Pablo Mason (Spelled M.A.S.O.N) Tribunal [Archive] - Page 2

daisy120

20th Mar 2009, 12:29

Allow me to apologise to all the professional aviators out there that may be offended by the use of the word, "deviant". The intent was to instigate debate and was not an absolute. 411 and Roger seem to demonstrate the art of today's cockpit process which certainly isn't of the lateral kind...but hey.
To suggest that the over regulation, in itself has been the cause of lessening hull losses, misses the point. Regulatory bodies are a necessary strata in the layers of this business but as most of us know, it has now got way beyond regulation with purpose and more like super regulation to empire build. Try negotiating the crew security channel at LHR? Even the plastic bags that contain the gells and liquids and other gases of mass destruction have to be 'approved'. Shoes, belts, coins et al...get em off and screened! Pablo was making a very sane point about security...that its out of control;
yep..I have been in the industry for a while, baby pilot to old fart and yep, seen it all too. sadly, its changed for the worse and one of the reasons has been the lack of voice and teeth to match. Pilots have tugged the forelock and accepted. Accepted unsafe FTL's, unsafe crew quals,(MPL???) and latently unsafe aircraft,(777 and the RR icing issues is just one example). It just takes the biscuit that there are those of you out there that want to take it all a step further and iron out the 'personalities'....shame really but I guess that's the way the business is going. You have control.:confused:

dicksorchard

20th Mar 2009, 12:35

It astounds me that mans inhumanity to man is alive and well within the forums of Pprune ....

Stab your fellow pilots in the back why don't you ?
Better still do it on a public forum .

Its very interesting from a (http://rds.yahoo.com/_ylt=A0geu..NhsNJ47wAVQ1XNyoA/SIG=15hs0oojf/EXP=1237637133/**http%3a//search.yahoo.com/search%3fei=UTF-8%26fr=ytff-%26p=psychological%26SpellState=n-1013858450_q-6rX3nTFb52SnqI1jg8Oe0AAAAA%2540%2540%26fr2=sp-qrw-corr-top)psychological standpoint to see just how spurious some of the allegations against Mr Mason have been ...gossip can be very dangerous in any profession . Cover for a hate campaign if you ask me .

Some have even used the excuse that Pablo Mason bought it all on himself due to his wildly flamboyent character and public persona .

That he was so far up his own jacksy he could'nt see the light !

That he has never followed the rules and was a law unto himself ?

Correct me if im wrong but i would expect the Royal Airforce to scrutinise all of its pilots and rigarously test them (http://rds.yahoo.com/_ylt=A0geu..NhsNJ47wAVQ1XNyoA/SIG=15hs0oojf/EXP=1237637133/**http%3a//search.yahoo.com/search%3fei=UTF-8%26fr=ytff-%26p=psychological%26SpellState=n-1013858450_q-6rX3nTFb52SnqI1jg8Oe0AAAAA%2540%2540%26fr2=sp-qrw-corr-top)psychologically and physically ?

Can someone explain to me then how this man came to become a squadron leader if he was such a liability and rule breaker ?
I do not know Mr Pablo Mason and i suspect that the majority of you " Haters " out there have never met the guy either .

Having never met him i am therefore not qualified to comment on the guys personality or character or his capabilitys as a Pilot .

and it looks like the hate campaign has followed Mr Mason all the way to Wickpedia when you ead the article on Mr Mason this is what you get .

This article is being considered for deletion in accordance with Wikipedia's deletion policy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_policy).
Please share your thoughts on the matter at this article's entry (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Pablo_Mason) on the Articles for deletion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion) page.
Feel free to edit the article, but the article must not be blanked, and this notice must not be removed, until the discussion is closed. For more information, particularly on merging or moving the article during the discussion, read the guide to deletion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Guide_to_deletion).

Bit of jealousy going on me thinks .....

Did this man really deserve to lose his job ?
Did he really endanger this aircraft & its passengers ?

Had he any written warnings prior to this incident or pevious compaints against him ?

The important thing here is the question of unfair - or fair dismissal ?

This isnt or shouldnt be about character assination - or is it ?

Me thinks whispering camapaign amongst disgruntled and jealous fellow employess and others within the aviation industry helped this chap on his way ..

In fact i think its more likely that the the powers that be in the company that he worked for where simply waiting for their chance to get rid !

It aint just poor Pablo that some Ppruners slate either either ..

Mr Sullenberger got it in the neck a few times on the Hudson forum and he's now an official hero .

The three pilots on the Turkish Airlines have been given it good style too ...but they ar'nt around to defend themselves ...
as neither are the Pilots of the crashed continental express .....

Accident reports not even published yet ? what is all this negativity amongst some of you all about ?

Those who live in glass houses should not throw stones ?

Are you all really so perfect you have never made a mistake in your entire careers ?

pilotbear

20th Mar 2009, 13:06

well said, :ok: but will fall on profoundly deaf and astonishingly ignorant ears.

I have been saying that for years:ugh:

SR71

20th Mar 2009, 13:06

It is testimony to the success of the fascists who have been in power for the last 10+ years that we're even having this debate.

"Do not think for yourselves my friends, we are here to do that for you. Is there a rule for that? No! What? Never fear, we'll knock one through the legislature before tea."

The same people castigating Pablo probably think Tex Johnston ought to have been fired by Bill Allen after the infamous barrel roll...

YouTube - Boeing 707 roll by Test Pilot Tex Johnson (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ra_khhzuFlE)

Just how far have we come in 50 years?

:ok:

dontdoit

20th Mar 2009, 13:08

One of the important differences, of course, being that when Tex was called into the office, I'm almost sure he didn't try and blame the barrel roll on his co-pilot.

Airborne Aircrew

20th Mar 2009, 13:08

It astounds me that mans inhumanity to man is alive and well within the forums of PPRuNe ...

Snip much shouting and waving of arms

Are you all really so perfect you have never made a mistake in your entire careers ?

... and breathe... http://www.hqrafregiment.net/images/smilies/icon_rolleyes.gif

on21

20th Mar 2009, 13:11

Fair play to him, he didn't roll over and he took it on the chin when he lost.

goudie

20th Mar 2009, 13:12

After Tex Johnston had rolled the 707, Bill Allen said to him, ''I knew it could do it, you knew it could do it, now we all know it can do it.'' End of the matter.

BelArgUSA

20th Mar 2009, 14:07

SR71 - Re. Tex Johnson rolling the 707...
xxx
Well - actually the issue would have been quite different if...
If Tex would have been named Nigel Johnson...
And if N70700 would have been registered G-ABCD...
xxx
You see, on that island - they practice "safety" and "security".
And they claim that nobody else does, or is as good.
xxx
:D
Happy contrails

dicksorchard

20th Mar 2009, 14:52

Sr71 What an amazing piece of footage ...never seen it before ...cheers mate

Looks to me like Tex Johnson was a definate role model for the young Pablo Mason's of this world ..and no wonder ...what an incredible show ov air manship .

Such a cool guy .

captjns

20th Mar 2009, 15:02

Looks to me like Tex Johnson...

For political correctness, the man's name was Alvin M. "Tex" Johnston.

The aircraft was actually the Model 367-80, a narrower version of the Boeing 707.

M.Mouse

20th Mar 2009, 16:17

what an incredible show ov air manship(sic)

??? Not querying your lack of proof reading but your definition of airmanship.

wiggy

20th Mar 2009, 16:21

I can't believe we are all still pontificating about this.........

The Company paid Mr Mason' s wages and also they produced the SOPs he and his colleagues were supposed to work to. Mr Mason's breach of these SOPs in no way improved Flight Safety and worse still placed his colleagues in an unenviable position...

As a result Mr Mason got sacked...

He's not a b****dy hero, he's not an "ace" ( that's 5 kills the last time I looked, not the ability to publish a book ), he's an ex-airline pilot with what seems to have an agenda or at least an image to polish........

It's enough to make even me agree with 411A .

Biggles225

20th Mar 2009, 16:46

Come on guys, surely you've got to have a sneaking admiration for anyone who strips to their shreddies at security! Who hasn't felt like it or wanted to just to make the point?

mole man

20th Mar 2009, 17:00

I flew with Pablo in the 1970's he was agreat guy to fly with then.

Brgds Pablo

All clear above and behind

Mole Man:ok:

Rananim

20th Mar 2009, 17:22

This is a very British affair...I wont butt in except to say that he deserved a bit more compassion and SOH from his CP.I am reliably informed that the last airline in the UK with a GSOH was Dan Air.

point8six

20th Mar 2009, 20:10

BelArgUsa
I say, steady on there old chap! You have to remember that not all Pruners have a sense of humo(u)r!:=

clicker

20th Mar 2009, 21:19

that his dismissal was not punishment in appropriate proportion to that given to the FO, which is a little different.

To sack the F/O would not have been in proportion either. The Captain said OK to the visit, the F/O didn't and more likely didn't have any say in the matter.

parabellum

20th Mar 2009, 22:33

Had he any written warnings prior to this incident or pevious compaints against him ?

You haven't even bothered to read the thread, have you dicksorchard?:rolleyes:

hellsbrink

20th Mar 2009, 23:02

Methinks Dicksorchard copied a Wiki page (the clue is the red bit in the middle) so whether these are his own views are open to question..

Unless he wrote the wiki page

N-1

20th Mar 2009, 23:07

We are going mad. If we leave that so many security measurements invade our work there will come the moment in which mistakes are committed for not doing what they prohibit us to do, neglecting what we do.

To this step, we are going to end up by looking some at others with such suspicion and fear, that we will see terrorists for all sides and any brown person can be interpreted as a member of Al-Qaida although he should be an elder who comes from spending vacations at Palma with the bronze-coloured impressive tan.

Once I said to one of those safety guards that did not allow me to embark with a pack of shampoo and a shower gel that were over 50 ml of the authorized size, that if with these objects it could do an explosive appliance, my name would be definitively McGyver..... :}:}

We should give ourselves a break and come back to the mentality of the 70's, surely the economy will recover again if we do not get obsessed with things that have no sense at all.... and if it is not like that, at least will we be happier, or not?

Teddy Robinson

20th Mar 2009, 23:10

had this happened anywhere else in Europe .. it would have been a non event .. not even tea and bickies material.

Says it all for the UK way .. and I have to say as a brit working abroad it is B@llocks ... perceived threat ? ah like the tanks at LHR .. yeh right. YAWN.

Sure, his card may well have been marked from previous politics but "the rule", interpreted as only the UK does is about as relevant to flight safety as the confiscation of legal quantities of cologne because they are not in a plastic bag, and "no sir you cannot go and get a bag because we are here to enforce... ahem... the law"... you are then free to buy 1 liter glass bottles of vodka to take aboard :yuk:

"Oh and that bottle of water your 2 year old is drinking from in her buggy is illegal too .. give it to me or I will tear it out of her mouth"

"oh no is that toothpaste you have there captain" ??? !!!!!

Just for the record, I refused my UK CEO a jumpseat because it contravened the SOP's in force at the time .. for all I knew it was the security department playing games ... had tea and bickies for my trouble and the company procedures inexplicably changed the following week !!.

So guys, and girls, this whole debacle is PC no win nonsense.

Remember the millennium bug ? big problem, kept a lot of wasters in profitable work for a long and expensive time, and the actual problem ? ZILCH, it worked because of fear alone, an excellent if amoral marketing strategy, and one that the sceptered isle seems proud to inflict upon those trapped in or traveling to or from it.

Blinkered thinking, blinkered country .. what do you expect, but hey keep your heads down just in case.

Join Europe and get a life !!

TR:ugh:

clareprop

21st Mar 2009, 04:52

Paul already has pop-up advert at the bottom of the military forum.

It's at the bottom of most of the forums. I guess it's a very simple response to some of the posts on here. :E

Dream Buster

21st Mar 2009, 08:25

Teddy Robinson,

Superb post - says it all really.

Pablo won one points but could never win on the letter of the law.

Most entertaining though and will hopefully make a few muppets and muppettes think a bit.

Next?

DB :D

Maximum

21st Mar 2009, 09:40

"Who on earth is this man?" I ask one hostess. "He should be on the stage." "Oh, he's Pablo Mason," she says, sounding a little bit like Tonto revealing the identity of the Lone Ranger. "And he's VERY famous." And he is.

Squadron Leader Paul "Pablo" Mason became a national hero during the Gulf War when he spearheaded the hazardous series of Tornado bombing missions deep into Iraqi territory.

.........what ever happened to quiet, dignified modesty?:yuk:

StressFree

21st Mar 2009, 10:58

Teddy,
Absolutelt SPOT ON, right on the money, more please
:D:D:D:D

parabellum

21st Mar 2009, 11:09

No more please Teddy, 'tis you who has their head in the sand, along with Stress Free.

foldingwings

21st Mar 2009, 11:30

See post 4:

http://www.pprune.org/military-aircrew/366651-pablo-mason-loses-unfair-dismissal-case.html

StressFree

21st Mar 2009, 12:58

Parabellum,
Oh God - I knew it wouldn't be long before someone like you popped up, you're the ruination of our once great nation..........:ugh:

hellsbrink

21st Mar 2009, 13:22

Why, Stress Free? It doesn't matter how stupid you think the rules are, they have to be obeyed WITHOUT QUESTION. PB did not do that, and, especially due to previous behaviour which resulted in official warnings, was fired because of doing something that was against these rules. Note how his defence was a mere attempt at trying to prove a previous warning should not have been issued on a technicality, and effectively admitted the behaviour which caused him to be sacked (EASILY classed as Gross Misconduct, which generally is Instant Dismissal so any previous warnings could easily have been null and void anyway).

Sorry mate, that's life. He screwed up, is paying for it (since he has to pay the costs too) but conveniently got some nice publicity for the inevitible book/after-dinner speeches/TV shows which will no doubt be coming up.

newt

21st Mar 2009, 13:36

Suggest you guys read the thread in the Mil section. PM gets no sympathy there!

Airborne Aircrew

21st Mar 2009, 14:26

Teddy:

Remember the millennium bug ? big problem, kept a lot of wasters in profitable work for a long and expensive time, and the actual problem ? ZILCH, it worked because of fear alone, an excellent if amoral marketing strategy, and one that the sceptered isle seems proud to inflict upon those trapped in or traveling to or from it.

You really need to engage your brain before you open your mouth. Failing that you should learn to hush up about things you clearly have no understanding. The "Millenium Bug" was, indeed, a problem... It was the thousands of hours of hard work put in by those "wasters" that made it appear to be nothing to ignorant twits like yourself. :rolleyes:

Ten West

21st Mar 2009, 14:31

+ 1 for Teddy. :ok:

James7

21st Mar 2009, 15:08

Spot on Teddy

Costs are not generally awarded at Tribunal case's

hellsbrink

21st Mar 2009, 15:25

James, and others backing Teddy

Please, pray tell us what the agreement about the ranting of Teddy has to do with the fact that PB BROKE THE DAMNED RULES and was punished for it?

Don't you think the debate about what these rules are should be taken elsewhere as they have nothing to do with the actions of someone who thought he was so far above everyone else he was disciplined for Gross Misconduct on two occasions prior to this one? Now, most people don't get a second shot at a gross misconduct offence, it's "pack your stuff and get out NOW" so why is there support for someone who seems to have taken great pleasure in deciding which rules actually applied to him?

That's like you saying "I know the speed limit outside the town was 60mph but I saw no reason I shouldn't do 90mph as the law does not apply to me". Do you think you would get off with an excuse like that, especially on more than one occasion? Of course you wouldn't, so no matter how much you think the rules are an ass they are there to be followed, with no exceptions or excuses, unless you are happy to get shafted for not following the rules.

There are ways to persuade people to change rules, deciding unilaterally that they don't apply to you is not one of these ways.

captjns

21st Mar 2009, 15:45

Here’s the question of the day… for those who think that Mason was mistreated...
Can somebody justify violating company SOP’s, or Civil Aviation Authority Regulations?
Is really that complicated?

glad rag

21st Mar 2009, 15:59

Is really that complicated?

No, not to free thinking and wise individuals! :mad:

PS Teddy for PM!:}

16024

21st Mar 2009, 16:08

YouTube - The Pilot - TAC.tv (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_hxmfQQhQIU)

Dream Buster

21st Mar 2009, 17:23

People,

I lost count of the number of times I was invited to break FTL 'rules' by crewing in order to make the paperwork add up - can somebody tell me the difference between all of these 'rules'?

I also 'bent' a good few 'rules' to get the job done but have no doubt that if I had got found out - there would have been little sympathy.

That's the system and yes, I know you all do the same...

The first five words of the ANO: 'An aircraft shall not fly.....'

DB :\

hellsbrink

21st Mar 2009, 17:58

Did you accept these "invites"? If so, you still broke the rules and would have paid the price IF caught, as you admit by if you had been caught when "bending" rules.

The bottom line is that PB not only threw the rule book out the window with Robbie Savage (whe was quite capable of flying to various other places during his career, why was this occasion different?), he had also been disciplined twice previously for his behaviour, involving rule breaches (stripping to your kecks can be enough for an Indecent Exposure chatrge to be laid at you, so if that ain't breaking the rules I don't know what is), and he found out that you only get three strikes before you are out.

Why is that so difficult for some to understand?

Roger Sofarover

21st Mar 2009, 18:17

Glad Rag

No, not to free thinking and wise individuals! http://static.pprune.org/images/smilies/censored.gif

PS Teddy for PM!http://static.pprune.org/images/smilies/badteeth.gif]

mmm, so which way are you swinging with that comment? Anyway I won't say anymore, I keep getting banned from threads and getting PM's saying 'Player, Ball, you know the rules', so I will not hit the player, infact neither will I hit the ball. However as far as 'Teddy' goes, whilst I think his albeit astute comments concerning airport security may be valid, they in no way qualify him for a term as Prime Minister, neither do they have the remotest thing to do with why Pablo lost his job.

Everybody please stop. Pablo went to court, he was judged, he lost, he even expected to lose. he did not pass GO, he did not collect £200, it is Game Over, protestations are futile, as many of the previous Pablo groupies have clearly realised by their absence on this thread since the judgement. Pablo will make a mint, he will be happy. I just hope the FO can place trust in any Captain he flys for in the future. ENDEX! The eggybakes and jam doughnuts are served.

Yorky Towers

21st Mar 2009, 18:40

'Everybody please stop.'

OK, if you say so Rog................

Still think Pablo's a good guy tho':D

Roger Sofarover

21st Mar 2009, 18:55

Yorky

Still think Pablo's a good guy tho':D

Yes he is. But what everybody needs to realise is he was wrong in this case. Even he knew it.

Yorky Towers

21st Mar 2009, 19:17

Thanks Roger, We all realise now!:E

StressFree

21st Mar 2009, 20:02

Hellsbrink,
You make me sick :yuk:, if you can't see the wood for the trees then I'm glad you're in Belgium and not sharing air with me......don't you have a brain of your own????? :ugh::ugh::ugh::ugh:

Bronx

21st Mar 2009, 21:02

captjns Here’s the question of the day… for those who think that Mason was mistreated........
Is really that complicated?

I guess it's a good question for the sort of people who think pilots who violate any company SOP or any Civil Aviation Authority Regulation should be fired. If you do then it's black or white and not complicated at all.

Other people would take into consideration which SOP or Reg it was and the circumstances of the violation. More complicated, but some people think seeing everything in black and white is too simplistic.

B.

captjns

21st Mar 2009, 21:03

This is getting to dramatic. Mason broke the rules as he swore to uphold when he signed his application for employment. It’s as simple as that. He knew that such breach of responsibility could lead to disciplinary actions up to and including termination of employment. He has other episodes in his past that required disciplinary actions. With that being said, the man got what he deserved. He’s lucky to retain his airman’s certificate and has the opportunity to seek employment elsewhere.

SR71

21st Mar 2009, 22:42

The hypocrisy...

The chances of you killing someone by exceeding 70 on the motorway are exceedingly higher than the chances of admitting someone who is a would-be hijacker into the flightdeck...

The rules are most certainly NOT there to be heeded without question. Anyone with good judgement (and a sense of history) knows that.

It is as indefensible to have that as an expectation as it is to follow rules without good reason for doing so...

Those who do, sound dangerously extremist to me...akin to those who we are seeking to exclude from the flightdeck in the first place!

:rolleyes:

BelArgUSA

21st Mar 2009, 23:59

Hypocracy...???
Would it be hypocrisy, by any chance...???
Sorry for my deficient English.
xxx
:E
Happy contrails

Bronx

22nd Mar 2009, 00:04

captjns This is getting too dramatic.

captjns He’s lucky to retain his airman’s certificate

:confused::rolleyes:

hellsbrink

22nd Mar 2009, 00:41

Hellsbrink,
You make me sick http://static.pprune.org/images/smilies/pukey.gif, if you can't see the wood for the trees then I'm glad you're in Belgium and not sharing air with me......don't you have a brain of your own????? :ugh::ugh::ugh::ugh:

Obviously I do have a brain that is getting enough oxygen because it's pretty clear where the fault lies, and it is with PB who ignored the rules.

Now, just because you think the rules are stupid does not mean you can pick and choose which ones to obey, simple as that. This saga has nothing to do with the stupidity of not allowing people into the cockpit but is all about te stupidity of someone who thought he could get away with ignoring said rule.

Now, take some deep breaths and get some oxygen into your system, you won't feel so sick then.

Oh, SR71, CAA regulations are there to be ignored, are they? Gee, I wonder why they are called REGULATIONS if they are not something wot has to be obeyed......

parabellum

22nd Mar 2009, 00:57

The three hundred and fourteen posts on this thread boil down to two distinct camps:

Those that don't have a problem with regulation and abide by it for the greater good of themselves, their colleagues and the public and:

Those that have a problem with regulation, which is usually assessed as a personality disorder.

AltFlaps

22nd Mar 2009, 06:48

The three hundred and fourteen posts on this thread boil down to two distinct camps:

That's unusual !

With 314 pilots, you'd expect at least 315 different opinions :)

Dream Buster

22nd Mar 2009, 07:18

Parabellum,

I take it you have never broken any rule - ever?

Are you sure? as that may might make you quite unique.

It seems to me that PM was unlucky to be caught breaking said 'rule'.....

DB :ok:

Flap62

22nd Mar 2009, 07:37

OK - for all you PM supporters out there, here's a question.

You are about to get on a flight with your nearest and dearest. The airline informs you that today, the crew are going to break 4 of the rules - they won't tell you which ones, but they're going to break them. They tell you that it's up to the Captain which 4 rules he is going to break today.

So-- do you get on the flight?

I know what my answer is.

kick the tires

22nd Mar 2009, 08:06

This thread is soooo boring.

How many variations on 'do we or do we not break the rules' can there be???

Yorky Towers

22nd Mar 2009, 08:11

Yes......I would. Ask a silly question, get a si.......comes to mind!

Flap62

22nd Mar 2009, 08:28

Yorky - you would!!!!

Well, I guess there is one born every minute.

captplaystation

22nd Mar 2009, 09:21

16024, (post 299)
OFF THREAD WARNING Thanks for that. :D (Loved the walloon accent;) )

Back on topic. . . . . At the end of the day, the rule he broke is, at a minimum, slightly exaggerated and perhaps needlessly inflexible. Most of us agree that it is a pain in the proverbial, and indeed probably contributes very little, if indeed anything, to the day to day security of an airline.
Most of us also agree ( I hope ) that we are expected to abide to legal, & contractural rules when we choose to be employed in this profession.

If you are unable ,or unwilling, to prioritise between your personal objections/professional obligations maybe you are in the wrong job ?

call100

22nd Mar 2009, 10:12

I don't think he has been found 'Guilty' of anything....The Tribunal (Not a court) found that he had been 'Fairly dismissed'. Best wait for the Tribunals full adjudication over the next couple of weeks for detailed reasons.

SR71

22nd Mar 2009, 10:27

Parabellum,

Those that have a problem with regulation, which is usually assessed as a personality disorder.

Case of "Nemo me impune lacessit" is it?

For the record I wouldn't have let the footballer in.

But then, I don't like footballers.

:cool:

I'd like to put it this way...without wishing to over-dramatise the issue...

Some of us believe the machinery of the state is there to serve not be served.

When the statute book incorporates such idiocy, there is something wrong.

By acquiescing to the status quo you are complicit in (or blind to) this nefarious experiment - the ever encroaching state.

The EC response to the Irish Referendum on the 28th Amendment to the Constitution of Ireland Bill?

Do it again! What?????

I'm amazed we pilots are so happy for our masters to envisage ever increasing lengths of rope on which to hang ourselves...

God forbid someone fires you for doing 254 below FL100....

:ok:

parabellum

22nd Mar 2009, 11:33

M.Mouse

22nd Mar 2009, 12:00

Taking a step back from this frankly extraordinary thread it occurred to me that it is a shame that this forum is anonymous otherwise it would be so useful to employers to be able to employ the boring old so and sos who undertsand the need for regulation, SOPs and a degree of intelligent interpretation of such rules and not employ those who believe that such rules and regulations should be ignored by every egostistical maverick idiot who thinks he knows better but doesn't actually have the first inkling of what actually is involved in trying to run a safe and secure airline.

It is scary that some of the posters here actually fly commercial jet transport.

Pablo Mason's transgression on its own was probably insufficient to warrant dismissal but if you wish to appear clever and continually tweak the noses of those who pay you it is imperative to cover your backside 100% of the time. In effect offering your employers the chance to rid themselves of a proverbial PIA demonstrates stupidity on a breathtaking scale.

He thought he was cleverer than everybody else but has clearly proven the exact opposite.

hellsbrink

22nd Mar 2009, 12:01

don't think he has been found 'Guilty' of anything

Mainly because he had already been found "guilty" of breaching regulations by the company and was using the tribunal as a means to get around that via the means of a possible technicality.

Which failed miserably

BEagle

22nd Mar 2009, 14:12

If only.....
http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a341/nw969/Internet/zxzxz.jpg

"Mason, your hat, my office. NOW!"

"Now then, I understand that you had a passenger on the jump seat on your recent trip?"

"Yes"

"You do know the rules about such things, don't you? I expect the answer to be 'yes'"

"Yes"

"Correct answer. Now, did you involve your crew in your decision making process? I expect a similar answer!"

"Yes"

"That's as may be - they all know that ultimately the captain carries the can! Would you do it again - and be careful how you answer!"

"No, I wouldn't"

"Good answer. Now, for some weird reason our passengers love you and we really wouldn't want to lose you. So for f*ck's sake, will you please just wise up and stop playing the maverick!"

"Yes"

"Good. Now be a good chap and pi$$ off, you have a schedule to keep. But I don't want to have this sort of chat again. Do you?"

"No!"

"Correct answer!!"

But not in the 21st century, I guess.....

Basil

22nd Mar 2009, 14:21

***** your hat, my office. NOW
Took me back forty years :}:}:p

hellsbrink

22nd Mar 2009, 15:08

Took me back forty years http://static.pprune.org/images/smilies/badteeth.gifhttp://static.pprune.org/images/smilies/badteeth.gifhttp://static.pprune.org/images/smilies/tongue.gif

Don't have to go back that far, but then I ain't a pilot so I guess certain "interpretations" of things don't count.........

(Effing 'elf'n'safety)

Dream Buster

22nd Mar 2009, 16:23

BEagle,

Spot on. Probably deserves 'Post of the thread?'.

It's like being nibbled to death by muppet(tes).

Parabellum - are you still there? Nobody actually died - in this one.

DB :D

hellsbrink

22nd Mar 2009, 16:28

That's the thing, DB, in days of yore the events described by BEagle would have been exactly the right approach.

But one side just had to have his "day", even when he knew he was going to lose.

Pretty effing sad from one side, ain't it...........

I guess "The Ego Has Landed"

Flap62

22nd Mar 2009, 16:32

I have a sneeking suspicion that to the question

Would you do it again - and be careful how you answer!"

The answer by Mr Mason just might not be

"No, I wouldn't"

After all, how could he let his audience down?

call100

22nd Mar 2009, 16:37

Mainly because he had already been found "guilty" of breaching regulations by the company and was using the tribunal as a means to get around that via the means of a possible technicality.

Which failed miserably
That shows a misunderstanding of the ET process.

goudie

22nd Mar 2009, 16:39

If only.....

One thing the Service is/was good at.
Giving/receiving a bollocking and then getting on with the job.

hellsbrink

22nd Mar 2009, 17:00

Errrr, you generally go to an ET IF you think you have a reason your contract has been terminated unfairly, just like PM tried with his "one of the :mad: YOU think I did was not investigated properly, never mind me allowing a PAX onto the Flight Deck DESPITE the CAA and my own company saying it was WRONG". He had TWO GROSS MISCONDUCT offences on his record, before he broke CAA rules on PAX in the cockpit. According to reports in this very thread, he started his so-called defence off by saying that one of these charges against him had not been investigated fully so was not applicable. BUT, you only get a GM on your record if you actually agree that you :mad:ed up and sign the piece of paper saying you did actually :mad: up!!!

Now, shall we get back to THREE GROSS MISCONDUCT charges against him or not?

Case closed, 90% of the working population would be signing on after ONE GROSS MISCONDUCT offence. He pulled his third strike and was OUT.

(PS. Don't even THINK about telling me about ET's, because I've had to be the nasty bastard at them often enough in the past. I've saved more guys than I have condemned, but I know all about these things............ Another reason I GTF out of the UK)

(PPS, obviously there is one idiot here who willl call 100 in the UK in an emergency because he has no clue what he is actually talking about)

UFGBOY

22nd Mar 2009, 17:43

was called out as SCCM on a sub for AIR UK Ferry MAN-GLA, GLA-AMS-NCL-GLA

One of cabin crew said cud she bring her 6 year old daughter ? I asked , skipper said yes.. rest is history

got her through security, no safety issues, gud day out and home for tea!

imagine that now ??

SR71

22nd Mar 2009, 18:56

SR71 - You are, without doubt, paranoid and I suggest you seek professional help ASAP, I certainly would not fly with you and nor would any of my family. This isn't a cheap swipe but a genuine comment, you appear to have a persecution complex.

You, Sir, need to figure out the emoticons...

Have a guess at what this one means....

:ok:

I don't take myself too seriously, so I suggest you don't either...

Teddy Robinson

22nd Mar 2009, 23:42

Oh, but that is half of the problem .. some people do take themselves terribly seriously on here .. to those "telling" me how their industry saved the world from Y2K ? .. ahem, yes I believe you !
I will now read rather than delete all of those very urgent FWD emails outlining in terrifying detail the latest virus wiping every hard drive, whilst fearfully contemplating having survived 20+ years on the internet sans anti virus.

In my line of business, adopting, absorbing and implementing new company procedures is 90% of the job: if one decides to depart from SOP there had better be a very good reason, justifiable in terms of that departure being ABSOLUTELY essential in order to save the day in a situation that one had not been prepared for within company training or the company SOP framework.
Doing so without fully understanding the likely repercussions is something is beyond comprehension, the rules are the rules.
Thus in my experience, one fuming UK CEO was left to find another way home, after all, they were top of the pyramid that wrote the SOP, and reinforced it with NOTAC's ..

Not my problem squire.

In contrast, it is both pleasant and mutually informative to sometimes have our (European) management on the jump seat as they return from their various meetings, and to have the latitude to extend that invitation written into our SOP's.

Born, bred and trained in the UK, the aviation mentality is one I no longer recognise, nor wish to be a part of. I hope it changes, meanwhile ...

VIVA EUROPA :p

TR

call100

23rd Mar 2009, 01:07

parabellum

23rd Mar 2009, 11:34

Don't think so call100. I suspect, like many of us, hellsbrink is finding it hard to comprehend why so many of you are determined to convert the bleedin' obvious into an optional subject.

His dudeness

23rd Mar 2009, 11:53

It is scary that some of the posters here actually fly commercial jet transport.

Exactly M.Mouse. Now did you report the guy with fliughtdeck access and the opinion that 3000 americans did get what they deserved on 9/11? Or did you not? (which I think was your decision, since he seems to be still in your company)

Pablo Mason broke rules. You sit next to someone who is able to fly an airplane and expresses symphaty for a terroristic act and all you do is "change the subject"???

And you talk about being useful for employers and rules etc???

I for one would rather fly with Pablo Mason (though I did not like him trying to share blame with his F/O) than with a guy who thinks killing 3000+ innocent people is okay. Or a guy who thinks we can just ignore opinions like that, main thing is, that bloody door is closed (rules!!!)

everynowandthen

23rd Mar 2009, 12:32

Beagle,

Whilst I think what you say is very good, is there not a possibility that such a conversation had been had with PM before?

judge11

23rd Mar 2009, 14:21

'in days of yore the events described by BEagle would have been exactly the right approach'.

In 'days of yore' the majority of British males would have fully understood and accepted, having probably experienced at first hand, a bollocking as exemplified by Beagle. Regretably, IMHO, there are now two generations of British males, weaned in the insidious, state sponsored culture of living life 'by the book', 'that's the procedure' and 'the computer says' with little or no experience of the Sevice's methods and that goes all the way to the top of all the UK's political parties.

call100

23rd Mar 2009, 14:31

Don't think so call100. I suspect, like many of us, hellsbrink is finding it hard to comprehend why so many of you are determined to convert the bleedin' obvious into an optional subject.
Do you feel better now? Jeeeze, some of you are so emotional! :ugh:

M.Mouse

23rd Mar 2009, 15:33

His dudeness

I didn't reply earlier for fear of being accused of diverting this thread.

For the record I made the effort to go and discuss the incident with my chief pilot. What do you think he did? What would you do?

Free speech hasn't been outlawed yet. So yes he is still with the company until such time as free speech is made a dismissable offence. And of course it is very easy for non-whites to cry 'racism'.

The rest of your post is risible.

His dudeness

23rd Mar 2009, 18:54

Risible? Of course it is.

Good that you reported it. Bad it has had no consequences. I´d kick his ass out, no matter the costs.

So your chiefpilot couldn´t do anything because free speech is not an offence. Right.

So if I answer, at the security check: "I have a bomb in there and Osama bin Laden packed my bags, why?" I get away with it? Don´t think so.

Rule 1: no jokes/stupid talk at the security checks

Rule 2: terrorist approval on F/D is okay.

Rule 3: open cockpitdoor on pvt charter is no-no.

One can learn a lot on pprune.

But you`re right I´m drifting. Sorry for that.

Dream Buster

24th Mar 2009, 06:56

Yesterday, I deliberately and knowingly drove at 90 mph on the M4, I normally cruise at around 80 mph, but I was in a bit of a hurry and just joined in with many other cars doing the same speed.

I fully expected to get nicked but strangely 'got away with it' (I hope) and obediently drove through the 50 mph roadworks restriction at ....51 mph.

I know it's wrong and I broke the rules - but do any of those who slavishly follow the book rules or who have ever exceeded the 70 mph national speed limit have a view?

And if the situation is different - how & why?

Yours easily confused,

DB :eek:

(apologies for any thread drift....)

hellsbrink

24th Mar 2009, 07:06

If you had been caught speeding would you have said that it was normal/the rules didn't apply to you/someone else should take the blame too/the rules are stuid/etc or would you have held your hands up and accepted the punishment, especially knowing that when the police checked things they would see you had a previous history of driving offences?

Can you see the similarities now?

Now be good and go sit down and think about what you said. PM broke regulations repeatedly, was caught repeatedly, was sacked and then tried to say "not my fault, guv".

Oh, how many other Flight Crew flying for UK/US carriers DELIBERATELY break the regulations on allowing passengers into the cockpit in flight, as that is what you are inferring by your "just joined in with many other cars doing the same speed" bit. Are you inferring this is common practice and only one man was singled out for it, and is therefore innocent?

763 jock

24th Mar 2009, 08:19

Dream Buster.

Can I ask if you would have deliberately driven at 90mph if you already had 9 points on your licence? Honest answer please.

If it's a "no" then I would assume that you are a sensible character who is aware of his predicament. If it's a "yes", then that is your choice but you must be prepared to face the consequences if caught.

Pablo had racked up the equivalent of 9 points at MYT. Instead of driving at 70, he went out and put his foot down again. His choice was wrong and he got caught.

JamesT73J

24th Mar 2009, 08:46

Now be good and go sit down and think about what you said. PM broke regulations repeatedly, was caught repeatedly, was sacked and then tried to say "not my fault, guv".

Did he say it wasn't his fault, or did he accept complete responsibility for his actions, and decide to breach the rules anyway? The distinction is important.

If Mason accepted complete responsibility for what he did; used his judgement and initiative and decided that there was no risk to the safe operation of the aircraft, then he has a case.

Nelson PK

24th Mar 2009, 09:06

Oh, how many other Flight Crew flying for UK/US carriers DELIBERATELY break the regulations on allowing passengers into the cockpit in flight, as that is what you are inferring by your "just joined in with many other cars doing the same speed" bit. Are you inferring this is common practice and only one man was singled out for it, and is therefore innocent?He may have implied that, but you definitely inferred it. HTH.

hellsbrink

24th Mar 2009, 09:17

If Mason accepted complete responsibility for what he did; used his judgement and initiative and decided that there was no risk to the safe operation of the aircraft, then he has a case.

Afraid not when company and CAA regs state he cannot make a decision like that. Otherwise he would have tried that defence instead of trying to say that one of his previous incidents wasn't investigated properly so he shouldn't have been given a gross misconduct on his record for that, meaning that this incident would not have meant a THIRD GM strike on his record, meaning he might not have been sacked.

That's like saying "I was doing 120mph in a 70 zone but I felt it was safe so the speed limit doesn't apply". You know you'll never get off with that excuse, same as PM would never have been able to bulsh his way out of the situation he put himself in.

Did he say it wasn't his fault, or did he accept complete responsibility for his actions, and decide to breach the rules anyway? The distinction is important.

He decided to breach the rules on at least 3 separate occasions, he decided to have Robbie Savage up front and then tried to pass some of the blame onto his F/O, he decided to try and get off with a technicality, he said safety wasn't compromised "so damn the rules, I do what I want" (my words, not his afaik). 100% his own fault, blame and responsibility no matter how you look at it.

Freehills

24th Mar 2009, 09:25

Plus, there is a difference between a private car driver going at 80, and a public coach driver going at 80. Which is why the "slow" lanes of motorways are populated with coaches and lorries. Their livelihood depends on them sticking to the rules on speeding, plus they are responsible for more than their own life when driving. So they don't speed. I am sure an HGV or coach driver wouldn't be the best around Silverstone, but boring, defensive driving = safe driving

JamesT73J

24th Mar 2009, 09:33

He decided to breach the rules on at least 3 separate occasions, he decided to have Robbie Savage up front and then tried to pass some of the blame onto his F/O, he decided to try and get off with a technicality, he said safety wasn't compromised "so damn the rules, I do what I want" (my words, not his afaik). 100% his own fault, blame and responsibility no matter how you look at it.

I'm not arguing it's his fault, it clearly was; I'm not however convinced the punishment fits the crime.

The analogy with motoring doesn't really work - speeding is by definition unsafe. To suggest that Mason's transgression really had anything to do with flight safety - as opposed to arbitrary rules - is a difficult sell for me.

GXER

24th Mar 2009, 10:10

... speeding is by definition unsafe.

It's impossible for an intelligent mind to reach that conclusion, yet I cannot discern any intended irony...

JamesT73J

24th Mar 2009, 11:04

It's impossible for an intelligent mind to reach that conclusion, yet I cannot discern any intended irony...

Not my best wording. The example provided (120 in a 70) presents - for me - a higher risk scenario, with certainly less room for explanation. I suppose what I'm arguing here is the nature of the rules themselves, where they come from, and how they can be challenged.

flyinthesky

24th Mar 2009, 11:34

JamesT et al

How many times does it have to be said. He broke the rules on numerous occasions, was disciplined on each and eventually wrote his own dismissal. It is not a question of punishment fitting the crime but just reality fitting Pablo.

I have flown with him and work in the same company as him. He knew he was on thin ice at 2 warnings. Enough said.

If you work for any company, aviation related OR NOT. Read your disciplinary procedure. It will be clearly laid out what the procedure is. If you break it, then expect to be asked not to come in on monday. Period.

It has SOD all to do with letting someone on the flight deck and everything to do with following company policy and caa legalities. If you cannot follow that then expect a p45.

Does NOBODY on these forums read the early posts on long threads anymore. I posted ages ago about Pablo. Great in a bar, nightmare to fly with and on his last warning. He KNEW what he was doing but as always thought himself untouchable. Even the RAF have rules, and he managed to break quite a few of those.

If that means that the people flying you are all grey and dull, then so be it. Those of us behind our locked door know different, and to be quite frank,are thankful for the gainful employment and excellent quality of life that we enjoy!!!!!!

parabellum

24th Mar 2009, 11:54

and how they can be challenged

Well, if they need to be challenged there is usually a proper procedure in place JamesT73J but that usually does not involve the "there, I did it, so what now" scenario. Do you challenge speed limits? Do you see them as targets rather than limitations? Has it not occurred to you that people far wiser and more experienced than you, over a period of years, have devised a set of rules, (SOPs) designed to keep you out of trouble? As a pilot your authority to diverge from SOPs/legal requirements is based on the possibility that, under specific circumstances, the SOP may not fit the actual circumstances and subsequent investigation will support this.

This was not the case with Mason and the punishment was determined before he committed the crime, he was on a final warning so 'punishment fitting the crime is irrelevant', it was simply a case of 'deliberately break yet another rule/legal requirement and you are OUT'.

Mason has shown no remorse whatsoever, his comment was that he had lost to a very capable barrister, a situation of his own choosing.

(Sorry about the heavy type, finger trouble!).

flyinthesky

24th Mar 2009, 12:20

Parabellum

Ah, sense at last. These threads are the sole reason I rarely look on Pprune these days. It is depressing that a forum that used to offer guidance and information to a professional sector has been reduced to something akin to the 'Sun' newspaper.

I have nothing against aviation enthusiasts but the main title of the website is supposed to say it all. 'Professional Pilots Rumour Network', not Sim flyers network or spotters website. How it has changed since I first started using it 11 years ago.

Checkboard

24th Mar 2009, 12:22

The "Pablo was hard done by" set appears to think the the locked cockpit door policy is not based upon a valid safety case. That the Captain should have full authority to allow any person they see fit onto the flight deck.

I flew airliners in Aus. for seven years before coming to the UK, with an open flight deck door policy for that time. On three and four day trips it was common (having sat next to the other guy for so many days, it was usually a relief) to invite passengers onto the flight deck.

In that time, I have had passengers bump overhead panel switches (manoeuvring for photos), had a child placed by his father onto the centre panel and had a child grab TWO fire handles at the same time.

In the wider sense, deadheading crew, known to the flight crew and allowed on the flight deck have attempted murder/suicide, a Kenyan passenger burst through an unlocked cockpit door and attacked the crew, and numerous highjackings such as the four aircraft on Sep 11 have occurred.

To hold the opinion that
Non-technical people on the flight deck does not increase risk, and
the Captain can or will correctly asses every visitor

is nonsense. The rule is a serious one, and a serious attempt to improve flight safety. Don't forget that.

Wader2

24th Mar 2009, 12:58

I don't think it has been mentioned, but PM was on the radio after the tribunal.

He said the tribunal had been conducted fairly and he was happy with the outcome. He thanked his barrister (so he didn;'t represent himself), I think he thanked to opposing team too.

All in all, he came across as very reasonable and personal plaintiff who having tried was content with the outcome. A rarity these days.

Dream Buster

24th Mar 2009, 13:42

Hi All,

If I had got stopped by the police doing 90 mph I would have accepted the fine with good grace, a fair cop!

If I had 9 points on my licence (I haven't got any - sorry). I would have gone at 80 mph maximum - like every body else.

When my sister was 50 in 2003 I had a cunn ing scheme of taking my sister (she is not a terrorist) on a jump seat ride on an empty sector for her 50th birthday as captain.
Do you know what, I didn't even ask - as I knew what the answer would be.

I didn't want to give the muppet(tes) the pleasure of saying......'Are you mad captain? No!'

It's all MAD! Pick and mix rules....I feel a sneeking, slight sympathy for PM, now.

He just got caught. I didn't and wasn't either!

DB :{ :ok:

hawker750

24th Mar 2009, 14:18

All I can say is that Pablo sounds like a bloody good bloke, if I had a job vacancy for him I would employ him like a shot.................our jets do not have cockpit doors and I am very happy about it that way.
There is a saying....rules are for the guidance of the wise and for the blind obedience of fools, there seems to be a heap of the latter pontificating on this one.

Michael Birbeck

24th Mar 2009, 14:21

Whenever I start questioning the value of flight discipline I reach for "Flight Discipline" by Tony Kern (who also produced an insightful analysis of the "Bud" Holland disaster). This text should be prescribed reading for anyone in a management position in any industry and doubly so for those who value professional and rigorous standards of flying and adherence to standard procedures. I guess the loose cannons are useful in extremis (e.g. war time) but really have no place in the operational structures required to ensure safe commercial flight.

flyinthesky

24th Mar 2009, 14:29

Ye gods, here we go again. 'Pablo's a great guy, blah de blah de blah'

Nobody doubts he is an interesting character. He broke rules repeatedly and paid the price. Which rule he broke for the third, final warning and hence dismissal does not actually matter in the slightest. It's just that he broke one that evokes a great deal of sentiment amongst most non pilot commentators.

Hawker - you employ him then. You aint gotta worry about the locked door SOP if you don't have them fitted. Ergo, Pablo can't break that rule.

And if I hear the adage about rules are for the guidance of wise etc again!!!

If you don't like rules/ SOP's etc then get the hell out of aviation, because they are there, they will be there and they will become ever more onerous. Having 65000 hrs spotting planes from the side of 23R at MAN does not make you an expert, nor does it allow you to comment on the rule structure we operate to. I would suggest that if you really hate the structures in place at most 1st world airlines that much, you choose caravan holidays from now on. Because every time you fly, it is those rules that try to ensure you and your family get from A to B as safely as possible!

Live with it or move on. Rather like this thread!!

ps. Yes Pablo did represent himself, he thought his personality and character would win the day. Kind of gives you an insight into the man????????

hawker750

24th Mar 2009, 14:41

Having flown for 40 years and still do so I am very aware of a new breed of pilot who thinks that SOP's are the answer to everything. The type who will fly into a cliff if Air Traffic told him to do so. I bet Pablo would not do that, he would question it.
SOP's are great and a fantastic advance on 40 years ago, but they have killed quite a few who thought they were the only answer to flight safety. Lighten up a bit Fly...your job is supposed to be enjoyable, you sound like someone from a Dickens novel

flyinthesky

24th Mar 2009, 14:49

Hawker

nobody disputes the advantages of SOP's nor the ability to question them when needed. What I find disheartening is 19 pages of drivel about an open and shut case of employment law.

If it were PM first mistake, it would have been tea and biccies. Nobody seems to grasp that.

As for lightening up - I only come on Pprune to realise that everywhere else is so much more fun!!!

Oh - and I am scrooge if you must know! ;)

hawker750

24th Mar 2009, 14:53

Ha Ha
In my book he should have been fleet manager, I doubt if he would have fired himself!

Michael Birbeck

24th Mar 2009, 14:57

Now why is it that when someone mentions Pablo Mason I am apt to think of Maurice Kirk? :)

Now there's a man who makes Captain Mason look like an orthodox saint. Both British god love them and good aviators all.:ok:.

Storminnorm

24th Mar 2009, 15:09

I'm just amazed at all the BS that's bandied about concerning
this "incident".
Personally I wouldn't let Robbie Savage anywhere NEAR a
flight deck. IMHO the blokes a prima donna tosser, but NOT
a terrorist by any stretch of the imagination.
If he doesn't like flying send him by train and/or boat.
I just think that someone was just looking for an excuse to
get rid of Mason. And that's all there is to it.

hellsbrink

24th Mar 2009, 15:45

Not my best wording. The example provided (120 in a 70) presents - for me - a higher risk scenario, with certainly less room for explanation. I suppose what I'm arguing here is the nature of the rules themselves, where they come from, and how they can be challenged.

You sure don't challenge them by deciding which ones to obey and which ones not to. After all, originally there was no limit on the M1 but then one was applied due to the inability of people to drive at speed. It could be argued that limits should be RAISED as cars nowadays are far safer and can stop far faster than they could when the limits were first put in place. But that's a different argument altogether, the fact is that there is a limit which you must obey or face the consequences. (Apologies for drifting there)

If UK pilots think the rules are insane then surely the way to challenge them is to get the union to lobby Parliament, stating how other countries in the EU, as examples, do not have these same rules. Of course, since the (hmm, what's the right word here) PERCEIVED terror threat is higher in the UK for reasons I am sure Parliament would give you these rules regarding cockpit visits/locked doors/etc are in place.

After all, I guess, more of the recent "threats" have originated in the UK than in, say, Italy so the "rules" have made harsher in the UK due to these "threats". That's the argument that would be used by HMG, so until the perception that there is a risk of some nutters storming the cockpit has vanished the rules stay in place. And they have to be obeyed. End of.

Dream Buster

24th Mar 2009, 15:47

hellsbrink

24th Mar 2009, 15:49

If I had 9 points on my licence (I haven't got any - sorry). I would have gone at 80 mph maximum - like every body else.

And you would still have been given the three points necessary to ban you. After all, you are allowed "indicated speed +/-10%" so that means anything above 77 is enough especially as most speedometers are actually set "low" (the ones here average 4kph). So your indicated 80 could actually be 84+ due to the way the speedo is set up.

But why is it ok to say "I shouldn't get hit because everyone else does it"? Does the fact that others drive aove the speed limit somehow make it ok to ignore the limit because YOU feel like it?

hellsbrink

24th Mar 2009, 15:53

Whilst I was still flying I used to sometimes welcome SLF (especially the young keen ones, like I used to be) to the flight deck ON THE GROUND to show them the 'steering wheel' etc.

Fire axe at the ready, just in case.....

Is this still legal and OK or could you (technically) lose your job over it?

DB http://static.pprune.org/images/smilies/pukey.gif

Been discussed various times (SLF sub-forum, mainly) and the general consensus is "Yes, it's allowed depending on time constraints and SOP's". After all, if you are at the gate after a flight then the threat of a hijack is over.

Dream Buster

24th Mar 2009, 16:24

Hellsbrink,

I think you are getting a bit deep here.

I admit I regularly exceed the national speed limit and am aware of ALL the 10% etc and points system but I seem to have accumulated nul points in 35 years (for that sort of motoring 'offence'). I was trying to point out how reasonably 'normal' people regularly 'break rules' without really knowing it or 'take a chance' and face the music if they get it wrong or miscalculate - PM?

Have you ever been over 70 mph in this country? - if so I wouldn't confess here - but lets have a bit of honesty, please.

For the record: I would rather be sitting with my family behind PM in the cockpit than some numpty who was 'only following orders' and as somebody so elloquently put it - steered the aircraft towards a theoretical cliff face. :ugh:

The book even says one can vary SOP's but one has to be able to justify it! That's the law, as I understood it.

Are some 'rules' more sacred than others?

Just remember and say after me: 'You can't win....'

DB :ok:

hellsbrink

24th Mar 2009, 16:31

Dream Buster

What you are not grasping, despite it being said repeatedly, is that he broke the rules, more than once, was CAUGHT, more than once, and THEN tried to worm his way out of the punishment.

Now, I'll ask again. If YOU were caught speeding would you say "it's a fair cop" or come out with some stupid, malebovinefaeces excuse as to why you should NOT face any penalty for speeding.

You see, that is what he did. He broke the rules, and not for the first time, was caught, not for the first time, was penalised, not for the first time, and in the end tried to get off with it on a technicality, which obviously didn't exist, AND tried to pass part of the blame onto someone else!! And somehow he has "been hard done by"?

If I was in your car, saying "go faster", would that be a valid excuse in court when YOU are hauled up for speeding?

cats_five

24th Mar 2009, 16:58

<snip>
For the record: I would rather be sitting with my family behind PM in the cockpit than some numpty who was 'only following orders' and as somebody so elloquently put it - steered the aircraft towards a theoretical cliff face. :ugh:

<snip>

I'd like to be sat behind someone with a good sense of self-preservation. AFAIK it was the navigator that ejected the pair of them from PM's Tornado. If that is the case then I'm not sure he has much of one.

Nigd3

24th Mar 2009, 17:21

DB

I didn't think the allowing of non aircrew onto the flight deck was part of a SOP, hence not up for varying. I understood it was mandated by the CAA.

I would like to meet the bloke and make up my own mind but from what I have read, at this moment I would say he hasn't a leg to stand on

FrequentSLF

24th Mar 2009, 17:47

For the record: I would rather be sitting with my family behind PM in the cockpit than some numpty who was 'only following orders' and as somebody so elloquently put it - steered the aircraft towards a theoretical cliff face.

Hmmm... Which SOP says to steer an aircraft to a theoretical cliff face? Being only a SLF I am not aware of any, but please enlighten me.:rolleyes:
Furthermore remember that a civil aircraft does not have a navigator and any ejection system! :ugh:

bluepilot

24th Mar 2009, 17:53

Why on earth is this being discussed on rumours and news?? In fact why is it being discussed at all? The guy is a maverik and has paid the price for that....end.

Dream Buster

24th Mar 2009, 18:32

Hellsbrink,

As I made clear some time ago I was officially invited to break FTL RULES all the time by my 'cowboy' Lo Co carrier. I haven't got time now to spell out all of the nuances but most of the time it was very much for the carriers benefit and yes, I (not the carrier) would have been guilty as charged in the event of an incident and subsequent paperwork trawl, 'in depth enquiry' or whatever you call it.

Isn't it a "double bind" when you are b*****ed both ways?

Frequent SLF,

What made you think there was an SOP for flying into a cliff? Many is the time we have queeried instructions and maybe done the opposite of what we had been invited to do. Are you a pilot or SLF? as this may be beyond you.

I agree; why is this still in Rumours and News? and not in some "Here we go again forum"?

DB :zzz:

M.Mouse

24th Mar 2009, 18:41

And you would still have been given the three points necessary to ban you. After all, you are allowed "indicated speed +/-10%"....

Wrong.

So your indicated 80 could actually be 84+ due to the way the speedo is set up.

Wrong.

Please try harder.

FrequentSLF

24th Mar 2009, 18:41

What made you think there was an SOP for flying into a cliff? Many is the time we have queeried instructions and maybe done the opposite of what we had been invited to do. Are you a pilot or SLF? as this may be beyond you.

Maybe is beyond me...however your logic does not stand.
You are talking about instruction received, not rules. I was just trying to say that your comparison cannot stand any logic, even for a SLF.
Dismissing my comment only because I am SLF, does not do any good to your reasoning. The issue here is, follow the rules or not follow them.
Let me say something for which I am qualified as SLF, I would not sit in a plane with PM in front! A guy that is prone to break rules for the shake of his ego does not satisfy my safety standards.

hellsbrink

24th Mar 2009, 18:49

Dream Buster

Did you actually do the things you were "invited" to do and, if so, would you have been happy to do so knowing that when the :mad: hit the fan YOU would have been the one without anyone defending you as YOU were the one who took the decision to agree to these things? Do you REALLY think that anyone would have stood up and said "it ws my fault he did it"? But you are talking about different circumstances, trying to use any method possible to defend the indefensible.

Doesn't matter what the "who/what/why" was, you are admitting here that you freely did things you shouldn't have, against the rules of at least your employer and possibly the CAA, and still can't see why, when someone DELIBERATELY IGNORED said rules and decided to do something without any questions being asked, and probably for his own ego (Think of a taxi driver.. "I had that Robbie Savage in my cockpit last week, nice guy"), said ":mad: the rules". You agree with him.

I'm glad he has been kicked out, because it is MY life in his hands if I fly on one of that company's aircraft so I want to KNOW they will behave according to all applicable regulations in every aspect of these regulations. I WANT to know the guy driving the thing is doing the right thing and not massaging his own ego.. If you are still flying, tell me who for (PM if you want, I can assure you I won't say who. I do have more honour than most people on this planet) so I can avoid them because someone who admits a blatant disregard of regs is dangerous.

vonbag

24th Mar 2009, 19:13

I read this entire thread. I feel a hint of commiseration for Mr. P.M.
because he was caught repeatedly. At the same time he was lucky nothing sinister happened during his Airline time.
However, I agree with all those who have written that the SOPs have been studied and developed to be respected for the safety of all us passengers & crews in large multi-engined Airliners.
Any disrespect of it puts at potential risk not only one driver but an entire loaded multimillion Airline A/C.

In accordance with the PPrune philosophy of that Forum:
If you are regularly a passenger on any airline then why not post your views or questions here? Many of us pilots like to know exactly what you think of us, the job, the airline or anything that you think we should hear about.
I opened this thread a few days ago under Passengers & SLF (Self Loading Freight) that maybe a sideways related topic from the Passenger's point of view:

http://www.pprune.org/passengers-slf-self-loading-freight/366892-guests-cockpit-_post-9-11-_-survey.html

It does no-longer have the character of a "survey", but just a thread where to report your own experiences and/or knowledge on the matter for us passengers to learn.

Sorry for drifting O.T. -- bust or chastizise if necessary.

Roger Sofarover

24th Mar 2009, 19:45

Why oh why do people post on these threads when they clearly have not read them prior to coming up with their little gems of wisdom. "did you know there is an old saying that rules are for the...blah blah blah", talking YET again about PM, tornado crashes, not his fault, blah blah.

MODS, please, please lock this thread. I have never seen a thread be allowed to continue for so long when it contains so much sh**e from so many people that neither know the guy nor Know the rules. He screwed up, he went to an employment tribunal, he lost, end of case. For those in the last few pages saying what a good guy, how nice in defeat etc, think about it! PM will do very very well from the publicity with his books, public speaking etc.

Last point. Pablo, I cannot believe for one minute that you have not been reading this thread. For Gods sake put everybody out there misery and make a comment and then have the thread locked. Alternatively, could the original poster press delete on the thread. Thanks.

Nigd3

24th Mar 2009, 19:51

Roger S

I think PM has posted, only he called himself Hawker750 ;)

40&80

24th Mar 2009, 23:15

What a fantastic pilot selection process the RAF and this charter outfit had?

hawker750

25th Mar 2009, 09:31

hellsbrink

25th Mar 2009, 11:08

People think Pablo is me!!
I do not want to read the complete thread so forgive me if this has been covered before but what I want to know is how did "The Management" get to know of my, sorry his discretion?
1) I do not think he would have volunteered the information
2) Does the management have a camera in the cockpit?
3) I cannot imagine a steely eyed first officer playing sneak
So it must have been a chip on the shoulder cabin crew who reported him.

Can anybody with certainty explain how it happened?

Soooooo many ways. Pablo COULD have said something which was overheard. F/O might have said something. C/C might have said something. Of course, we can't rule out Savage HIMSELF saying something which was overheard by others, or, indeed, any other person on the flight saying something. So many variables.

Does it really matter ow management found out though? Personally, I don't think it does.

GearDown&Locked

25th Mar 2009, 14:21

...besides, the evidence was right there in the CVR, was it not?:hmm:

Grotehaasje

25th Mar 2009, 20:34

Well at my Tribunal I was in the right and BMI were profoundly in the wrong, but I did not detect any level of support, or indeed, such vociferous interest in the outcome.

Maybe I did something wrong, won.

Artificial Horizon

25th Mar 2009, 21:12

I hate to say it, but I think in this case it was only right to terminate this Captains contract. I am all for sensible security rules and SOP's but in this situation the rule was and still is 'no flight deck visits permitted', to knowingly go against this was a poor decision and always was putting his position at risk just on this one point let alone all of the other instances as well!! In my experience Captains like Pablo are always a nightmare to fly with, on the surface they are 'jolly' lovely guys but behind the flightdeck door there are 'rebels' hidden beneath who's sole purpose just seems to be 'challange' all the rules that they don't like at every turn making for a very unpleasant day out.

flyinthesky

26th Mar 2009, 07:34

Artificial Horizon

Spot on fella! All points I have been trying to make since this thread started way back.

Your interpretation of the chap is EXACTLY right.
Case closed, thread stopped.

Can we move our lives on now???? :D

Roger Sofarover

26th Mar 2009, 08:05

I can only assume that as this thread keeps going round and round and round, and round and round and round that Pablo must in fact be one of the Mods, and is stopping the thread being closed.

yoffey

26th Mar 2009, 09:09

Would any airline employ Pablo after this ?

cats_five

26th Mar 2009, 09:14

AFAIK PMs in his late 50s so reaching the end of his CPL life. Being a cynical so-and-so I reckon that he reckoned that the publicity from this should tee him up nicely for his next career of after-dinner speaking and so on.

Roger Sofarover

26th Mar 2009, 09:20

Cats Five

Exactly!

Now can someone please close the thread.

parabellum

26th Mar 2009, 12:01

Given the amount of flak the Mods have had to take from PPRuNers quite recently regarding accusations of "Censorship" and "Unreasonable Deleting" etc. in other parts of this BB I think the various time wasters, vvankers and other hamsters have been very well treated and accommodated on this thread.

Mason, with two final warnings on his file, chose to blatantly disregard his company's and the JAAs/CAAs instructions/rules regarding flight deck visits, silly man. Endex.

Von Smallhausen

26th Mar 2009, 16:30

Artificial Horizon and parabellum are spot on.

My opinion of Pablo, as one who flew with him several times at Airtours (which later became MyTravel):

As a Human Being, nowhere near an aeroplane...
One of the kindsest, most considerate, warm-heared, compassionate and generous men it's ever been my privelidge to know. The kind of chap who makes you feel just that bit happier and content in life simply by being in his company, putting a warm glow in your heart and smile on your face that will linger long after you've bid him goodbye.

As a single-crew/military pilot...
I'm not qualified to say. Perhaps his record speaks for itself.

As a multi-crew/airliner pilot...
An absolute disaster area on legs. A total liability. An incident (of which he had several), indeed possibly worse, just waiting to happen. An anathema to inter-pilot CRM (whilst being brilliant with the crew and passengers). A man who will literally scare you when you go flying together, to the degree that you'll still be affected long after the Parking Brake is set. The kind of name that makes one bang his head in disbelief and dread when it appears on your roster. When he was finally sacked, he wasn't on his umpteenth formal warning for no reason. Need I continue....

The truth might hurt sometimes but that doesn't stop it from being true. I do genuinely wish Pablo all the best for his future. He certainly deserves it.