Mr Diamond in Virgin Flight Deck LOS-LHR?

[President Bush]

Anyone able to confirm or deny this growing rumour?
If it's true what might be the Company's/CAA reaction?

[SFCC]

True or not...don't stir it.
A colleague of mine was shown the door for a similar thing.
:oh:

[ba038]

The guy is worth £95 million! The prime minister was on-board, alongside high level diplomats. Highly doubt the captain hesitated to grant entry.

[Airclues]

Bob Diamond: £95m Barclays boss 'at controls of David Cameron jet' on Africa flight | Mail Online (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2017083/Bob-Diamond--95m-Barclays-boss-controls-David-Cameron-jet-Africa-flight.html)

[fireflybob]

What a fuss over nothing - who really cares? There are far more important flight safety issues which should be highlighted in the media which never see the light of day!

[qwertyuiop]

Whilst most of you will say there is nothing wrong with this incident, it does prove that there is one rule for the wealthy and another for the rest of us. This is WRONG!!!!

[fireflybob]

Whilst most of you will say there is nothing wrong with this incident, it does prove that there is one rule for the wealthy and another for the rest of us.

No, what it proves is how stupid Dft rules are in not allowing the Captain the discretion as to who and when to allow anyone on the flightdeck.

Before all these banal security rules we used to have people such as air traffic controllers, firemen and even spouses, sons and daughters to visit the flightdeck - notice that the Daily Mail article states these rules only apply to UK registered a/c and/or those in UK airspace. Notwithstanding that individual airlines/states may have their own rules this is not the case universally.

[Hotel Tango]

You beat me to it fireflybob. There might be the odd exception here and there but apart from UK and US carriers FD visit policy on most other airlines have pretty much remained what they were before 911. Common sense is applied. Let's remind ourselves that the 911 terrorists were not invited to the FD at the Captain's discretion.

[Oilhead]

Our new CEO was on one of our flights last week and during flight wanted to visit the cockpit. Nose was definitely out of joint when response came from cockpit that he could not due to the DHS rules. :sad:

[Scruffy Fanny]

There is a problem here the rules say no entry- so why does one Capt think he can break the rules - and it begs belief he did it while the PM was on board!- I actually think its a good rule- if i worked in an office i wouldnt want every tom dick and harry walking in. Also what was the Virgin Captain thinking then making a PA saying Bob Diamond landed the plane...was he trying to make some sort of Joke to the PM? Sorry Pablo was sacked and this guy needs sacking too.:mad:

[fireflybob]

if i worked in an office i wouldnt want every tom dick and harry walking in

But that's not a valid comparison. In the days before the Dft issued this draconian edict the only people allowed on the flight deck were those that were permitted to by the Captain - hardly "every tom dick and harry". Now even my son is not permitted access to the flightdeck with my permission.

Of course the rules should be obeyed but it's a stupid rule that doesn't allow the Captain discretion,

[ba038]

fireflybob - I totally agree with you!

[GA Button]

Damn right

[Piltdown Man]

Just out of interest, which bit of legislation says that you can't have passengers on the jumpseat?

[Basil]

Highly doubt the captain hesitated to grant entry.
I would.

Not quite the same but, I made the foolish error of allowing some oik and his son to sit in for landing at a Greek island. At 50' said oik slapped me on shoulder and asked "Do'st tha know where tha's goin'?"

[Bealzebub]

Just out of interest, which bit of legislation says that you can't have passengers on the jumpseat?

This might help. (http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/+/http://www.dft.gov.uk/foi/responses/2005/jul/securityrules11september2001/letteraboutthesecurityrulesa2332)

[Max Angle]

I would.

So would I, it wouldn't even occur to me to say yes, if the PM had asked for the j/s the answer would still have been no. Whether one likes these rules or not (I don't) is irrelevant, they are there and disobeying them is a serious business and I would expect to be sacked or at least demoted. Good luck to the Virgin skipper, I suspect he is going to need it.

[Schnowzer]

The shame is that it used to be a lot of fun. Maybe a sign on the cockpit door to say that anyone with a beard and box cutters, exploding shoes or liquid bomb ingredients is not welcome.:ok:

[B744IRE]

I used to take my wife and family with me on flights quite often knowing I had control of two jump seats (+ bunks) to get them (or crew companions) home. Now the only option is a jump seat in the cabin...for 10 hours? Several times the cabin crew have introduced the "Captain's wife" to pax, more often than not in economy...pass the Stanley knife...broken bottle etc.! It's time to change this rule and get in line with the rest of the world. If the DfT are serious about flight deck safety, why are there still 2 toilets by the flight deck door of a B747?
Answer is always cost/commercial.:ugh:

[grundyhead]

Hero pilot sacked for letting footballer Robbie Savage on the flight deck | Mail Online (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-486005/Hero-pilot-sacked-letting-footballer-Robbie-Savage-flight-deck.html)

Remember this story?

[FlightCosting]

In the 'good old days' when a visit to the sharp end was possible for SLF, it was usually not allowed during take-off or landing. Even if the passenger is some billionaire banker, you never know if he might go bonkers and try to crash the aircraft during landing when both pilots are busy.

IMHO the Captain was an idiot, especially to make his remark upon landing. I hope Mr Diamond will find him job when he gets fired.

[despegue]

In the end, it is the PIC who decides who enters and who not in the cockpit. At least this is the logical way. Where I fly, I have absolute authority to decide who comes in. As a result, I recently had my wife on the jumseat for T/O. This proves again that the UK CAA nad the UK "security" mentality is full of crap.

[Craggenmore]

The DFT should be looking at flight crew FTL's, not wasting effort on Bob Diamond in a cockpit for landing.

[OPENDOOR]

I hope Mr Diamond will find him job when he gets fired.

He'll certainly be well placed to do it being CEO of Barclays...

Airbus, Barclays Bank and Republic Airways Holdings are among "several" strategic partners contributing to the nearly $1 billion in financing and near-term liquidity commitments raised by Star Alliance member US Airways.

[rebellion]

DFT rules prevent non authorised people from entering the flight deck.

Neither the CAA/Captain etc have the powers to overturn DFT rules.

As Pablo Mason found out, the rules still apply to private charters!

Contact us - Department for Transport (http://www.dft.gov.uk/about/contact)

:ugh:

[foxmoth]

Banner towing was re-legalised following the "Happy Birthday Maggie" one was shown in the media with Maggie Thatcher waving as it went past, maybe a precedent, and pressure could be brought to bear after this to bring back Flight deck access with Captains permission

[max alt]

Rebellion,you are correct and I fear that the captain could lose his job over this as the precedent has been set with pablo.Would he not have grounds to appeal if this were not the case.I hope I am proved wrong.:confused:

[Bengerman]

If Virgin/Crew escape sanction for this blatant disregard for the law then I will take that as a precedent that I can invite anybody I fancy to my flight deck.

[RoyHudd]

Big deal Bengerman. The bad guys were never invited into Flight Decks. Don't you trust your own judgement? With your wife or kids, for example?
(You are not a Captain, nor an FO)

[4468]

Regardless of whether the 911 hijackers were invited into the cockpit or not. The law, is the law. On this specific issue the law is an ass. Everybody knows aircraft 'security', is window dressing only!

No doubt the Captain was the Director of Flight Operations, who scribbled himself a note immediately beforehand to allow this 'banker' access!

And so the (bad) joke continues!

Nontheless, the captain was a complete idiot to make such a 'landing' announcement with half the country's press on board!

Pablo should apply to Virgin obviously! Either their security's sh1t, or they think the law is stupid. Which is it...

[aguadalte]

I do feel sorry for you brits and americans.
In my country the commander is still the one who has the final word.

[wiggy]

The main crime here, if there is one, is that it looks like the aircraft commander missed an opportunity to demonstrate to the PM, in person, the lack of commonsense surrounding the UK rules over flight deck access....

He'd have done all of us a favour if he'd said "no".

[cyflyer]

it wouldn't even occur to me to say yes, if the PM had asked for the j/s the answer would still have been no.

That is the most ridiculous and stupidly absurd thing I have ever heard ! He is the PRIME MINISTER, and it would be an honour for any airline to have him take the time to visit the guys up front. I don't think the rules are so dumbfoundedly rigid that they take into account people of that stature. Captains have been graced with an above average quota of inteligence I'd like to believe, and as such, it should be up to their descretion to allow a family member or famous personality that is well above suspicion in the cockpit. The Pablo Mason thing, which I only just found out from here, was a discrace. I hope he wins his case. At the very worst, if his company were so strict on the regulations, a quiet word with him later saying, "we prefer if you didn't next time please...." , and leave it at that. But, to sack someone like that for something so trivial, shows, in my opinion, what :mad: some companies can be. Anyone know whats happened with his case ?
Maybe the only thing the Virgin captain did wrong, was the silly announcement. It should be kept low profile. And no, he should not be sacked.
I have been on the f/d many times over recent years, only because the captain or FO has been a personel friend, and even then I had to abide with regulations about not being there in UK airspace.
So, the president of the USA should not be allowed to visit the cockpit on Airforce 1..?

[Daysleeper]

So, the president of the USA should not be allowed to visit the cockpit on Airforce 1.

Airforce 1 is not a commercial aircraft and thus not bound by these rules, so the President can do what he likes.

In the UK or on the UK reg, the answer should have been no. If the PM or his friends want to sit on jumpseats then they can buy their own aircraft, they're rich enough!

[cyflyer]

Airforce 1 is not a commercial aircraft and thus not bound by these rules

Yes, but a looney bin in a cockpit is just as dangerous in any cockpit wether or not it is commercial or private or whatever.


If the PM or his friends want to sit on jumpseats then they can buy their own aircraft, they're rich enough!
Have you seeked medical advise for that stiff back problem ? He is the PM, and deserves more respect than what you have afforded him.

[Daysleeper]

Respect where it is due, he might run the country but he is not exempt from its laws and he is certainly not in charge of the aircraft.

[Daysleeper]

Daysleeper is ample proof that if you tell the people enough times, they will eventually become convinced of the new "reality."

I'm not saying if the system is right or wrong, reasonable or not, merely that these are the rules we have and that breaking those rules, no matter how well intentioned, leaves you and your employer liable for consequences.

In this case the commander will be lucky to retain his position and the airline will probably be fined.

[fireflybob]

I do feel sorry for you brits and americans.
In my country the commander is still the one who has the final word.

aguadalte, you have it in one here! The lunatics are now running the asylums in the UK hiding behind banal and draconian edicts allegedly to protect it's poor citizens from "terrorism" whereas the biggest threat is people blindingly following a set of arbitrary "rules" without really thinking "does this make sense?" (Remember a certain regime years ago where when people were asked "why?" they replied "ve were just following orders".)

Alas, I fear it has gone too far now and, pending a full blown revolution, things will continue to deteriorate since the majority of the herd have lost all ability to be capable of original thought.

Ok it may have been imprudent for the Commander to make the comments on the PA but in the great scheme of things I don't see his actions as a big issue. I'd rather have someone up the sharp end who is capable of objective thought rather than some automaton who accepts everything at face value.

Seems crazy that I can't take my son on the flightdeck but someone who has been with the company for a couple of weeks can do so after superficial security checks!

[stator vane]

there was a man from a long time ago that said something about the spirit of the law being more important than the letter of the law.

and i think he also said something like; the one who has no fault, let them cast the first stone.

i find that works in aircraft quite well.

[INKJET]

I have yet to meet a Captain who thinks that the rules over flight deck access are anything other than crackpot equally I have yet to meet a Captain who would disregard the rule without approval from the flight ops director, it may well turn out that the Virgin skipper contacted his/her FOD on HF to request such authority, if so he's in the clear, if not I suspect he/she is in trouble.

I would love to have the PM on the flight deck( this one not the last) but the answer would still be no, the president of the US is the commander in chief of their armed forces and within reason can o pretty much what he wants, the last one did a carrier land as co pilot if I recall

Certain employees may travel on the FD but only on authorised fam: flights

I have herd of a good few flight deck who fly for a certain Irish airline often jump seats when flight is full and trying to get home they also avoids check in and APD by travelling in uniform via crew channel, which in my view breaks at least three rules, FD access , use of airport ID when not on duty, evasion of HMRC APD fee's in other words just like the old days!

[Max Angle]

cyflyer,

That is the most ridiculous and stupidly absurd thing I have ever heard ! He is the PRIME MINISTER, and it would be an honour for any airline to have him take the time to visit the guys up front

I quite agree, it would be an honour and I would be very happy to have him (as said above, this one not the last) visit the flight deck or use the jump seat IF it had been pre-authorised by the relevant manager. If it had not the answer, unfortunately and ridiculously, would have to be no.

I don't think the rules are so dumbfoundedly rigid that they take into account people of that stature

Again, ridiculous, but yes they are.

[Goprdon]

Where does the UK law say it is illegal to carry passengers on a jump seat in the cockpit of a UK registered aircraft? All that we have seen on this thread is a letter from the Civil Service directing that it shall not be done.
However it is possible that as a result of the letter the CAA directed Public Transport Operators with AOCs to include an appropriate instruction in the company's Operations Manual.
Breach of the requirements of the OM is not, in itself, a breach of the law. but the operator may discipline, ie sack, the pilot.

[doubleu-anker]

There is one more rule even more insane than no access to the cockpit. It is the padding down of cockpit crew, to relieve them of weapons that could be used should they wish to take over control of the aircraft.

Well I damned well hope the cockpit crew will have control of the aircraft. When they get to the flight deck, they have an axe, first aid kit, O2 and any number of potential weapons they are able to get their hands on.

Sanity will never prevail and the terrorists must be p:mad:g in their pants with laughter over the whole shambles.

[Bealzebub]

Well, you can argue about the value of rules, laws and legal binding direction until the cows come home. It doesn't change the point in fact. In the USA and the UK and various other countries, the rules have been made clear as they apply to aircraft commanders through the companies operating certificate. Specifically through the operations manual, which makes it clear who may and who may not enter the flight deck "in flight" and at other specific times.

There is no exemption for footballers, Bank executives, or ministers of the crown, unless they also happen to be a qualified and authorized member of the crew.

The captain and everyone under his/her command is charged with ensuring that the rules and the regulations that they operate within, are complied with to the best of their ability. There are inevitably times when compliance is not desirable or possible for reasons of overriding necessity, however entertaining the "rich and famous," or indeed anybody else, isn't one of them.

Whatever my opinion of some of these rules, I am paid and expected to ensure full compliance. If I need to deviate from that compliance, then the company and the regulator have a right to an explanation for that action. Common sense would dictate that situations do arise to reasonably justify such deviance. However you would need to come up with something good to defend this type of deviance outside of an emergency.

There are lots of rules we all love and hate. I cannot understand why I am restricted to 70 MPH on a deserted motorway at 3am in the morning. If I chose to deviate from that regulation because I feel it is absurd, that is my choice. I doubt my opinion would provide much defence to a subsequent prosecution. However if I am being paid by an employer to drive his car, I not only run the risk of prosecution, but also of breaching the likely terms and conditions of my employment.

All talk of "the captain is king" and "nazi war trials" and "maverick personality types" is all very interesting, but the rules are not optional. The truth is, most people know that.

[cyflyer]

Hey ho, one rule for management *and another for the rest of us I suppose. * But isn't it time the CAA stopped looking after their friends and showed some teeth

Really ? So if Richard Brason was on that flight and you were captain, you would refuse him entry ? Yeah, I'd like to see that !

[Checkboard]

It seems security standards in Cyprus are pretty low. :rolleyes:

[Zeus]

Really ? So if Richard Branson was on that flight and you were captain, you would refuse him entry ? Yeah, I'd like to see that !

Errr, yes that has happened....

[cyflyer]

It seems security standards in Cyprus are pretty low

And what makes you so sure to come out with absolute crap like that ?
Hardly a week goes by without an Australian airliner scaring people out of their minds, so when comparing standards, look closer to home.

[Goprdon]

See my Post 45
I will say it again .
Breach of the requirements in an Operations Manual is not breach of UK Law.

[Bealzebub]

Did you read this?

In November 2002, the UK Government directed (legally instructed) foreign aircraft operators to keep the flight deck door locked when in UK airspace, including whilst the aircraft is on the ground if the engines are running.

In November 2003, the UK Government further directed UK airlines regarding access to flight crew compartments. Only persons with a justifiable operational reason are allowed access to the flight deck.

[Max Angle]

Really ? So if Richard Brason was on that flight and you were captain, you would refuse him entry ? Yeah, I'd like to see that !

Errr, yes that has happened....

Also happened at my company shortly after the Lufthansa take over, new CEO asked to visit the flight deck and was told it was not possible. After the flight he apparently complimented the Captain on playing it by the book.

[Goprdon]

Bealzebub Post 54
Yes I have read what you have said.
To break the law you have to be in breach of a specific Section of an Act of Parliament , such as The Civil Aviation Act; or you have to be in breach of an Order made under the Act ,such as an Article of the Air Navigation Order. Rules and Regulations may also be breached such as The Rules of the Air , The Dangerous Goods Regulations or The Air Navigation( General ) Regulations. There are several other sets of applicable Regulations.
One person on this thread mentioned driving at over 70 MPH on a motorway , that is a breach of The Road Traffic Act.
So Bealzebub how did the 2002 Direction legally instruct the UK aviation industry regarding access to the Flight Deck. Under which section of what Act was the Direction made.
It is not a breach of the Law to disregard a letter from a Civil Servant.
I know of no direct legislation saying that non operating persons may not be allowed on to the Flight Deck of a public Transport Aircraft.
It is possible, even likely, that the Department / UKCAA have required AOC holders to insert a requirement in to their Operations Manuals that no passengers are to be allowed on to the Flight Deck during flight. Failure to observe a requirement in an OM is not always a breach of the law but it can lead to a 'Proposal To Suspend the AOC'. It can also lead to the sacking of the operating crew.
A Government Direction will quote the Legislation under which it is made. You can prove me wrong by quoting the Legislation.

[Bealzebub]

I am afraid you will have to do your own homework on this one, unless somebody else can offer the statute under which HMG can enact legal instructions to an airline or any other body. I have provided the information letter that I have (stored), which should provide the clues to anybody in the know.

The letter states that HMG directed (legally instructed) UK airlines in November 2003. It wasn't the civil servant who wrote the letter, or me. All UK airlines are aware of the directive, and as far as I know have incorporated the legal instruction into their respective operations manuals. As such all relevent crew members should also be aware of the directive.

If you want to test the defence that such an instruction is non-existent, unlawful, or ineffective in it's construction, let us know how you get on. I would be interested in knowing the result.

[fireflybob]

I wonder if this was taken to the European Court (after all the last time I checked UK was a member) whether the UK government have the right to issue such an edict which might infringe the Human Rights of aircraft commanders in going about their duties?

[Hotel Tango]

It strikes me that a number of people don't know the difference between rules and laws!

[xcitation]

Anyone remember that polish/russian flight that crashed. VIP in cockpit then and it has raised many questions and accusations. A while back there was that russian flight where the pilots kid turned off the A/P when no one was driving. Clearly in some situations it increases risk. Easier to make a simple rule that denies access to all than write down all the exceptions.

[fireflybob]

Anyone remember that polish/russian flight that crashed. VIP in cockpit then and it has raised many questions and accusations. A while back there was that russian flight where the pilots kid turned off the A/P when no one was driving. Clearly in some situations it increases risk. Easier to make a simple rule that denies access to all than write down all the exceptions.

Gee, I wonder how I managed to have visitors to the flight deck for the first 25 years of my career without any mishaps - in fact, on many occasions they helped keep me awake on night flights - maybe a benefit rather than a hazard?

[bigjames]

in the polish incident, flight deck acccess was irrelevant. the pm insisted that the aircraft land. he could do that from his seat. and the captain could refuse the pm's order to land even if the pm was in the flight deck.

i think we have learned a lot about how good training is and how good it is not. many accidents have occured due to poorly trained crews but that does not mean that in certain circumstances visitors cannot be permitted to the flight deck. blind adherance to rules has not proved to be an effective preventer of accidents.

i am all for situational awareness and common sense in the wider sense of the meanings and for smart skips to decide. those folks who adhere t the rules for the sake of the rules will be undone more often than those who know when the rules do not apply in a certain situation.

i would rather know that the person in the front left hand seat is situationally aware and blessed with common sense than with an intimate knowledge of the rules minutae.

i still think flying is more an art than a science althogh of course a high degree of scientific awareness is essential!

[Bronx]

I guess the story shows how careful you gotta be. Always a risk of small minded troublemakers around.

You risk getting fired for not complying with the company's Ops Manual,
but is it an offense?
If it is, what's the offense? :confused:


pressuremanIf this Capt gets away with this then I am sure a few others at Virgin will also start to ignore this
and maybe other parts of the Ops manual!
A slippery slope I feel.
Ah, the old slippery slope. :rolleyes:
That's a favorite of the guy in command of the parking lot. 'If I let you park there ...............' :8

[Checkboard]

It's not just an Ops Manual requirement:

1 Introduction

1.1 Under EU-OPS, JAR-OPS 3 and the Air Navigation Order (ANO), persons carried on board an aircraft fall into only one of two categories; crew consisting of flight or cabin crew members, or passengers.

1.2 Some aircraft certificated for single-pilot operation are fitted with a second pilot's seat. For Commercial Air Transport and Public Transport operations being conducted under EU-OPS, JAR-OPS 3 or the ANO, no person may be carried on the flight deck except a crew member assigned to the flight as an operating crew member, or a passenger permitted to occupy a flight deck seat in accordance with instructions in the operator’s operations manual. Flight deck seats include 'jump seats' and empty pilot's seats whether in a separate flight deck compartment or, in smaller aircraft, at the front of the cabin.

1.3 For larger aircraft, the National Aviation Security Programme controls access to the flight deck. This FODCOM only applies where that Programme does not prohibit the carriage of passengers on the flight deck.

1.4 The purpose of this FODCOM is to alert and remind operators of the requirements for carrying persons in flight deck seats.

[Avionista]

If this flight was chartered by a government department, it could well be covered by "Crown Exemption" (in the service of Her Majesty). In this case, there would be no liability to any penalties set out in the ANO 2009 for any infringements of this statute.

[hawker750]

Why is any worried whether he did or did not? Are there not better things to campaign about? Anyway the Prime Minister and travelling party are all exempt from security so no breaking of the rules occured anyway. If he gets fired he can have a job with me anytime. Those of you who are making a song and dance about it need not apply.

[wiggy]

Anyway the Prime Minister and travelling party are all exempt from security so no breaking of the rules occured anyway

You're may be right, but given recent events I wouldn't take the word of any of them when it came to flight deck access........

[stowaway]

As the CEO of Virgin was on the flight, and no doubt complicit in Mr Diamond going onto the flight deck, it would be difficult to discipline the Captain, without the CEO disciplining himself!

[Bengerman]

Big deal Bengerman. The bad guys were never invited into Flight Decks. Don't you trust your own judgement? With your wife or kids, for example?
(You are not a Captain, nor an FO)

Judgement has nothing to do with it, there are regulations in place which, however stupid, MUST be complied with unless there is an overriding safety reason not to do so.

Your last comment is childish and incorrect

As the CEO of Virgin was on the flight, and no doubt complicit in Mr Diamond going onto the flight deck, it would be difficult to discipline the Captain, without the CEO disciplining himself!

So who was the legal commander of the aircraft?

The fact that this discussion is going on is worrying. Yes the regulations are crap, but they exist. It is not a matter of judgement or common sense, if you allow ANYONE on your flight deck who is not legally entitled to be there then you are in violation of national regulations.

It does not matter if the person is some tosser of a banker who happens to be best buddies with the pope, or your own wife and kids, THE RULES ARE CLEAR!

[paull]

I was on a BA flight LHR-NCE in May (Flight and date withheld to protect the capt.) and the schoolkids in the row behind me 21D,E,F were invited to the flight deck. I did not care to check if they actually went in, but I doubt they were asked to stand and look at a locked door!

[rebellion]

Rules where broken, it doesn't matter who was onboard the CEO, PM whoever. Virgin Atlantic is a UK airline that must comply with DFT rules. The Captain in the LHS should be held to account for breaking the rules unless of course he can provide written evidence of an exemption for the flight.

Why should they get away with it and the likes of Pablo Mason be punished because he wasn't surrounded by the top brass??

[eagerbeaver1]

because he wasn't surrounded by the top brass...

How naive are you? Big difference between the PM and a obnoxious blonde locked arse of a footballer.

I dread the days of 606 returning with him chirruping away.

[hawker750]

You do not get it
The Prime Minister and travelling party are exempt from DFT rules. So no infringemnet of the rules took place. Stop saying rules were broken. It is a bit like saying the police should be prosecuted for driving at 75 mph when on the way to a crime scene.
Those of you who are trying to make a point are scurulous barrack room lawyers and should stop trying to score brownie points against management

[hawker750]

rebellion
Do you have a copy of the DFT rules in front of you? Good. Look at the bit that exempts the PM from the rules, please put us out of this agony!

[Bokkenrijder]

Rules where broken, it doesn't matter who was onboard the CEO, PM whoever. Oh, these threads always remind me of why it's so good to NOT work for a UK airline anymore. :)

The Brits continue to set new standards in the "Befehl ist Befehl" mentality! Even the Germans in my experience are 10 times more flexible and realistic.

Disengage the brain, blindly follow orders and spend your entire paycheck on overpriced real estate and groceries: the perfect recipe for the UK totalitarian consumer society! :ugh:

Kudos to the VAA captain who still has his common sense, and I sincerely hope he will not be punished because of the backstabbing atmosphere created by some 'holier than thou' brainless button pushers here in this thread and in the main stream (talking about brainless...!) media! :yuk:

[hawker750]

Well said Bokkenrijder
All the people who want trouble for the Virgin Captain have forgotten the vary apt addage that "rules are for the guidance of the wise but for the blind obedience of fools".
All these mille nurkers are making Britain a bad and sad place

[Bengerman]

Disengage the brain, blindly follow orders and spend your entire paycheck on overpriced real estate and groceries: the perfect recipe for the UK totalitarian consumer society!

Drivel....

[Leg]

You guys need to get with the program, nowt to do with DfT,
security all passed to the good ole CAA as of last month...

Bokken & hawker 750 you guys are seriously deluded...

As for the comments being proud to have the freeloader
rich kid PM in the cockpit... pass the sick bucket :yuk:

[M.Mouse]

'rules are for the guidance of the wise but for the blind obedience of fools'

That well worn cliché used as a refuge when in the wrong.

[rebellion]

"A spokesman for the Department for Transport (DfT) said: ‘Passengers are not permitted in the cockpit while the engines are running. The rules apply to all UK-registered planes and to any plane operating in UK airspace.
‘Clearly we will investigate if we receive details of the alleged incident.’


"But the DfT said the no-passenger rule applied to flight decks of all commercial planes, regardless of whether they were scheduled flights or private charters."

So let's await for their findings.

[paull]

Passengers are not permitted in the cockpit while the engines are running.

Ok, so you can still invite friends up to the flight deck, you just have to turn the engines off first.:ok:

[hawker750]

What gets me is that no one has explained to me why anyone would be so upset about this. I guess it is the spoilt 13 year old kid syndrome of "if I cannot have it why should anyone else". Just get on with life without exposing your inadaquacies.

[Poltergeist]

Ok, for those commenting on exemptions, the PM is exempt from Screening requirements, not in flight security regulations.

Those who advocate the rules and regs can be broken because the capt decides its ok, where does it end? In this case the rules are in place on security grounds and before everyone jumps up and down, how many of you know exactly what information drove them in the first place and continues to drive them on review? MI6 officers only need respond ............
Will you apply the regs bending on say, landing minima? or the aircraft is a bit overweight but it should be ok?

I personally do not like the regs that require me to stay strapped in when it gets a little bumpy just because the capt has put his little lights on. Maybe you tell me its for safety because I might fall on someone and pilots know about flying conditions. Well, the flight deck regulation was also written with safety in mind and whether you agree with it or not it was drafted by, and with, information from people who have an understanding of security.

Persecution of crew is wrong and the sensible approach is the just culture approach. If the Capt felt pressured then the best thing is for the company to discuss it with him and assure its support of correct action in the future. Education is the way forward.

Now I have a question, one of you has posted that they were not happy they could not take there wife on the flightdeck and then later speaks about going to the Court of human rights as this regulation prevents him from doing his job. My question, how does your wife not getting a free ride up front prevent you from doing your job?:hmm:

[fireflybob]

Now I have a question, one of you has posted that they were not happy they could not take there wife on the flightdeck and then later speaks about going to the Court of human rights as this regulation prevents him from doing his job. My question, how does your wife not getting a free ride up front prevent you from doing your job?

Poltergeist, I think you are adding 2 and 2 together and making 5.

Obviously not being able to take a close family member on the flight deck during flight does not prevent one from doing one's job.

What I was aiming to highlight was just how far does an edict from a Central Government override the authority of an aircraft Commander during flight? In short, legally does HMG have the right to dictate to the aircraft Commander who is and who isn't allowed on the flight deck? Am not a legal expert but it would be interesting to take this to a higher Court.

Also there is the incongruency that someone who has been with an airline as an employee for a very short period of time may, subject to company regulations, be allowed on the flight deck, nothwithstanding a minimal security clearance, and yet someone who is well known to the Commander is not.

[Poltergeist]

Bob, I was having some fun on the last comment :)

Now to your points - this is my view and not necessarily that of HMG

HMG does have the right to take whatever measures it deems necessary to protect the airspace and the citizens underneath it. This is enforced in EU reg 300 and ICAO annex 13 that accept that more stringent measures may be imposed. The regulation allows for those with an operational need to be on the flight deck so if they are needed to assist in the operation of the craft they are covered.

The responsibility for deciding who is suitably 'vetted' to have access is given to the operator via the accountable manager security and so not the Capt. This is because it is a requirement that undergo DFT approved training at a different level from crew that looks at these issues in a different way. Also they are the one who would potentially fce charges in relation to breaches that could include corporate manslaughter. Do not forget that the locked flight deck door policy was a result of the BA incident to Nairobi when a mentally ill passenger tried to crash the aircraft . As I recall this was pre 9/11.

I can not answer whether a court would overturn this and on what grounds. The reality is that in operational terms it is an inconvenience that would not justify an airline spending out on the legal costs and Your argument would need to demonstrate either a safety case against, an operational case against and an operational reason for its removal. Personally I do not believe you could achieve that. This is why I do not believe BALPA will win the argument on no screening for crew and carriers accept the delays in sorting out the liquids fiasco.

[Golf-Sierra]

Hello, SLF here.

Just a question, out of curiosity, to all the Captains out here. So in your opinion - what are the justified circumstances whereby a Captain would allow a passenger to enter the flight deck?

Somehow - at least in my opinion - allowing this because the person is a friend/family/nice/famous/good looking/just plain curious - is not a justifiable reason. I mean - there are tens of thousands of professions out there where this would be absolutely unthinkable on grounds of professionalism and work ethics. Can you imagine, say a cashier at the bank inviting a friend to sit with her inside her glass cubicle for a bit of chit chat? Or a doctor having her husband sit by while she's examining patients? A teacher inviting someone over to the classroom without clearing it with the headmistress? Have you ever seen a tube or train driver invite a passenger into the cabin? Would you like to have staff's kids having a crèche at the control room of the nuclear power plant just down the road from your house?

[fireflybob]

Poltergeist, you have given a very "legalistic" response for which I am grateful but I am not surprised by the response.

I come from an age where, for decades, visitors were allowed to the flight deck, at times deemed suitable by the Commander, and there was never a problem.

I accept that things have changed but I personally find the idea of government protecting it's citizens from terrorism quite laughable. Remember the Detroit bomber? Despite a whole raft of security procedures this one got through and guess who protected themselves? The people who were there at the time!

As a Commander I would always respect the rules but have to say that on this issue I don't agree with them. If I really thought that the rules protected passengers etc then I would agree with them. The piloting profession have only themselves to blame for allowing "nanny" government to impose such stupid rules on us.

Somehow - at least in my opinion - allowing this because the person is a friend/family/nice/famous/good looking/just plain curious - is not a justifiable reason. I mean - there are tens of thousands of professions out there where this would be absolutely unthinkable on grounds of professionalism and work ethics. Can you imagine, say a cashier at the bank inviting a friend to sit with her inside her glass cubicle for a bit of chit chat? Or a doctor having her husband sit by while she's examining patients? A teacher inviting someone over to the classroom without clearing it with the headmistress? Have you ever seen a tube or train driver invite a passenger into the cabin? Would you like to have staff's kids having a crèche at the control room of the nuclear power plant just down the road from your house?


Golf-Sierra, totally different situations methinks. When a doctor treats a patient there are issues such as confidentiality. Ok maybe a teacher would be different but surely a head teacher is on a par with an airline Captain? Trains? Well funny you should mention it but someone I taught to fly was an inter city driver and I travelled in the cab with him to Newcastle and back and this was all cleared and sanctioned by the suitable authorities! The creche at the nuclear control room?! We're not talking about unsupervised minors being allowed on the flight deck are we? Are you seriously comparing a bank cashier's role to that of an airline aircraft Commander - once again surely it would be better to compare the Bank Manager, wouldn't it? Or has respect for the piloting profession fallen that low now?

Obviously from this thread there are opposing views but if HMG cannot trust aircraft Commanders to make a sensible decision then, my belief is that the lunatics are now running the asylums.

[auntyice]

I think you'll find its not who is on the flight deck but about the number of times the locked flight deck door is opened. It doesn't matter if its your wife child or mistess, on a several hour leg they are going to be in and out of the flight deck. Restricting the number on the flight deck is in keeping with the locked door policy.
I don't agree with it as much as anyone else but a secure FD door opening and closing unnecessarily is seen as a security risk.

[Sir George Cayley]

Airliners dot net is great on many levels. One I section I particularly like is the cockpit shots.

They show the view over the crews' shoulders of the approach lights or sometimes beautiful sunsets/rises. Lovely pictures.

Some are taken by supernumerary crew but on there are some well known contributors who are 'civilians'

So the closed FD door policy appears not to appear to apply to dozens of flights.

[fireflybob]

but a secure FD door opening and closing unnecessarily is seen as a security risk.

auntyice, so the current procedures for allowing cabin crew access to the flight deck and/or crew members having to go to the washroom are inadequate, is that what you are saying?

Also, why is it only the UK and USA governments that apply these rules - does something magic happen to non UK aircraft when they leave UK international airspace?

When's the last time anyone had an ATCO on the flightdeck for an observation trip?

[hunterboy]

Bearing in mind that it is a sackable offence, I would be surprised if anybody owns up to it.

[fireflybob]

So the closed FD door policy appears not to appear to apply to dozens of flights.

Presumably taken on non UK registered a/c outside UK airspace?

[Golf-Sierra]

Golf-Sierra, totally different situations methinks. When a doctor treats a patient... fireflybob, the point I was trying to make is that a big fuss is being made over something, which in the vast majority of other professions is an unquestionable everyday fact of life. Many professions which are on par in terms of prestige, skill required and responsibility to that of airline pilot.

...but if HMG cannot trust aircraft Commanders to make a sensible decisionI'm still waiting for someone to outline what criteria are the basis of these sensible decisions. Assuming we live in a world where this is solely up to the commander, was the decision to allow Mr Diamond to enter the flightdeck during landing a sensible one? How would you rate that from the safety perspective? What about how customers perceive the professionalism of the crew - good decision, bad decision?

[fireflybob]

I'm still waiting for someone to outline what criteria are the basis of these sensible decisions. Assuming we live in a world where this is solely up to the commander, was the decision to allow Mr Diamond to enter the flightdeck during landing a sensible one? How would you rate that from the safety perspective? What about how customers perceive the professionalism of the crew - good decision, bad decision?



Golf-Sierra, I am not commenting on the actions of this particular Captain.

I agree totally that the current rules should be complied with.

But what I am saying is that it is a stupid rule that doesn't allow the Commander any discretion in the matter. When people can see the reason for a rule they are much more likely to obey it.

[paull]

If you invite (even the average) person up to the flight deck then I guess the odds of this being Terr O' Wrist are somewhat slim. If they invite themselves and you agree then the odds are significantly higher.

Stand at the side of the road long enough hitching a lift and you WILL allow a sicko to choose you, if you approach someone and ask them, your chances are around average, depending on your judgement.

We are prepared to trust the captain's judgement on so many things, why not on this?
(But follow Groucho Marx and say no to anyone who actually asks!)

[Piltdown Man]

Despite the best efforts of many (for which I am grateful), none hase ever been able to point to the piece of legislation which absolutely prohibits 'passengers' ie. non-operational crew from being in the flight deck of a non-UK registered aircraft inside UK airspace. I've seen that that door must be locked any time an engine is running and seen that none other than operating crew may be present on the flight of UK registered aircraft but no more that. Not even the great Google, Lycos, Ask etc. are any help. Ideas anyone?

[Golf-Sierra]

But what I am saying is that it is a stupid rule that doesn't allow the Commander any discretion in the matter. When people can see the reason for a rule they are much more likely to obey it.

But the Commander is ultimately responsible, otherwise the door would be locked shut from the outside before takeoff and reopened only after landing. And I am sure if there were a truly justified reason for letting pax in there would be no issue. Examples which spring to mind are a medical emergency whereby a doctor/nurse enters the cockpit to relay details of the emergency to ground via radio. Any others?


When I ws a kid (not thaaaat long ago) I would spend plenty of time at the office my Dad worked for, and on weekends I would drive the forklift trucks round the warehouse. Can't imagine that happening with today's h&s. Then again - back then flying anywhere was a luxury I could just dream about, nowadays I fly more often then I drive. Guess it is progress.

[Harry Spotter]

Examples which spring to mind are a medical emergency whereby a doctor/nurse enters the cockpit to relay details of the emergency to ground via radio. Any others?
You liked those movies from the 80s didn't you ?

When I ws a kid (not thaaaat long ago) I would spend plenty of time at the office my Dad worked for, and on weekends I would drive the forklift trucks round the warehouse. Can't imagine that happening with today's h&s. Then again - back then flying anywhere was a luxury I could just dream about, nowadays I fly more often then I drive. Guess it is progress.

This story isn't about you,
even though as much as you would have liked it , our dear "SLF".

[Poltergeist]

Piltdown Man,
It comes as a direction from the secretary of state and as such forms part of the National Aviation Security Program - I am not a lawyer but in the past I was pointed to
Aviation security act 1982 PartII Para 14. This empowers the secretary of state to issue directions on operators, airports etc and creates an offence by not complying with those directions. First reading points to mainly measures employing searches but as you go down through part two you will see that it does not confine the power to that.

As said, I am no lawyer but the offence, as I read it, is failing to comply with the direction.

[Piltdown Man]

Thanks Poltergeist - I shall have a look. But it appears that said instruction appears not to have made it to my mob.

[Poltergeist]

No worries, there was a special communication that was published to the accountable managers at the time, this was replicated in the UK Nasp and continued in the single consolidated direction when EUreg 300 came in.

[JW411]

"No worries, there was a special communication that was published to the accountable managers at the time, this was replicated in the UK Nasp and continued in the single consolidated direction when EUreg 300 came in".

What an absolutely wonderful piece of Yukspeak!!!!

Does anyone else out there (apart from the self-generating safety industry) actually know what any of that means?

As a stupid pilot (who still owns a valid pilots licence 54 years after going solo) I am reminded of one of my fellow professional pilots who made the famous comment that if "Health and Safety" were put in charge of Trafalgar Square, then we could accommodate three pigeons in total safety.

You mention "accountable managers". It has always been my experience that they ran for the trenches when something went wrong and none of them ever ended up as being "accountable".

Can anyone tell me the last time that a manager was actually held to be accountable?

Rant over (at least for now).

[Poltergeist]

JW - if you bothered to read the thread I was responding to a question that asked for the documentation that made this legal.

I am not part of the 'self generating safety industry' and I am not a 'I know everything because I am a pilot of 54 years' person either. I had to look into this several years ago in some detail that is all

[fireflybob]

JW411, I know where you're coming from but we must be careful not to shoot the messenger.

Like you I am continually dumbfounded by the amount of bureaucratic nonsense which is couched in these fluffy terms which nobody really understands.

All quite deliberately done by "nanny" governments who "know best".

Roll on the revolution!

[Max Angle]

Irishpilot,

Have you ever broken the speed limit? By even one mph??
I am slightly ashamed to say I habitually break the speed limit by considerably more than 1mph. Fast car, petrolhead, motorway commute, not enough hours in the day blah blah. Still have a clean licence though. I am also like most of us guilty of the odd minor SOP deviation and rule "flexing" at work. However allowing an unauthorised visitor to the cockpit whilst in flight would be regarded by my employer as gross misconduct which means job threatening, its in a different league.

How many aircrafts have been hijacked after a Cpt incorrectly allowed somebody on the deck
Can't think of a single one, Fed Ex 705 in 94' was nearly bought down by someone who was legitimately on the flightdeck, look it up, nasty incident. The rules are over strict and not flexible enough and its a great shame we have lost the flexibility to offer the jumpseat to those in need of a lift home or who are genuinely interested in what goes on up front.

All a great pity but that's (post 9/11) life unfortunately.

[FR1A]

I wonder what the 75 souls who perished on Aeroflot 593 would have to say about access to the flight deck.

[Heliport]

FR1AI wonder what the 75 souls who perished on Aeroflot 593 would have to say about access to the flight deck.
They would probably have had a great deal to say about allowing a 15 year-old boy to sit at the controls.
(Particularly one who had either not been sufficiently briefed not to touch anything or was incapable of comprehending the importance of complying with such a simple instruction.)

They would probably have thought how extremely unlucky they were to be on that particular flight (in 1994) - given that thousands of passengers had been allowed into flight decks on other flights and with other airlines over several decades without any problems, and that thousands of others were after their deaths, also without incident.

Some of them, almost certainly, would want a total ban on access. Emotion understandably makes rational thinking much more difficult, sometimes impossible.


H.

[BARKINGMAD]

For an explanation as to how we got to Sept 11th and subsequent events, please read "The New Pearl Harbour" by David Ray Griffin.

Then wonder why a 146/RJ or 737 flight deck is even more difficult to access when the jumpseat is rigged and occupied, yet the wise ones at DaFT discourage the use of this very useful barrier to the unwelcome attentions of our boxcutter fanatics.

As the creeping disease of EASA infects our industry, I am amazed we ever get off the ground with the plethora of rules & regs thought up by those who don't know the back end of an aeroplane from an APU.

We're stuck with this crazy legislation as long as those who occupy "Handbrake House" have some sort of right to legislate and direct our efforts to move bums/parcels from A to B. The latest madness from our own much-loved UK CAA, telling us all they don't & won't know if our licences are/will be valid when another bunch of distant bureaucrats takes over the asylum whilst charging us handsomely for the privilege, is just one more example of a once great industry going to rack and ruin.:ugh:

[seathugger]

I speak as a piece of highly-travelled SLF, with several acquaintances who are pilots with UA, AA, BA and LX.

I have heard many horror stories about crew from my friends, and have personally experienced dodgy spiral and high-gradient landings by certain small European airlines (pre 2001), as well as a number of very poor takeoffs and landings, emergency landings caused by engine failure and crew incompetence (e.g. setting the galley on fire), as well as two near-misses.

As SLF, I understand the safety percentages, and I don't consider flying as pax to be fun, in any shape or form. It is a pain in the ass, even when you turn left upon entry.

Footballers, bankers, and crew members' families are not acceptable on the flight deck. I only want safe, competent, balanced, *designated*, professional individuals in control areas when I am aboard.
And, following recent headlines about drunkenness and incompetence, clearly even some of them are incapable of good judgement.

I look for tight regulations to minimise all risks, and swift, serious punishment for those uniformed smartasses who think they know better.

[President Bush]

Virgins' immature,under-qualified and self-protecting 'GMF' has issued an insulting email to the pilots which states that the company 'misinterprited' the rules relating to the use of jumpseats.
Yes,we all loath the legislation, but the fact is that Virgin would not only have fired ANY line pilot for this(Pablo).but would have taken great delight in doing so. A whitewash. A coverup. Disgusting.

[sky9]

I can't help wondering if Mr Diamond was in fact less of a security risk than some of the people who are allowed into the FD during a flight.

Not questioning the rules you understand, just pointing out that Rules won't prevent terrorists getting access to the FD.

[nilcostoptionmyass]

If the Prime Minister himself asked the answer would be no.

This would show up just how stupid 'our' DFT rules are.

Of course,

that might be what the captain had in mind all a long

;););)

[vsflight]

I'm led to believe that the 'management' pilot who operated this flight with bob Diamond is the same person who took the England football team to South Africa.
Rumour has it that all interested pilots put their name into a hat to fly the team to SA. At check in the 'management' guy turned up, stood down the Captain who won the trip and flew it himself. Will the CAA do anything? Probably not.
It's no wonder the VS guys are a bit pi$$ed off with management!

[rebellion]

So when is the DFT report due out on this incident?

[A and C]

I thank my luck that I now work in a country and for an airline that lets the Captian decide who can enter he flight deck, captains are expected to use good judgment but we don't have any stupid rules that have been written by civil servants who are just licking up to government ministers who are being driven by what the media might write or say.

It is such a refreshing change after being under the heel of the UK security fascists.

[vctenderness]

On one of the several occasions that I carried Mr Diamond he was lucky he didn't visit the Captain in the flight deck while wearing handcuffs!

A more rude,obnoxious Premier passenger it would be hard to find. The purser working in the First class was near to tears after being called a **** on several occasions.


I had words with him but he just ignored me and waved me away.


A couple of days later,I read in the press that he had just lost his multi million pound bonus so I guess he was a bit p*****d off!


Funnily enough some time later I carried him again and was working with the same Purser fortunately he behaved and Purser in different cabin!

[gcal]

Of all the things that helped convince me I wanted to fly was a jumpseat on a Stone Cutters approach to HKG (Caledonian 707).
I did what I was told and sat on my hands and marvelled.
From that day forward I never looked back.
These rules which seem peculiar to the UK and US are surely taking away some of the little boy magic.
Small wonder then if we end up with a shortage of pilots.

[jumbojet]

these rules are in general for the UK/US. In a land just across the water from the the UK Captains still authorise any one they want on the the flight deck, last month, today & tomorrow. Check to see if FO is happy & away you go! Not that long ago smoking was allowed on aircraft & it was considered normal, now light up on board & your off to jail. Flight deck visits were common in the UK, but the fluo jacket brigade have ruined it, like so much else!

[Neptunus Rex]

these rules are in general for the UK/US. Not quite, as they certainly apply in Hong Kong and other places East of Suez, although I am not sure whether that is by law or Company edict. However, in some cases flight deck visits may be permitted with the prior permission of senior management.

[cavortingcheetah]

Irrespective of the legalities, questions of charterer's rights and so on which are often open to constructive interpretation, I should have thought that no censure could be raised against a captain who refused cockpit access to a passenger who had, at the latest, consumed anything alcoholic on that flight?

[PT6A]

Interesting that some members think that a justified reason for allowing a passenger onto the flight deck would be in the event of a medical emergency (doctor or nurse speaking to the crew)

In my company's manual, the first action on being notified of a medical emergency, LOCKDOWN THE FLIGHT DECK, there is the possibility that it is a staged event to force the flight deck door to be opened.

I agree with the poster if a person is invited by the Captain, as opposed to inviting themselves they pose significantly less risk.

[jonathon68]

The CEO of my Airline recently went to our Regulating Authority to request an exemption.

He now carries an Authorization letter, giving him an exemption from the restrictions on Flight Deck access in-flight.

Problem solved for him to now ask for the Captains permission to visit the Flight deck.

The world has changed and we now live with a Flight Deck which is locked down. This is a great shame for many reasons. However, the security concerns are unlikely to go away, so we just need to accept that this is how we operate.

[JW411]

We can rest assured that the captain will refuse to allow the CEO to visit the flight deck.

[Stan Woolley]

During 2002 I was flying for Easyjet and on a turnaround at Nice, Stelios turned up and requested the Flight Deck jump- seat. I replied sure but just needed authorisation from the Chief Pilot on the company mobile. The CP's secretary or similar answered and said she would just ask him - after a minute or two she returned and after a short pause she said .......he's not authorised!

I said ' you'd better not be joking 'cos he's right here' she confirmed that the CP would not authorise him. I let Stelios have the bad news which he took without comment and he ploncked himself down in one of the middle seats near the front, the only available seat!

In my opinion it was the right decision as he had no good reason for being there and I thought the CP showed guts in following the directive.

[walkindude]

Folks.

I despair, I really do. Page upon page of obviously intelligent, skilled professional aviators arguing for primacy of authority to allow, what...... friends, family, celebrities, uncle Tom Cobley and all to access the control centre of what could be a flying bomb?

The very thought is so wrong on so many levels I don't know where to begin. I'm not a pilot (but would be), however security and CT I do know a fair bit about.

The world changed chaps. When your cylindrical, aluminium cigar was weaponised it became a game changer. The former things passed away. Yes, visits to your 'office' were wonderful, and my inner child remembers those visits and the desire they provoked (Monarch Air in the 70's anyone?) but......

We all have to focus now on denial of opportunity. The bad man is generally not the brightest; but is persistent. As our friends across the water once said, " We only need to get lucky once, you need to be lucky all the time."

Today's reality means that we all need to appreciate your skills from behind closed doors. Sad but true, and those of us that were inspired by you, still will be.

But make no mistake, open that door to a friend and, sooner or later, a nightmare will walk through it.

And yes, toilets adjacent to the flight deck access, pilots exiting for comfort breaks, cabin crew delivering meals or chat or gossip or info to the cockpit; all security risks which urgently need attention. But two wrongs don't make a right: ergo, lock your workspace up tight, keep us all safe and accept the isolation as part of the outstandingly professional job that you all do.

It's the only way.