that has changed the face of aviation since.

I live in London and use the tubes a lot. It amazes me on a friday night the shear volume of hundreds of people towing cases into the packed tubes.
Many of these tube trains hold an equal volume of people to any airline flight.
Yet there is NO security. Easy for a terrorist to tow a case full of explosives onto a train and blow the whole lot up.

In governemnt eyes terrorism = aviation and aviation = terrorism end of story.
The industry is loaded with the costs and the passengers the massive delays.
I can jump onto the EuroStar and be in Paris from London in 2 hrs 30 mins.
No way can I get any where near that using aircraft.

There is a change of attitude with nitty picky finger pointing suddenly you are a crimal for breathing in the wrong way "disgusting have his head off".

Ok no things will not ever be the same and I dont get your comparison with drinking? but I have not seen anything good come from 9/11 and if you cannot understand why I feel sorry for you and admire those older pilots who had some soul and love for what they did!

Pace

thank god I only fly beat up old business jets and you will prob say thank god too :)

[AMEandPPL]

Now if you can trust this man with your very life, surely you can trust him to allow a child to have a look on the flightdeck mid cruise?

Not at all. One hopes, though, that one could trust him to obey the rules democratically set down by the society in which he lives and works.

OK - let one child in mid-cruise, then it's all the other kids, then it's their parents, then . . . . . . . . . come on, once you have started, just WHERE do you draw the line ?

This has absolutely NOTHING to do with the competence with which one performs one's normal occupation. I am one of those mentioned in the previous post.

[Atreyu]

AMEandPPL,

Well I wouldn't advocate sending an entire troop of kids into the flightdeck, but where is the harm in one or two mid way through a 10 hour flight?
The point is that not everyone is a wannabe terrorist, and it might do our profession good to be seen in a positive light.:)

And the majority of my previous post was mainly directed at that FrequentSLF idiot

"Or it might be because WE are intelligent beings and be able to judge and criticize what you are doing in the front?"

You and me both know how ridiculous that statement is :D

Atreyu:ok:

[Pace]

>In our kind of societies (though not all worldwide, of course) those who disagree with laid down rules have plenty of democratic ways available of trying to get change effected.<

AMEandPPL

Democracy to me means freedom how do you see us being more free since 9/11 thought this was what most of the posts have been about the lack of freedom in the name of freedom.

Now its all about big brother, regulations, finger pointing, jobs for burocrats.

I do not have the confidence that you do in the "plenty of democratic ways"
Unless you are a minority group which might damage a governments votes or enhance its votes.

and as the saying goes " rules are for fools to obey and for wisemen to question". and no by that I dont advocate breaking rules.

Pace

[eight16kreug]

There was a time when I did the 360 to check if all the plane's parts were still where they should be. Now when I do the walk around, it's to say "hi" "how's it going" to the loaders, gas man, security guards, lavatory truck guy, etc. In case of a post accident/incident investigation, these are the guys they'll ask if you did an inspection. CYA. That's what regulations has done to our profession.:cool:

[mercurydancer]

atreyu

As an intelligent passenger I most certainly have the right to question the flight crew about procedure and behaviour. Do you think I would not be concerned to the point of calling the airline and stopping the flight if I noticed that a member of the flight crew was smelling of alcohol and could hardly stand? That is an extreme example but a valid one. Think about this... if I called the airline and said I saw a pilot drunk do you think that your point about me not being a pilot and so could not criticise the staff would stand as a defence for the crewmember or the airline?

A basic principle of safety in any industry is to look to eliminate unecessary risk... and having an unpredictable person on the flight deck certainly comes in that category. As a passenger I would have objected to a child being on the flight deck.

[AMEandPPL]

You and I both know how ridiculous that statement is

Well, maybe, but, to be entirely frank, it is no more ridiculous than

but where is the harm in one or two mid way through a 10 hour flight?

How are you going to deal with the parents who accuse you of giving another child preferential treatment to theirs ? What if those parents have had a little too much to drink ? Air rage incident right around the corner !

Rules is rules - for EVERYONE to obey - absolutely.

[Atreyu]

Mercury Dancer,

"As an intelligent passenger I most certainly have the right to question the flight crew about procedure and behaviour"

So you want to question us about procedures and behaviour? It's this kind of attitude that degrades the job in my opinion. Shows a complete lack of respect for someone whose skills and training might very well save your bacon, BA038 being one of many shining examples I can think of. :ugh:

Who are you to question procedures you know nothing about? Would you question a heart surgeon on what he's doing? And the whole 'drunk pilot' thing, that came from left field did it not? What has that to do with the subject at hand. I would hope anyone with any self preservation skills would get off an aircraft with drunk crew on board, but the point of this thread is about flight deck visits from children. Fool.

AMEandPPL,

With the greatest respect, how many air rage incidents have been caused by angry parents about preferential treatment of one child visiting the flight deck and not another?

And I never questioned whether rules are to be obeyed or not, but what these rules are trying to prevent exactly.

Atreyu:ok:

[AMEandPPL]

With the greatest respect, how many air rage incidents have been caused by angry parents about preferential treatment of one child visiting the flight deck and not another?

I really do not know . . . . . . . do you ? ?

Best to avoid the possibility altogether, by just obeying the rules laid down for everyone's good - whether we like the rules or not.

[Atreyu]

Well you have a chance of being involved in a car crash, so would you just not drive? You have a chance of being run over crossing the road, so will you stop walking outside? It's a bit of a silly reason not to do something que no?

And as I have repeatedly said, I obey all the rules prescribed to me. That is not the arguement. The point of this discussion is whether the rules regarding the ban on flight deck visits in flight are still valid, on which I'm still unclear of your position and whatever reasons you have.

Yes this turkish captain appears to have took both barrells and lost his job, which for a breach of SOP that serious (considering the climate of fear in which we live) is probably about par for the course. I'm not advocating pilots to start letting people into the flightdeck, in some kind of "we'll show them" display of ideology. IN fact I know if the skipper next to me was thinking of letting someone in I would have to firmly say NO, based on current rules and SOP.

Now whether I AGREE with the rules is the point of discussion. But under no circumstance would I break them to prove a point.

Just to be clear.

Atreyu:ok:

[AMEandPPL]

The point is that not everyone is a wannabe terrorist

Very true, and very important. The BIG problem is really that the TINY number who are WT's are not readily identifiable. If there were a way to do that reliably, one imagines that authorities all over the world would be only too happy to relax the rules which exist now for everyone's safety and peace of mind.

Until then, my answer to your question:
whether the rules regarding the ban on flight deck visits in flight are still valid

is an absolutely unequivocal YES.

[KingCaptain]

I think this site is excelllent, everybody welcome to rant about anything- a bit like mental chess. Watch how the thread very quickly departs from the subject matter and then its like a good old bun fight.

One can always spot the real pilots, they tend to spell correctly and use the appropriate grammar, to me, a sign of attention to the finest detail, which is a significant advantage whilst flying. Then using the most acidic put-downs, albeit in a very subtle manner and tone. It beats watching the telly.

KingCap:):):):D:D

[AMEandPPL]

Watch how the thread very quickly departs from the subject matter

Beg to differ with you there, kind KingCaptain ! This thread started out about kids on the flight deck, and it's still on that topic more than 100 posts later !

Agree with you about getting grammar and spelling correct, though !

[dannyjet]

Hah! I've always thought the same as KingCaptain. I believed I was the only one who had a crazy idea like that. But it's true! It does indeed reflect how pilots are the way they write and spell.

Sorry for drifting off the main topic.

DU

[Atreyu]

ASFKAP,

It seems you're not really reading my posts. I'll reiterate, I'm clear on my Ops manual and it's postion on in flight visits. They are NOT permitted. And I follow these rules to the letter. So your entire last post was pretty pointless because trust me, it won't be happening if I'm there.

The whole topic is about whether you agree with the rules or not, not the application of these specific rules, of which we have no choice; either comply or lose your job.:ugh:

AMEandPPL,

Fair game, At least you're on the side of caution with that approach, which is commendable. I'm not totally in favour of either approach, although in my opinion it should be the commander who has the final say I can see the potentional dangers regarding bona fides. Similarly the profession being as 'locked down' as it is makes it difficult for the travelling public to imagine us as anything except button pushers, a mere bus driver of the sky which isn't great either. Even a ground visit doesn't quite convey the magic does it?

Even the design of the very door that protects us on my type means it has to be shut to let the pax on/off! So we truly are locked away!

Atreyu:ok:

[parthura]

I've read a lot of touching, heart-breaking stories here about pre-career experiences on the flight deck (like #46, the lap story).:D
But it is so far away from a truly professional attitude which must be expected from people in charge.
Telling the story, about other times, is one thing. Trying to convince the audience that it was ok and regretting these things have sadly changed and should still be that way puts me off. It is an offense to all those who let their lives. It is ignorant not to use the experience and act wiser and more professional.
SOPs, rules and regulations, the law, it's all there not to bug you, but because someone did a mistake some time ago, and payed for it, dead too early. The results then change the rules, make flying safer.

What keeps me going (with this attitude, I mean sticking to the rules, except for situations making it deemed neccessary to break them) is the one and very true main fact: all of those breaking the rules and thereby making mistakes ending up in a catastrophe never forsaw the outcome, or else they would have not acted so. It was LACK OF IMAGINATION that made them think it would not happen, or made them believe they were superior or invulnerable or immortal.
You find it everywhere man is active, on the road, when people use dangerous tools, children playing with forbidden things, like fire, and on the flight deck: when commanders let amateurs sit in a pilots seat inflight.

So, and hereby referring to the complaints about our customers having no more respect these days: be more professional, and your passengers will be more respectful and say thank you and goodbye when leaving the ship.
:ok:

[Atreyu]

Got any tips on how to appear 'more' professional?:confused:

They hardly see us anyway so I'm not sure what we could do differently to foster a change of opinion

Atreyu:ok:

[parthura]

...by making no such foolish mistakes as letting a kid sit in the pilots seat of an airliner moving at 450 knots in unservivable atmosphere and ignoring murphy's law.

Engine failures just happen.

Reversers open in cruise (Lauda Air, Thailand).

Decompressions occur.

What will the commander do at 37.000 feet, standing behind his visitor, unable to take his occupied seat, in such a situation? What will happen to the flight, if the Co has difficulties gaining control, or gets tangled up with his O2-mask, in this very special situation? Different having an empty seat to access then, compared to a kid to be removed first.

Has this to be considered?
By a professional, yes.

Hopefully, no such thing will happen to me in my career. But if so, chances are, I, and hence my company, will get credit by the media if things are run MORE PROFESSIONALLY (see recent Quantas decompression, media response absolutely positive).

[AMEandPPL]

Got any tips on how to appear more professional?

Why try to "appear" to be more anything at all ? Why not just do the job as it's supposed to be done ? Punters will usually appreciate just that. Specifically, orderly boarding, punctual departure, full explanation of any delays, some information en route about progress, position, or what might be visible (very dependent on route, obviously), punctual arrival, and speedy orderly disembarkation, will keep 99% of passengers extremely happy, without even seeing you.

If you feel you have GOT to be seen to be appreciated ( are there any personal self-confidence / self-image issues here ? ) why not dash to the bottom of the steps or to the airbridge before the departing passengers, and shake each one's hand with a smile as they go ?

Finally, of course, interested visitors can always be received on the F/D once parked on the ground. I noted your remark about the awkward doors, but just ask them to wait in their seats a few extra minutes . . . . . . they'll still be off well before the hour it takes to get the luggage to the carousel ! ! !

[FrequentSLF]

Atreyu

It isn't your place to judge or criticise what we do at the front. Regardless of your intelligence levels, if your not a professional pilot, then how can you accurately judge or criticise the perfromance of my duties?

What about letting the kid in the cockpit, if I see that I should say nothing?
A rule was broken, but according to your statement I should shut up because I am not a professional?

Let's make clear that I have high regard for dedication and the professionalism of all of you, but I will always advocate my right to judge and criticise your actions. In this thread we are discussing about people in the cockpit, and a rule was broken. I will NOT and I am NOT judging how you TO, fly and land.

Pugilistic Animus
Negative, No you are not!!!
you know nothing!!!!

You could have a point, but in this thread we are not discussing howCould you handle an engine failure on the runway at light weight where the ships wants to flip over---unless you apply full opposite rudder immediate---and nevertheless you have to take that shaking/shuddering aircraft on a very specific departure path?

KingCaptain
One can always spot the real pilots, they tend to spell correctly and use the appropriate grammar, to me, a sign of attention to the finest detail, which is a significant advantage whilst flying. Then using the most acidic put-downs, albeit in a very subtle manner and tone. It beats watching the telly.

From a post of Atreyu
you accurately judge or criticise the perfromance of my duties? :E

[Atreyu]

AMEandPPL,

I have no issues whatsoever with self confidence, I personally care not whether anyone sees ME. I'm talking about the opinion of my profession in general. I understand your position on this, and believe it or not I try and help deliver all of those things you mention. I'm afraid though some punters don't really appriciate it. The minority see it as "I've paid my money so I can be as rude and as arrogant as I like"

A fellow collegue had a complaint written by a passenger about the landing being a bit rough...

Do you think that's ok then? Because I don't. Fair enough if the crew are rude or the food isn't up to scratch or something like but to pass comment on something they most likely couldn't do any better themselves is laughable and ignorant.

I'm not saying the passengers should feel lucky to be in the presence of the crew but a little respect can go a long way, certainly makes my day if someone pops in after shutdown to say thanks and have a quick look at the flightdeck :)

Saying that though alot of the turnarounds can be tight, 35 mins or less not being uncommon, so there sometimes isn't much time for visitors, which of course looks bad from a customer service point of view!

I suppose you can't win eh!

Atreyu:ok:

[AMEandPPL]

certainly makes my day if someone pops in after shutdown to say thanks and have a quick look at the flightdeck

What I was saying EXACTLY ! Bed beckons now ! Goodnight all !!

[mercurydancer]

Atreyu

Please dont insult me as I can do that to you too....

I did mention that the drunk aricrew was an extreme example but it is valid in that it is a way in which passengers can question aircrew behaviour and procedure. There are many other examples. If you cant handle the point made then dont call me a fool as it just makes you look like a very unprofessional and arrogant aircrew. I respect people who can be professional and can accept discussion about the way they work as no pilot knows everything... but your attitude is the destructive one, not mine.

And whilst you use the example.. yes I do question heart surgeons and other surgeons in their practices.. I do it for a living...

[Pace]

AMEandPPL

I fly business jets and as such am mixed in with my passengers. Ok I have a maximum of 8, so what is an ok number as I do not know all my passengers.

16, 32, 100 had I got room for them. I presume its ok for me to be accessed by the passengers because they are known by the owner / company.

So it has to be the unknown factor whether one of the passengers in an airline is a nut case or a terrorist. That is the unknown factor and what you percieve as the threat.

But up until 9/11 visits were commonplace and apart from the odd take me to Cuba in thirty years prior to 9/11 I do not know of many aircraft being jeapordised by passengers maybe I am wrong? It was 9/11 that changed the world and in a very negative, defensive and paranoic way.

With all the security and restrictions on airline flight why should a terrorist want to target aircraft when they can drag a suitcase of explosives unchallenged onto a London Tube packed with 200 odd people.

That I cannot fathom as there are far easier targets with equal impact and none of the risks to themselves or the success of their mission.

The difference is that it would not be practical to police the London Tubes and so government close an eye and keep their fingers crossed.

Have the passengers changed since 9/11? no. The same attrocity could have been carried out 10 /20/30 /40 years ago but it did not happen till that fateful day.

So where do you draw the line in regulating for safety. Is there a threat from the crew leaving their station at all ie going to the loo. Should you regulate that toilet facilities are in the cockpit invironment? Cut a door for pilot access and have no door to the cabin?

At what point does security damage the aircraft industry by making it unattractive or too expensive? Life itself is a risk as is flight itself. There will always be accidents and are as in the Madrid crash.

Had that accident been deemed to be caused by terrorism just imagine the repercussions? but it was not!

So at what point do we stop or is there a better way than the route we take now?

Things will never go back to prior to 9/11 but who won? because one thing I am sure of we did not! the terrorists did big time and that is sad for us all.

Hence when the oldtimers talk of how things used to be it does touch a chord of how things should be and if you have a soul you know they were right.

Pace

[Atreyu]

Well my friend, If your a surgeon and you question other surgeons, fair enough. But I know I'm not a surgeon, And I sure wouldn't be questioning YOU on what you do and how you do it.

Like it or not the drunk pilot thing was way off topic. I can handle your point but it is completely irrelevant in the context of the thread. Anyway, if your a surgeon and by a look on your profile you hold no flightcrew licences whatsoever, why are you posting in a Flight crew forum? :confused:

How does me calling you a fool make me unprofessional in what I do? I just called it as it is. Your post wasn't relevant.

"if you cant handle the point made then dont call me a fool as it just makes you look like a very unprofessional and arrogant aircrew. I respect people who can be professional and can accept discussion about the way they work as no pilot knows everything... but your attitude is the destructive one, not mine.
"
I don't understand how my attitude is destructive, I have engaged in debate with AMEandPPL and never had to call him/her a fool. Why is that I wonder?

Your right no pilot knows EVERYTHING, and I certainly don't, but what gives you the idea that you need to question flightcrew on their procedures?

I await your reply

Atreyu:ok:

[PT6-6]

controlling the airplane????? :eek: are you kidding me!!!!! his hand is barely touching the yoke... this is pure BS....

[iceman50]

So MERCURY DANCER what exactly do you do for a living, being such an intelligent passenger much be such a burden. :E

[sharksandwich]

I think this site is excelllent, everybody welcome to rant about anything- a bit like mental chess. Watch how the thread very quickly departs from the subject matter and then its like a good old bun fight.

One can always spot the real pilots, they tend to spell correctly and use the appropriate grammar, to me, a sign of attention to the finest detail, which is a significant advantage whilst flying. Then using the most acidic put-downs, albeit in a very subtle manner and tone. It beats watching the telly.

KingCaphttp://static.pprune.org/images/smilies/smile.gifhttp://static.pprune.org/images/smilies/smile.gifhttp://static.pprune.org/images/smilies/smile.gif:D:D

Not all pilots have English as their first language.
Problems with using English as the universal aviation language were addressed in an earlier thread.
Or were you joking?

[ExSp33db1rd]

Best to avoid the possibility altogether, by just obeying the rules laid down for everyone's good - whether we like the rules or not.


"Rules are for the adherence of fools, and the guidance of Wise Men."
( Sir D.Bader CBE,DSO & Bar, DFC & Bar, FRAeS,DL,RAF.)

[Pace]

"Rules are for the adherence of fools, and the guidance of Wise Men."
( Sir D.Bader CBE,DSO & Bar, DFC & Bar, FRAeS,DL,RAF.)

Thanks for putting in the correct version :) and who it was by

was he prior 9/11 or post ?:rolleyes:

Pace

[Bealzebub]

That is because pilots are expected to have at least an average level of wisdom, and have sufficient understanding of the rules to be properly guided by them. Anyone who thinks a rule doesn't apply to them for no compelling reason other than their own whim, is a fool, for whom the lack of adherence will probably bite them hard !

9/11 made no particular difference in this concept.

[The Trappist]

Pace

"was he prior 9/11 or post ?"

You're having a laugh, right? :confused:

Enough room in your 'cheek' for the tongue?:ok:

[Pace]

>That is because pilots are expected to have at least an average level of wisdom, and have sufficient understanding of the rules to be properly guided by them. Anyone who thinks a rule doesn't apply to them for no compelling reason other than their own whim, is a fool, for whom the lack of adherence will probably bite them hard !

9/11 made no particular difference in this concept.<

Bealzebub

I was having a laugh so lighten up :) I am sure Sir D Bader did not mean choose whichever rules you like to follow and to hell with the rest.

In society in general there are loads of rules which are madness created by regulators trying to justify their jobs in our big brother burocratic states and fought from many quarters.

Aviation is no different and I am sure you are aware of the mass of damaging proposed regulations which are fought by various aviation bodies and groups as well as individuals almost weekly.

That is what I think he meant.

Pace

[lomapaseo]

I'm not sure what your inference is here.

I would have suspected hemorrhoids from sitting so long and a need for cushioning

[AMEandPPL]

You wouldn't get haemorrhoids from a four hour flight !


I have a "stupid" question and I am sure I might get a lot of wise answers. . . . . . . . . . . . .
Is this allowed?

He may simply be asking if the crew are allowed to exit the flight deck AT ALL during flight ! Some non-fliers have weird ideas about this.

Yes, crews can exit the F/D, if only to use the toilet ! All companies will have their own procedures to check first that no suspicious characters are lurking before the door is unlocked !

[FrequentSLF]

I'm not sure what your inference is here.

I would have suspected hemorrhoids from sitting so long and a need for cushioning

Was a stupid question, but the reply from the professional was on the same level.
Oh...and some professional pilots wonder why they do not get the respect they demand. I said demand because respect should be deserved by actions and attitude.

[ECAM_Actions]

I agree with Pace - post 9/11, the tinest little things are being taken out of all proportion and everyone is acting like the aircraft would blow up simply because someone other than a pilot was on the flight deck.

I wish someone would return the world to some form of rational place - right now it is completely irrational.

We're acting as if terrorists are on every street corner, when they're not. It's called PARANOIA, and it's going to destroy the world more than any terrorist ever could.

Has anyone here actually looked into the events that occurred to the four aircraft hijacked on 9/11? Not one pilot managed a single mayday, hijack call or managed to change the transponder code prior to the hijackers turning them off. Not one, out of 8 pilots.

ECAM Actions.

[FrequentSLF]

Fully agree!

Anyway if you look at the Macau thread you will find that a pilot did not take a Hong Kong-Macau ferry because was not vetoed by the Union, and therefore not safe. Some comment on the thread were on the line "a crew in uniform is in danger of terrorist".
I wonder where we draw the line?
Regards

[AMEandPPL]

I wish someone would return the world to some form of rational place

Yes, don't we all ! Starting, of course, with Osama Bin Liner Esq.
Wish, by all means, but it's not going to happen !
The present restrictions are not going to change in most of our lifetimes.

[Bealzebub]

Has anyone here actually looked into the events that occurred to the four aircraft hijacked on 9/11? Not one pilot managed a single mayday, hijack call or managed to change the transponder code prior to the hijackers turning them off. Not one, out of 8 pilots.

Do you think that might just be because they were surprised and overwhelmed by groups of flight deck intruders on each flight and were trying to stop themselves being murdered ?

[AMEandPPL]

Do you think that might just be because they were surprised and overwhelmed by groups of flight deck intruders

PRECISELY ! ! !

Which is exactly the reason why access to the flight deck should be strictly limited in the way it is now . . . . . at least until some completely reliable means of pre-identifying those with malice aforethought is found and proven.

[FrequentSLF]

"Rules are for the adherence of fools, and the guidance of Wise Men."
( Sir D.Bader CBE,DSO & Bar, DFC & Bar, FRAeS,DL,RAF.)

Are you implying that a pilot that let a 15 years old taking his seat and get photographed doing that is a Wise Men?

[ECAM_Actions]

Do you think that might just be because they were surprised and overwhelmed by groups of flight deck intruders on each flight and were trying to stop themselves being murdered ?The pilots of Flight 93 weren't surprised - the company sent a message via ACARS to all company aircraft to be aware of cockpit intrusion a good 10-15 minutes before.

ECAM Actions.

[Bealzebub]

You mean they saw it coming and simply chose not to alert anybody? Get real! Company messages may not be read during busy periods, and even where they were, there was quite obviously a complete surprise for all the reasons you have already mentioned. Unless you are one of the "conspiracy theorists", in which case please call again when you are next visiting our planet! :suspect:

[mercurydancer]

Areyu/iceman

I am not a pilot... or havent you been paying attention? I am here because I investigate serious untoward incidents mainly on behalf of the Health and Safety Executive and Healthcare Commission. I specialise in healthcare incidents but have also considerable experience in transport incidents.

Lets get this very straight... I can and do investigate people like yourself when things go wrong. I have qualifications and experience not as aircrew or a surgeon but in risk management and NEBOSH that give me the ability to do so.

My instance of a drunk pilot is not irrelevant as it is a very marked example of how a passenger can confront the practices of a flight crew. I would also complain very strongly if I saw a child in a cockpit with his hands on the yoke.... is that relevant enough for you or do you think that just saying that I dont have pilot's qualifications that it wont mean that the captain that allowed such a practice wont be sacked? You really need to appreciate that people dont just accept the "oh you are just SLF" any more.

Your arrogance will either get you sacked or killed. And you are a far bigger fool than I ever will be because you cannot listen to others.

[chegarb]

....so what happened in the Aeroflot incident? How come the copilot did not notice the exit of normal flight in time to recover....As a paying passenger I would be fuming to know that the person(s) responsible for my life allow such events to occur... In aviation all can go to hell very quickly, why risk it further by such stunts....

[dannyjet]

They were chit-chatting with the uncle of the boy who was a passenger and was standing behind both pilots. I believe the Capt.'s daughter was there too. She sat first, put the hands on the yoke and her dad (Capt.) said to turn soft the aircraft to one side. She did it with minor pressure as the Capt. changed a couple of degrees in the heading selector of the auto pilot system, so it would look like if the daughter physically turned the plane.

Then the son's turn came and the dad did the same thing. By this point the FO was turned backwards talking to the uncle standing behind, the daughter was around, the Capt. was also talking with them and there were suddenly some seconds were the kid was the only one with his hands and his attention towards the aircraft. He tried to turn the yoke but it was locked due to the autopilot being on and was hard to move. As kids are, he tried harder and by this he disconnected the autopilot. I think the aircraft didn't have an audible signal for an autopilot off prompt, I believe there was only a light signal which to the rest, obviously went unnoticed. All this is based on what I've read, I'm not expert in the autopilot system in question.

It was during the night so it was dark, and the aircraft begun to enter slowly into a spiral dive. It is interesting to note why is it that the pilots, after the kid told them something was wrong, only paid attention to discrepancies in the their navigation instruments but not in their flight instruments. I would think one of the first things to check is if the AP is on and if it is or is not then see if the aircraft is in a proper attitude plus altitude, speed, and heading.

As far as I personally agree to maybe take your son to the cockpit just as an observer and behind you when flying airliners and to only touch the controls if we were flying a small Cessna where I can see everything he does, this accident shows how pilots get easily relaxed and can get easily distracted. As a pilot I think you gotta be a bit paranoid; it helps you think in what things could happen if A, B or C. And if it really happens you might find yourself a bit more prepared and anticipate problems. These Aeroflot pilots clearly didn't foresee this.

DU

[iceman50]

I think you are the one suffering from arrogance Mercurydancer. If you would care to read my post I only asked what your profession was so that I could understand your comments. You may well have the qualifications you say and I am here because I investigate serious untoward incidents mainly on behalf of the Health and Safety Executive and Healthcare Commission. I specialise in healthcare incidents but have also considerable experience in transport incidents. Please inform us as to which aircraft accidents / incidents that you have investigated, were you a member of the AAIB?

Your argument of a drunk pilot is just sensationalist and as a so called professional investigator an extremely childish one. Nobody has been defending that sort of action!

You may have qualifications on risk management but you do it from the comfort of your stationary chair in a stationary office with plenty of time to think. Some of us have to make quick decisions in a fast moving office and a huge amount of risk management has gone into our training and procedures.

You also seem to be suffering from this ridiculous feeling that you have the "right" to start complaining about things you "think" the crew might or might not be able to do, just because you are an "intelligent" passenger. WRONG or is that sort of interference not covered in your risk management training.

There is nothing wrong with you being here and contributing to the discussion just don't pontificate and use childish arguments.:ugh: You are making very "quick" and incorrect assumptions about me and my experience - very good investigative traits I think not!!

[Pace]

FrequentLF

Events like allowing a 15 year old young enthusiast happened everyday before 9/11 now the Captain is sacked.

I agree we will never return to the way it was before 9/11 and that is a sad reflection of society.

I read with horror that in the past year the uk government have introduced 3000 new criminal offences :ugh:

We have become obsessed with regulating anything that moves or breathes and turning ourselves into a disapproving big brother state which is miles away from the big speeches of defending freedom.

We are now less free and more controlled than ever and my postings are more a reflection of that sad state than an expectance that things will change back to before.

Where will it all stop! next will be that the doors are welded up to the passenger compartment, new pilot doors placed by the cockpit. No communication with Cabin crew! they would have to communicate by radio via a third party ground station as communication could be a threat and pilots escorted ny guards to and from the aircraft :rolleyes: may seem far fetched but with are obsession with rule making who knows ?

Pace

[Conan The Barber]

You really need to appreciate that people dont just accept the "oh you are just SLF" any more.

Everyone and his uncle are now so busy asserting themselves and their percieved rights, that they never seem to have time to consider if it is appropriate.

The "Me" seems to be worshipped and come before anything else. Everybody is an instant expert with the "right" to voice an opinion. Again, nobody seems to consider if it is appropriate.

[Bredrin]

I start by saying that the closed cockpit door rules probably would have come about anyway BUT,
911 was a bunch of guys hijacking a bunch of planes with a bunch of box cutters.
Prior to that date it WAS LEGAL in the USA and many other countries to carry knives/box cutters on board as long as the blade was no more than 4 inches long.
911...whose fault?
You decide.

Sorry kids, you can't visit the cockpit any more.

[AMEandPPL]

9 / 11...whose fault?

As another american twerp said so often: "Man, you can not be serious".

[p7lot]

This thread is typical of all that is wrong with the world today.
The rules are there as a standard checklist to ensure there is a standard.
They usually come about after a catalogue of experience ...most often bad and then one can extrapolate a method which works, or least likely to fail.
My mind wanders to something my father said about why they jumped from the aircraft on the CO's command.......without question.
The flightdeck is now out of bounds.....period.
This is evolution whether it be right or wrong and is now most company sop.
The job has changed, the aircraft have changed, the flightdeck has changed, whether we can accept it or not is the problem.
I could even fly unwashed and full of chicken sandwiches if I thought it would enhance my ability to command the aircraft but there is probably a notam forbidding it.

[AMEandPPL]

Well said, that man - totally agree !

Echoes my sentiments from as far back as posts #76-78.

["aux vaches"]

Cockpit Entry - common sense is redundant. A few years ago i was flying away on holiday with my young family (UK carrier, spanish captain)

Packed flight and guess who gets the aisle seat that is not actually bolted to the floor (whole seat easily moveable by hand)

On the ramp ready to push back, everyone looking impatient, muggins standing up asking "is this all right ?" - captain summoned from the flight deck. Charming and concerned he looked at the problem and called for an engineer who said i can't fix this quickly.

Captain said do you mind stting in the cockpit jump seat if i can get permission from "head office"

Captain comes back embarrassed and angry that after several "requests" permission has been refused (post 9/11) to use the obvious solution

He then asks me what do you want to do (deplane or risk the seat) i resent having to make this decision as it should not be mine to make and feel let down by a ridiculous decision from management about the obvious solution suggested by the captain.

I resist the urge to request that the captain is the PF for the landing and that i get a guarantee of compensation if i get injured/killed

I weigh up the pros and cons of a wrecked (expensive) family holiday versus the actual risk of needing all my seat bolts on this particular flight - and go with the one bolt left !

we live in a world where remote risks are often being replaced with real ones !!

[hot_stepper]

After reading this thread with some interest and still being amazed at the ability of some contributors not to read posts addressed to them properly, I felt I had to add my tuppence worth.

My love of aviation stems from 2 incidents when I was a child, one when I was 8 being alllowed into the cockpit of a Tri-star en-route to Malta from EGKK and being in their for about half an hour being shown all the 'screens', buttons & controls by the FO whilst my mum was being chatted up by the Captain (Handy to have an attractive & single mum then lol). The second was when I was 12, again en-route from EGKK to Malaga where shortly after take off I requested to visit the FD and was allowed and proceeded to be invited to stay there in the jump seat for the entire duration of the flight including landing and taxiing... I was allowed into the LHS, allowed to take the yoke, follow through the autopilot and then for about 60 secs the AP was disengaged and I was able to hold the aircraft steady (with the FO having his hands on the RHS controls also), I was even supervised changing the co-ordinates on the AP.... It was, as you can imagine, truly amazing (the flare freaked me out a bit at the time lol).

Now, sadly the most we can hope for is a brief visit to the FD before take off, as I was able to do for my son 6 weeks ago from Orlando..

However, it intrigues me how Mercury Dancer can make comments like
"As a passenger I would have objected to a child being on the flight deck" as surely at 47 years old he would have been flying pre 9/11, even when I was 12 in 1989 he would have been 28 and just how many times did he object to a child being on the FD? I would bet that it was a big fat none. But surely, if his argument was vaild, that he would object to a child on the FD as they are an unsafe person (from a control perspective), rather than the fact that it breaks mosts companies SOP's, then he would have been objecting on most flights he's ever taken between 1961 and now - Infact I hazard a guess that he felt himself unsafe to visit the FD when he was a child and therefore doesn't see why anyone else should have had the chance to do it.

Lastly, as much as I may not like the closed FD door policy, the likelihood remains that if a policy such as 'allow little Johnny's & Janet's access during flight, what harm can it do?', would undoubtedly be exploited by those with harmful intentions at some point using an impressionable child as a tool :(

[Bealzebub]

"aux vaches"

Any professional pilot reading this would have their head in their hands.

It isn't a question of "common sense", the rules relating to who may or may not sit sit in the flight deck are from statutes empowering the DfT to issue mandatory instructions to all UK carriers and to those foreign carriers operating into and out of United Kingdom territory and airspace. The company had no discretion or authority to endorse or sanction any request that violated the law. What the Captain might have done in extremis, would no doubt be subsequently judged on its own merits, but you can be assured that any violation of this rule for purely routine maintenance items was a complete non starter.

Seats are not usually individual items, so if yours was not secured to the floor rails, presumably the entire row was insecure. If indeed this was the case, then no right minded Captain would sanction departing in such a condition. Even if the row was unoccupied, the potential danger of a loose major item of cabin equipment would normally preclude departing in that condition.

I am afraid it all sounds a little bit suspect, but if indeed the Captain sought permission to set aside the rules, and was denied that permission (as you would expect), then that is not a failing of the company managment, in fact quite the opposite, they complied as they were lawfully required to do! Your "obvious solution" wasn't in fact any solution at all. The Captain presumably knew that, otherwise he wouldn't have needed to seek further guidance. The company knew that as well.

Again, it is hard to imagine any Captain certifying the acceptance of a seat in an unsafe condition, and given the nature of these seat rows I am a little sceptical that he actually did, although I appreciate your interpretation of the situation, it may lack the full facts that were prevalant at the time. However you were there and I wasn't, so if what you say was the case, then this Captain would seem to have made some very poor and fundamentaly flawed decisions. Safety would be a paramount concern and any perception that your "expensive" holiday would be wrecked, or that statutory rules and regulations should be set aside to change that priority would be risible to any aircraft commander.

[FrequentSLF]

However, it intrigues me how Mercury Dancer can make comments like
"As a passenger I would have objected to a child being on the flight deck" as surely at 47 years old he would have been flying pre 9/11, even when I was 12 in 1989 he would have been 28 and just how many times did he object to a child being on the FD? I would bet that it was a big fat none. But surely, if his argument was vaild, that he would object to a child on the FD as they are an unsafe person (from a control perspective), rather than the fact that it breaks mosts companies SOP's, then he would have been objecting on most flights he's ever taken between 1961 and now - Infact I hazard a guess that he felt himself unsafe to visit the FD when he was a child and therefore doesn't see why anyone else should have had the chance to do it.

While I understand your happiness for what happened to you and frankly I envy it. I am totally against your post. First of all you should not have anything personal with another poster, secondly you should not forget that an Airbus 310 crashed because of the actions of a children in the cockpit. Yourself mention in your post that you sit at the commands, exactly what happened in the Aereoflot crash...Am I ready to gamble on it? My answer is a NO NO. No matter what other FO will say, if I see a children going to the cockpit I will raise the issue. I do not distrust the FO however experience teaches...
Regards

["aux vaches"]

Thanks for the professional background - sorry to force your head into your hands ! What seems obvious to SLF is never the whole story and I now understand that no means no.

The seat (mainly the back) was very loose on its mountings and it was a weekly charter that was already several hours late departing so i suspect time pressure was allowed undue influence. The engineer "fixed" the back in an upright position with reduced wobble (but i obviously would not have seen any paperwork that allowed it as a deferred defect).

presumably most other captains would have disembarked the whole plane to wait for maintenance/replacement of the seat/row ?

"aux vaches"

[cockney steve]

Playing devil's advocate...........
Mercurydancer = safety-police...It's his JOB to decide things are unsafe and therefore maintain a nice number in enforcement employment....I'd be interested to know where his god-like superior derives his superior wisdom to dictate to us foolish mortals just what "risks" we are allowed to take.

Other protagonists in the spat........

If you were in an operating theatre,(possibly as an observer) and KNEW the surgeon was departing from safe,established ,legislated procedure and had NOT been briefed on that departure, you would, IMHO be well within your rights to question him.

Just because you hold the qualification,does not exclude all others from knowledge....to suggest it does, is arrogant.

IMHO the legislation is flawed, incompetently administered and a diversionary tactic by politicos to obfuscate their bungling ineptitude.

Captain RULES the aircraft....notwithstanding the Aeroflot accident,( It's probably the ONLY accident in the history of commercial aviation in the civilised world caused by cockpit visitors) the FD crew KNOW they're in the front line if they foul up....the vast majority don't have a death-wish! They're paid to MANAGE...let them!

The brief outline of the Aeroflot accident demonstrates an extraordinary lack of crew management, discipline and procedures (Aviate Navigate Communicate, anyone?)....Hopefully all pilots learned from that....I'm sure it wouldn't happen again,if F/D visits were to be reinstated.

[mercurydancer]

iceman... the comments about arrogance getting people sacked was more directed at Atreyu than you, but hey if the cap fits.

OK I am outed as a Health and Safety Executive investigator! Nowadays its easier to admit to being gay (which I am not but only say so to avoid flak)

Not done any AAIB investigations but there is no reason why I shouldnt. My area of knowldege is a little specialised in that I look at bodies of people who have died in incidents. I imagine that there would be a few of them in an air crash. There certainly was a lot of them at Paddington/Ladbroke Grove. You see I'm one of those that pick up the pieces.

I dont pontificate... and NEVER judge... just the facts ma'am. The (god like) superiors I have submitted reports to and given evidence before certainly do pontificate and give judgement... Lord Cullen for one....

hot stepper... pre-9/11 I wouldnt have batted an eyelid at anyone going on to the flight deck. So thats your argument gone. Post 9/11 I would. I'd howl like a banshee. If you cant beleive that then youre not paying attention.

[Pace]

I do not think anyone here is really clamouring for passengers being allowed to visit the cockpit in flight nowadays.

Most of us are purely looking back at what used to be and how 9/11 has changed the face of the world and it is with sadness that those changes have occurred.
We also need to remember the massive costs that 9/11 has caused our industry. I am sure it must go into $billions in security checks, delays and lost productivity to passengers.

Government have created a massive secirity industry within an industry but at the cost to aviation.

Commercial passenger flying goes back many decades and in the time up to 9/11 there must have been millions of people who have visted the flight deck in that time.

It was standard procedure once the aircraft was in the cruise to invite families and especially their kids to go up and say hello to the crew. It gave the crew the ability to communicate with their customers and to contribute to customer relationships which was something special.

It also gave the crew something else to do rather than yet another crossword.

The stupid thing is that in millions of flights 9/11 could have happened at any time even back in the days of prop driven airliners but it didnt.

What was commonplace and even encouraged is now regarded by posters here as almost a crime. That to me is indicative of the almost paranoic attitude and brainwashing 9/11 caused to our views on security.
There were so many speeches made by politicians on how the terrorists must not be allowed to win! How we had all fought for the freedoms we held so dear. Yet what empty words because the terrorists won big time and in my humble opinion we lost a lot big time.

Anyway in the business jets that I fly I still have communication with my passengers, they still wander up to say hello, I still can build relationships with them.

So it is not a demand to open the doors to the past but a sad relection of where we have got to now not only in our loss of freedom but our own attitudes.

Pace

[Pace]

MercuryDancer

I suggest if you are what you say and so, so concerned with safety issues that you take yourself off on a friday night in the rush hour onto the London tube system.

Your safety obsessions would cause you many sleepless nights! You would see thousands of people pushing and clamouring through the styles of all colours and types dragging hundreds of cases behind them.
You would see trains packed with equal numbers to any airline and above all you would see NO SECURITY WHATSOVER.

Easy game for any terrorist to take as much explosives onto a train unchallenged. Why bother with aircraft?

If you hold public safety in such esteem then maybe you should make that your mission because the tubes bother me a lot.

But and its a big BUT! The Government know there is no practical way they can do anything about it, so they close their eyes and keep their fingers crossed.

Terrorism = Aviation Aviation = Terrorism.

Pace

[Finn47]

As a sidenote, 15 year old kids have been known to snap & go berserk. Once upon a time over Lake Ontario, I was demonstrating a gentle stall. Shouldn´t have, as the girl next to me got hysterical and tried her damndest to yank my hands away from the controls. Succeeded, too. Needless to say I never took her flying again.
Furthermore, I also broke off our engagement. And this was a person I thought I knew :uhoh:

[Pace]

I am shaking with fear as in the business jets I fly there are no doors between me and the 8 passenegers behind anyone of them could loose the plot and go berserk! You have identified a serious threat! Maybe someone should legislate to having doors welded into business jets or ban business jets as a high risk altogether :( Even that wouldnt surprise me.

Pace

[AMEandPPL]

It also gave the crew something else to do rather than yet another crossword

My apologies if this is very slightly off the original thread topic, but this is something which is a really genuine change since what has become known as "9/11". I refer, of course, to BOREDOM.

I've been an AME for 23 years now, seeing literally hundreds of professional aircrew every year. Prior to Sept 2001 I doubt if I ever, ever, heard in our conversations a single mention of boredom in the cruise. Nowadays it is frequently mentioned. The crew are locked in the F/D, unable to socialise, unable to have visitors (even though the AP is actually flying the aircraft from minute to minute). We read on other threads of crews who have (both ! ) fallen asleep, and in many ways who can be surprised ?

Boredom also adds, of course, to perceived stress levels - - as if they were not high enough already !

I've made it clear in this thread already that I believe that once the rules are in place they must be obeyed - by EVERYBODY. But it's still a great disappointment . . . . . . not only for folk like me who used to enjoy visiting my own "patients" at the pointy end on most of my trips abroad, but also for them because of boredom on the very long sectors flown nowadays.

[Pace]

AmeandPPL

That is a point that has been missed in the changes since 9/11. Aircraft have become far more automated and the crews more isolated.

Going back a long way crews were crews and flew together on a regular basis which still happens in the business jet invironment but does not in the airline invironment.

In the business jet invironment we still have both! passenger interaction and a co-pilot/ first officer you tend to know better or even as a friend.

In business jets the co-pilot/first officer/ captain may go back and sort the catering so there is a far greater interaction throughout the flight than in the detached airline invironment.

Where there are no night stopovers and different Captains / first officers who do not have a relationship that too makes for a slightly detached situation.

Obviously there are also problems in flying with someone you know well or as a friend but there must also be negatives in flying with a literal stranger.

You would be better placed to know whether studies have been carried out on boredom and its contribution to stress/fatigue?

Maybe the inflight entertainment system should be available to the crew too to fill the times when you wish the jet could do 2000 kts :)

Stress levels prob increase when there is nothing to do or keep the mind working. There is in a funny way a relaxation when you reach the descent point and your work comes alive or in the departure segment again when your mind is alive and busy.

Pace

[tuskegee airman]

Pace, can any random person purchase a ticket and fly aboard your business jet? Forgive my ignorance as your answer will help me understand some of the points you make.

If you fly for a "select" set of persons, might this not be why you are free to mingle with them. i believe (subject to correction) that if any member of the public could access a seat on your aircraft then things may be a bit different.

[tuskegee airman]

"Other protagonists in the spat........

If you were in an operating theatre,(possibly as an observer) and KNEW the surgeon was departing from safe,established ,legislated procedure and had NOT been briefed on that departure, you would, IMHO be well within your rights to question"


IF HE HANDED THE SCALPEL TO A 15 Y/O WANNABEE SURGEON.... I WOULD SQUEEL LIKE THE PROVERBIAL STUCK PIG;);)

[AMEandPPL]

can any random person purchase a ticket and fly aboard your business jet?

Answer is basically : "YES". If you can afford to charter a private jet, then you can pretty much dictate the conditions prevailing on-board.

I do medicals for several people who fly for outfits such as Net Jets, and I'm often absolutely horrified at the stories I hear of people who have more money than manners.

[Pace]

tuskegeeAirman

>Pace, can any random person purchase a ticket and fly aboard your business jet? Forgive my ignorance as your answer will help me understand some of the points you make.

If you fly for a "select" set of persons, might this not be why you are free to mingle with them. i believe (subject to correction) that if any member of the public could access a seat on your aircraft then things may be a bit different.<

Theoretically anyone with the money could hire a business jet most are for company use by well established companies, celebrities and wealthy or "percieved " wealthy individuals.

Pace

[Pace]

AMEandPPL

The whole change in security has come about to stop someone gaining access to an aircraft and performing another 9/11 by using the aircraft as a mobile bomb.

Maybe you are in a position to answer an idea that came to me?
I know in the car industry there is research going on into smart technology to stop cars being stolen through the use of computers and chips.

Is it possible through that techology to code the pilots so that the aircraft identifies the pilots and only allows them to manipulate the controls?

What I am getting at here is finger print identification, Iris identification or even gene identification through saliva as well as camera/visual identification.

The pilots would be coded through an airline so that the jet would identify the crew of the day and only respond to them?

That surely would stop another 9/11 or at least further add a security block which would allow other security to be relaxed.

Pace

[ExSp33db1rd]

Pace

Unless technology could continually identify the person at the controls throughout the flight, you suggestion wouldn't work.

Applying it to 9/11, the first, airline crew, would be identified and the controls unlocked for them - a hijacker subsequently sat in the Captains seat whilst, technologically, it was systems normal in flight.

If your technology detected a new Alien at the controls in flight - as happened in 9/11, or even an approved 15 yr old visitor - what would technology do ? Freeze the controls and shut down the engines ?

[R04stb33f]

Do any of you pilots actually enjoy your job anymore?

I mean it sounds like a bit of a PITA having to put up with security screening, 15 year old wannabes wanting to visit the FD, the press blowing everything out of proportion in the industry, being stuck in the front office for hours on end, being in fear of your lives every day that maybe someone will try to compromise the aircraft, crew changes all the time, and worst of all, having to put up with us - how did someone put it earlier - great unwashed sandwich munching self loading freight...

15 years ago, I would have given my right testicle to fly an aircraft for a living. It doesn't seem to be so attractive a profession anymore reading what some of you guys write.

Rich

[ExSp33db1rd]

Do any of you pilots actually enjoy your job anymore?

Interesting question.

When I started with the airlines, my 'old' Captains reckoned that they had had the best time in aviation, Lancasters over the Target, then the big pistons, Connies, Strats etc and finally the jet age with the 707 - which had to be flown, and kicked into submission lest it turn around and bit you.

I reckon I had the best - no chance of being shot at, big pistons, and finally the original 747 which was only very basically automatic. I wouldn't know where to start with an FMS, FADEC etc. etc. on the present big jets.

I guess it's a generation thing. I would be very surprised if the present crews don't enjoy what they are doing.

Right now I have the best of all - a single seat microlight with an open cockpit, no ATC ( no tower on the airfield ) no flight planning, no security problems, no weather problems ( if it rains or blows I don't fly ) on a nice sunny evening I just drive on to the airfield, open the hangar, push out the aircraft - and go fly over the Beautiful Bay of Islands in the North of New Zealand. Eat your heart out !!! :ok:

[Pace]

>If your technology detected a new Alien at the controls in flight - as happened in 9/11, or even an approved 15 yr old visitor - what would technology do ? Freeze the controls and shut down the engines ?<

NO ;) If There was a major deviation from the flight planned route in the FMS it would require a code to be entered to disengage the autopilot ie the autopilot would lock onto the existing route. In that mode the normal autopilot disengage would not operate! Who would fly it anyway if the crew were not in the front end :) ?

Who knows in the future it may be quite possible for the aircraft to be controlled from the ground as in existing unmanned aircraft.

But frankly with the existing way anyone determined enough could gain access! All they would have to do is to wait for one of the crew to visit the toilets position themselves by the toilet as a waiting passeneger and push their way in as the Captain/First officer re entered the cockpit.

You either isolate the crew completely ie NO toilet access, No cabin crew access, No coaxing out of the cockpit with aircraft problems or passenger problems or the whole existing system is a public relations exercise with little practical anti terrorism purpose.

Pace

[hot_stepper]

Mercury Dancer
Apologies for misunderstanding your direction of comment earlier, it seemed to me that you were saying any FD visitor was unfit from the perspective of proper control of the AC (which would have been the case pre 9/11). However, from your last comment it appears you were just saying that post 9/11 and SOP's having changed, that an FD visitor now would cause you concern then I agree.

As I said in my earlier post, if FD visits were re-instated even if just for children, it wouldn't take too long for someone with harmful intentions to exploit it.

As trains were mentioned earlier - does anyone know the current OP's of Trains & Ferries? I'm guessing these have changed as well for I remember as an 11 yr old travelling alone on B.Rail one day, being invited to complete my journey with the Train driver and briefely taking control of the train also (the Dead man's lever), also at 9 I had the fortune to be invited to the bridge of a ferry and had a go at steering that too. (That's if the OP's ever allowed this type of thing in the first place come to think of it). Combined with the aviation experiences I mentioned before, I was pretty lucky with childhood experiences.

[Pace]

>As trains were mentioned earlier - does anyone know the current OP's <

i dont really think with trains any need would be required to actually take control of a train. You could hardly deviate and head to the nearest tower block.

But all it would take on the miles of intercity track is to blow up a section in front of a high speed train to derail the lot and cause no end of damage or to see the total lack of security on the packed london tubes to realise the potential danger and threat.

But we all know how impossible it would be to do anything to stop such an occurence so government target aviation. They have built an industry and thousands of jobs within the aviation industry through security and at the cost of the aviation industry.

This has been with the false presumption or excuse that Aviation= terrorism and Terrorism = aviation assisted by the press and media.

Pace

[ExSp33db1rd]

Who would fly it anyway if the crew were not in the front end

The same people who flew the 9/11 guided missiles.

I accept the policy of the auto-pilot routeing only being able to be changed by someone with the right PiN - but I thought we were pilots, not computer programmers ? The mind boggles at the thought of errors such as I daily experience on my computer, and it would breed a whole new concept of hijackers, not only would they have to gain access to the flight deck, they would have to be computer 'hackers' too. Don't believe it couldn't happen.

Glad I only have a microlight to worry about, and NO airport security goons to pass. That's a real bonus !

[iceman50]

Mercurydancer - the cap does not fit so you had better put it back on yourself, not arrogant and judgemental. Hmmm:suspect:

Your inappropriate comments had NO bearing on this discussion, so don't try to justify them with your "expert credentials".

[Pace]

Exsp33db1rd

>>I accept the policy of the auto-pilot routeing only being able to be changed by someone with the right PiN - but I thought we were pilots, not computer programmers ? The mind boggles at the thought of errors such as I daily experience on my computer, and it would breed a whole new concept of hijackers, not only would they have to gain access to the flight deck, they would have to be computer 'hackers' too. Don't believe it couldn't happen.

Glad I only have a microlight to worry about, and NO airport security goons to pass. That's a real bonus !<<

Just after 9/11 I was flying then as a first officer on a citation 560 out of London. The Government in their wisdom placed a 20 mile restriction zone around the city. as we routed up alongside that restriction zone passing 20,000 feet in the climb we calculated that it would take us 2.5 minutes in a dive to hit parliament had we been so inclined! ie before anyone could blink an eye. Totally an impracticle move By the government for public digestion only.

When pilots here talk of the restrictions and presumed safety with the no access policy today i will paste my comments from above

>You either isolate the crew completely ie NO toilet access, No cabin crew access, No coaxing out of the cockpit with aircraft problems or passenger problems or the whole existing system is a public relations exercise with little practical anti terrorism purpose<

Any potential terrorist could gain access Today so I have to presume that this present system is itself more about public digestion of safety rather than any reality.

Good for you with the Microlight :) I still get a buzz with Biz jet ferries but can still see the appeal of what you fly today.

Pace

[tuskegee airman]

In my org. tho the FD is off limits steps are taken to mitigate the risks while crews visit the washroom. Something as simple as no pax in the vicinity of said washroom while the crew went in/out works quite well. To my knowledge none of our passengers ever objected when politely requested to defer to the cockpit crew. If a pax decides to hang around or move toward the fwd area then the door remains closed/locked/bolted til they are clear. If a problem arises in cruise that is serious enough for one of us to go back and have a look then the same rules apply. If we are "detained":uhoh: while back there? The other guy/gal upfront can still land somewhere close.

We seem to be focussed on 9/11 for the most part here. Tho that was perhaps the watershed moment we need to look beyond that and accept that bad things can happen when unauthorised persons enter the FD. Can anyone recall the Nigerian (i believe) Airways B767 that was hijacked and ordered to fly well beyond the endurance of the aircraft? In that particular situation the crew was taken out of the decision making loop with disastrous results. By all indications the hijackers had no desire to destroy the aircraft or any property (though they claimed to have had a bomb), they wanted to fly to somewhere they perceived as safe. Had they been kept off the FD at all cost the crew would have had the opportunity to land somewhere safe and refuel/negotiate or whatever was deemed appropriate to secure the lives of those aboard.

[captplaystation]

Ethiopian Airlines off the Comores.
I guess explaining to the goons that when fmc says "insufficient fuel" (if indeed they reprogrammed it for their "guests" desired new destination ) it means it.

[Finn47]

SQUEEL LIKE THE PROVERBIAL STUCK PIG http://static.pprune.org/images/smilies/wink2.gifhttp://static.pprune.org/images/smilies/wink2.gif You know what? That so very accurately describes the sound my fiancee made for five straight seconds right before she started yanking my hands off the control column

What was supposed to be a pleasure flight turned into something else, so I turned the plane back to Toronto Island and landed

(OK, I´ll shut up now. Actually I´m glad I found out - before it was too late :hmm: )

[mercurydancer]

Iceman... I can live with the arrogance and judgemental bit... youre wrong but I can live with it... but NO relevance... lets take this one step at a time... I did say in my first post on this subject that the drunk pilot was an extreme example, are you saying now that it has NO relevance? None at all??? That is plainly ridiculous.

hot stepper... SOP for trains is very similar to FD... ie no unauthorised staff in the driver's area. The area is usually locked and by most of the companies I have seen, even local trains, the cabin door is locked.

[mercurydancer]

pace

I'm not obsessed with safety! however I do take your point about the tube. It is and remains a terrorist target but thats far from my realm of work. Interestingly enough the derailment of a high speed train as terrorist action was seriously considered in the Potter's Bar investigation. It remains a remote possibility but still possible. A huge body count as a result of a train sabotage is much easier than an air hijack but not as spectacular.

[tuskegee airman]

captplaystation
appreciate the clarification.

In my books tis worth it to keep all visitors away from the FD in flight if it means I stopped just one "goon".

[captplaystation]

Just in the last month ETA placed some explosive devices on TGV (high speed train ) lines in France, in appreciation of the enhanced cooperation Sarkozy offers to Spain. There were warnings ( this time:sad:) but it is obviously a ridiculously easy target as it would be impossible to police the thousands of km of lines. Fortunately, in the past when these types of trains have gone bush ,they have, by virtue of their design ,tended to stay upright thereby avoiding the level of carnage when older trains fell off in all directions.
Along with the Metro in London/ Paris or wherever, the situation I always felt vulnerable in was when using the channel-tunnel, another easy enough target. You would like to think with all these other alternatives avail they would lay off aircraft, but nothing quite makes the headlines as much as a pile of smouldering aluminium and a big hole in the ground even if they can't now place the hole where they want it with the ease of pre 9/11.
I too lived the "open cockpit door" epoque, and many a boring long charter was enhanced by charming company sourced from the cabin. As a previous poster said, great thing for a young lad to have a yummy-mummy if he wants to see the cockpit. Alas, no more milfs for us now, and I suppose thinking back, we did leave ourself vulnerable to any nut-case that asked to come in. A few times we have had visitors who were a sandwich short of a picnic, and afterwards discussed that we had been quite happy to let that one go and let another more normal one in, but I don't think anyone in their darkest nightmares could have come up with the box-cutter followed by re-routing to the 35th floor scenario.
Sad these innocent times are long gone, but they are, and like so many other things in life that suck, we just have to live with it and cherish the memories.

[ExSp33db1rd]

Pace

Thank you, appreciate the comments and I agree that total isolation in a hermetically sealed cockpit is the only answer, and then accepting that you will not be able to divert due to a perfectly innocent passenger medical problem, because if the cabin crew can talk to you, you will hear a screaming stewardess with a knife up her knickers trying to persuade you to accede to the hijackers demands. You'd need a galley tho' - for the 14 hour night flights.

Which is why I get very upset at the present security nonsense, which is achieving nothing more than preventing the odd screwball who wants to visit his grandma in Cuba, the real bad guys will achieve what they want, when they want to, and are just laughing at us.

Aus. has just introduced full body X-ray scanners - to public uproar. and it has been admitted that it will not show nitro-glycerine ( or whatever ! ) in a condom hidden in a body cavity. So just what is the point - porno pictures for the security goons ? Don't start me, I become irrational.

Sun shining, w/v 2 gusting 3, 1/8 Sc. Vis. 50 nm+ - time to fly the microlight down to an airfield 30 nm. away for lunch !! ( will take my GPS tho' - you canna be too careful :ok: )

P.s. Microlight ? ALPI Pioneer-300, V.P. prop. retractable gear, 130 kts cruise, 2 p.o.b. for 4 hours plus baggage - tell that to a Cessna 152 ! Still a microlight in NZ tho'

[Pace]

Captplaystation

Well put ! I dont think any of us are expecting or wanting a return to pre 9/11days as those have long since gone. any idea of a return is pie in the sky.

Maybe its more of an uneasiness at where we have arrived at and a concern of where we could go to that has created such an unease in this thread.

I am cynical where governments are concerned and suspicious of the motives.
I detest Hypocracy and feel that both the Green issues and the security issues have been used for self motives by numerous governments in the name of Green issues and security.

I would have a lot more appreciation of the regulations if they were handed out in a level and equal manner across all modes of transport .But they are not especially cocerning aviation.

The message which has come through in this thread is that most of the oldtimers who have a soul and loved their work and spurred such passionate debate would not want the aviation we have today.

That is where we have lost. We have lost in the freedoms we had, the pure adventure, passion, colour and individual thinking of pilots and are replaced with the computer and the regulations and the almost computer and cold brains of the modern pilot.

Maybe its that, that some of us mourn. In the future computers will rule and the pilot would be better called a monitor of computers a flight deck manager more than the colourful and exciting idea of a pilot that used to be.

Pace

[Ankaput]

Hey, while I agree that sitting in the control seat is a whole HEAP of fun for a youngster, I assume the pilot was responsible enough ( I hope) to have the plane in such a condition that the little lad could have the fun without the obvious risks. Frankly, i would rather he get his jollies elsewhere!

I also think it reasonable that if I am paying the SLF fare - thus your wages - that this be the case.

You want to encourage new pilots? Then perhaps spend a bit less time slagging off the fare payers and dig into your well lined pockets to give children the experience. Flying is not a theme park ride; or is it, and therefore the whole illusion of your competency just a sham?

Do reply; this media hack would love to hear of it!
[email protected]

[mercurydancer]

Ankaput

No the air crew's skill and competence isnt an illusion its real and very relevant despite the Hal9000 stylee posts here.

[youcangetholdofjules]

I think back to my youth when my father who was a commercial pilot for a small airline used to get 50 feet off the ground and hand the plane over to me. He was no maverick - an A-Cat airforce pilot for 24 years, flew the queen mother round all over the place back in the day.

Different story when you have a twin engine jet with a hundred or so people on board, but why get so PC - the captain would have still been in control, there are two flight crew you know... I find it hard to believe that the coolest experience in some kids life turns out to be the worst experience in some experienced pilots life... its a bit bloody silly.

This was nothing like the Aeroflot incident that others refer to.

[411A]

I have no time for operators or individuals that adopt an 'A la carte' approach to regulations......

Well, well, well, it would seem, ASFKAP, that we have at last found some common ground.

Maybe....:}

[FrequentSLF]

youcangetholdofjules

This was nothing like the Aeroflot incident that others refer to.

Can you substantiate such claim?
Thanks

[738FO]

Most Airline Companies Have Very Strict Policy , NO Other people are allowed in the FD except for the crew. I have no idea whats gone into the Captain's head , but he must have a good reason for letting the kid sit on his chair. Still i dont think its right. there are still a lot of risks, knowing hes got a few hundred of souls in the cabin to think of. :=

[tuskegee airman]

Am I in the minority here as a professional Airline Pilot who did not enjoy a great cockpit visit as a youngster? I spent many a day wandering around/sitting in parked S/E Cessnas at a local flying school but never enjoyed my first flight til age 20. Tried to visit the F/D then but was politely informed by one of the CC that the Capt was not able to accomodate us at that time (if he/she ever got the request). I wondered if it was because we were four males in our early twenties who were obviously not of the same family. (We were on our way to attend a training course). That disappointment did not dim my desire to become a pilot.

youcangetholdofjules quote...

"I find it hard to believe that the coolest experience in some kids life turns out to be the worst experience in some experienced pilots life... its a bit bloody silly. "

The "coolest experience" in the life of that lad aboard Aeroflot resulted in the worst experience in the lives of all aboard! I wonder if the loved ones left behind thinks it was worth it. I accept that there were differences on that Aeroflot FD, it is the similarities that I have issues with. There has to be a standard and if it takes another "rule" to ensure we all act responsibly then so be it.

My first flight mentioned above was in the back of a 747 to LHR. The next time I landed at LHR (23 yrs later) was in the RH seat of a wide-body jet. My point? A refused FD visit will not put off someone with the love and desire to become an aviator, especially if the refusal includes an invitation to visit while at the gate.

An emergency willl not automatically result every time a visitor sits at the controls of an airliner in flight or a kid is told to flick some light switch or other. However; since things can go horribly wrong without warning, why add another variable/distraction?

[flash8]

This is all about judgment, and the guy made the wrong call, just as Pablo did.

He knew the rules and he chose not to follow them. Whether they are right, wrong or downright silly.

I expect that many here will disagree but he knew the risks (to his career) but failed to exercise the judgment required to keep his job.

I have some sympathy for him but in the end he only has himself to blame.

[Nigd3]

I have watched this debate with growing interest and I agree with Flash8 in that if the pilot breached company regs, then he should expect disciplinary action. Its pretty simple.

I also tend to agree with mercury dancer with regards his views that risk mitigation processes can be applied across various professions, especially where high levels of responsibility/severe consequences are placed with an individual. Whether you see him as arrogant or not is irrelevant as to whether he makes valid points, so his views should be considered without the initial reaction of him not being a pilot and not knowing what he is talking about.

[Southernboy]

It's pretty simple really, just ask yourself if you'd let a kid sit in your seat while you left the flight deck. If the answer's Yes, then I'd worry about being on your aeroplane personally.

In the days when FD visits were common I once had a couple of 10 year olds up front with their little flyer log books & one suddenly reached for both red fire handles saying, "What happens if I pull these?" He left rather faster than he was anticipating & backwards too.

[TripleBravo]

Let's put two things straight:

1) Anyone confusing cockpit with kindergarden does not deserve a seat in the front row. Full stop. Yes, I'm a pilot myself. Anyone telling me he would be comfortable and the situation would be completely under control while allowing a child to touch controls and sitting in his seat - does not know much about children. Perhaps you guys spend a little more time at home watching your own ones. Yes, I'm a father myself.

2) Anyone talking that arrogant and dirty about his / her customers as it appears to be common amongst certain people here, does not deserve to have a well paid job in the service industry. I'm a frequent customer as well, and I don't like to be spit at (verbally) nor my concerns to be to hold up to ridicule.

In case you don't understand: It's a completely different story what you do in your own / rented single engine than in a commercial airliner while on duty. Amazing how this could be mixed up by people who are so proud that they pass their tests twice a year... :ugh:


EDIT
Just added, so it isn't mixed up: This has NOTHING to do with 9/11 hysteria, hermetically closed cockpit door or allowing an adult / adolescent in the jump seat. It's just about kids in your own seat and physically at the controls while flying, which should be a no-no to any intelligent person, regardless of regulations. For those who are crying about the relationship to their little admirers: Simply invite them while on ground.

[Pace]

It's pretty simple really, just ask yourself if you'd let a kid sit in your seat while you left the flight deck. If the answer's Yes, then I'd worry about being on your aeroplane personally.

In the days when FD visits were common I once had a couple of 10 year olds up front with their little flyer log books & one suddenly reached for both red fire handles saying, "What happens if I pull these?" He left rather faster than he was anticipating & backwards too.

I think we are really ALL missing the point and making media/press like colourful statements is irrelevant.

For me this is not about whether an ADHD kid starts grabbing at things on his cockpit visit its something more fundamental.

Prior to 9/11 and going back decades before and probably millions of cockpit visits I would imagine that statistically the chances of a cockpit visit being the cause of serious threat to the aircraft would not figure. So this has to be more about a change of attitude and percieved threat since 9/11.

For me this thread is about the isolation of the crew post 9/11. I think it was PPL AME who brought up a valid point of boredom and isolation on the flight deck causing stress level increases. Maybe someone has the statistics for accidents caused by boredom?

Taking away the inflamatory examples of wayward kids why dont we look at the fact that the Captain no longer has a walk back to mingle with his customers or chat with the cabin crew while now the crew are isolated and locked away.

Being equally colourful. Where do we stop?

Weld up the cabin door, cut out pilot doors, install toilet and wash facilities in the cockpit.
Then why not security guards to transport the crew to the aircraft. Have no communication with the cabin crew incase the crew make emotional descisions and have the cabin crew contact the crew through third parties ground based by radio.

The ground based operators can then sift through the messages and decide whether they should be passed or not? Just in case!

Pace

[AMEandPPL]

For me this thread is about the isolation of the crew post 9/11. I think it was AMEandPPL who brought up a valid point of boredom and isolation on the flight deck causing stress level increases. Maybe someone has the statistics for accidents caused by boredom?

No cold statistics, I'm afraid. There might be somewhere, but I wouldn't hold your breath on that one ! In an accident report the words "inattention" or "distraction" are much more likely to be used than "boredom".

Just my own observations and experience. Prior to 11 Sept 2001 all my visitors enjoyed all aspects of the job, and that included the "social" side whilst in a long stable cruise. Mingling with passengers down at the back, or having visitors up at the front - both passed the time very nicely. Boredom was NEVER EVER mentioned.

But it is now, by almost ALL of my visitors who fly long-haul. Much less likely to occur on short-haul or domestic, for obvious enough reasons.

[mercurydancer]

Whilst I get a little (!) upset about visitors to the FD I have appreciated FD crew walking the aircraft and talking to passengers. Mainly on long haul for obvious reasons. Without exception the FD crew have been courteous and have responded to my obvious interest in aviation. I have had many fascinating conversations with pilots, completely unlike the response I have had in this thread, which mystifies me.

[JustOccurred2Me]

I'm nobbut an SLF, but I've been lucky enough to enjoy the odd FD visit over the years. It's an exhilarating experience if you enjoy flying, like I do.

However, a lot of people "put up" with flying, rather than enjoying it. And sitting in a comfy(ish) cabin watching the clouds float by is very different from being "up front".

On my last FD visit (Virgin 747 from Las Vegas, July 00) my wife was with me, only her 2nd trip on a plane. She was okay in the cabin, but very nervous in the cockpit when we were being shown the various gadgets (pilot demonstrated the weather radar, etc). She said afterwards that the fact that "no-one was holding the steering wheel" absolutely terrified her, and she was scared that "playing with the controls" would somehow hurt the plane.

I think this is probably a common feeling, and I promise you, she'd never get on a plane again if she thought someone who didn't really know what they were doing had their hands on the wheel.

Just to say, though, that a lot of passengers (me included) have nothing but respect for air crew so please don't tar us all with the same brush.

Also a big thanks to the Thompsonfly pilot who let my 6yr old daughter have a quick peek in the cockpit after landing at Doncaster this summer, she's still talking about it three months later. Think you've got a pilot-in-training booked for about 2028...

[tuskegee airman]

[QUOTE]"Prior to 9/11 and going back decades before and probably millions of cockpit visits I would imagine that statistically the chances of a cockpit visit being the cause of serious threat to the aircraft would not figure. So this has to be more about a change of attitude and percieved threat since 9/11." [unquote].

Totally true!! 9/11 changed the threat level therefore the response level MUST be changed. In the "good old days" hijackers generally wanted to negotiate, they had demands and gave the powers to be the opportunity to respond to these demands. An unlawful interference could have an outcome other then the destruction of aircraft and loss of life. There were NO DEMANDS on that fateful Sept day, we were not given a chance to negotiate.

The modus operandi of (at least some) hijackers had changed. The industry's (regulators') response must change appropriately- if they are willing to use airliners as missiles then they must be denied control of said airliners. A re-inforced cockpit door does the job and everytime we open that door for non-essential reasons (letting visitors in and out for instance) expose ourselves unnecessarily.

One poster, in a number of different posts, asks sarcastically if we need to weld cockpit doors, totally isolate the cockpit etc. This extreme is not necessary, the current system if used properly does the job.

[tuskegee airman]

AME an PPL. interesting comments by your "patients" as to one of the negative impacts the enhanced cockpit security system has had on them.

I remember an old pilot telling me a number of years ago that the day I felt I had nothing else to learn is the day I should stop flying. I find there are so many things I could or should be doing during cruise, boredom I find will come about when I decide to do nothing. There are so many things I can still learn or re-learn about my aircraft, ATC, regs etc. So many questions of what-ifs I can indulge in, either by myself or in a discussion with other crew members.

I had the (mis)fortune of flying trans-atlantic with a capt who was able to talk for the entire crossing (felt like it anyway). He was an airplane mechanic before he started flying and also had a lot of flying experience on a number of aircraft. Once I overcame my initial annoyance, I actually learnt a lot from our discussions.

A walk thru the aircraft is a great way to stretch the legs and meet some of the pax. I would only do that with an augmented crew. Never on a two pilot FD.

[Pace]

tuskegee Airman

One poster, in a number of different posts, asks sarcastically if we need to weld cockpit doors, totally isolate the cockpit etc. This extreme is not necessary, the current system if used properly does the job.

I think you a referring to me :) It was not a sarcastic but cynical view. 9/11 could have happened at any time since the birth of commercial flight but didnt until that fateful day.

You say the present system in your words
A re-inforced cockpit door does the job and everytime we open that door for non-essential reasons (letting visitors in and out for instance) expose ourselves unnecessarily.

But I say any opening of the door exposes a crack in security. The present system is only percieved as secure until someone breaches that security and exposes those cracks.

We went prob 50 years and and millions of cockpit visitors until someone got the idea of using an aircraft as a missile. Then all change!

But is the present system as secure as you say or only until someone breaches that sense of security? Any group so committed will find a way through the present system either by fooling the crew to go back and open that door or by waiting for one of the crew to visit the toilets. It only takes a rush and a shove to gain access.

So yes it works as long as it works as did cockpit visits in 50 years prior to 9/11 but any crack will be exploited by people who are determined enough and a crack is a crack.

So maybe my fanciful and colourful view ahead of welding up cockpit doors isnt so fanciful and colourful and hence where do we stop and is there another way?

Pace

[tuskegee airman]

Aah Pace you saw right through that. I was indeed referring to your posts :O. Cynical is a much more appropriate word, thanks for setting me straight there.

Security systems are just that.... secure til breached!! The bad guys unfortunately have the initiatives in these instances. They can sit back and observe your security for as long as they want then choose the time and place to attempt a breach.

We (the good guys) have to put multi-layered security systems in place; from the time of check-in, thru the security scanners etc. Ending with denial of the cockpit to any unauthorised person.

Opening the cockpit door does present a "crack". Hopefully individual airlines have by now developed simple procedures to minimise the attendant risks, my airline has. The fewer times the door gets opened-the fewer the cracks.

A totally self-contained flt deck, inaccessible from the cabin? On the face of it doesn't seem such a bad idea. Til then I firmly believe the current system can work if used properly. Cockpit door opening and access only when essential and in accordance with the airlines SOPs. FD visits welcomed at the gate. Of course IMHO