Pablo Mason (Spelled M.A.S.O.N) Tribunal

[call100]

I thought some may be interested the the employment tribunal for Pablo Mason is about to begin....
Coventry Telegraph - News - Coventry News - Robbie Savage pilot sacking tribunal starts (http://www.coventrytelegraph.net/news/coventry-news/2009/03/11/robbie-savage-pilot-sacking-tribunal-starts-92746-23119313/)

[James T. Kirk]

Good luck to him.

[Flintstone]

At least have the decency to spell his name properly :rolleyes:

[Ten West]

I don't think he's got much chance personally. He knowingly and deliberately violated a standard operating procedure. Add the magic word "Security" into the mix and everyone panics and bays for his blood.

Which is a shame, as I read his book a while ago, and although he comes across as opinionated and forever butting heads with those in authority, there's no denying that he seems like a good man, a decent human being and that he cares about his colleagues and the men who were under his command.

It seems that he was destined for greater things than a life in civvy street where the rules and regulations are always allowed to override common sense. :(

Good luck to him in the future. :ok:

[doubleu-anker]

Ten West

Agreed.

I have heard that there have been some various security breaches. One story I heard, the pilot was flying with an AXE IN THE COCKPIT!!!! Can you believe it? Well I assume he was searched at security, to check he had no weapons etc.

Wonder if they "got him" on that one, for a breach of security? :ugh:

[Pugilistic Animus]

one time, I heard, he had 20T of kerosene too:eek:

[doubleu-anker]

Oh that's it then, he's had it. Hasn'T got a leg to stand on.

[Posh boy]

We are co politically correct about security procedures here in the UK, we do not see any sense or logic when it comes to it. Everybody jumps at it and follows it blindly as it's the right thing to do. Anybody thinking outside the bracket is savaged by the press ,as this is what sells best nowadays.
The Italians were absolutely right after September 11 stating it was specifically an American problem. "SECURITY" the biggest bull of the the 21st century?
A company I work for ( on the continent) allows a member of a family on a flight deck given sufficient notice and security clearance, can you do this anywhere in the UK? Wishful thinking.
We are all victims of it all. I hope Pablo has a very good lawyer, but I am not very optimistic about his case.

Good luck

PB

[Tyke]

So how many final written warnings does a pilot expect before the big chopper? Lovely man that he is, he just never did learn!

[beardy]

Somewhere on the web was a video of one of his excellent announcements to his passengers, done from the front handset in the cabin, face to face with the public. I just can't find it now, does anybody know where it is if it still exists?

[Airbubba]

The Italians were absolutely right after September 11 stating it was specifically an American problem.

Don't worry, we have thousands of USAFE troops stationed on European soil to defend you and the Italians:

U.S. Air Forces in Europe - Home (http://www.usafe.af.mil/)

[sweetie76]

A company I work for ( on the continent) allows a member of a family on a flight deck given sufficient notice and security clearance, can you do this anywhere in the UK? Wishful thinking.

Posh Boy, you're so right! When are our lords and masters going to stand up for us? We are the very people who have a vested interest in the safe conduct of a flight yet we are treated as possible hijackers. This is not a dig at the Security staff - they are simply doing what they are told.

High time a sense of realism was injected. Why shouldn't we have our immediate family on our own flight deck, especially after a sensible period of notice?

[ShyTorque]

Can you do this in UK? Of course, provided the company agrees. Only last week I flew two trips with my wife in the co-pilot's seat. No-one worried.

[RoyHudd]

Pablo Mason was right. The rules remain wrong.

Yes, the rules are wrong. This is a key part of what this tribunal will be about.

Postings from blindly obedient, law-following folk will doubtless profess that complying with the rules/law is the only correct way. Sad, really. Remember how things went following the Weimar Republic. The law is sometimes more than ass.

[T-21]

Sick to death of all of the aviation industry,security and P.C. mad people. Nobody has the balls in this country to speak out anymore. Guess where I'am going on holiday this year .... yes the Isle of Wight , totally p**sed off with the whole aviation experience (event ?)

[modelflyer]

I don't have a link to a video, but my wife and I were on a flight from Birmingham to Murcia several years ago when we witnessed the sort of cabin-based announcement you refer to.

From memory, his announcement included wishing a young passenger happy birthday and how he (Pablo) would have loved to have been able to fly at a young age. He also said it was a shame the boy wouldn't be able to visit the flight deck during the flight because of the rules.

As we taxied out he drew our attention to some plane spotters and remarked that was what he used to do as a boy.

I seem to recall that he was standing in the cockpit door wishing everyone a good holiday as we disembarked in Murcia.

In any other business such a personable approach would most-likely be commended as generating customer satisfaction and loyalty.

I cannot comment on any technical aspects of the flight, except to say it was completely uneventful.

[clivewatson]

I sympathise with Pablo's plight, but doubt if the Judge will have much in the way of options to let him off the hook. The unfortunate fact remains that he boke the cardinal rule...he got caught!

Security is a sensitive issue, and one that is being blown out of all proportion, especially by those who are raking it in as security service advisors/providors.

[pilothouse]

I really do hope that Pablo wins this but it doesn't look easy.

Does anyone know if BALPA are supporting Pablo in this?

[RAT 5]

Slightly off topic, I admit, but the subject of cockpit visits was raised. I'm amazed that one airline I know off has the policy that a non-staff member, travelling with a staff member may occupy the cockpit jump seat if the a/c is full. Staggering! The reason being is that they are not a fare paying pax. They are not flight safety trained, have no ID etc. Surely the airline ID carrying staff member should be in the cockpit, not some non-security checked individual.
Double standards or crass stupidity?

[RED WINGS]

Im not 100% sure but think the sterile flight deck is a company rule rather than legal, as some UK operators still allow jump seating for those that meet the criteria. Be interesting to see what comes out of the case.

[DP.]

Just seen this on the BBC, the latest update after today's hearings;

BBC NEWS | England | Pilot disciplined before breach (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/7938472.stm)

[flash8]

Why any discussion? I have sympathy for the guy as he sounds a right character, but at the end of the day he broke the rules one time too many (it's called taking the p*ss in my neck of the woods).

[parabellum]

It looks as though the company followed the correct legal procedure in that he had received written warnings and still broke a company rule. His contract would probably state that he is required to abide by company SOPs and regulations and he probably signed a copy as acceptance. I can't see the judge being interested in Mason's own opinions, they are irrelevant, the company didn't give him licence to interpret the SOPs/rules. He was sacked for persistently breaking company rules despite having been warned, security is hardly an issue.

[dicksorchard]

I think its really foul play that this guy lost his job ....no pun intended .

Being a larger than life character has its good points & bad .

But an n individual like this chap will always attract attention .

Usually because others are insecure around such a charismatic character .

It seems to me that the powers that be had been waiting in the wings ready to take their oppurtunity to get rid of poor Pablo !

But seriously what type of security threat is a professional footballer ?

And a famous one at that !

Its a farce the whole scenario ...

I don't hold up much hope for the guy but i love the fact that he's not going down without a fight !

I for one wish him all the best .

[THE POINTY END]

Isn't it a crazy world. On one hand we have a Pilot losing his job over a 'security' incident by letting a well known English football player onto the flight deck. Flip side, I see one of the muslim protesters in Luton is a baggage handler there with airside access. That's ok though coz it's polically correct.

[The Real Slim Shady]

Our Part A is quite clear: "Flight deck visits are prohibited".

It may be that Pablo is relying on flaws in the way his case was handled: if the prescribed process was not followed exactly, he may have a case for having the decision reversed.

[merlinxx]

We all love a maverick and a character, but he over stepped the mark once too often:= Rules is rules folks however we dislike them, if it's in the book, then it's in the book, he broke the rules once too often, he got canned:ugh:

Not in todays industry, yesterdays yes.

[doubleu-anker]

merlin xx

Yes understand what you are saying. However he was prepared to make a stand on this total B/S called security. If he was backed up by us all we still would not be living with this B/S now. So we continue to be led like sheep to the slaughter because that is what we all are, a load of e**** sheep.

Remember the concentration camps in the middle of last century? I rest my case.

We all have a bigger challenge here coming up with the ID card fiasco. I am waiting to see who is going to make a stand. I just wonder if BALPA have the stomach to do so? Time will tell but time is also running out.

[StressFree]

Doubleu,
You make a brilliant point (as always), if we continue to tolerate this TOTAL bullsh*t then we can blame no-one but ourselves for where it all ends up....

I'm routinely scanned/searched/verified prior to getting onto the plane but the stupid FACT these idiots ignore is that the biggest weapon I have is the plane itself, the next thing in the 'security' issue may be no flying at all - its far too dangerous. Tell you what, why not take the train instead? After all terrorists would never target a train would they????????????????
:ugh::ugh::ugh::ugh::ugh:

[unablereqnavperf]

Every day I go to work and have to face this bloody fiasco called security I feel a little more depressed.

Let me tell you a little story of how effective Luton airport security is! Despite employing British troop hating muslims!

Day 1 ( corporatde aircraft)
Private flight for owner,I carried on a highly dangerous pint of milk that had not been cleared by security however today it was not really dangerous as it was a private flight.

Day 2
Charter flight same aircraft same airport same crew Highly dangerous pint of milk from the same source as the previous day. Only thank godness this time we had to be screened and the security staff explained how dangerous the pint of milk was and confescated it!

I now do not carry any pints of milk on board and still have sleepless nights of what could have happend had the pint of milk gone off! ( let alone the explosion that could have occured had I drunk it after it had gone off) I'm sure that Luton airport security services have their hands full so full stopping these highly dangerous pints of milk from getting airside that they have no time for such trivial matters as properly screening airside pass holders that hate our nation and the brave troops that put they're lives on the line to ensure our freedom!

And another triumphant security story!

This time standing at near the check in counter at RAF Brize Norton a British soldier in full battle dress was checking in for a flight to Khanderha and was asked by security if he was carrying any dangerous weapons, I replied immeadiatley on his behalf that I should bl***y hope so as where he was going he would probably need them!

The above is typical of the rule based complete lack of common sence sociaty we have allowed to develope around us! The computer says no so it must be no sorry I'm an i**** and cannot or will not think for myself!

[soddim]

Hard to believe that the company sacked him without any complaint from the public or anyone else. Sounds like they were waiting for an opportunity and he gifted them one.

Not My Travel method in the future - pax should vote with their ticket money.

[Final 3 Greens]

Not My Travel method in the future - pax should vote with their ticket money

Have you considered that some members of the travelling public may prefer the crew to follow the SOPs?

I have no reason to disbelieve Mr Mason when he says the flight was not endangered, but if SOPs are not followed in one area, many people will ask what guarantee is there that they will be followed in another area?

This is not the way I think, but many will and I wouldn't expect to see too much public retribution against MyTravel - anyway, most people will buy the best deal.

The 'security keeps us safe' argument appears quite frequently in SLF, where I normally live and although several of us try to debunk it, we don't often succeed.

The best thing to do is to follow company SOPs on this to the letter and I regret that, as I was privileged to spend some hours in the flight deck before 9/11 and it was a real privilege.

[OneIn60rule]

If Mason has repeatedly gone against SOP's and not heeded warnings...
At what stage do you sack them? Before or after they become part of a spectacular incident/accident?

I'm sorry to say those who don't understand why SOP's exist. They are there for a very good reason and when someone like Pablo repeatedly ignores them, it does not inspire his employer with confidence.




1/60

[OPS1978]

Pablo is a true Gent and a top man I worked alongside him for many years always a pleasure to work with jolly good chap!!!

[Dysag]

We all know people like Pablo. If the speed limit is 70 they'll go at 90.

Their brains are wired like that.

[morton]

Getting back to the subject - which has drifted off to cockpit access - inbetween the rants and the pops! .… who should you let ride on the jump seat? Who can you trust? As a staff member the jump seat has helped me get back from places I would otherwise be stuck at for longer than I wanted. Now I can only use the seat if it is duty travel. The following summary happened back in 1994 or 95 but it took 9/11 before a common policy was introduced. Even so, this common policy was/is aimed at ‘unknowns’ and not ‘knowns’ (if there is such a word!). The Pilot was dead - heading on the jump seat so, should even those on duty travel be denied cockpit access?

“A jury rejected an insanity defense yesterday and convicted a former Federal Express pilot of attacking the crew of a FedEx jet with a hammer and spear gun at 18,000 feet.
Auburn Calloway, 42, could get 20 years to life in prison for attempted air piracy. No date was set for sentencing.
Witnesses said Calloway feared he was about to be fired, and Assistant U.S. Attorney John Fowlkes told the jury he may have wanted to crash the plane so his children could collect a $250,000 accidental-death insurance policy.”

[call100]

At least have the decency to spell his name properly :rolleyes:
I did the computer did not. Decency had nothing to do with it......Mr spelling policeman:8...
Anyway, it has now been rectified.:rolleyes::rolleyes:

[Flash0710]

Go Pablo......!!!

if there were more immigrants like him we may have the pride to call ourselves " Great Britain " again.....

have a word chaps....

hugs

xxx

f

[Smilin_Ed]

You cannot be held responsible for inappropriate actions forever...

Yes, you can. One of the prime requisites for being a captain is reliability. It appears, from this thread, that the subject is not reliable.

[FrequentSLF]

SOP and security are now subjected to be the Captain a good chap?
Common sense? Where starts and where stops? Regulations are regulations...
A stupid question...you are standing at a red traffic light, no cars coming...common sense is that is safe to cross the junction with the red light!
I will not cross, because the rules says that I cannot, what will you do?
FSLF

[soddim]

Have you considered that some members of the travelling public may prefer the crew to follow the SOPs?

Was it company SOPs that Pablo was accused of violating??

I rather doubt it because SOPs are not mandatory.

In any case, I prefer to travel with airline pilots who know how to fly aircraft and use SOPs as advisory.

[Final 3 Greens]

soddim

Pax won't know the difference between different types of SOPs/laws/regulations/traffic light good practices - see the post immediately before yours for a classic reaction.

I'm not a professional pilot but I have spent an awful lot of time in the cabin and do have a very good idea of how most pax think.

I perfectly understand your feelings, but the reality is that those who were being exorted to punish MYT will neither think lilke you nor suspend their business for this reason, harsh, but true.

BTW, don't read my comments as support for the current security arrangements.

[crewrest]

I rather doubt it because SOPs are not mandatory

Really? That's OK then. I'll remember that for my line check. :ooh:

[beardy]

So why did PM knowingly transgress the rules? Certainly there was no positive contribution to the safety nor efficiency of the flight. His ego was massaged perhaps? Or perhaps he just didn't like them; neither is sufficient justification. Most pertinently he knew what he was doing was against company SOPs and had no benefit to flight safety, consequently I find the quality of his decision making somewhat suspect.

It is somewhat irrelevant but, for the record, I think that the rules (in this circumstance) suck. But my opinion doesn't override my company SOPs.

[Bealzebub]

A stupid question...you are standing at a red traffic light, no cars coming...common sense is that is safe to cross the junction with the red light!
I will not cross, because the rules says that I cannot, what will you do?

You can please yourself. If you are ticketed for jaywalking or hit by a vehicle you failed to see, or never again give it a second thought, that is simply a matter for you. If, on the other hand, you are in charge of a party of 30 school children would the decision and process be the same? Then your action would affect others for whom you had been charged with responsibility for their safety. There are potential repercussions that extend beyond the immediate action. If your actions either directly or in part contributory resulted in injury or damage to one of those charges, you may find that the support and protections in place to defend you have suddenly evaporated. You may then lay yourself and or your employer open to charges of recklessness and or negligence simply because you had felt it safe to ignore the rules.

As most experienced pilots will certainly know, there are times when you have to make difficult decisions, and sometimes those decisions might be completely at variance with the rules or standard procedures. You are required to make a quick calculated risk as to the best course of action with the intention of providing for the safest possible outcome. That however should not be confused with the requirement to comply at all other times with the statutory and regulatory requirements laid down for the "standard" operation you are charged with. Likewise your employer pays you to contractually provide a service in accordance with the foregoing and their own commercial interests.

If you want to make a protest or display maverick behavioral tendancies, ignore rules, procedures or anything else, do it in your own time and with your own property. The consequences of such actions or behaviour then fall to you and not your employer or anybody else whose charge is your responsibility.

In all of us there is an element of admiration for the "characters" and "mavericks" that perhaps say the things and take the actions that we would never be prepared to. But it is rank hypocrisy to use anonymous usernames to pledge undying support for this behaviour when you know the likely repercussions of such behaviour, if allowed to be widespread, unchecked or unchallenged.

[Bealzebub]

Douglas Bader said: "Rules are for the obedience of fools and the guidance of wise men”

Perhaps because he knew that wise men realize their fallibilities and that those rules guide their actions and decisions. They are not challenges to be ignored or violated on a whim or a mood. Fools who would otherwise take actions that compromise their own safety or security, or the safety and security of others, will quickly find that the required application of those rules will govern the response to their poor actions and decisions. Only a fool would interpret such a cliche as a rallying cry for the would be mavericks ? ;)

[Maximum]

Starbear, with all due respect to Bader's memory, perhaps he is not the best role model for a civilian airline pilot. Wartime very different to peacetime.

While most of us love stories about these characters, they can also be a bl*%dy pain in the ass. Just a general observation from experience, not aimed at any one individual. Sop's are sop's, bottom line. If you don't like them, communicate with management and try to get them changed.

Sure, in a non-normal situation you can use your judgement and disregard them if you think this is the safest course of action.

But, you'll still have to justify your actions afterwards. Fair enough, that's the responsibility we accept when we sign the tech log.

The bottom line is, if you start picking which SOP's to follow and which not to, where does it end. And for the poor old F/O, it disrupts their normal pattern of operation, becomes a bit overwhelming and tends to lead to a one man band style of operation.

I've also noticed with a lot of these 'characters' that they like to be the only one - god forbid that you try and be a 'character' as well. :}

[call100]

Day two ot the tribunal....
Coventry Telegraph - News - South Warwickshire News - Sacked Leamington pilot was on final warning, tribunal hears (http://www.coventrytelegraph.net/news/south-warwickshire-news/2009/03/12/former-gulf-war-pilot-of-leamington-claims-unfair-dismissal-92746-23124552/)

[Capt Pit Bull]

SOP and security are now subjected to be the Captain a good chap?
Common sense? Where starts and where stops? Regulations are regulations...
A stupid question...you are standing at a red traffic light, no cars coming...common sense is that is safe to cross the junction with the red light!
I will not cross, because the rules says that I cannot, what will you do?
FSLF

Well, although the UK has lost the plot in many regards it has still to stoop to the level of stupidity that is 'jaywalking'. So I'll just go ahead and cross, given that its not illegal here. And I'll also shake my head in pity at the poor foreign visitors who have so little faith in their own judgement that they don't even know how to cross a road safely.

pb

[autobrake3]

Perhaps slightly eccentric and ex RAF(:)) but at least, unlike the rest of us (fight crew), he has got the balls to stand up to the utterly pathetic security regime that has been forced upon us by the clowns from Whitehall and executed by your favourite jobsworth 'security' staff and airline 'management'. To someone who is saying enough of this, I say good luck.

[GS John]

I see he has a good defence team :eek:

[winkle]

Just a thought why is not letting someone in the cockpit an SOP, SOP's are NOT rules. It should be that the company RULE is that only authorised personel are allowed on the flight deck. SOP's are to allow total safety with operating the aircraft ie callouts, use of auto-flight even the method of entry to the flight deck by cabin crew etc so allowing the crew to interact and both be in the loop and maintain maximum situational awareness.
SOP's are designed to simplify the complex nature of operating aircraft. Rules are put into place by the higher authorities in order to make things as safe as possible.
So company rule is no un authorised personel on the FD, Captain decides to break the rule because he thinks for the safety of the nervous passenger he comes to the flight deck to allay his fears, captain therefore breaks the rule - in his opinion to bring about a safe outcome. Captains are given total authority within their aircraft BUT they are given rules to adhere to, breaking them is their responsibility and they will have to subsequently justify their actions.
PM nice chap met him many years ago in a hot place, hope he wins this one and highlights the stupidity and lack of common sense that is permiating its way through the entire aviation industry - glad i am out of it for now.
Best of luck to you all;)

[fade to grey]

Oh god, here we go again.....

SOPs are mandatory to be followed in any decent airline, UNLESS you have a cast iron reason to go against them.

This particular chap was certainly not well liked by two ex MYT pilots I know who knew him.....apparantly he believed his own publicity.

Remember the B52 crash in the states ?this is how it all begins - not adhering to procedure, deliberately parking where it says 'no parking', 'maverick ' attitude etc etc...

[Teddy Robinson]

They form part of the manual set required by the JAA for an Air Operators Certificate to be issued and maintained, were they part of an employees handbook they become "just" company rules.

Sad to say that the UK still suffers the "culture of fear" legacy of Mr.Bush/Blair. My recent experience with European operators is that an individual may be allowed on the flight deck at the captains discretion provided they are a company employee, or a person known to a member of the flight crew, UNLESS we are flying to the UK that is !!!

Being British born, this causes my crews great amusement.

That seems like a common sense approach .... as for Birmingham security ??? better start a new thread, it's a national disgrace as are all of the UK airports.

TR

[Rigga]

I like the "Jaywalking" approach to airliner safety!

If I was stood at a red light at a road with bends in it, and no traffic was coming; I too would cross after making a judgement that the road was clear enough.

Given a similar situation: What would you do if you were pushing 190 people in connected wheelchairs across?

Would you try to cross? or would you follow the rules?

[Teddy Robinson]

were this in a civilized European state there would be no sacking no tribunal. :ugh:

[Double Zero]

I'd much rather be SLF for Pablo than some young chinless type who has much less varied experience; in an emergency, Pablo's who you want to be sitting behind !

I left BAe when my section became overan with foreign accountants like replicators from a sci-fi movie and I was offered to carry on in idiotic fashion or me or my boss should go; I voted with my feet, which didn't seem what was expected, so they made my boss redundant before my voluntary leaving party came up, replacing us both with a puppet.

Let's see, if you as SLF were given the choice, " you can fly with Pablo, a larger than life character, war veteran with thousands of hours on fighters ( well... ) to airliners, OR

You can fly with Norman, just qualified, purely trained to fly this airliner, good at it, no experience with anything else or the emergencies likely to come up in combat which might be useful...

I'd go for Pablo every time, even the SLF would !

[Crewing's Slave]

Cos experience in avoiding SAMs in the desert is just what you need flying to Majorca.....

[mini]

Nah, Norman is infinitely easier to sue... :}

Pablo lost the run of himself IMHO, hero he may have been in the Mil, but in civvy life you're just A.N.Other, accept it or forever be frustrated.

[Bealzebub]

Let's see, if you as SLF were given the choice, " you can fly with Pablo, a larger than life character, war veteran with thousands of hours on fighters ( well... ) to airliners, OR

How about this larger than life character.

The B-52 crash at Fairchild Air Force Base was a fatal air crash that occurred on June 24, 1994, killing the four crew members of a United States Air Force (USAF) B-52 Stratofortress named Czar 52 during an airshow practice flight. In the crash, Bud Holland, who was the command pilot of the aircraft based at Fairchild Air Force Base, flew the aircraft beyond its operational limits and lost control. As a result, the aircraft stalled, hit the ground, and was destroyed. The crash was videotaped and the video was shown repeatedly on news broadcasts throughout the United States.

The accident investigation concluded that the chain of events leading to the crash was primarily attributable to Holland's personality and behavior, USAF leaders' reactions (or lack thereof) to it, and the sequence of events during the mishap flight of the aircraft. Today, the crash is used in military and civilian aviation environments as a case study in teaching crew resource management. Also, the crash is often used by the USAF, United States Navy and United States Army during aviation safety training as an example of the importance of compliance with safety regulations and correcting the behavior of anyone who violates safety procedures.

This was the end result:

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/kVaAVN94sTs&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/kVaAVN94sTs&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

What were you saying about the SLF voting for their hero's ?

Isn't there also an irony in that in this current reported case, the claimant will be relying on civil rules and procedures and the proper application of those rules to advocate his case ?

[Maximum]

Double Zero, with all due respect your example is a non sequiter as your "Norman" will not be Captain of the aircraft, being as you say, newly qualified.

Also, since when has being "larger than life" indicated an ability or otherwise to be a safe airline Captain?

Most of those I would trust my life to are fairly quiet, stable individuals.

[doubleu-anker]

Oh, yes and when your a/c is burning and you want to get the thing on the ground pronto, you cant, not allowed. Why? Well the Emergency checklist (Law not an SOP) says you cant, as you are above the max landing weight. So land now or die waiting to get down to landing weight. That is the choice.

Now it is all very well you saying, "yes but the rule book can be discarded" in emergency. However, when one is conditioned to blindly accepting sop's/rules without question and be severely disciplined, should it not be so, the above scenario could creep in.

You see conditioning to strict adherence can possibly lead to disaster, in certain circumstances. Or catasphrophe, remember Nurnberg? "I was was following orders" (rules/SOP's).

Yes I realise sop's must be in place and strict adherence to them is "required" but on the down side it does produce a robotic culture.

[Airbubba]

Oh, yes and when your a/c is burning and you want to get the thing on the ground pronto, you cant, not allowed. Why? Well the Emergency checklist (Law not an SOP) says you cant, as you are above the max landing weight.

Huh? I've never seen that one.

[Final 3 Greens]

Yes I realise sop's must be in place and strict adherence to them is "required" but on the down side it does produce a robotic culture.

SOPs are not about robotic culture, but about repeatable process management.

Therefore, when the situation is normal, you follow the process, because that is the most efficient and safe approach.

When the situation is abnormal, one uses judgment to take the most appropriate action.

One of the challenges in recruiting and retaining the best airline pilots is the paradox that you need highly intelligent people with the self discipline to follow the SOPs day in, day out, but who are also capable of calm, creative problem solving, with very high levels of situational judgment when required.

I think that this is largely misunderstood by many people.

Maximum gives a good insight in saying Most of those I would trust my life to are fairly quiet, stable individuals.

I would add to that "capable of smooth and sustained team work."

If one analyses the safety records of commercial air transport in the last 60 years, the effects of better equipment and the development of SOPs as a way of managing the flight are self evident.

[Dysag]

I'd like to see a 'health warning' pasted in departures so pax can see whether the flight is being operated by a larger than life character, war veteran with thousands of hours on fighters... ego bigger than his brain etc.

Then they could vote with their feet, too, if they felt scared.

Remember it was a Rambo-like character who put the A320 in the trees at Habsheim.

[Ghostflyer]

Interesting comment about War hero. Does that mean that all of us that flew in Operation Granby were war heroes or just those with handlebar moustaches, that wrote books and then crashed a perfectly servicable tonka?

Let me see, you are a chef and decide to strip to your shreddies in front of your customers so the restaurant tells you not to. You then are abusive to the maitre'd in front of the customers and get a final warning. Then despite being told no one is allowed into the kitchen to handle the food, and being on a final warning, you decide you know better and take in a visiting celebrity to stick his d*ck in the chocolate pudding.

This has nothing to do with SOPs but with one man's belief that the persona he has created for himself means he is above the law. He has a wiki page about himself which insinuates he was even a squadron boss. He seems to have graduated from distinctly average RAF pilot to distinctly crap civil pilot having never really understood what it took to be really good at either. Pablo I wish you well in the future but you really need to move on and get a life.

[strake]

I'd go for Pablo every time, even the SLF would !

Umm, no I don't think I would actually.

I remember him from coverage of GW1 where his public behaviour was exactly that required by a news hungry press for the "folk's back home".
His public persona (don't know about his private one) was that of a warrior ready to take the battle to the enemy. Good stuff from a fighter pilot.

However, as SLF on a simple commercial airline, I'm pretty sure that my fellow passengers want to know that there is a calm, cool team player up the front. I don't want a maverick who's going to break the rules because he thinks they're wrong.

Whilst all of us wish to spout forth anger at the security procedeures we find ourselves having to put up with, or want to visit the flight deck as we could in "the old days", we can't and we just have to put up with it for the time being.

When the going gets tough, we want Burkill's and Sullenberger's up the front and not pilot's who are going to strip to their underwear in a hissy fit.

Seems to me that Mr Mason would be happiest doing a flying job with a bit of an edge to it. I'm sure there are a few companies flying freight into the Middle East who could use his services.

[Starbear]

Quote:
Oh, yes and when your a/c is burning and you want to get the thing on the ground pronto, you cant, not allowed. Why? Well the Emergency checklist (Law not an SOP) says you cant, as you are above the max landing weight.
Huh? . I've never seen that oneReally? How about the Swissair MD11 (SWR 111), which crashed near Halifax into the sea on Sept 1998, beacuse the Captain insisted on completing the checklists first?

But never forget "rules is rules"

btw Maximum, I did not intend to hold Bader up as a role model for anyone just giving the quote its source. It is the words which are important (to me at least) perhaps I could have made that clearer at the time

SOPs are a set of guidelines to assist crews in operating the aircraft and should be adhered to at all times when possible and sensible. I do not and have never advocated cherrypicking in normal ops. Security RULES are not SOPs even if some companies decided to incorporate them into the same chapter of the manual. And if you choose to disobey company rules you should and may have to accept the consequences if any. Captain Mason is now doing that.

Bealzebub, post 50: Where did Captain Mason's act of rule breaking compromise his or anyone's safety or security in this instance?

I don't know Pablo Mason or the rights and wrongs of his case but it does worry me when people keep reiterating the mantra "rules is rules"

[Bealzebub]

Oh, yes and when your a/c is burning and you want to get the thing on the ground pronto, you cant, not allowed. Why? Well the Emergency checklist (Law not an SOP) says you cant, as you are above the max landing weight. So land now or die waiting to get down to landing weight. That is the choice.

Perhaps it is an unwise assumption to assume most posters here have at least a basic understanding of aircraft operation and the command requirements that are inherent in that operation, but that aside, what a truly bizzare statement!

Laws are generally statutes that are imposed by national governments or by supranational authorities. Airplane checklists do not constitute documents enshrined in statute. They are a tool employed for the regular and safe operation of a particular aircraft. There use is to ensure that the procedures and tasks are followed in an understood and logical sequence so that items are not omitted. Checklists cannot be created for all conceivable situations, and it is implicit that their use may have to be combined or modified when the situation might warrant such action.

In the situation you describe, the checklists for the 2 Boeing airliners I have in front of me state quite unequivocally at various points: Item 1. Diversion may be needed. Initiate a diversion to the nearest suitable airport while continuing the checklist. Consider an immediate landing if the smoke fire or fumes situation becomes uncontrollable and consider an immediate landing. That is 4 times in 1 checklist. Nowhere does it even hint at not landing overweight. Indeed in the introductory narrative explaining the checklist construction and use it clearly states that: If a smoke fire or fumes situation becomes uncontrollable, the flight crew should consider an immediate landing. Immediate landing implies immediate diversion to a runway. However, if the smoke, fire or fumes situation is severe enough, the flight crew should consider an overweight landing, a tailwing landing, an off-airport landing, or a ditching.

Notwithstanding this clear contradictory proof that your statement is nonsense, flight crews and certainly captains are expected to posess and display a developed sense of maturity, knowledge and situational awareness commensurate with the office they hold. In the example you proffer, that would clearly not be the case, on every level.

Now it is all very well you saying, "yes but the rule book can be discarded" in emergency. However, when one is conditioned to blindly accepting sop's/rules without question and be severely disciplined, should it not be so, the above scenario could creep in.

This would require a level of stupidity so breathtaking, that one wonders how the Commander ever got to be in that position. Standard operating procedures and checklists cannot be created for every conceivable situation or emergency, that must be fundamentally understood by anybody executing that position. The checklists are a tool to be properly employed during all normal and most non normal situations. In addition to the checklists, there are memory items and basic common sense and airmanship. The checklists are not a script to conduct the flight from start to finish. They are a tool to be used to ensure that routine items have been accomplished and that non routine items have been followed as per best advice and recommendation. None of this ever prevents the captain from assessing the situation and using good judgment to determine the safest course of action.

If you blindly accept anything, you are clearly not ready to undertake the role you have been charged with. You should have a much better understanding than that.

You see conditioning to strict adherence can possibly lead to disaster, in certain circumstances. Or catasphrophe, remember Nurnberg? "I was was following orders" (rules/SOP's).

By now you will hopefully have got the point that pilots and certainly captains employ adherance to the standard operating procedures at all times when such adherance is required. This will (hopefully) be most of the time. That most certainly doesn't prevent them ever from taking action that provides for the safest course of action in a given situation. I find it incredible that the point actually needs to made within a peer group. I cannot quite understand the correlation between a set of post war criminal trials for murder, rape and torture, with the common sense and maturity expected of an airline crew in the conduct of their day to day operations as well as the knowledge, understanding and behaviour expected of them in non normal situations ? Whilst mentioning torture, it might be fair to suggest that the quote above would intself constitute logic sufficiently tortured to justify its own trial at the Hague!

Yes I realise sop's must be in place and strict adherence to them is "required" but on the down side it does produce a robotic culture.

It produces a set of protocols that enables crews who may never have flown together before to have a template understanding of how a flight is to be routinely and safely conducted. It enables a crew to understand how each other should operate, and what the manufacturer, regulator and operator expect in the day to day operation of that aircraft. It is designed to enhance safety by understanding, knowledge and the application of sound judgement and common sense. It is designed to produce a routine culture and not a robotic one. Certainly routine is rarely exciting, but that is the objective of the excercise. If excitement is the personal goal, then this is the wrong profession.

[fade to grey]

No ,no, no.

I don't think several posters here can get the difference between normal everyday following of SOPs and what we would all do in a dire emergency:do what we have have to arrive alive.

And this case has nothing to do with that distinction....I wouldn't have to be a 'gung ho' ego monster to successfully land the a/c above max LW if we were on fire.That someone is either an introvert or extrovert has nothing to do with the outcome and you don't have to be a screaming example of the latter to survive such a scenario.

Again, if you have not read about Ltcol Holland and the B52 read it now....

[doubleu-anker]

Bealzebub

In summing up, I take it you weren't very happy with my post.

[Joetom]

Yes, he broke the rules.

But in a world full of PC and rules about rules it's heart warming to read about this fellow, sounds to me like a good pilot and a whole lot of fun to work with.

I wish him all the best.

[69flight]

Quote:
Really? How about the Swissair MD11 (SWR 111), which crashed near Halifax into the sea on Sept 1998, beacuse the Captain insisted on completing the checklists first?

Starbear, please read the final report about this accident before making statements like that one. Thanks.

[Lon More]

Bealzebub IIRC the crew of that B52 were all the heads of their various branches who had replaced the scheduled crew fearing that something like this might happen?

The Turkish Captain at Schiphol was also an excellent ex-fighter pilot.

[Bealzebub]

Bealzebub, post 50: Where did Captain Mason's act of rule breaking compromise his or anyone's safety or security in this instance?

I don't know, I wasn't there. I suppose you might argue that being fired for a breach of the rules relating to the admission of unauthorised persons into the flight deck, didn't do very much for the claimants security? It is quite likely that in other circumstances this incident would have passed by completely un-noticed. However it involved other people who presumably felt compromised by this action, and as a result it was most certainly noticed. The end result is the high profile publicity and discussion that is in part being discussed here. I don't know the individual concerned, and I am extremely reluctant to allow "Daily mail" type reporting of the events to be any part of my own personal "window on the world". I try and therefore restrict my comments to generalities that are perhaps highlighted by the public discussion generated by this topic.

When I drove home at 3 am yesterday morning down an otherwise deserted stretch of motorway, it might have been quite safe for me to drive at 120 MPH. If I had done so and been observed, that argument would have provided precious little defence to a prosecution. However the decision would have been mine, and the consequences of that action would have been mine to bear. On the other hand if I had a passenger with me, or was driving somebody elses vehicle, the potential consequences spread a little wider. It is not up to me to interpret the rules to simply satisfy my own ego, please others or even potentially compromise the safety of others by seeking to provide an inappropriate and unnecessary justification for unlawful behaviour.

There are many things that I would like to do, that do not in my opinion unreasonably compromise the safety or security of the operation I undertake. I would like to have my wife and older children travel with me on the flightdeck. I would like the opportunity to be able to offer flight deck visits on my own authority. I would like to point out to those responsible for security, the absurdity of some of their rules and modus operandi. However The statutes, rules, instructions and procedures that I am bound by, simply don't allow me to do that on penalty of increasing levels of sanction. Even if I were to ignore the rules that I am bound and contracted to, I really have no right whatsoever to improperly place others under my command, to the same level of compromise. It is at best, poor leadership.

There are regulations governing the admission of persons into a flight deck. None of them allow you to admit a high profile football player who is a bit afraid of flying. It doesn't matter how absurd I think such a rule might be. I get paid to comply with these regulations, and I am therefore contractually bound to operate in accordance with them, notwithstanding any other sanction that a deliberate violation might attract.

[grizzled]

Re your response to the previous postings re SOP's and a burning aircraft.

Without taking a position in this particular matter -- as I think it's actually more of a human factors issue, and therefore much more subjective than this debate accounts for -- I must, with respect, clarify something for you. You will find that those exact SOP's you refer to, re your different Boeing types, and an onboard fire, did NOT contain those same statements, guidelines, etc, prior to SWR111. They were changed, as were most all carriers and manufacturers documents, to reflect the recommendations made by the CTSB as a result of the SWR111 accident.

Articles have been written, and papers presented at conferences, discussing the specific training given, and SOP's "pre-SWR111" related to the type of situation that crew found themselves in. The decision making in that instance, though "correct" and according to the SOP's they had, lead directly to the current SOP's you refer to.

The accident report is available here: http://www.tsb.gc.ca/eng/rapports-reports/aviation/1998/a98h0003/a98h0003.pdf

Grizz

[Bushfiva]

I see Pablo Mason's Wikipedia entry has had a sudden burst of editing today by one or possibly two people with a grudge.

Update in the light of deletions: I see the IP adresses of the editor(s) has/have been removed from this post, presumably by mods. Mods should be aware that the information is publically accessible at Wikipedia itself: all edits are listed by user name (if registered at Wikipedia) or by IP address (if not registered at Wikipedia). Reverse DNS lookup is a simple procedure. IP address rather than user name indicates someone who has not felt the urge to contribute to Wikipedia previously. So, I propose a direct link between those posting on this thread and those editing the Wikipedia article. Mods should decide exactly who/what they are defending against here, and I suggest the non-computer-literate chat with SD as to whether I was engaging in witchcraft or the blindingly obvious when I posted the IP addresses here.

So, whatever you think you can do here, I can undo the changes at Wikipedia, or I can mark them as vandalism, or I can identify IP addresses that should be blocked.

[StbdD]

Yeah, those pesky corrections to self written, self aggrandizing, self promoting wikipedia articles... go figure.

Ya think maybe, just maybe, instead of a grudge they may have been correcting some ahem, innacuracies?

[itwasme]

No grudge Bushfiva, as I explained in my PM to you I spotted a couple of inaccuracies and corrected them.

1. There was no "lead Tornado Squadron" in the Gulf War - Pablo was flying with XV Squadron from Bahrain, just one of the many Tornado squadrons deployed to theatre.

2. The wiki entry said that Pablo "elected" to eject from his Tornado north of Bremen on the 10th of May 1991, which is at odds with the RAF Military Aircraft Accident Summary which can be found here:

http://www.mod.uk/NR/rdonlyres/00E4A3B8-1D50-48A5-ACE9-D20776C071A5/0/maas91_12_tornado_gr1_za376_10may91.pdf

It concludes that the aircraft was probably serviceable when it hit the ground and that the weight of evidence suggested that the accident was caused by pilot mishandling. It goes on to state that the nav justifiably ejected the crew and in doing so saved their lives. Not so "elective" then.

Wiki entries must be accurate, otherwise they are pointless.

[StbdD]

So, whatever you think you can do here, I can undo the changes at Wikipedia, or I can mark them as vandalism, or I can identify IP addresses that should be blocked.

Bwhahahaaaaaaa! (organ music in the background)

Geepers mister. Didn't know you were the fan club president as well as a dark lord of the sith.

Seems the wiki site only wants people to submit versions 'approved' by the fan club, not factual evidence which isn't in line with the self attributed legend.

Ya know the difference between a grudge and an evaluation? Consistency matey.

[Airbubba]

Quote:
Oh, yes and when your a/c is burning and you want to get the thing on the ground pronto, you cant, not allowed. Why? Well the Emergency checklist (Law not an SOP) says you cant, as you are above the max landing weight. So land now or die waiting to get down to landing weight. That is the choice.

Perhaps it is an unwise assumption to assume most posters here have at least a basic understanding of aircraft operation and the command requirements that are inherent in that operation, but that aside, what a truly bizzare statement!

I sense that a lot of the folks here don't fly large aircraft for a living. Nothing wrong with that but it does add some confusion to the discussion.

[Norman Stanley Fletcher]

I am ex-Tornado aircrew who both flew in the 1991 Gulf War and was based at RAF Laarbruch in Germany on a different Squadron but at the same time as Pablo Mason. I can vouch for the truth of itwasme's statement and confirm that the only reason Pablo survived the crash was the fact the Germans had recently raised the low flying limit to 1000'agl and that his navigator initiated the command ejection sequence to autmatically eject them both. The aircraft was totally serviceable but had been placed in an irrecoverable situation by pilot error. It is a long time ago now, but from memory the mishandling was the simultaneous application of 63 or 67 deg wingsweep, high alpha and full speed brake. I vaguely remember some mod limiting wingsweep to 63 deg rather than 67, hence the doubt about the actual wingsweep on the day.

I wish Pablo no ill, but if you want a debate on this, the facts rather than apocryphal tales are best. There is considerably more that could be said here, but I will limit myself to these facts.

[Tinytim]

Anyone who has been in this industry a few years will recognise the type......

The ex mil fast jet guys fall into two categories.

Either the most brilliant, nicest, most competent, self effacing and best teachers/commanders one could get

or

total arrogant sh£t heads of questionable competence who consider themselves greater than demi gods to whom company rules did not apply.

Nothing in between.

[Bealzebub]

Well I have been in it a few years, and have to say that the two extremes you describe (particularly the latter,) are so rare as to be almost non-existent. Like most people from any professional background there is the entire gamut of personalities in between. You are either very unlucky or have a severely polarized viewpoint ?

Grizzled, thanks for adding your observation regarding the changes that occurred partly as a result of the SR 111 accident. The checklists were modified subsequently to better highlight the imperative. I was replying to post no 63 which was not relevant to the date in that particular context, however I completely accept your point.

[doubleu-anker]

Beelzebub

So tell me, which category do come under. God's gift to aviation?

"the changes that occurred partly as a result of the SR 111 accident. The checklists were modified subsequently to better highlight the imperative."

to better highlight the imperative?!

Does the imperative need to be highlighted? Probably for the likes of you, it would need to be. Here was me thinking you had something to think with. Now I am not so sure.

May I put this too you?

If there was an amendment that appeared in your FOM stating all crew were to have a biometric chip, that contained all information about you, implanted in your forehead right between the eyes.. What would do?

No don't tell me it won't happen, it just may.

[Bealzebub]

So tell me, which category do I come under. God's gift to aviation?

Possibly, I don't know.

to better highlight the imperative?!

Does the imperative need to be highlighted? Probably for the likes of you, it would need to be. Here was me thinking you had something to think with. Now I am not so sure.

You would be better consulting with the manufacturers who made the changes in light of the previous history. They did this as the imperative nature of a fire was seemingly not always being conveyed. As to your last sentence, I don't really understand the construction and cannot comment on your doubts.

You did however earlier post the statement that:
Oh, yes and when your a/c is burning and you want to get the thing on the ground pronto, you cant, not allowed. Why? Well the Emergency checklist (Law not an SOP) says you cant, as you are above the max landing weight. So land now or die waiting to get down to landing weight. That is the choice.

Perhaps there can be no clearer example of just why the imperative needed highlighting ?

May I put this too you?

If there was an amendment that appeared in your FOM stating all crew were to have a biometric chip, that contained all information about you, implanted in your forehead right between the eyes.. What would do?

Sorry, regarding your last paragraph, it may be as a result of the omissions in the sentence compilation, but I don't really understand the relevance, so I can make no meaningful comment.

Anyway, back to the topic.

[doubleu-anker]

You're an MP!! haha.

Would you comply or not? Yes or no?

[call100]

Tribunals are usually only interested in whether you were sacked fairly. Usually meaning the process not the reason.
Doubt they are bothered too much about SOP's.

[The Real Slim Shady]

Rule 1: Don't break the rules.

Rule 2: Don't get caught.

[Ten West]

Oh, yes and when your a/c is burning and you want to get the thing on the ground pronto, you cant, not allowed. Why? Well the Emergency checklist (Law not an SOP) says you cant, as you are above the max landing weight. So land now or die waiting to get down to landing weight. That is the choice.

Say what?? Surely that sort of situation (onboard fire) would be a Mayday, in which case (assuming that aircraft Mayday procedures are the same as marine ones, which I know about) the commander's priority will be the preservation of the lives of those on board the aircraft rather than rigid adherence to SOPs? :confused:

[Airbubba]

Like I said, I think there are a few 'posers' here.

Anyway, these idiotic cockpit cowboys who have their own rules are fortunately nearing extinction.

Don't know how the tribunals tend in the UK but in my experience the arbitration hearings in the U.S. give the union-represented pilot a very good chance of keeping a job except in the most egregious cases. Of course, sometimes the person fired is empowered when they are returned to work and the second time around the company has their ducks in a row and the termination is made permanent after a subsequent offense.

I've seen folks like Pablo time and time again over the years. They are God's Gift to Aviation, geniuses compared to those fools in management, in their own minds anyway. They get on the union forum, pound their chest like Magilla Gorilla and push the envelope with the company every chance they get. After ignoring repeated verbal and written warnings, they are terminated and squeal like stuck pigs. The union goes out, spends large amounts of money and time on lawyers and hearings and sometimes cuts a quiet deal to get the pilot back on the property to start the cycle anew.

[glad rag]

I'll bet my balls (Oeerrr) that pablo would not have sat a 737 into the ground at Schiphol..............:eek:

[call100]

Like I said, I think there are a few 'posers' here.

Anyway, these idiotic cockpit cowboys who have their own rules are fortunately nearing extinction.

Don't know how the tribunals tend in the UK but in my experience the arbitration hearings in the U.S. give the union-represented pilot a very good chance of keeping a job except in the most egregious cases. Of course, sometimes the person fired is empowered when they are returned to work and the second time around the company has their ducks in a row and the termination is made permanent after a subsequent offense.

I've seen folks like Pablo time and time again over the years. They are God's Gift to Aviation, geniuses compared to those fools in management, in their own minds anyway. They get on the union forum, pound their chest like Magilla Gorilla and push the envelope with the company every chance they get. After ignoring repeated verbal and written warnings, they are terminated and squeal like stuck pigs. The union goes out, spends large amounts of money and time on lawyers and hearings and somtimes cuts a quiet deal to get the pilot back on the property to start the cycle anew.
Not disputing any of what you say happens in the US. Pablo Mason is not being represented by a Union....He is conducting his own defence.

[Airbubba]

Pablo Mason is not being represented by a Union....He is conducting his own defence.

It's been a long time since I read through the original thread. Is he refusing trade union representation and chosing to go at it solo? Or, is his former company non-union?

[kaikohe76]

Regarding the remark made by `Pilothouse`, whether or not BALPA are supporting Pablo in this case.
Providing he was a member of BALPA, I would certainly like to see them in there batting on his behalf. Can we please have confirmation from 81 New Road Harlington, that they are supporting Pablo as much as possible.

[al446]

I think Bealzebub has no need to respond to your last post. His previous posting admirably stated his position. I would suggest more diligence on your behalf.

Bealzebub - You are either very unlucky or have a severely polarized viewpoint ?Perhaps this is in answer to a post from someone recently retired from aviation who has lived through the fast and loose days (if there were! I am not qualified to say.) Only a thought.

[763 jock]

Airbubba, I think Pablo is going it alone. I don't know whether he carries a card or not, but BALPA are the recognised negotiating body in the now merged Thomas Cook/MyTravel.

Nice bloke Pablo, but he frequently pushed his luck. Despite all this "Tornado Gulf War Hero" crap, he was certainly no better an airline pilot than anyone else. Suffice to say that the management had plenty on him (only some of which has made it to Pprune) and the Savage thing was the last incident on the list. Over the years, I would venture that he had more tea without the biscuits than anyone else. He should have been able to see what was coming, everyone else could.

As far as the tribunal is concerned, he may win his case if they have screwed up how they fired him. I don't think he'll win if the question is why they fired him.

[hunterboy]

What is that old saying about a defendant that defends himself has a fool for a client? Unless Pablo is a qualified employment lawyer, he is not doing himself any favours. In my very limited experience in these matters, employees tend to win on points of procedure rather than the misinterpretation of law.
Burden of proof is normally on the employer, but it does appear to be overwhelming. If Pablo is reading this thread, he would be well advised to spend a few thousand Pounds and pay for expert advice. Unless he doesn't need this job?

[Roger Sofarover]

He will get lots of publicity which he will love, It sets him up for his next book and soon you will see him on Sky presenting another series on Aviation disasters. The tribunal should in theory be un-winnable on his part.

SOP stands for 'Standard Operating Procedure', note the term 'Standard'. If it is a requirement to operate to SOP's then that is that, however if a Captain finds himself in a 'non-standard situation' then he or she can use all resources available to come up with a decision that they believe will offer the safest outcome. I do not see how it can be argued that the footballers requirement to go on the flightdeck was a 'non-standard situation', more like an opportunity for a bit of networking by Pablo (he would just love those footballers parties!).

All the references to Col Bud Holland on the B52 are 100% valid. He was a rule breaker, nobody stopped him and just came out with terms like ' Oh I know but hey that's Bud you know', he was a maverick and thought himself to be above the rest. Not only did he kill the crew but four families had to grow up without their 'Dad".

Norman is on the money, so everyone please take note of what he says. The crash was pilot error. Now I know Pablo well, and nice and charismatic he is. But Gulf war hero.. No. Fantastic pilot ...No. There is a lot more and like Norman I will stay nap, there is enough of what he got up to in the Prune archives. However I also know the navigator of the Jet that Pablo flew into the ground, I worked with him for two years. Had it not been for RW, both he and Pablo would have been dead. I flew over the crash site 30 minutes or so after the event and it was clearly a very close call, with one chute being perhaps only 50 meters from the first impact of the aircraft. RW suffered for a long time after as a result of what was really flying misconduct.

I am glad he is raising a public view to the idiotic security measures faced by everyone, but as for all the other waxing lyrical about the guy on here, please stop it. He is charismatic, that's it, and a lot of people on this thread have been sucked in by that.

[OneIn60rule]

We've learned something.

If we are supposedly gods gift to aviation... we are allowed to bypass the SOP's as much as we want and whenever we feel like it.

If it means letting Robbie Williams on the flight deck or Vinnie Jones, Michael Jackson etc it doesn't matter because we are renowned "hero's" i.e. "legends"

Clearly Pablo is being victimised for no real apparent reason. Correct?


What exactly would have happened if he had simply stuck to the SOP's?

One he would still have his job. Two the fellow he DID not allow on the flight deck would simply get help professionally regarding fear of flying.


He pushed his luck/fame seems entirely accurate.

1/60

[Roger Sofarover]

He pushed his luck/fame seems entirely accurate.

Correct, but he has pushed it Sooooo many times before. I am just glad that in the world of civilian aviation he was stopped over something that on the grand scale of things is a bit small, before he did a 'Bud Holland' in a passenger aircraft.

[learjet50]

Guys and Gals

Pablo

Was doing what everbody would have done
He did not invite into the Cockpit somedody he did not know
I know he should have not but so what ????
I Feel some one in Management did or does not like him
I Have never met him but the people I have spoke to say he was a Number 1 Aviatior he does not deserve this

Pablo
Best of luck take the basxxds for all there worth

I can only say that if David Crossland/Mike Lee had still been running the organistion this would never have gone this far

The above mentioned Gentlemen are true leaders in aviation who were
pushed out

Kind regards and Pablo Best wishes if u r reading this

Take the gixs for everthing ?????

P S I say again I do not work for My Travel/I am not related to Pablo but I Think he has been very Badly Treated

[411A]

I am not related to Pablo but I Think he has been very Badly Treated

Pablo broke the rules, period.
He received what he deserved, termination.
Airline flying has rules, break 'em, expect problems with either management or the CAA.

Pablo was an a**, end of story.
A totally military malcontent guy in a civvy world...an especially bad combination, make no mistake.
For Pablo, termination was (apparently) looooong overdue.

[Juan Tugoh]

411A those are pretty harsh words about a guy you have never met or have direct knowledge of. Your words show only yourself in a poor light not Mr Mason.

[Nicholas49]

I think post 45 sums it up very well indeed.

If you are a captain and you do not agree with those words, I think you've seriously misunderstood the responsibilities that come with your position.

[Maximum]

Ain't human nature an amazing thing.

Anyone who has been around the block a few times in professional aviation has a feel for what guys like this are like. A laugh in the bar, but we'd probably rather fly with someone else. They tend to make for too stressful a day. Some inexperienced F/O's can be taken in by it all of course...

Indeed, we even have the benefit of someone who knows him well telling it like it is........and then we have Learjet50 contradicting all this. And has he ever met him? No.

Pablo

Was doing what everbody would have done

I'm sorry, I certainly wouldn't.

As they say, never let the facts get in the way..............

411A, I sometimes think you're a bit harsh, but in this instance you've summed it up rather nicely for the vast majority who follow the SOP's and get on with doing the professional job we're paid to do.

[old-timer]

411a - PLEASE CHECK YOUR VERSION OF 'REALITY CHECK ' BECAUSE IT IS BADLY IN NEED OF ADJUSTMENT ! :=:ugh:

PABLO IS A TOP AVIATOR & A TOP GUY TOO, PERIOD ! :D

What is your problem with ex Mil' crew ? - they go through very thorough selection & training which followed by years of operational flying experience makes them EXTREMELY capable aviators, just the sort of folk you need especially when things go wrong such as the Hudson River incident or do you have a problem with that Captain also ?

In reply to the SOPS police have a read through this weeks Flight, some very interesting thoughts there about actual flying skills , does anyone remember those ?

[Maximum]

Old-timer, there's nothing wrong with ex-military aircrew and I'm sure 411A would agree. But hey, he doesn't need me to speak for him.

The point is, a fellow military aviator has expressed an opinion of him in less than glowing terms as well, so where does that fit into your version of reality? You can't have it both ways.;)

[Weary]

Maximum - you beat me to it...

Anyone who has been around the block a few times in professional aviation has a feel for what guys like this are like.

Spot-on.
To non-professionals, he sounds like the kind of chap that would make you smile. To professionals - the kind of chap that would make you frown.

[Smilin_Ed]

In 21 years of military flying in both transport/patrol and tactical aircraft, I knew a few bad apples, but only a very few. One or two out of a hundred didn't meet my expectations but the rest were capable and reliable. During the mid-1960s when the Vietnam war was in full swing, A number of people who previously would not have graduated from U.S. Navy flight training were given their wings. They were a detriment to safety and to mission accomplishment. They didn't last long in fleet squadrons.

[old-timer]

Maximum

It seems unfair to suggest 'Non-Professional' with regard to this matter, agreed, it was against SOP but the SOP in question wasn't (I.M.O) a flight safety or handling issue, it was of course a security issue which is very serious, however, given the fact the gentleman in question is very well known publically & known by everone on board a considered judgement was taken by Pablo who is probably far more aware & capable of recognising a real threat than many others I suspect, also, this was a private charter & NOT a scheduled sector - the two are significantly different.

[Maximum]

Weary, I couldn't have said it better myself!

Old-timer, I respect your opinion but I don't understand your point. Sorry. An SOP is an SOP. It keeps things standard so the operation flows and everyone knows where they stand and what happens next. You can't cherrypick which SOP's you'll follow and which you won't.

Of course, if safety is threatened, then you can chose to disregard an SOP and justify your actions later.

But knowing the whole focus on potential threats post 9-11, you'd really be asking for it to disregard the no-one on the jumpseat rule. Doesn't matter if you think it's daft or not, you'd just be asking for trouble. That's the whole point. What kind of judgement is that?

Also, what kind of position is the poor old first officer being put in in all of this? Does he say no, yes, have an argument, refuse to fly? Puts him in the s*^*t too.

The other point is, if your own wife isn't allowed in the cockpit, it should send signals about how seriously a breach of this rule is going to be taken.

And from the security point of view, what about the safety of the other passengers? Agree or not, part of the thinking behind this is to stop someone you know being blackmailed or otherwise coerced through threats or otherwise into doing something deadly once in the cockpit.

And I know it's tempting if it was a private charter to say it makes it somehow different, but it doesn't really, does it. That aircraft could still be used for evil purposes. Might seem far-fetched, but so did 9-11 before it happened.

The point is though, with all that sort of thinking going on, why would someone fly in the face of it so to speak? Talk about asking for it.

[AltFlaps]

I don't know this chap from Adam ...

If we (airline pilots) are employed for one thing, then it's our judgement.
It's all based on how we deal with the situation at the time.

I you don't have good judgement, you shouldn't be flying (especially not in the left seat).

[Bealzebub]

Learjet 50

Guys and Gals
Pablo
Was doing what everbody would have done.

No he wasn't. You seem to be seriously missing the point. He was doing what everybody doesn't do. That is because in the jurisdiction it had been prohibited by the DfT. That instruction had been promulgated to all airlines and then on to all crews, and it was the deliberate violation of that instruction that resulted in the subject of this thread.

He did not invite into the Cockpit somedody he did not know
I know he should have not but so what ????

The directive didn't and doesn't permit you to invite anybody in this category to the flightdeck inflight, irrespective of the fact you may know them or not.

I Have never met him but the people I have spoke to say he was a Number 1 Aviatior

Not an assessment I am familiar with, but even if there is one, it wouldn't permit you to operate in deliberate violation of statutes, regulations and directives.

Best of luck take the basxxds for all there worth
Take the gixs for everthing ?????
P S I say again I do not work for My Travel

You are of course entitled to your opinion and your expression of sentiment. However there are a lot of people who do work for that company and it's successor, who operate to the highest standards and apply professionalism and conduct commensurate with those standards and more. I make that observation in part, from personal experience as I have trained with them in the past. Your comment does rather ignore that fact. In any event it is a moot point, since win or lose "everything" and "all there worth" is not going be what is on the table.

Old timer

It seems unfair to suggest 'Non-Professional' with regard to this matter, agreed, it was against SOP but the SOP in question wasn't (I.M.O) a flight safety or handling issue, it was of course a security issue which is very serious,

It wasn't simply an SOP, it was a legal directive from the DfT and was compulsory. The intentional violation was not within the gift of the captain. Violation placed the company and the crew in a vulnerable position. As you say, it was serious, although that was either misunderstood or ignored.

given the fact the gentleman in question is very well known publically & known by everone on board a considered judgement was taken by Pablo who is probably far more aware & capable of recognising a real threat than many others I suspect

The directive (within the jurisdiction) does not provide for exceptions in this category. It lists only those persons who may be admitted. How much of a celebrity somebody is (on either side) is completely irrelevant. The captain (whoever he is) is not permitted to make his or her own assesmement of a passenger for the purpose of allowing them to be entertained on the flight deck (in flight) for any reason. It was astonishingly poor judgment, and displayed very poor leadership in that it placed the rest of the crew in a very difficult and awkward position, quite unnecessarily.

this was a private charter & NOT a scheduled sector - the two are significantly different.

At best you might argue they have commercial or contractual differences. From an operational and certainly legal compliance viewpoint, there is absolutely no difference at all. Most charters (in commercial air transport) are undertaken at the behest of tour operators. These operate to the same standards and rules as scheduled flights, save as to the commercial stipulations that may be specified in the contract between the buyer and seller. Even if a footballer / pop singer or other celebrity chartered the whole flight with the one sole purpose of travelling in the flight deck, the contract and stipulation would have to be refused, because it would be in violation of the statutes rules and directives that apply to these categories of Commercial air transport.


These directives seem to be well understood and adhered to by the vast majority of pilots and crews concerned. The arguments being proffered for the violation in this case, seem to centre around "protest support" and "hero worship." A mistake would perhaps be understandable, but the other justifications being trotted out are just simply erroneous. I am happy to be proved wrong on this point if anybody can link to a reference that supports the contention, but otherwise it is just hot air.

[Sir Niall Dementia]

Old Timer;

The aircraft was on a private charter, BUT that still means that Public Transport rules are in place. When I fly my boss he is allowed onto the FD beceause it is his trainset and he's letting me play with it, the flight is private for him.

When someone else charters the aircraft they are not allowed by SOPs beyond the cockpit door. If they want to speak with me the CC come and get me and I go back into the cabin, although it is a Private Charter, money is changing hands and therefore it is Public Transport and is an AOC flight, just the same as the flight under discussion. All a question of semantics.

The same rules apply on this flight. The football team had chartered the AC, just the same as if it was Club Med, Club Carribean or Club Anyone You Like (formerly Club 18-30) Therefore it was Public Transport (an AOC flight) and company SOPs said no pax on the FD.

I have worked for a major carrier and there was always at least one Pablo style "character" in the crewroom. He took the heat off the rest of us, but the majority of pilots would express the opinion "Why do we put up with this guy?"

Certainly PM is not a character we would want to employ. Pilots are not robotic slaves to SOPs, but they do know that SOPs are there to protect them and their passengers. If a pilot saves lives by stepping outside the boundaries then thank god for that man, if he does it just to but heads with management then he should be cleared for a standard job centre deparure with no slot delays.

[Basil]

411A,
Just whereabouts in DXB is the Hyatt? :}:O

[HotDog]

Basil, the hookers are mainly Russians and you'll find them sipping cock-tails in hotel piano bars etc. Better be loaded as the Arabs pay very well!:E

[Dunbar]

Bealzebub

I admire your patience, however I fear that your well reasoned responses are likely to fall on deaf ears in this forum.

It is quite clear that the majority of ill informed replies are from the sort of people who think that once they have got Flight Sim 2000 or whatever nailed then they are suitably qualified to operate jet aircraft.

All professional aviators reading this thread will agree- Pablo is probably a great guy, but imagine a 'maverick' with the worst aircraft on the worst day with the worst copilot...in that situation, you need a predictable and SOP driven guy/gal at the helm. That's the bottom line.

[stiggles]

I suspect common sense is used more than this forum would acknowledge on this issue, only on saturday I sat in the Jumpseat for the entire flight whilst flying a domestic route in South Africa. Ths skipper judge me to be of no threat to the safety of his aircraft and invited me up after a discussion about the pro's and cons of flight training in South Africa. When I asked him if this was strictly allowed his reply was who's going to know?

It is not the first time I've jumpseated since 9-11.

Anyway there you go, sounds to me like this guy was the sort of bloke you'd like to know - in a world of jobsworths.

[Dream Buster]

I only met PM once whilst at BHX a few years back - I and anothor pilot were having a quiet chat outside the crew room and PM comes past and says "Getting our stories straight lads?...." Actually it was quite amusing and quick witted. No problem at all.

However PM I think you are for the chop on this one - it would set too much of a precedent if you won - plus you broke the rules and worst of all - got found out.

A colourful guy all the same. Life does go on. Good luck!

DB :ok:

[slip and turn]

What a fascinating example of Jante Law alive and well again on the front page of PPRuNe for the best part of a week :bored:

Altogether now, chant the RULES after me, PPRuNers (those of you who are the most up yourselves might even try singing the descant version but don't break any RULES doing it, there's good fellows):

Don't think that you are special.
Don't think that you are of the same standing as us.
Don't think that you are smarter than us.
Don't fancy yourself as being better than us.
Don't think that you know more than us.
Don't think that you are more important than us.
Don't think that you are good at anything.
Don't laugh at us.
Don't think that anyone cares about you.
Don't think that you can teach us anything.Now then, who among you wonders if the target of so much ire has swallowed any of those ten lately, or will have even the slightest inclination to do so any time soon ? :yuk:

Pablo, all the very best of luck to you with the case :ok:

(With acknowledgement to whomever it was that posted those ten rules on Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jante_Law (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jante_Law) )

[Bealzebub]

Stiggles, I am sure it is, but common sense is not another phrase for disregarding and violating the conditions that you have contracted to or are legally bound by, simply because it suits you to do so. I have no idea what the rules are in South Africa, and it may be that your jumpseat ride wasn't in violation of anything. On the other hand if that were not the case the comment "who's going to know" can be answered simply as the Captain, his First Officer, The cabin crew, anybody who saw you entering and remaining, you, and of course everybody now reading this thread.

That is the problem here you see. What nobody knows may well be irrelevant, but the fact is other people do know, and in the subject case it was unlawful and placed other people under an individuals command, as being complicit in that offence. If you believe that is common sense, then I am not sure you understand the concept as you seem to be applying it in this arena. I appreciate you benefited from a treat and have therefore signed up to this forum to lend your applause, but it isn't really relevant to the debate.

Some of the support for this action seems to come from people who can lend little credible argument other than chanting a few old mantras and cliches they have read on the internet. The complaint is often levelled that this forum should only be available to professional pilots and other aviation related occupations. Obviously that isn't the case, but it doesn't mean we should simply capitulate the debate to the level of the ill informed, adolescents or those with the intelligence quotient of a budgerigar.

There again, maybe it does ?

Dunbar, thanks for the comment. I own teenagers, so I am well practiced! ;)

[PBY]

In Spain, Italy or Portugal pilots take people into the cockpit all the time. But the more you go north in Europe, the more people are obsessed with the idea of a terrorist. Could it be the lower temperatures?

[Dysag]

I don't know where you live, but haven't you realised that northern Europeans have a stronger desire to live by the rules?

I'd chance my life on a Dutch or Swedish pedestrian crossing any day. Italians think it's a fun game to make old ladies run.

Would a Norwegian turn in his cousin for stealing a bike? About 50/50 I'd say. Ask the same question of a Greek and he'd think you're mad.

Nothing to do with terrorists.

[Checkboard]

Does anyone actually know the text of the legislation requiring locked doors? Anyone have a link to the text?

[Jetdriver]

This may be of Some help? (http://www.dft.gov.uk/foi/responses/2005/jul/securityrules11september2001/eraboutthesecurityrulesa2332.pdf)

[wings folded]

A lapsed PPL and frequent SLF speaking.

I don't know PM and have no axe to grind on his behalf.

I equally don't know Sully the third.

I am not sure that Sully the third followed SOPs to the letter. I don't imagine SOPs foresee river "landings", but you professionals could correct me.

He did, however, appear to get a lot of passengers down relatively safely in what must have been a little bit of a tricky situation.

If Sully the third and PM are always required only to do what is written up in the textbooks, and no more, and are not required to exercise judgement, then why not merely programme computers to do all phases of flying, passenger comfort, and all other aspects of air travel?

When I travel, I actually prefer to have at the front a pilot who can use discretion, judgement, experience, skill, and the same principle applies also to ground staff, cabin staff, and no doubt maintenance staff though I never meet the latter.

[Andy_S]

I am not sure that Sully the third followed SOPs to the letter.

SOP = Standard Operating Procedure. The critical word being Standard.

There was nothing standard about the situation Sully found himself in.

I'm not passing judgement one way or another on Pablo Mason, but I think it's fair to say that - guests in the cockpit notwithstanding - it was an uneventful flight.

[Bealzebub]

They do, it is called "ditching" but I take your overall point.

If you read this thread throughout, you will see this has been discussed ad nauseum

Judgment (even underlined) means little in itself. There is good judgment and bad judgment. The judgment in one of your examples resulted in the safe ditching of an airliner in the most difficult, unexpected and unusual of circumstances.

The argument being tendered here is whether disregarding a set of lawful instructions for no particularly good reason other than to satisfy a whim constitutes good judgment.

If procedures or rules are going to be discarded in favour of an alternative course of action, then it is implicit that there needs to be a good reason or imperative for such action. The question being discussed here relates to whether that good reason or imperative is really satisfied by a commander electing to entertain a footballer on the flightdeck of an airliner in violation of clearly mandated legal instructions to the contrary.

You are quite correct in that the pilot is there to excercise discretion, judgment, experience and skill. Hence this discussion and the various contributions, argument and opinion.

[Maximum]

If Sully the third and PM are always required only to do what is written up in the textbooks, and no more, and are not required to exercise judgement, then why not merely programme computers to do all phases of flying, passenger comfort, and all other aspects of air travel?


Wingsfolded, we, as professional pilots are required to exercise judgement on any number of things before and during every flight. Exercising sound judgement is one of the many attributes of being a good Captain.

Following SOP's does not conflict in any way with applying one's judgement.

Your comment is meaningless because you misunderstand the concept of SOP's. The military have strict SOP's, the airlines (good ones) have strict SOP's. The crew of the space shuttle have strict SOP's.

It's the way we accomplish the task in the safest and most expeditious fashion. Nothing to do with following rules without question.:=

[PBY]

Hi guys, I have been following this tread and did not feel to answer until now. I grew up under communist rule (communist standard operating procedures). When I was 19, I worked in a factory producing guns for Iraq and Iran. One day, together with few other guys, we got fed up and started demonstrations. We were lucky, because the regime was already weakened and thus they did not kill us. You could say, we won, I say, we were lucky, because the time was right. But it was right, because some people before us were brave, even though their time was not right and they were not so lucky.
Catholic church also had its own SOP’s in the middle ages. It was called “The hammer against witches”. Whoever did not follow these SOP’s was executed by a very distressful death. What changed these SOP’s, so they are not used today? Was it the popes? No. It was outside pressure of few brave civilized people, who were sensitive to human suffering.
We as captains are human being first and than SOP’s willing executioners. Lets look at Pablo’s predicament in this light. He has a guy on his flight, who is stressed out, because of his fear of flying. Lets say, that there is a measure of stress and lets call it “stress newtons = SN”. How many SN was this guy subjected to? How many SN before we divert a flight to prevent human suffering? Any number in SOP’s? Does the SOP’s clearly states, that you should ignore human suffering? Are we robots? I think, that sometimes we have to even divert due to distress in the cabin. But Pablo used his brain. He saved the company lots of money. He asked himself a question: Is this guy a terrorist? No, because if he was, he would have dragged a bomb to overcrowded stadiums already. Does he suffer? Pablo could not measure how many SN he was under, as he is not a psychiatrist and even a psychiatrist cannot estimate it without a talk with the patient. So, here we have a situation. Either we let the guy at the back suffer in the name of terrorism (different kind of communism, catholicism or alcoholism = not using a brain isms), or we use a common sense and alleviate the guys suffering. Very difficult question. Would it be worth even to overcome the fear of loosing your job? Should you be loosing a job in the first place, just because you used your own discretion? May be, there is a time to break SOP’s. May be, there is a time to change them.
I compare some pilots of this thread to a flock of birds. Everytime they hear a gunshot they get emotionally startled. But we have moral responsibility as well.
Pablo, good luck with your trial, I am behind you!
:D

[wings folded]

Maximum

I defer of course to your superior knowledge (and, no, I am not being sarcastic)

But in my limited understanding of SOPs, they mostly have to do with technical parameters of the aircraft itself.

As a SLF, I would not mind in the least a Captain exercising his judgement to allow (apparently in this case a nervous PAX) into the cockpit.

If it helps the smooth conclusion of the flight, why not?

The Captain has a huge responsability, and must answer for errors of judgement which endagered the flight or other aircraft around the flight, but is it not a part of that same trust which must allow him or her to use discretion?

[Maximum]

PBY, in the words of Dr. Evil (Austin Powers):

rrright.....................(apply little finger to corner of mouth).

:ugh::ugh::ugh::ugh::ugh:

....with all due respect, I think your analogy is stretching credence just a little too far.

To paraphrase, when I go by the SOP's I'm like a communist dictator or perhaps even Torquemada? I think you're having an Eric Cantona moment........

One analogy too far.:}

[MrBunker]

Eh,

How did Paul's action save the company money? Moreover, there's a world of difference between a Captain acting beyond the scope and remit of SOP's to deal with a once in a lifetime, life-threatening situation (Capt. Sullenberger, for example) and choosing to ignore a rule that is exceedingly well publicised, and by abiding by did not lead to the safety of the flight being compromised.

As an FO, guys like this can be a bloody nightmare unless you're fortunate enough to be able to second guess them, or see the world their way to start with. The pressure his grandstanding places on subordinate crew members is unfair and ill-considered.

Many on here seem to be applauding the fact that this man "stood up" to the security regime. We don't get to pick and choose what we do and what we don't as contracted airline employees except when to not go outside those rules might lead to an accident - and here I think is the nub of this particular incident - Savage, in the flight deck was not demonstrably necessary to the safe conduct of this flight. Chesley Sullenberger's actions saved an entire aircraft full of people. To compare the two is, to my mind, to thoroughly insult (or sully, if you will), the profound achievement made by Sullenberger when he was forced to operate outside the scope of the normal operation.

I suspect that it's merely because we're all a bit ticked off to say the least with the apparently mindless security procedures in place at the moment, especially it seems in the UK, that we're applauding to some extent this man cocking a snook at things but the fact remains, he knowingly broached those rules, seems to think of himself of something a bit special to say the least and might be better suited to single pilot operations from what's been said.

To quote Douglas Bader's famous and hackneyed maxim in support of this action is lazy and not germane to this particular event.

I'm awfully glad that the Captains in my airline don't choose to put us first officers under the pressure of having to deal with such a situation to satisfy the ego of a man who seems to think he is above the law and the terms of his contract.

Notwithstanding anything, this tribunal is about whether or not he was unfairly dismissed, not whether his thoughts towards the UK security situation were apt or not. On that note, and with himself as his lawyer, I suspect it might just be another attempt to ratchet up the self-fulfilling publicity machine that is Paul Mason.

[Maximum]

Wings folded, please take this reply in the good natured way it is intended, but you have obviously no understanding of SOP's, as you yourself imply.

They cover far more than simply the technical side of things. In fact they tend to be more about how we operate together as human beings, to cut out misunderstood communication for example. What words do we use to describe certain actions for example? Is it 'gear up', retract gear' or 'undercarriage up'? Do we 'set thrust' on take off? Or do we 'set take off thrust'? Or would 'take off thrust' be better?

Who's responsible for what checks and when? When do we do them? Who calls them? Who responds to them? Do we use the checklist as we do them? Do we do them first and then use the checklist? Do we do them from memory as we do this and then check?

Who calls passing altitudes? PF or PNF? Does this change if the autopliot's engaged?

When we come onto stand, what if there's equipment over the white lines but we know we'll miss it? What if we continue onto stand but hit something we didn't see?

How and when should we brief the cabin crew in an emergency? Should we use a standard system or would any old chit chat do? How do we call them to the flight deck? PA? Chimes? What if the PA isn't working?

When's it safe for one pilot to leave the flightdeck in flight? Should we have a sterile cockpit below 10000'? If we do, should we disregard it if we think we're good enough?

etc etc etc.........

Or how about you let every Captain on every flight with every different F/O use his judgement and decide how he's going to do all these things?

I'm only scratching the surface but I hope you get the picture.

[Bealzebub]

As a SLF, I would not mind in the least a Captain exercising his judgement to allow (apparently in this case a nervous PAX) into the cockpit.

Great, but are there any other legal instructions that you also don't mind the Captain ignoring? This particular "nervous passenger" was returning from Finland. Apparently his nerves hadn't prevented him from flying out there? Do we all now use our individual discretion to allow nervous passengers on to the flightdeck?

If it helps the smooth conclusion of the flight, why not?

Because it is strictly disallowed. Willfull violation may well leave the company (who pay you to comply,) with their operators certificate withdrawn. It may leave them vulnerable to the withdrawal of their insurance coverage. It would almost certainly leave them, me and possibly other members of the crew open to the likely risk of prosecution. The repercussions may extend well beyond the simple act itself.

I have no problem with anybody wanting to start a revolution, fight communism, extinguish burning witches, tend to alcoholics, depressives, nervous flyers or any other cause. However do it in your own time, not when your employer is paying you to fulfill your contractual obligation to them.

is it not a part of that same trust which must allow him or her to use discretion? Yes, discretion to act in a professional, mature, legally compliant way at all material times. That is the trust that the employer places in him, the passengers place in him, and just as importantly his crew place in him.

[MrBunker]

Wings Folded,

Sorry, you might be satisfied with a nervous passenger being admitted to the flight deck, indeed I might, except I can never be one hundred percent sure that this person is indeed a nervous flier and not some extremely committed, talented individual using that as a reason to enter the cockpit and conduct whatever operation they see fit. Indeed, if that sort of attitude were sanctioned and became widely known, it doesn't take a great leap of logic to see drama camps for the training of extremists. Ok, a bit on the glib side, but I hope you see where my concerns lie. Again, going outside the scope of the normal operation and QRH (or whatever you will call it) for the purposes of an unforeseen and potentially catastrophic scenario and chumming it up with a B-list soccer player and then trying to justify the incident post-event are just not comparable.

PS To add, Bealzebub makes the point infinitely more eloquently than I might. Consideration of the greater legal implications alone and the effect that might have on his colleagues and company should have stopped him from doing what he did. That it didn't speaks volumes to me about the quality of his judgement.

[Roger Sofarover]

PBY
Or how many 'Stress Newtons' would the passenger have needed before totally flipping and as a strong athletic chap, becoming a total flight saftey hazard in the cockpit.

There are some issues that need seperating here. Pablo is making a stand against idiotic security rules that unreasonably affect Flight Crew doing their day to day job, and I applaud him for that. Then there is the issue of him breaking SOP's in what can definitely be described as a Standard Situation. I am amazed as to how many people are sucked in by his charismatic nature. With all due respect to the self confessed SLF on here, your comments are wholly inappropriate. Being a nice guy is sadly not the only criteria for being good at your job, and those of you commenting have absolutely no idea of Pablo's job profficieny.

Now at risk of repeating myself just to try and make this whole situation really clear.

He will get lots of publicity which he will love, It sets him up for his next book and soon you will see him on Sky presenting another series on Aviation disasters. The tribunal should in theory be un-winnable on his part.

SOP stands for 'Standard Operating Procedure', note the term 'Standard'. If it is a requirement to operate to SOP's then that is that, however if a Captain finds himself in a 'non-standard situation' then he or she can use all resources available to come up with a decision that they believe will offer the safest outcome. I do not see how it can be argued that the footballers requirement to go on the flightdeck was a 'non-standard situation', more like an opportunity for a bit of networking by Pablo (he would just love those footballers parties!).

All the references to Col Bud Holland on the B52 are 100% valid. He was a rule breaker, nobody stopped him and just came out with terms like ' Oh I know but hey that's Bud you know', he was a maverick and thought himself to be above the rest. Not only did he kill the crew but four families had to grow up without their 'Dad".

Norman is on the money, so everyone please take note of what he says. The crash he had in the Tornado was pilot error. Now I know Pablo well, and nice and charismatic he is. But Gulf war hero.. No. Fantastic pilot ...No. There is a lot more and like Norman I will stay nap, there is enough of what he got up to in the Prune archives. However I also know the navigator of the Jet that Pablo flew into the ground, I worked with him for two years. Had it not been for RW, both he and Pablo would have been dead. I flew over the crash site 30 minutes or so after the event and it was clearly a very close call, with one chute being perhaps only 50 meters from the first impact of the aircraft. RW suffered for a long time after as a result of what was really flying misconduct.

I am glad he is raising a public view to the idiotic security measures faced by everyone, but as for all the other waxing lyrical about the guy on here, please stop it. He is charismatic, that's it, and a lot of people on this thread have been sucked in by that.

Some FOs would feel under unbearable pressure with PMs style of 'leadership'. Remember Jakob Van Zanten.

It seems funny that many people who do not know him think him a great aviator and Captain and many that do have a somewhat different opinion.

Pablo will take all these comments on this forum in his stride as that is his nature, and I feel uncomfortable about public discussion of someone, but he is now in the public domain and that is what he likes. Good luck to him but please stop saying he is a great Captain and Aviator when you have no idea.

[Old Lizzy]

There was not the slightest hint of justification for breaking the law and allowing this person - whoever he is/was - to occupy an ACM seat in the cockpit. This is completely defenseless and reckless behaviour. I don't care who was who, or what was what; it is breaking the laws of both the land, and of common sense, it's that simple. He's toast and rightfully so.

[wings folded]

Maximum

I accept your "good natured" way, but I did, I think, indicate what my credentials (or lack of) were.

You are, however, a bit harsh to say that I have no understanding of SOPs, and then wheel out a lot of examples, most if not all of which I would not hesitate one instant to classify as being on the "technical" side of things. (Gear up... undercarriage up ... retract gear - these for me are technical issues

When I flew as student PPL I was a bit of a stickler for proper RT procedure for example. My instructor was kind enough to remark upon it more than once.

All of your examples have to do with safety in flight or on the ground, unambiguous commands and so forth. I agree totally with your examples within my limited knowledge.

It is not so long ago that I was often invited into the cockpit, when it was "allowed", and so were others. I am nostalgic.

I would simply be interested to know whether flight safety was compromised by this Captain's actions.

I do not carry any baggage to do with the personality of the individual, or anybody who might behave similarly

[GearDown&Locked]

Probably because I’ve never heard of Mr. Pablo Masson before this thread, my personal view isn’t biased towards one side or the other, although I understand perfectly the main issue with this man.

From what I’ve read so far, PM has been acting like a little 4 year old, always pushing the limits, always testing the never ending patience of Mom and Dad. Until the day Mom and Dad were fed up and gave him a smack.
Now, should Mom and Dad have smacked him hard right at the first time he broke the family rules or not? People who have kids know that there isn’t a straight forward answer for that, and mostly would go as far as a verbal reminder of what is or isn’t allowed for him. But patience has limits and parents have different tolerance levels. IMHO this “kid” has pushed just a tad too far.
Bottom line is that: if you’re pushing it, be prepared to be smacked when least expected. And then you stop crying and move on, hopefully having learned not to abuse Mom and Dad patience beyond reasonable levels.

This affair has nothing to do with violated SOPs, it has all to do with the type of behavior expected from a high responsibility profession. This person is a pilot, but what if he was a nuclear plant system operator?

Another thing I’ve noticed here is that this type of eccentric person always attracts a flock of awkward people. Chooo I say!

[Maximum]

Wingsfolded, again with all due respect, the problem is that you are commenting on professional pilots' issues with no knowledge of such.

You say the examples I gave were technical - well that's your definition - but in fact they aren't classed as such in the profession. If I was conducting a line check on a crew most if not all I mentioned would be marked as notech items, ie, non-technical.

I mentioned what words we use to ask for the gear to be retracted. You reckon this is a technical item. Think again. How the gear operates is the technical bit - eg, what pressure is needed in the hydraulic lines to operate the gear? That's the technical bit. How we ask for it is the human factors bit where SOP's come in.

You ask was flight safety compromised by the Captain's actions? The simple answer is yes, in the context that all our actions when commanding an aircraft our determined by the consensus of opinion on what is deemed as safe. This is how the rules, regs and SOPs governing the flight evolve.

If I make up my own rules, would I be endangering the flight? Well, of course. I might get away with it, but that doesn't mean it's safe. The whole point of professional airline ops is to limit the risk. To do this we stick by the consensus of opinion that has produced the rules at any given time. In extremis, we can of course break the rules if that enhances safety.

As an aside, any time a non-pilot is on the jumpseat probably reduces the safety of the flight a little anyway, as at best he/she can be a distraction and at worst if something goes wrong, we have no knowledge of how they'll react.

Take a rapid decompression as an example. Instead of two professionals getting their masks on, establishing comms and getting on with dealing with the emergency, there is now someone who may be unable to get their own mask on, who may need help, who may be flailing around in a panic etc. A big distraction to the task at hand.

The bottom line is, us pilots are employees like anyone else. We know what the rules are. If you disregard them in such a cavalier way, you know you're heading for the chop. It's that simple.

[Bealzebub]

I would simply be interested to know whether flight safety was compromised by this Captain's actions.

No, the immediate end result would suggest probably not.

However when it comes to "compromise" it isn't quite that clear cut.

If you fly through turbulence without switching the seat belt sign on and nobody is injured, you may have compromised flight safety, but the end result was fine. If you fly with a blood alcohol level slightly above the legal limit, you may have compromised flight safety but would it make any difference to the end result? If you fly the aircraft overweight you may have compromised flight safety, but as long as both engines keep turning does it matter? Life is a series of compromises, however safety and security is about ensuring that limits, rules and regulations are ordinarilly adhered to such that compromises do not suddenly bite you. The rules do not permit unauthorized persons into the flightdeck. These rules (like them or not) are a result of previous serious security breaches. They are mandated instructions and the captain has no discretion other than in an emergency to disregard those instructions.

If a Captain elects to disregard the limits or the regulations in order to satisfy his own wishes in clear violation of the legalities and mandated instructions, he compromises his own job security, he compromises the crewmembers under his command, he compromises the safety and security of his passengers. He compromises the commercial security of his company. He compromises his collegues.

If you are going to make this many potential compromises, you really need to have a very good reason or imperative for doing so. Pandering to the wishes, whims or phobias of a professional football player doesn't even come close to qualifying.

I am just repeating myself.

[wings folded]

Maximum

I really did not intend to fall out with you and still do not.

What I have learned is that the views of somebody (SLF) are not welcome on the forum.

You insist on the aspect that these are professional pilots' issues.

I suppose they are.

However, you, as professional pilots, do not appear to agree amongst yourselves.

I naively thought that an outsider contribution might assist.

I now know I am wrong.

Sort it out amongst yourselves.

[Dysag]

Whoever said "The pressure his grandstanding places on subordinate crew members is unfair and ill-considered" hit the nail on the head.

The world sometimes needs big-ego guys like Charles de Gaulle, when the danger is extreme and one man is in charge.

In a team, we don't want big-ego guys to create the danger through lack of man-management skills.

[Maximum]

Wingsfolded, cor blimey don't take it to heart.

The point about this being a professional issue is simply the insider knowledge we have on all the aspects of this.

Feel free to keep posting, but simply keep an open mind about us commenting too, with our knowledge of what actually goes on in the cockpit of a commercial airliner.

Should we censor ourselves because you don't like to hear the facts?

Keep posting, no problem.;)

[wings folded]

Maximum

I love hearing facts (wish it happened more often)

I will probably post again

I am not about to slash my wrists

[Hipennine]

There seems to be a lack of understanding of how company disciplinary procedures work in the UK. Most of them follow as a minimum the model code published by ACAS. This has been agreed by both sides of industry, and arguably does lean in favour of the employee.

From what I've read, the individual in this case was already subject to the company's disciplinary procedure, reportedly following two incidents within the space of a month in 2006 at BHX, including stripping down to his underwear to make a point (arguably that in itself would be grounds for a dismissal for gross misconduct, bringing the company into disrepute). As a result, he was subject to a final written warning (translate as "step out of line once more, and you are out").

The tribunal will therefore look at whether the previous disciplinary actions were "fair" (fair means were the allegations investigated fairly, with the individual concerned, etc). If so, was the subsequent cockpit incident also dealt with fairly ?

If the answer is yes to both, the company has no case to answer.

A final written warning is exactly what it says, and even the smallest aberration thereafter is grounds for "fair" instant dismissal.

[call100]

There seems to be a lack of understanding of how company disciplinary procedures work in the UK. Most of them follow as a minimum the model code published by ACAS. This has been agreed by both sides of industry, and arguably does lean in favour of the employee.

From what I've read, the individual in this case was already subject to the company's disciplinary procedure, reportedly following two incidents within the space of a month in 2006 at BHX, including stripping down to his underwear to make a point (arguably that in itself would be grounds for a dismissal for gross misconduct, bringing the company into disrepute). As a result, he was subject to a final written warning (translate as "step out of line once more, and you are out").

The tribunal will therefore look at whether the previous disciplinary actions were "fair" (fair means were the allegations investigated fairly, with the individual concerned, etc). If so, was the subsequent cockpit incident also dealt with fairly ?

If the answer is yes to both, the company has no case to answer.

A final written warning is exactly what it says, and even the smallest aberration thereafter is grounds for "fair" instant dismissal.
Seems a much better avenue of discussion than the for and against being 'a character' etc.

[BEagle]

I encountred PAUL Mason in the RAF before he started calling himself 'Pablo'....

All the comments by military and ex-military pilots on this thread pretty well sum up the person I knew.

In the civil world, flying is hopefully 'boring' - nothing alarming for the crew and passengers is most welcome. 'Colourful' characters should not inflict their 'personalities' on fare-paying passengers.

Flying a chav-stuffed people-tube has been described as like being 'locked in a cupboard with a stranger for 2 hours 4 times per day'. Not something for people with excessive egos!

[old-timer]

It's occured to me this may be getting out of hand & let's not give further fuel to the effects of 9-11, I re-checked our SOPS which refer to EU OPs1.1255 which is pretty clear, I think the real truth is that 9-11 has taken away a lot of our freedoms possibly forever ?, however, it's still a great pity there isn't some room to manoevere to cater for pre-cleared 'authorised' persons.

For ref; check the full details on the EU OP's site;

EU OPS Subpart S Security
OPS 1.1235 Security requirements
OPS 1.1240 Training programmes
OPS 1.1245 Reporting acts of unlawful interference
OPS 1.1250 Aeroplane search procedure checklist
OPS 1.1255 Flight crew compartment security

stay safe (& legal ) everyone, good luck Pablo, I still think you've been treated with a heavy hand, a 'hats on' dressing down would have sufficed by the CP surely ?

[Nicholas49]

Why has he been treated with a heavy hand? The guy has broken the rules on previous occasions - this is just the culmination. I'm sorry, but no one is above the law, not even a bloody airline pilot. If the guy deliberately ignored the rules and if the guy really did strip down, then he deserves to lose his job. You simply cannot call yourself a "professional" and defend this guy's conduct!

[Norman Stanley Fletcher]

A fascinating range of views. What most, but not all, contributors are missing here is that the sacking of Pablo Mason had little or nothing to do with letting Robbie Savage into the cockpit in contravention of the rules. You can argue all day about whether or not the breach of SOPs was a sackable offence - the airline really did not care. All they cared about was getting rid of Pablo - an opportunity presented itself, they took it and the rest, as they say, is history. Love him or hate him, Pablo has been an unusually controversial figure throughout his whole career - in my time at Laarbruch he was a legend!

I am not going to publicly abuse Pablo here or go into unwholesome specifics, but it would not be betraying state secrets to say his airline were seriously displeased with Pablo and wanted him gone yesterday. He gave them an opportunity to get rid of him and they grabbed it with outstretched hands. There is a separate debate as to whether that view was justifed or not, but that is what happened nonetheless.

[Brian Abraham]

Rules are for the obedience of fools and the guidance of wise men
Without commenting on this particular case is it not a somewhat deplorable state of affairs in todays society when the above no longer has any validity.

[763 jock]

Fletch, spot on analysis. I very much doubt he would have got his cards if the Savage stunt was the first offence.

The first thing most of us at MYT were thinking was who's going to provide the top cover now Pablo's gone!

[biitomd11]

Come on; this is so stupid, if a Captain managing a multi-milion dollars aircraft can not decide what to do on a charter flight; what are we doing behind the controls? The problem today are the ones behind the tables; and those ones know nothing about aviation...

[Agaricus bisporus]

Rules are for the obedience of fools and the guidance of wise men




is it not a somewhat deplorable state of affairs in todays society when mangled mis-quotations can be presented as brazenly as this, and allowed to bolster an unsustainable case?

In Britain's Noughties our society has become one of everyone passes Go, everyone collects £200, no one has to throw a die to get it, everyone gets off scot-free, and no one is ever at fault or responsible for their actions. "Rules are for the obedience of fools.." Bejasus! That is the deplorable state of our society today.

And this, of all places, a Professional pilot's forum, seems (collectively) perfectly happy in itself to be defending someone who has repeatedly demonstrated that they cannot or will not conform to the requirements of a Professional discipline and responsible behaviour at work, or obey the simplest of rules if it does not suit his momentary whim...Had he been a milkman and flouted rules like that he'd have deserved the boot, but as a pilot???????

Frankly, I'm horrified at the attitude, "he's done no wrong," this is the way of the chav druggie-burglar car-thief that we see every night on our TVs, blindly refusing to accept guilt even when caught red-handed.

This is not, or rather should not be the way of a trustworthy Airline pilot, or, for that matter, any member of civilised society.

Shame!

Brian A, the correct quotation is "...the guidance of wise men and the blind obedience of fools." which conveys an utterly differrent message, does it not?

[411A]

It's all very simple, folks.
Airlines have rules and regulations, the respective regulatory authority have the same, and it is expected that FD crew follow these rules and regulations to the best of their ability.
Airline flying is a highly regulated endevour for a variety of very good reasons, and folks who constantly flount those rules and regulations are shown the door....and told to not let it smack 'em on the behind on the way out.
End of story....case closed.

[everynowandthen]

Am finding it hard to understand why there's so much written about this. Whether one is a pilot or dustman (should I call it a Sanitation Technician these days?), there are rules, sop's, sob's whatever but they're there for you to see when you join & one of the conditions of being offered employment is that you obey the aforementioned. If you don't, you get the proverbial tin tack eventually. We all know that. I can understand why people may not agree with or like them but that is a completely different topic for debate.
As for the Pablo groupies (& this may be a sweeping generalisation), their opinions seem to be based on knowing somebody who knew him or they've read his book or some other semi-spurious reason. Apologies here to those that fall in with the groupie genre & are best buddies with the man. I however find it interesting to read the opinions of those who worked with him in mil his days & (very restrainedly) do not ascribe to the "war hero" or "great pilot" schools of thought.

[16024]

Just to comment on a few points raised so far:
The Fedex case is a bad example, as most company sop's allow staff jumpseat use when on company business.
Regarding quotes and mis-qoutations (or misqoutations if we are being pedantic!), it depends which quote you mean:
Pablo,
Douglas Bader,
Oscar Wilde,
Solon (founding father of democracy),
In ascending chronological order.
Can NOBODY among the rule-bound imagine a world where there are just too many rules? And what do we do then? Are we heading that way?
Most of us are lucky enough to work for companies where those who write the rules are intelligent, experienced and practical, but the numerous commitees and agencies who would have us paralysed due to over-regulation are held back by those who value common sense, and a desire to get the job done.
Whether we learn directly from the "maveric" element, or from their mistakes, it is better to live in their world, than without them in ours.
(To misquote Gladys).

[soddim]

PBY - good post - you asked where the gentlemen had gone and I am ashamed to have to tell you that most of them have gone to live elsewhere. Our once well-respected great country is now populated largely by the great unwashed and it is not a class thing or an intelligence deficiency but an attitude problem. It is no coincidence that we are now deeply in debt and our children and their children will struggle - that is not solely the fault of bankers.

To get back to the thread, the only thing that matters in the Pablo tribunal is whether his company followed the rules because it appears that he did not.

[A2QFI]

Part of PM's defence appears to be that he (PM) was treated unfairly and differently to the FO who was on the flight deck at the time. In what way might the FO be at fault in the circumstances being discussed?

[flyboyTC]

As a matter of interest. How did MYT find out about Robbie Savage in the flight deck.

Did someone 'inform' the airline, other crew??

[Roger Sofarover]

A2

Part of PM's defence appears to be that he (PM) was treated unfairly and differently to the FO who was on the flight deck at the time. In what way might the FO be at fault in the circumstances being discussed?

I hope that is not true. As he was the Captain, the leader, if his crew behaved correctly then PM should give them 100% top cover. I hope a Captain is not trying to pass the blame for a decision onto the FO, that would be a shot well below the belt. What do the Pablo groupies (thanks everynowandthen ;) ) think of that if it is true?

Flyboy

I wondered that.

[PBY]

I think, that if this is true, that would be a stupid line of defence. I agree with you. That would be like: "I suffer, why not let the rest of the people to suffer" as opposed to "nobody should suffer" kind of defence.

[quant]

Crying foul: Pilot dismissed for letting Robbie Savage into cockpit (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article5925965.ece)


A commercial airline pilot red-carded for letting Robbie Savage join him on his deck insisted today that the midfielder had posed no threat to the safety of his aircraft.

[phillipas]

Pablo, as has been mentioned, seems a larger than life character who made 2 mistakes; first he flew Wartons' wonder bomber, second he upset people who - quite rightly - felt inferior!

The 2 mistakes Pablo made were that he:

1 - Broke the rules, without any real justification.
2 - Got caught.

[Teddy Robinson]

3) worked for a UK airline.

TR

[andrewmcharlton]

Double Zero, that remark is a bit uncalled for whatever your feelings. Nothing like inciting racism unnecessarily. Bad taste.

[goatface]

Would this be the great PM who now is a major contributer to a leading free UK G/A monthly rag?
Recently he wrote a highly professional (:hmm:) piece about how ATC should be considered a secondary function, based on his many years of experience.
Now he admits to all and sundry that, following his "resting" period from the industry, he was offered the chance of employment with a highly rated Charter Operator and managed to blow it all by (in his own words) not making any preparation for the Sim' check whatsoever.

An amazing admission of failure through his own arrogance and, reading what I have about him, he is worthy of everything he deserves.

[AIRCRAFTSNAPPER]

Perhaps a cheap way(try) to redundancy considering the takeover

[Yorky Towers]

Pablo, as said by others earlier in their posts "he was a Legend" unfortunately for you, being a legend carries consequences: the chinless wonders keep snapping at ya ankles! I'll get shot down by them too for supporting you however, keep your chin up Paul believe me, you have more support out there than your aware of, whether you win or not! you were standing up for the same people who, are too frightened to stand up for themselves.

"Now, who out of you lot wanna quick fag up ere":E

Yorky

[Wingswinger]

Pablo, as has been mentioned, seems a larger than life character who made 2 mistakes; first he flew Wartons' wonder bomber, second he upset people who - quite rightly - felt inferior !


Some of you here may not know this: He not only flew Warton's wonder bomber, he also crashed one at the cost of several £m to the budget of Her Maj's flying club. He mishandled it at low level - something to do with forgetting to sweep the wings forward if my memory serves me correctly. Mistake number 3?

I didn't know him but I knew of him. I came across him a few times when I was on the swing-wing wonder-bomber. He wrote two books about his RAF career, both of which I read out of curiosity. I found them to be seriously cringe-worthy. The tone of them probably summed up the man. NSF (post 153) said he was a "legend" at Laarbruch. Legend he may have been to his fans but I'm afraid I thought him a pompous, self-opinionated and self-loving fool. Like "Maverick" in the film Top Gun, you wouldn't want him on your squadron. That said, if the tribunal finds that he had been ill-treated by MYT I wish him good luck because there is one thing about which he may well be right: We are led and managed by idiots these days.

Addendum: I've just read post 79. It seems his crash has already been mentioned. Memo to self - read everything before typing!

[parabellum]

Double Zero, that remark is a bit uncalled for whatever your feelings. Nothing like inciting racism unnecessarily. Bad taste.


There is a very fine line between racism and realism.

Regarding the quote about rules, fools and wise men Bader may have spoken it but it was not an original from him and is often totally misunderstood by those looking for an excuse to break rules.
Fools require rules and will follow them blindly as they know no other way, wise men will probably know the correct way to proceed but if in doubt they have the rules to guide them to the same conclusion as the fool.
(As explained to me by an eminent professor of the English language).

[Michael Birbeck]

Let's face it. Mr Mason broke the rules and got caught. Who decides what one of the SOPs can be ignored in a standard operational environment? His erstwhile company had every right to dismiss him. That said, I hope he gets back into the air again soon. He is obviously a character of note and the world needs more of them.

[captjns]

Fundamental question… would Captain Mason have invited the unauthorized person onto the flight deck if a CAA inspector were riding his jump seat? If not I would like to know why.

Can Captain Mason answer and prove with beyond a reasonable doubt he completely acted in accordance with his company’s FCOM as approved by the CAA? If the answer is yes… then case closed.

I’m sure that Captain Mason is a swell individual… however being a swell guy does it give him license to violate company procedures which are approved by the CAA?

Point counter point works on these threads… but could the issue regarding violating company procedures be successfully argued before the CAA and the airline?

[cojones]

Yes, I've just read his self-autodestruct item in the Pilot Rag you mentioned.
Sometimes I feel some empathy with the man, at others I feel he's got what's coming. I don't know him, never met him, but there is a huge bandwidth of viewpoints here. You either love him or hate him, and you either want to sack him or promote him to MFO/DFO/CEO whatever you call it. When is the tibunal due to hand down its decision?

[1.3VStall]

captjns,

Are you absolutely sure he is a swell individual?

He comes across as an arrogant pr*ck, who took the p*ss and is now whingeing that he got his fully justified come uppance.

I wouldn't want be be SLF with a prat like that up front in the left-hand seat!

[callum]

I found this video of him when he was in the RAF he is about 30 second in i think!
Handle bar mustash!
YouTube - Gulf War - Desert Storm (123 - 19th January, 1991) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LDAJPBjmkZY)
I think its him?

[The Real Slim Shady]

Double Zero

Your remark is odiously offensive. I trust you will apologise and withdraw it.

[captjns]

Are you absolutely sure he is a swell individual?

He comes across as an arrogant pr*ck, who took the p*ss and is now whingeing that he got his fully justified come uppance.

I wouldn't want be be SLF with a prat like that up front in the left-hand seat

Without meeting the chap... I am giving him the benefit of the doubt... just as I would give you too, 1.3VStall:E

[A2QFI]

The press quote in relation to action taken against the FO says:-

"He (PM) felt his punishment was more “drastic” compared with treatment to his First Officer Kevin Davenport, who was with him in the cockpit on the 2007 flight. He said: “The most dramatic, drastic possible action has been taken against me. I contest absolutely no action has been taken against my First Officer.”

The airline’s former chief pilot Martin Mahoney said Mr Davenport had been given an informal interview after the *incident. The tribunal continues.

I still can't see what input the FO could have had in this incident and why PM feels hard done by in terms of the action taken against the FO.

[Basil]

Callum,
Sure is.
Show that clip to the court - case dismissed ;)

[Basil]

while I personally would not let a footballer within 100' radius
Slim,
Double Zero
Your remark is odiously offensive
Now, come on, some of those footballers can be a bit badly behaved :E

[Roger Sofarover]

A2
"He (PM) felt his punishment was more “drastic” compared with treatment to his First Officer Kevin Davenport, who was with him in the cockpit on the 2007 flight. He said: “The most dramatic, drastic possible action has been taken against me. I contest absolutely no action has been taken against my First Officer.”

Thanks for that quote from the media.

Now faced with that little gem, what do all the Pablo supporters think of him now? A good Captain?, a good leader? a nice chap? I think he has just hit barrel bottom! Now those of you that compared him to 'Sully', please apologise, can you ever imagine Sully making a comment like that? Infact never mind Sully, any Captain worth his salt would never come out with a line like that, it is shameful.

[Nicholas49]

So based on that quotation, he does not even understand the basic premise of command and making final decisions.

[Overdrive]

Douglas Bader said: "Rules are for the obedience of fools and the guidance of wise men”

Perhaps because he knew that wise men realize their fallibilities and that those rules guide their actions and decisions.



I really doubt that's what Bader meant.

[G SXTY]

"He (PM) felt his punishment was more “drastic” compared with treatment to his First Officer Kevin Davenport, who was with him in the cockpit on the 2007 flight. He said: “The most dramatic, drastic possible action has been taken against me. I contest absolutely no action has been taken against my First Officer.”

So Captain Mason decided to let a passenger into the flightdeck, in clear contravention of the rules on flightdeck access, and thereby putting his FO in the unenviable position of either acquiescing in the rule-breaking, or arguing with his commander in-flight. And then he defends himself by claiming that no subsequent action was taken against his FO? Charming.

As an FO myself, I'm mightily relieved that there are fewer and fewer 'Pablos' out there.

[Airborne Aircrew]

Many years ago I knew a wonderful man who was a Squadron Leader on Puma helicopters at a secret airbase near Basingstoke. He was teaching a "refresher" course on some subject or other and the issue of his crash in NI came up. Pardon me if the details are errant, time is no friend of memory.

He was flying an operation out of Aldergrove in a Puma with a left seat pilot and crewman and had recently dropped a patrol in a rural area. They were leaving the drop off point at low level and slow speed, (<70kts), when he experienced a tail rotor failure. The flip cards regarding tail rotor failures for the Puma were all a bit "try this" but the conventional wisdom was that if you were going faster than 70kts then the tail pylon should be sufficient to maintain heading and you should find a runway and do a running landing. Fine, but he was going slower than 70kts and the resulting yaw at low level was about to crash his aircraft. The actions to be carried out below 70kts required the pilot to carry out a complete shutdown of both engines which requires a minimum of 10 actions if I remember correctly, (it's been more than 20 years). He decided that the danger was sufficient that he would circumvent the procedure and simply pulled the two fuel shutoff levers. A thoroughly expedient solution to a rather urgent problem. With the lack of torque he regained directional control of the aircraft made a rolling landing in Riley's somewhat marshy bottom field. The marsh conspired against him and the aircraft turned on it's side and beat itself to death with the remaining energy in the head. The upshot was three crew walking away and an airframe that I believe was only Cat3. The BOI castigated him on the grounds that his shutdown of the engines was improper. I really believe that he was somewhat bitter about that experience and he made a statement that has stuck with me ever since. He said "If you are ever in a crash you walk away from get back into the cockpit when you can, pull out your flip cards and place all the switches and levers in pleasing and eyecatching positions before the investigators get there".

A long story with no apparent purpose? Not really, the moral of the story is quite clear: It's their airframe, they can do with it as they please including telling their pilot how they want him to act. Failure to do so, (even if you are right), may result in disciplinary action up to and including dismissal.

Sir, if you are reading this, you know who you are... http://www.hqrafregiment.net/images/smilies/salute.gif

[Tyke]

Knowing PM and his attitude to (especially young or inexperienced) F/O's, it comes as no surprise to hear that he is throwing dirt in that direction.

[Roger Sofarover]

Tyke
I find it sickening to be honest. How low can one stoop? I really hope he loses the case now.

[SR71]

One wonders whether, if all the great Captains out there were allowed to use their superior good judgement as to who they would and would not let into the flightdeck, why one would need the prohibition anyway?

:E

On the one hand argue against ID cards that further emasculate us, yet kowtow to the insanity that obliges/permits/allows me to carry a crew member who I've never come across in my life on the jumpseat, but not my father?

Talk about the law being an ass.

By the way, looking at it through another prism, the Bud Holland story is the story of a desperately incompetent management.

Some years ago (but post 9/11), I flew with an old Captain, who mid-way through the flight, admitted his extremely handicapped child and quite ill wife (they both died not long after I believe) to the flightdeck in complete contravention of the rules.

In the circumstances, I did not object, although, to be honest, I was not consulted a priori as to my opinion on the matter.

What would you have done?

[flash8]

I find it somewhat sad that PM stooped so low as to involve the FO.

In the absence of any (no matter how subtle) verbal intervention by the FO however one could argue (in a CRM perfect world) that the FO is indeed implicated simply by his lack of action.

In the circumstances Pablo might have a point, no matter how distasteful it might sound.

[M.Mouse]

SR71, while sympathising with the captain's desire to brighten his wife and son's day I believe he was wrong to put you in that position. He was allowing emotion to cloud is sound judgement. What would I have done? What 90% of FOs would do, acquiesce in quiet annoyance.

Those of us who have been FOs all have memories of being put in difficult positions by captains who should really know better.

Your refer to superior judgment of captains being allowed to decide on flight deck access in flight. Playing devil's advocate for a moment. A week or two after September 11th I flew with one of our Muslim FOs. I knew him from previous trips and to all intents and purposes he was (and still is as far as I know) a sound pilot and colleague. The conversation inevitably turned to the attacks in NY and he firmly declared that America 'got what it deserved'. I felt the best course of action was to rapidly change the subject. Now fast forward to today and say that I am flying with that same FO. He then tells me his brother is travelling with him and would like him to sit on the FD. I am afraid my superior judgement would have difficulty with that one.

UK and US airlines are prime targets for Islamic terrorists, far more so than any other country's airlines for reasons that are obvious. For that reason alone we are stuck with very strict rules regarding FD access whatever we would like to see.

Pablo Mason decided he knew better. His employers begged to differ. He who pays the piper calls the tune. Quite simple really.

[BelArgUSA]

I am a retired pilot - so maybe should shut-up...
Many years of flying, not far from 24,000 hrs... no accidents, no violations.
xxx
Oops, violations...! - Well, honestly, many. Maybe at least one per flight.
Some "exceeding 250 below 10,000" - some "busting DH on ILS by 20 ft".
And many "admitting armed terrorists in flight deck".
xxx
Pprune is mostly "UK territory", and "UK opinions"...
As a kid, I admired UK (originally from Belgium, you guys liberated us in 1944).
UK (and USA) meant "Liberty" and "Freedom" to me.
Compared to what was Germany 1933-1945...
"Befehl ist befehl" - Nazi order, and "der discipline" with no discussions.
xxx
I do not recognize UK...
You gentlemen sit on regulation books and never bend any rules.
You are so perfect in observing the law, makes me sick.
Famous soccer players, on charter flights, top the list of terrorists.
And you never pass me (on the left) 20 mph over limit when on the M-1...
I thought Germans were like that. They are very far from these manners.
They observe the rules when required, and bend rules if they do not apply.
xxx
I think about private pilots who got to observe a takeoff and landing...
These kids on my lap, age 10 "flying my 747", fostering a pilot career...?
Little old ladies who never again got afraid to fly, with AK-47 in handbag.
The father who took in-flight pictures of their kids wearing pilots earphones.
Newlyweds on their honeymoon, passing the Equator in the flight deck.
And a personal acquaintance (tenor) Andrea Bocelli, on the jump seat.
Definitely (being blind), he is, of all of them, the most dangerous terrorist.
xxx
:*
Happy contrails, from my rocking chair

[His dudeness]

M.Mouse, so the ill woman and son of your captain on the flightdeck would really bother you and the racist/pro terror comment of a F/O did trigger which reaction? You changed the subject.

Did YOU report this guy?

Is this guy dangerous or is a football celebrity on a private charter a problem?

Sometimes its hard to believe what one reads here on pprune....

BelArgUSA + 1

[Airborne Aircrew]

I do not recognize UK...
You gentlemen sit on regulation books and never bend any rules.
You are so perfect in observing the law, makes me sick.
Famous soccer players, on charter flights, top the list of terrorists.
And you never pass me (on the left) 20 mph over limit when on the M-1...
I thought Germans were like that. They are very far from these manners.
They observe the rules when required, and bend rules if they do not applyI suppose that explains your responses in the, (somewhat fun), "French" thread in the Military Forum then.

What is it that you don't understand about the fact that SOP's are written so that all aircraft are flown in a similar, effective, safe and efficient manner and that, as owners of the airframes themselves, you, (as an "own nothing" pilot) are simply their employee and therefore subject to their whims?

Or is there an "arrogance thing" that shows through in some of your posts pervading all of them?

[OneIn60rule]

So Pablo is unhappy that his FO isn't punished.

My my.... he's not even Captain worthy.

1/60

[Sir Niall Dementia]

Re The mud slung at the FO;

Perhaps the company knew just how PM treated his colleagues and made due allowance for the fact that even if the FO had dared to speak up he would probably have been over-ruled anyway.

Many a flight safety issue has arisen in the past from such behaviour, I just hoped that in these days of CRM, SOPs et al we had finally driven ego bound buffoons out of the flight deck.

As a young FO I regularly flew with one such "character". He was brought to heel when a deputation of FOs took a letter signed by every FO on the fleet to management. The aeronautical equivalent of the black spot sorted the problem. A much chastened captain approached us individually and apologised. Like most I was happy to accept, some gave him their true opinions of him and one met him in the car park. Captain was off sick for 5 weeks after that chat.

PM may think he is a character, and may take joy in fighting management,
but I doubt he spared a single thought for any of his colleagues who could so easilly be tarred by his brush. I have a need for a new P1 at the moment, PM needn't apply. I would be deeply concerned about what he was up to as soon as he got on the crew buss.

[ChrisVJ]

Very black and white in your world, guys, eh?

Suppose you do something a little less than your usual intelligent self. Ends up with a loss of job, which , due to a sudden and unexpected decline in airline business you suddenly find you need rather badly.

Go to a solicitor and he says, "Well, that's interesting, apparently your FO, who was part and party, (though maybe not quite as much so,) did not even get a reprimand, I think you've got yourself a case here, my son."

Of course you would all turn round and say, "Not on your life, I wouldn't sully my name with such a tactic." as you watch you life savings and what remains of your career dribble away.

Of course.


I think it perhaps a little simplistic to compare Mr Masson with Bud Holland. Holland had a record of endangering aircraft and flying them outside their envelopes. Are you saying that Mr Masson has such a record? Or is he just a good pilot who has issues with authority stupidly used? I don't know, I wasn't there, and I don't know him.

Long before 911 I believed that all public transport aircraft should have lockable cockpit doors, and that was while my children and I enjoyed several very fine cockpit visits. Was Mr Masson's infringement a real risk to safety or just an excuse to get rid of an inconvenient annoyance?

Would I rather fly with a Masson or a 3,000 hr newly promoted captain who sticks rigidly to the rules but maybe is untested in adversity? I don't really know.

[A2QFI]

You gentlemen sit on regulation books and never bend any rules.

A rule is a rule - if it can be bent it is guidance

You are so perfect in observing the law, makes me sick.

What is so wrong about observing the law? It is the broad basis of a decent society

[ExSp33db1rd]

Long before 9/11 but well into the Hi-jack era, flying a 707 from the Middle East, wandered back into the cabin and invited a shapely, blonde, female First Class pax. to go up to the flight deck and brighten up the day for the crew.

The male pax in front asked if he could also visit the Flt. deck. He was dark haired, of swarthy complexion, apparently of Arabic persuasion. I adv. that flt. deck visits weren't possible. he pointed out that I had just invited the lady ahead of him, I suggested that it might be possible when I returned, and later asked him to follow me. Just before entering the flt. deck I asked him if he was armed, he retorted that I hadn't asked the blonde.

Later, on the flt. deck I turned to him and asked where he was from, I'm a Palestinian Arab he answered. He then said, but of course we're not all terrorists !

I still have nightmares making up the Press headlines !

You canna be tooo carrrrreful !!!

[763 jock]

"As a young FO I regularly flew with one such "character". He was brought to heel when a deputation of FOs took a letter signed by every FO on the fleet to management. The aeronautical equivalent of the black spot sorted the problem. A much chastened captain approached us individually and apologised. Like most I was happy to accept, some gave him their true opinions of him and one met him in the car park. Captain was off sick for 5 weeks after that chat."

Spooky. :eek:

[dontdoit]

I'm afraid it really is as simple as "it's their trainset". If your, or my, employer wants you to fly the jet everywhere with 10 degrees left wing down, dressed as Ronald McDonald, whilst singing the Yellow Rose of Texas on the PA, and it doesn't contravene any CAA rules....then I'm afraid that's how it's got to be.

Having spoken to a few of our F/O's about this case, I'm afraid the gentleman concerned seems to have lost all sympathy when he tried to shift the blame onto his co-pilot. What ever happened taking responsibility for your own actions?

BTW, anyone know why he chooses not to call himself "Paul" ???

[Freehills]

"I think it perhaps a little simplistic to compare Mr Masson with Bud Holland. Holland had a record of endangering aircraft and flying them outside their envelopes. Are you saying that Mr Masson has such a record? Or is he just a good pilot who has issues with authority stupidly used? I don't know, I wasn't there, and I don't know him.

Long before 911 I believed that all public transport aircraft should have lockable cockpit doors, and that was while my children and I enjoyed several very fine cockpit visits. Was Mr Masson's infringement a real risk to safety or just an excuse to get rid of an inconvenient annoyance?

Would I rather fly with a Masson or a 3,000 hr newly promoted captain who sticks rigidly to the rules but maybe is untested in adversity? I don't really know."


People are saying that he had such a record, including crashing an aircraft in the RAF by flying outside the envelope. One would have hoped that a pilot who had "seen the elephant" in this way & been tested by adversity would actually be more careful in the way he acted to others.

Stripping in public, deliberately breaking SOPs and rules, and, from the gist of it, acting as someone who doesn't think rules should apply to him. I know who I would rather drink with (but probably for just one session, the anecdotes tend to repeat with these types) and I know who I would rather fly with. They would not be the same.

[Roger Sofarover]

ChrisVJ

Go to a solicitor and he says, "Well, that's interesting, apparently your FO, who was part and party, (though maybe not quite as much so,) did not even get a reprimand, I think you've got yourself a case here, my son."

Of course you would all turn round and say, "Not on your life, I wouldn't sully my name with such a tactic." as you watch you life savings and what remains of your career dribble away.

You cannot be a Pilot
You cannot be a Captain

One stereotype character for Pilots whether Civilian or Military is Integrity (the only time it ever tends to lapse is when we regress into children on this forum - a useful tool I might add). Notice the lack of Pablo supporters since he has been quoted saying that about his FO. I may further add that since he has taken that tac for his defence, he has pretty much assured himself 100% that no Chief Pilot on the planet will ever give him a job again.

Even if it was the idea of the FO to bring Mr Savage on the FD, it would have had to have been the Captain who said 'Yes'. Once the Captain has said that, then any subsequent trouble is on his shoulders and his alone. We almost all subscribe to the principle of 'The Buck Stops Here!' It seems Paul has not.

I think it perhaps a little simplistic to compare Mr Masson with Bud Holland. Holland had a record of endangering aircraft and flying them outside their envelopes. Are you saying that Mr Masson has such a record?

Yes!

and I don't know him.

I Do.

[Avman]

People are saying that he had such a record, including crashing an aircraft in the RAF by flying outside the envelope.

So, you're making a sound and rational judgement on a professional pilot based on what "people say".

I wonder what people say about you Freehills :}

[Roger Sofarover]

AvMan

A little flippant. Yes people are saying

he had such a record, including crashing an aircraft in the RAF by flying outside the envelope.

They have also provided the link to the accident report concerned.

[The Real Slim Shady]

2 days ago one of our FOs, I have flown with him several times, and his partner got on board to go Spain; we saw them walking out of departures and nabbed a couple of good seats for them.

When they were on board he brought his missus up front to see the "office"; she hadn't had the opportunity before to see visit his place of work.

In our company we are allowed by the Ops Manual to offer the flightdeck seats to passengers travelling on staff tickets accompanied by the staff member.

So I asked the FO if they were travelling on staff tickets: he had bought the tickets from the website, hence I had to apologise and say that I would have let his missus in the flightdeck but wasn't allowed as they were on regular tickets.

The FO certainly isn't a security risk, nor is his missus, but the rules are quite clear, hence I don't have any discretion to modify them.

Unless Pablo can produce a procedural flaw in the process of his case, he will be hard pressed to achieve a result in his favour. If he does gain a verdict in his favour it is extremely unlikely that the company would reinstate him.

[parabellum]

C'mon now Avman, people who know him, served on the same squadron as him, at the time, who have quoted the official report of the incident say that his Navigator saved them both when Mason grossly mishandled the aircraft, isn't that enough?

[Sir Niall Dementia]

PM wrote about his crash in the Tornado in his own book and so it is very much in the public domain. It is a long time since i read the book, but IIRC he did go outside the SOPs as they then were, because he believed that you can't train for war using higher peacetime limits. (the crash was shortly after the first bout of unpleasantness). There is a world of difference between the flying environments of a Tornado pilot and an airline pilot. Most of the ex-fast jet pilots I know are superb commercial pilots, their CRM is good and their handling (once they get used to the fact that a wing over into a max rate descent spills the gin down the back) is excellent. Almost all of them find flying straight and level for hours with a change of ATC agency the most exciting thing happening is boring, and so do I. But I have not met another one like PM since the early days of my career.

No company fires a pilot without very good reasons and being VERY sure of it's legal rights. Getting a new pilot on line costs a heck of a lot of money, even if they arrive with all the relevant ratings, I see the bills for ours, to get rid of one normally means that the full disciplinary procedure has been followed, complete with ensuring that the person involved has had legal/union representation at all times. Thankfully I have had to do it only once and it was horrible. In the last 20 years of flying I have only seen it three times, and heard of it comparitively rarely. With the numbers of us working in the UK that is a mighty big clue as to how seriously companies take the procedure and the fact that most pilots realise that being sacked makes getting a new job difficult, and a tribunal makes getting a new job almost impossible.

I wonder if PM is following this line as he knows that his chances of employment with any other operator are slim and this is a way of generating some cash from the publicity. Maybe its' time he went back to his pet shop and presenting for TV

[david.craig]

Having sat as a lay member on Tribunals I can see PM having difficulty in dodging this one.
Tribunals are not the place to raise issues over the merits of company policy, but only if that policy was binding and followed.
Standard Operating Procedures are required to be followed, this was not followed nor was it a situation [such as an emergency] where it was obvious to a clueless bystander that this deviation was indeed necessary.

The case will be focused on if the statutory grievance procedures were followed.

Was PM given prior notice before being called into a meeting.
Did he receive written communication following this.
Was he offered an appeal to be heard by a more senior member of management?
Was Pablo allowed a witness at both these meetings?
Unfortunately whether the passenger was a threat or not is extremely unlikely to be considered by the panel.

Breach of the essential terms of contract
Dismissed- correct procedure?

[Old Lizzy]

Breaking the rules or adjusting them to your purposes is one thing, doing it with a plane full of paying passengers is quite another. The fact that it was a charter is irrelevant.

[The Real Slim Shady]

david.craig has hit the nail on the head.

You can debate the perceived rights and wrongs of what PM did until the cows home, but the Tribunal will examine the facts, the procedures, both disciplinary and from the Ops Manual, and consider whether they were followed or breached.

End of.

[SR71]

M. Mouse,

I never said how many stripes I had at the time of the aforementioned incident did I?

As for the incident to which you refer, I pose the question: Why should I feel more comfortable flying with a "Muslim FO" in the right seat than my father in the jump seat?

How does your superior judgement deal with that? Isn't it the "sleepers" we should be wary of? Hasn't the precedent already been set by the medical community and its involvement with terrorism?

I wonder if statistically the chance of a hijack from within the flightdeck is now greater than that from without?

Courtesy of Turkish Airways, we now know that that door is such an impediment to my survival in a crash I'm surprised we're not all arguing for its removal anyway?

Hazard of the job is it?

This prohibition does nothing for us.

And if the law is an ass, it tends to result in assinine behaviour, on both sides of the fence.

God forbid a parking warden ever accosts you for that illegal stop...

Testimony to the ever encroaching power of our state...

Reminds me of Nazi Germany.

All tongue-in-cheek of course.

:ok:

[captplaystation]

By any reasonable assesment what he did carried no risk . . . . but, he bust the rules and knew he was doing so (no matter whose idea he now says it was)
In another airline that Slim is familiar with, we not so long ago had a Capt demoted for several months and a contract F/O dismissed (not even required really, just not renewed/rostered is enough ) although he was sensibly IMHO reinstated.
This was for a similar "incident"
I believe this was probably a more measured response from a company many on here would be quick to criticise for their "personnel handling".

In Capt Masson's case I have the distinct feeling that they wanted rid of the guy anyhow, and he handed them the excuse they needed on a plate.
Shot himself in the foot, unfortunately for him.
Case dismissed I would hazard.

[Roger Sofarover]

PM wrote about his crash in the Tornado in his own book and so it is very much in the public domain. It is a long time since i read the book, but IIRC he did go outside the SOPs as they then were, because he believed that you can't train for war using higher peacetime limits. (the crash was shortly after the first bout of unpleasantness)

I have not read his book but if that is what was written then that is what you call writing complete b******s to excite people who have a vague interest in Aviation. Why he cannot just be honest as the rest of us would and say 'I had a temporary lapse of concentration, turned and pulled giving it no thought, treated the Tornado like a Tractor and it bit me hard and bit my navigator even harder. Boss I completely screwed up'.

[His dudeness]

No company fires a pilot without very good reasons and being VERY sure of it's legal rights.

Negative.

In PM´s case there are reasons and I´m sure he won´t win. I supported him in the first thread, but even if it was the solicitors idea (which I´m convinced it was) to bring the F/O into the game, I hate people that don´t stand for their faults and mistakes. If I´d be PM I`d try everything to get my job back, but definately NOT on somebody elses cost.

Nonwithstanding, the cockpit rules (and many others) are stupid to stay polite. Especially on a full private charter.

[Greek God]

Out of interest - does anyone know the actual sequence of events and discussions prior to to the event? ie did PM suddenly announce out of the blue to the Purser "get Savage up here" or did an actual discussion about the matter take place before a mutually agreeable decision was made? If the latter were to be the case then I would suggest there would be an element of cuplbablity wrt the FO. However, If the discussion went "No absolutely not I disagree" but PM allowed the visit to go ahead anyway then it is a completly different matter.
Ps. and how exactly would the FO have stopped it? -a real tricky situation which a Capt should NEVER place ANY member of his crew in.

It seems there are those here who some personal issues against PM and although a colourful character (a point not in dispute!) I have only read of one flying issue / accident in a long career. There seems to have been very little criticism against his commercial flying or CRM skills (other than the savage incident). As far as can gather it his exploits out of the flight deck that seems to have so many peoples backs up.

[silverelise]

To me it smacks of hipocracy for someone who broke the rules to run to a tribunal when he thinks someone else (his employer) has broken the rules.

[overthewing]

Speaking as a humble SLF with an interest in surviving my flight, this chap strikes me as being NOT the kind of pilot I want to be sitting behind.

In my own experience, someone who consistently bends, 'misinterprets' or simply breaks rules, will inevitably go too far one day and break a rule that will leave me wishing I'd chosen a different airline.

Having the courage to break a rule in an emergency or a highly unusual situation is not at all the same as breaking a rule out of a sense of 'fun' or a suppressed anger at having to follow other people's rules. It takes maturity to judge when it is appropriate to behave playfully and when it is not.

A system may be irksome or downright silly, in which case campaigning for change, with patience and coherent argument, is probably necessary. The important fact is that these channels ARE open to most of us, if we have the will and stamina to use them. Expressing irritation with a system by acting out your emotions is rarely effective at advancing your cause.

If the flying community wants to have silly restrictions removed, acting in silly ways simply suggests to the world that there really IS a need to control you. How do you think this man's actions appear to the public, who just want to reach their destination safely? As a member of that public, I see a buffoon in a twit moustache, who sees himself above the rules...someone who I tend to suspect of having the clinical symptoms of Narcissistic Personality Disorder.

I think the airline has done the paying public a favour.

Incidentally, I'm amused to notice how there seems to be general assumption that, because Robbie Savage is white, he could be safely counted out as an Islamic threat. Quite a proportion of British Muslims are converts and as white as Mr. Savage. I wonder if Pablo satisfied himself on this possibility before he issued his generous invitation?

[Ratita]

I fly for a major european national carrier and have jumseated a lot all over Europe: Germany, Portugal, Spain, Italy... In my airline it's the commanders decision to accept cockpit jumps. A lot of my colleagues try to avoid layovers in the UK, because everything is so complicated from security to the antique airports such as the prehistoric guiding system at Manchester ( but this is got nothing to do with Pablo)... Anyway to summ up, I hope he wins the case and if the commander for example wants to take his brother in the flight deck then so be it.
There you go, lets bring back common sense to UK airports.

[Roger Sofarover]

Anyway to summ up, I hope he wins the case and if the commander for example wants to take his brother in the flight deck then so be it.What and then if there is trouble the 'commander' wants the FO to be punished?
I really hope he does not win. We have had the publicity we need for stupid rules concerning security. Oh and the decision to take your brother in the front just depends on who your brother is right. Most of the recent madaxe murderers of our time including Osama Bin Laden are brothers to somebody.

You say that you and your colleagues try and avoid the UK. I assume that is because the security at the Airports is an arse and that there are certain rules you would have to comply with that are a little tedious. But you would comply wouldn't you? PM did not comply, simple.

Overthewing
As self confessed SLF, that is a top post on this subject:ok:

[captjns]

Couldn't situations like this be avoided if the company's SOPs are followed? What's the problem??? what's the mystery?

[snapper1]

ChrisVJ


Quote:
Go to a solicitor and he says, "Well, that's interesting, apparently your FO, who was part and party, (though maybe not quite as much so,) did not even get a reprimand, I think you've got yourself a case here, my son."

Of course you would all turn round and say, "Not on your life, I wouldn't sully my name with such a tactic." as you watch you life savings and what remains of your career dribble away.
You cannot be a Pilot
You cannot be a Captain

Maybe, maybe not, but ChrisVJ seems to have a better grasp of how Employment Tribunals work than most people on this thread.

[Ratita]

@Roger

You write about Osama bin Laden, I write about common sense.
Osama bin Laden is not common sense...

[Ripline]

Game over, apparently....

BBC NEWS | England | Pilot loses claim over footballer (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/7953069.stm)

Ripline

[Roger Sofarover]

Snapper
He may well know more about Employment Tribunals, but I did speak about Integrity. I would not sell my soul to the Devil for a couple of hundred K.

Ratita
Ok, I will play your game, now take out the 'brother of Osama bin Laden bit' and re-read the post, in particular my first line under the quote from you.

Edited to say
Well Snapper it appears ChrisVJ doesn't know more about Tribunals eh! In the mean time PM has not only lost the case, but with his move on the FO, he has also sacrificed his Integrity and ostracized himself from his peers and made himself unemployable. PM hasn't just lost, he has really lost.

The pilot, who represented himself during the proceedings, told the media outside the tribunal building that he had not been surprised by the ruling.
He said: "I have been beaten in a very fair tribunal by an excellent barrister and I have no complaints at all about the way in which I have been treated.
"Unfortunately my wings were clipped and I think I will have to walk the rest of the way."

Rule 1 stick to what you are good at. Pilots fly, Barristers do law. If Pablo thought he was going to win he would have had the best brief in London as at the win costs would have been given to MyTravel. But he obviously thought he wasn't going to win, so as said many pages ago, it was a publicity stunt. New book, TV programs soon?

[Double Zero]

I'm terribly sorry if I upset anyone; one of the most decent people I've ever worked with ( designing hearing aids ! ) was an Iranian - 'Persian' is the much preferred term - called Ali, when I chatted with him about his career, it turned out he was an RPG team commander...

I'm not racist, though could relate a few stories about export customers - there are plenty of all white plonkers around !

I don't know the details of Pablo's stuffing a Tornado, but there are certain systems on that aircraft which spring to mind re. low level rolling which can catch out all but the best Test pilots.

Getting back to Pablo, it's not as if he barrel-rolled the thing over a city, is it ?!

Comparing him to that egocentric idiot in a B-52 is an insult to ALL flyers - if he hadn't sorted it out for himself, as is usual taking good people with him - he should have been cabled on for an airbrake.

[cojones]

Yes, that is the correct verdict.
But he was quite magnanimous in his defeat, and will probably go on to make millions in his role as a speaker.
And 'overthewing' your commentary was excellent. You're not the barrister acting for MyTravel/Thos Cook are you?

[daisy120]

411A and the toe rags that inhabit your patch...give us all a break and get your excuse for a brain out of the swamp that is now sadly, modern aviation. Those of us that carved a niche to create the industry that you enjoy, did so on a platform of common sense. That's the court that Pablo plays off and it doesn't matter a toss where he came from..GA, Military, PNG Twin Otters or Cadet training. He, like the rest of us should begin the process of deregulating the crap back out of the industry and make it the business it once was; a harbour for aviators, not a haven for deviators.:ugh:

[FrequentSLF]

Nonwithstanding, the cockpit rules (and many others) are stupid to stay polite. Especially on a full private charter.

A group of terrorist rents a private charter :hmm: and plays back 9/11 with it...

[Caudillo]

Despite whatever the rights and wrongs of this whole matter, one thing that this all suggests to me is that a great deal of pilots are quite frightened of their own shadows. There's a world out there, and it's out to get you!

[Roger Sofarover]

daisy120

Anyone with an ounce of common sense would have known that Paul was not going to win, even he knew he was not going to win.
Anyone with an ounce of common sense would not have stripped to their underwear at security.
Anyone with an ounce of common sense would think twice or even thrice about breaking company regulations.

You are a little heavy on 411 aren't you?

the swamp that is now sadly, modern aviationWell I happen to think that swamp is manned by some of the most professional aviation staff to date in the history of flying.

He, like the rest of us should begin the process of deregulating the crap back out of the industry and make it the business it once was; a harbour for aviators, not a haven for deviatorsFrom your tone the industry has changed significantly since 'you were a lad', and without significant regulation there would be several major hull losses per day.

not a haven for deviators[Well it was Paul that deviated from procedure, or if you mean something different I suggest you apologise to all the professionals you are calling deviants.

Why are you upset? Pablo isn't, he will pick up a lot more money than any Captain after this, and he knows it. Why else run with a case you expected to lose?

[slip and turn]

Rule 1 stick to what you are good at.Agree.

If Pablo thought he was going to win he would have had the best brief in London as at the win costs would have been given to MyTravel.Nice idea but refer Rule 1.

But he obviously thought he wasn't going to win, ... bla blaGawd ... give it a rest Roger Settee and Out :p

[Airborne Aircrew]

Daisy:

He, like the rest of us should begin the process of deregulating the crap back out of the industry and make it the business it once was; a harbour for aviators, not a haven for deviators.Golly, seems like the facts are with the "deviators"...

For the first time since the dawn of the jet age, two consecutive years have passed without a single airline passenger death in a U.S. carrier crash.

[snip]

Going without a crash fatality for a full year has been rare. Only four years since 1958 have passed without a passenger fatality, the analysis found. That makes the two-year string even more impressive, aviation safety experts say.

[snip]

Overall risks of death on an airline flight have dropped dramatically.
Fatality risk fell to 68 per billion fliers this decade, less than half the risk in the 1990s, according to National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) data. Since 2002, the risks of dying on a flight plunged to 19 per billion, an 86% drop from the 1990s.My Bold... Even with 9/11 the risk has dropped more than 50% this decade... While those aviators might be romantic characterizations it seems that whatever is currently in "the swamp" it is an improvement over their kind of flying civilian airliners. Might I dare to suggest that if you want to be one of those romantic figures you visit your nearest military Career Information Office. They will better appreciate the "aviator" in you.

Airlines go two years with no fatalities - USATODAY.com (http://www.usatoday.com/travel/flights/2009-01-11-airlinesafety_N.htm)

[James7]

Taken from this site : "Shiga" in the Bay (http://www.check-six.com/Crash_Sites/Shiga-SFBay.htm)

The Captain took full responsibility for the accident and refused to blame anyone else or any other circumstances.

At the NTSB hearing, Captain Asoh took the stand as first witness and supposedly said, in answer to why he had landed in the bay, "As you Americans say, I f****d up."

Such a frank acceptance of blame and responsibility has come to be known as the "Asoh Defense". It has been discussed in various books such "The Abilene Paradox" by Professor Jerry Harvey, publications and in company training films.

Accident of the DC-8 'Shiga' landing in the Bay of San Francisco, with no fatalities or injuries.

[Roger Sofarover]

Might I dare to suggest that if you want to be one of those romantic figures you visit your nearest military Career Information Office. They will better appreciate the "aviator" in you.

Airborne

Don't be naughty:=;)

[call100]

I feel totally privileged to have been regarded by many people in the Midlands as 'Biggles of Birmingham'
Pablo Mason
Sums it all up really.....:rolleyes::rolleyes:

[adminblunty]

What would he have done when he was in the RAF if someone had disobeyed his direct orders? He'd have disciplined them.

He sounds like a nice guy, but could you trust him? The BOI report into the Tornado crash I understand he was involved with makes for an interesting read.

[FRED WHELAN]

Perhaps pablo didn't realise that he had already used up his 9 lives already. Ejected safely 29/7/83 following what I believe was a midair collision with another hawk over Bideford Bay, then another safe ejection 10/5/91 over germany in a Tornado due to possible malfunction.
I sure would love to know where he lost lives 3 to 9.
I still think he is the dogs do dah........is he still flying for someone?

[call100]

.is he still flying for someone?

Himself apparently.....

Fly Pablo launch (http://www.birmingham101.com/101_fly_pablo.htm)

[wiggy]

Umm, so reading the small print about Fly Pablo it would seem that the SCUD missile was used in a SAM role in GW1.....well he certainly seems to be living up to his role of being a "character"

[Schnowzer]

Made me LOL, particularly the bit .:ok:

'He commented: “We have a serious problem in our airports in this country, particularly amongst check-in and security personnel on the ground. Whilst the cabin crew have fundamental training in how to handle a passenger in distress about flying'

Was that before or after he got in his shreddies at security, looking at the date I suspect before. He should have done one of his own courses.

Wiggy maybe he is got the ballistic SA-2 confused with a scud, bit like biggles and barrister.

[Roger Sofarover]

Fred
then another safe ejection 10/5/91 over germany in a Tornado due to possible malfunction.

:ugh::ugh:

How many times do people have to be told. It WAS NOT a malfunction. It was pilot error.

[Caractacus]

Commiserations Pablo.

However, thanks for livening up the airline pilot world and showing us that there are still some characters out there.

The important thing is that, in exercising your judgement as a Captain, you did not endanger the aircraft. It might have been politically unwise to allow the passenger on to the aircraft - but it was not unsafe.

Falling out with an airline can be a bit unsafe for your career however. But then, a lot of airlines these days are run by complete gits so you are probably best of out of it!

Thanks for keeping us entertained - it makes a change from Michael O' Leary!

[kishna]

I don't think we'll see Fly Pabs get off the ground any day soon (mainly due to circumstances out of Pablo's hands). This has been talked about for a number of years. It was even advertised for sometime in the MyTravel in-flight magazine.

[astir 8]

The Employment Tribunal seems to be mainly there to make sure that the employer had jumped through all the (very complex) employment laws hoops and dotted all the i's & crossed all the t's before giving the unwanted employee the heave ho.

Especially that the correct number of verbal and written warnings etc etc had been issued and in the correct format.

The tribunal doesn't much worry about the extent of rule breaking. If the employer could prove a rule had been broken after all the preliminary warning processes had been complied with, that's the end of the story.

Hence Mr Masson's decision not to use a legal representative to check the i dotting and t crossing was very mistaken. Even big companies HR departments usually screw up the detail sufficiently for a lawyer to make a case.

p.s. I'm an engineer, not a lawyer!

[ChrisVJ]

I am not specially surprised by the tribunal's decision. I raised my query only because it often (and this time) appears that some posters vote with their emotions before thinking things through.

Regardless of the sequence of events on the flight deck, Mr Masson was the responsible officer and regardless of how the idea for his tribunal presentation came to him, by recommendation or by imagination, it is disheartening to hear that he used such a tactic. I suspect that in extremis more of us than we care to believe might look for "aquital on a technicality." I was about to write "blame it on the FO" but strictly speaking that is not what he was doing. I think he was claiming that his dismissal was not punishment in appropriate proportion to that given to the FO, which is a little different.

In passing, a comment on " can't practice for war. . . . . ." We had one of those reality programs about a batch of trainees on the F18 in Canada, "Jetstream." In one sequence a trainee was chewed out for not returning to base after having, and dealing correctly with, an engine control light, apparently a not uncommon problem. In a following sequence another student was castigated for suggesting that he might need to return to base during only his second or third F18 solo for deteriorating weather. The call was "you can't return to base for every little thing if it is a real mission."

Apparently no one saw the irony.

As an aside, I have no idea at all why Mr Masson uses Pablo as opposed to Paul, but just maybe he wants to avoid being confused with a Californian wine maker.

[His dudeness]

Nonwithstanding, the cockpit rules (and many others) are stupid to stay polite. Especially on a full private charter.

A group of terrorist rents a private charter and plays back 9/11 with it...

Oh God you are right! I should have made my mind up before. Millionaire soccer players are the number 1 recruiting ground for Al Quaida. Especially the real known ones as Robbie savage.


A line from 'Blackadder goes forth' springs to mind:

"if nothing else works, a total pig-headed unwillingness to look facts in the face will see us through"



BTW: do you really believe that cockpit door keeps a 100 strong group IF they charter an airplane and are really determind as the 9/11 guys were?

An old line from 'Blackadder goes forth' springs to mind:


"if nothing else works, a total pig-headed unwillingness to look facts in the face will see us through"