Warning! Bureaucrats believe pilots spouses are terrorists!

[M.Mouse]

I am led to believe that the UK CAA have issued the following edict:

1.4 The Department for Transport has determined that other persons, not employed by the company but having staff travel privileges including relatives of company personnel and relatives of the operating flight deck and cabin crew, should not travel on flight deck supernumerary jump seats.

How very logical and sensible.

I always suspected that my partner of many years was a terrorist, especially at certain time of the month.

The lunatics have truly taken over the asylum.

[Gin Slinger]

Perhaps somebody should show some balls and campaign to have the CAA rescind this new edict?

Do you think anyone will?

[Count von Altibar]

This is completely ridiculous. Where is the logic?

[411A]

Not only will it not be recinded...more will follow.
Guess "relatives" will now just have to buy tickets, and have a seat in the cabin...tough beans.
Tail is now truly wagging the dog.

[Gaza]

should not travel on flight deck supernumerary jump seats.

I think the use of the word should is interesting. It seems to be more of a suggestion than an order.

[Bally Heck]

I think 411A that it is not the tail wagging the dog, but the FAA wagging the CAA. Oh not to be a puppet regime!

[Gin Slinger]

BH - you said it, I thought it!

[Devils Advocate]

There's an awful lot of difference between the words 'should not' and 'must not' !

[Max Angle]

The people who work for the company, who I don't know and who have had no background checks made on them are the ones who worry me. I think I am pretty sure that no one in my family represents a security threat but how can I be sure about a company employee who I have never clapped eyes on and who may have only worked for the company for a few weeks.

If the new rule turns out to be true then I for one will not allow anybody on the jump seat except those who I can't refuse, ie Trainers from the company for line checks and CAA ops. inspectors.

Yet another rule dreamt up by officials who do not know thier arse from thier elbow.

[Airbubba]

>>I think 411A that it is not the tail wagging the dog, but the FAA wagging the CAA. Oh not to be a puppet regime!<<

Like it or not, much of what the FAA does filters down to the CAA. In the past couple of years issues such as locked cockpit doors and drug(s) and alcohol testing have been rejected as "never happen on _my_ aircraft" here on PPRuNe. Months later they are in the CAA regs. You'll probably see the same thing with the jumpseat restrictions.

The U.S. has to be proactive with its postion of leadership in aviation, however some of this stuff is a result of bureaucracy run amok.

[omoko joe]

somebody forgot to tell them that an aeroplane doesn't need to be G or N registered to be used as a terrorist weapon. Fat lot of use all this draconian nonsense is when the rest of the world doesn't follow.
Or look at it another way..a catagoric admission of defeat...we can't stop terrorists at the airports so lock yourselves in, don't let anybody near you and good luck.:(

[ShotOne]

This ruling is so unreasonable and illogical that it is only natural 411 should support it. Please don't anyone bite. It's only attention he wants.

Yes it is our government obediently following US policy but where is the logic? Had there been a family member on the jumpseat of the 9/11 flights the hijackers task would have been much more difficult.

[411A]

Family members have NO business on the obs seat unless they have bought a ticket/pass, subload or otherwise.
However, to exclude them from the flight deck seems a bit over the top.
And, in any case, always SCD.
So whats the beef, ShotOne?:rolleyes:

[NigelOnDraft]

SO - I agree that usually one can have ago at 411 over his posts automatically. However, on this occasion, his post on "your" side? So why the whinge?

NoD

[Buster Hymen]

An able-bodied passenger(s) in the jumpseat/s,known to the crew would be a considerable asset to all concerned in the event of attempted unauthorised access.Yes,my view is that j/s occupancy enhances security,not diminishes it.As ever,the bureaucrats can't see the wood for the trees......

[411A]

Absolutely correct Mike Jenvey, FAR 129 calls the tune for carriers operating to the USA. Even ATCO's are not able to take advantage of the obs seats under the present regulations, which is most unfortunate. The FAA/DOT is the big kahuna in this, and other countries will just have to follow suit, like it or not...and many won't.
Simple as that. And not likely to change anytime soon.

[Low-Pass]

411A

Your last post seems to suggest that the FAA has taken over from ICAO as aviation's world-wide ruling body and that everyone must do what it says. Fair enough in the US, it's your airspace and your country. But don't you think that other countries should make that sort of decision for themselves?

[wonderbusdriver]

I´ve thought about this completely idiotic policy.

Seems to me like the FAA/DOT are trying to "support" US airlines this way.
All this "You´re either with us, or against us"-BS turning into some sort of trade-war/screwing-the-competition.

[411A]

Absolutely Low-Pass, other countries have every right to set their own policy but, if they have carriers that fly to the USA, those carriers must abide by FAR129, otherwise they lose their certification. Don't like the situation any more than you, but those are the facts. It would be much better if the FAA did not stick its collective nose in others business.

[Crash_and_Burn]

The only time the spouses of flight crew are a threat, is when they get on-loaded before other staff with a higher priority!

[One Hand Clapping]

MJ - Ever had someone up on the jumpseat for a flight? It's actually a lot easier with someone behind you - no need to keep calling the cabin crew to go out for a slash or get the trays in - your very own doorman (person).

[Fil]

extra people on flt deck = more hassle for opening/closing locked cockpit door for loo breaks, meals, etc

Obviously not a pilot are we otherwise you'd know the answer is usually:

extra people on flt deck = LESS (MUCH LESS) hassle for opening/closing locked cockpit door for loo breaks, meals, etc

[Bally Heck]

This is a typical reaction of a bureaucracy with no answers, needing to be seen to being doing something. Even if the something is counterproductive and even stupid. As has been said above, a jumpseat occupant is a positive asset to security, unless the spouse is a terrorist. But if the spouse is a terrorist, chances are so is the pilot!

The facts don't matter too much to these people, they suffer from a "jobsworth" mentality. It is just unfortunate that they seem to permeate to positions with the power to instigate their stupid ideas without thought to the inconvenience of the masses.

Let us hope that the CAA have the sense to limit these restrictions to US bound flights only.

[Papa Agnis]

An over reaction that will have no positive effect on safety! Once again we find one of our few remaining perks removed, directly affecting our quality of life. For once though the remedy is simple - Captains must now place an embargo on anyone travelling on the jumpseat (except where legally required to do so). This will cost companies money and once they put pressure on the CAA to change this ridiculous rule something will happen.

[Captain Airclues]

I recently took my nineteen-year-old son on a trip, and he spent the entire time on the flight deck. As it was a two-man sector, he was very useful as a doorman, to allow access to the cabin crew. The cabin crew received several favourable comments from the passengers, who were pleased to see that BA were now employing 'skymarshalls' (their words not mine) on the flight deck.

Airclues

[moleslayer]

Can't quite remember all the facts of the story now, but a few years back a nice sweet irish girl, married her handsome Middle Eastern boyfriend, aahhh.

He then boarded her, alone, on a flight back to his homeland to meet his parents.Her suitcase was packed with high explosive in a hidden compartment.

Could he have been your F/O ?? Is she OK on the J/S Skipper ??

[HugMonster]

moleslayer:- he wasn't a pilot so no, he couldn't have been the FO if he had been a pilot, he would have been subjected to a few security checks the suitcase was detected prior to boarding further security procedures were implemented everywhere following that attempt even if she had boarded, with her suitcase, it would not have mattered a jot where she satSomething tells me you don't really understand much about airline security and procedures! ;)

[Scimitar]

I think from now on that nobody travels on the flight deck on my flights. The company might well be interested in applying some pressure on the CAA if they find that they are suddenly finding it difficult to shift, for instance, engineers around the place. Better still. Line checks become a thing of the past! The whole thing is ridiculous and stinks of "Osama wins".

[KingoftheRoad]

HugMon

Reading between the lines here, I think Moley was being a bit 'Tongue-in-Cheek'. I doubt he is suggesting either of the two characters & the suitcase would make it onto the aircraft.

The thread is about relatives on the cockpit jump seat.What I see here is a suggestion that you may not know anything about your fellow flight deck companion, and innocently invite a less than desirable, unwittingly, onto the flight deck.

[moleslayer]

You got it in one Roger Miller, the story was intended to point up the fact that we really know very little about our colleagues realatives !
Many of the posts so far are along the lines of "what a stupid regulation,my wifes not a terrorist"
Well yes, you obviously know that,but playing the "story line" again..........You're flying with that nice Irish/Scottish/English?F/O who asks for the J/S for Her/His boyfriend/girlfriend/husband etc.
Do you really know Who/What? they are ??
From now on I will refuse all J/S requests for relatives, from Capts,F/Os,Dispatchers et al.
Therefore the F/O has a right to expect none of my relatives are sitting behind him too.

[canberra]

anyone remember the fedex pilot travelling on the jumpseat who used a hammer on the crew, had he passed a security check? from what i recall all 3 crew managed to overpower him and he's now doing time.

[A4]

My Two Pence worth,

My understanding is that NO ONE is allowed on the jumpseat unless they are CAA/DOT in the course of their duties or operational crew i.e. Training Capt on a Line Check. Even Company personnel are banned if they are not ON DUTY.

So if you're off duty you're more likely to hi-jack/crash the aircraft rather than when you're on duty and ALREADY at the controls.. that makes it all clear then. :rolleyes: :mad:
As someone said, they have taken over the asylum :(

[MPH]

I think, I'll tell my wife to get a groom's certificate...maybe it's the only way of taking her along, on freighters only...of course!:cool:

[treadigraph]

Canberra - yes I do! And after managing to overpower their deranged colleague AND land the aircraft whilst being severely incapacitated and avert a major human catastrophy, the crew (well, certainly the the captain and F/O) are no longer flying becasue of their injuries.

As a non-employee pax, I've had the pleasure of several jump seat flights courtesy of the Captain and because I have a friend who works for the airline, but, IMHO, to be denied this pleasure in future seems a small price to pay for increased peace of mind for all of us, crew and pax alike.

[ExSimGuy]

I'm an "ex- UK airline employee" and now a holder of a "family pass" on an American airline. Of course, as I have now been living in the Mid-East for 15 years, I'm pretty suspect, and I wouldn't blame anyone not wanting me near the flight deck of a PAX aircraft ;)

(Fortunately, there's a few pilots still around who disagree with that theory :p Seriously, I agree that if I had been jump seating, there might have been a shade more chance of survival on the "9/11" flights)

[ExSimGuy]

This prompts me to admit to a very serious mistake that I recently made on a flight back to "Blighty" on vacation.

My usual "carry-on bag" is my lap-top bag, and I had this in my posession for a 2-sector flight to UK. In addition to being baggage screened twice (by X-ray) at my airport of departure and again at the transit airport, I was somewhat concerned several days after my arrival in UK to find a "Stanley Knife" (aka Box Cutter?), bought a few weeks ago and forgotten, in one of the pockets of the lap-top bag :eek:

This was one of the"disposable" ones, so all plastic apart from the blade itself, and in a bag with a computer and lots of cables, power bricks and other "radar clutter", so I expect quite difficult to spot on X-ray, but certainly we are looking at a much more worrying hole in security than the pilot's wife or Cabin Crew's parent :o

[Jaun Huw Nose]

Old joke, but maybe relavent:
Whats the difference between your wife with PMT and a terrorist?
Ans: You can negotiate with a terrorist..... :)

[Airbubba]

Family members and most other non-pilots have been banned from the airline cockpit in the U.S. for almost thirty years now without too much ill effect.

The last thing you need in a critical situation is someone's wife screaming bloody murder all the way down as with QF1 at BKK.

After jumpseat involment in the 911 attacks most countries will probably get more serious about cockpit security as the U.S.has. It's not the Love Boat anymore, I'm afraid...

[Bally Heck]

Err. Have I missed something here? Jumpseat involvement with the11/9 attacks?

Perhaps it is worth pointing out that the security measures which are now being imposed on the world such as locked flight deck doors did not stop the 11/9 terrorist attacks.

When will the authorities get round to just not letting these people on aircraft? And letting the innocents get on with their lives unencumbered by pointless regulations.

The technology already exists to stop terrorists and other troublemakers boarding aircraft. Why not use it?

If we start introducing pointless rules which inconvenience everyone but the baddies, then the baddies have won.

[Brenoch]

hear hear..

[Orca strait]

We had everything in place prior to 9/11 to stop the baddies from getting to the flight deck - the system failed from a lethargic bureaucracy whom thought "it won't happen to us". The end result - a myriad of smoke screens while they attempt to get their house in order (i.e. Homeland Security).

[longstay]

:confused:
derrr, well if anyone takes any notice of this cr*p then you wont be using your standby priviliges will you ?
i,m darn sure that if i found myself presented with crew and spouse that needed to get back, they would travel on the jump seats and thats it.
I would urge everyone to ignore this 'if it's true' nonsence otherwise it will go on and on and on !!!!

[Bird Strike]

Call me dumb, but wouldn't it be harder for the 'invaders' to enter the cockpit (or take control) if there are more people there?

[Low-Pass]

More people in the cockpit would have made no difference to September 11 as I understand it. The hijackers gained access to the cockpit by slicing the necks of a few FA's or threatening to blow up the aircraft with a (fake) bomb. In their situation at that time, I think I would have opened the cockpit door too. Don't you? Few people, if any, thought that that type of attack would ever happen. There were no plans for it and that's why it worked. I don't believe it would now (and events such as the shoe bomber back that up). Perceptions have changed. People would prefer to "go down fighting" than sit passively while being flown into the Capitol Building.

So, denying non-flight crew access to the cockpit will potentially stop the FedEx/BA type hammer-wielding incidents, but please, lets stop deluding ourselves that it would have any great effect upon non-flight crew seizing the aircraft. Screening is the answer to a point, however, we all have to accept that we live in a dangerous world and there is no way of achieving a 100% prevention rate in stopping these sorts of events happening.

[Seriph]

Frightening that such nonsense can be imposed upon the world by a neurotic nation that now wants to create war in the middle east. God help us.

[M.Mouse]

Somebody mentioned the Fedex pilot. What was to stop him carrying out an attack when he was operating if he had been denied the opportunity to use the jumpseat?

Unfortunately life occasionally carries some risk (ssshhh! don't tell the personal injury lawyers).

These new rules will achieve absolutely nothing and if a terrorist wants to blowup/crash another aircraft he/she WILL find a way to do it. If that remote possibility is an unacceptable risk to anybody then why not stay at home and put on another layer of cotton wool.

These rather sad new regulations are just another example of bureaucracy replacing commonsense, a seemingly contagious condition spreading amongst the misnamed 'developed' nations.

[A and C]

Lost my respect for the CAA and DTI aviation security branch.

Should one of you find my respect please return it to me .

Regards A and C.

[eeper]

OK folks, two questions:

a) Where is this information from? CAA website?

b) Who do I write to, to register my disapproval?


To be honest, if I can't trust my own mother/father/brother on the flightdeck then I'm not sure that I can trust the next "CAA Inspector" with his potentially fake id.

[One Hand Clapping]

Eeper - I've met your family.....


But anyway - the jumpseat involvement in 9/11.... - there is a 'rumour' that apparently, one or more of the hijackers were occupying the jump seat prior to the events that followed.

That's all I know....

I think the guy whos saying he will no longer take anyone in the JS including anyone that the FO may know is being rather reactionary. Why not wait for the legislation to make the books, if it is so, that is, before embarking on a one-man mission. You could potentially be denying a lot of very decent individuals the ability to get home etc. - a privilege that you may have taken advantage of yourself in the past? Let's be sensible rather than stamp authority for the sake of it.

[EGCC4284]

Instead of hiring good looking female/male
cabin crew on peanuts, why don't the CAA and
FAA insist that all cabin crew should meet strict
marshal art's self defence, kick boxing, judo,
kung fu, boxing standards and in return the
insurance company's could reduce the premiums
slightly that would offset a higher wage that
would in turn attract such qualified personnel.
It would be a great next job for ex army,
special forces guys and girls coming into
the civilised world.

I know its nice to be flying on your hols being
looked after by the women you can only dream
about but if I could have 6 ex club door men built
like brick s@@t houses on the trolleys,
I know which I would prefer.

It may even cut down the bog standard
air rage incidences

[411A]

Black and brown belts in the cabin...what a novel idea..and why not?;)

[Low-Pass]

One Hand Clapping

Don't know about your rumor there. Seems like a very long time for such information to have come out and I can't imagine that these new recommendation/regulations would have taken so long to come about if one of the hijackers was 'legitimately' in the jump-seat. More likely, someone has said "What if...?" and that has been translated into "What happened..."

With regard to the ex-doormen dishing out the drinks, I certainly hope not. Their chief value is in intimidating the patrons rather that providing a service. Bruce Lee in the cabin, hmmmm, maybe - but never underestimate the defensive weapon-like qualities of a pillow. :)

[Hand Solo]

I wouldn't dismiss that 'rumour' too readily Low-pass. Think how embarassing it could be if it was revealed that it hadn't been necessary to force access to the flight deck. You'd certainly want to suppress the fact you'd recovered the CVR. At least you would until you'd tied as many people as possible into a compensation program that prevents people suing the government or airlines. But of course, that isn't happening in the USA. Is it?

[Airbubba]

>>Err. Have I missed something here? Jumpseat involvement with the11/9 attacks?<<

If you have the required access, talk with your security people about this. It has had a chilling effect on interline U.S. jumpseat travel.

[Lan Ding Gere]

I think I've go to agree with Low Pass on this one.

JS or no JS, what's the difference ? If someone wanted to take out a plane there are many other way to do this. It appears that they didn't want to do this on Sept 11 and instead, the terroists wanted to gain control of the aircraft and fly into the WTC.

As LP pointed out slitting the throats of passengers etc , will probably make make most people comply.

So personally I don't see how banning the JS will have any impact

LDG

[Lan Ding Gere]

FORGOT TO ADD

What is the difference between a JS and a seat that has been paid for by a passenger, whether it be ecomony, Business or first. I mean either way they will serve the same purpose. If there is an evil twisted person who wants to down a plane, they will do it whether in the JS, passenger seat or other means.

just a thought

[sky9]

I don’t know why the FBI have got so "one-eyed" about aviation; have you ever seen a baggage scanner in a hotel? It is only a decade since those "friends of the Americans", the IRA attempted to kill the whole British Government in a hotel in Brighton.

[Low-Pass]

Hand Solo - Maybe your right. I just feel that they would have made a greater noise about it sooner. It would be in the airlines interests to conceal such a fact more than the FAA and security agencies, I would have thought.

sky9 - Yes, but it didn't happen in a US hotel and our trans-pond cousins are just a little incensed that it happened to them, that's all. Besides, I believe that the "terrorists" are upset with the US Government and America's capatilistic nature as a whole rather than individuals. The IRA targeted the government and you can be sure that everwhere that "Junior" goes gets a thorough inspection.

Cheers, LP

[Fallows]

I ran a Familiarisation Flight scheme with a major UK carrier where UK ATC staff were able to travel on the flightdeck and observe flight deck procedures. The reports I received back from the ATC staff and the crews themselves were very positive. I believe such flights and their access to the flight deck actually enhanced flight safety. It would certainly be a retrograde step if the regulatory authorities in the UK imposed this ban without giving the company or aircraft commander any flexibility in who he or she has on the flight deck.
Tony Fallows (LACC-Swanwick)

[VeeoneCUT]

Here we go again.

Hastily thought up hair brain ideas that cannot be justified.

The DOT has just issued a directive to the UK airlines that states that and I Quote:

8.3.12.3 USE OF FLIGHT DECK Supernumerary Crew Jumpseats - Flights to and from destinations other then the USA.

Notwithstanding (8.3.12.1 (basically only crew and CAA)). And subject to the captains approval, use of the crew flight deck jumpseat(s) is only authorised in the following circumstances (in order of precedence):

1) Company employees travelling on duty in possession of a ticket, ID and Passport.

2) Any person who has a justifiable OPERATIONAL reason to spend time on the flight deck. Before any such person is allowed to enter the cockpit the following criteria will be met.

the company dept. sponsoring the individual will provide the DFO or his deputy with written reasons for the request, and include any relevant security profiling the individual might hold, e.g.DfT, AAIB or company security pass.
The DFO or his deputy will liase with the company security manager, or the head of safety and quality, to agree if permission should be given.
If permission is granted then prior to the flight, the DFO or his deputy will provide written authority to the commander of the flight. The letter of authority will include the reason why this individual should have access to the flight deck.

Company employees travelling who are in possession of a valid ticket, ID and passport.

Company employees from the following companies who are in possession of a valid ticket, ID and passport.


What's the problem I hear you say - well the next time you are tying to get back with your girl/boyfriend or family from CPT, BKK, HKG on an ID 90 and the flight is full - you'll be grounded.

The DOT or some officious nerd in an office in London who has been talking to some aviation expert from the daily mail rubbish bin. Has decided that we as pilots and our families now pose a threat to the aircraft when we are travelling on ID90's

Here I have some respect for the American FAA -

In the USA the FAA post NRPM's (Notices of Proposed Rule Making)
These as the acronym indicates is a chance for the aviation community as a whole to bounce around ideas from those who are directly affected by it's content. This has the obvious advantage of possibly making the rule better and more effective.

Once this process is over, then it is brought in.

The government in the UK has the DOT the branch that deals with aircraft is the CAA Safety Regulation Group. But on this one
some geek at the DOT decided that they know best and have penned this un-necessary load of B*****T.

The old chestnut that is thrown around in defence of their ill-conceived ideas is always - "This is needed to improve safety".

How about go one step further and keep the airplanes from carrying passengers, no better still how about fly around really slowly, that would make things safer wouldn’t it. What about flying really low then you wouldn't have so far to fall - how about have 10 engines just incase 3 fail at the same time.

This will do it how about quit flying and go by train.

My point is where does it end -

Ok Ok 9/11 is just around the corner and the Boffins at the CAA and the DOT need to show their managers how they "have improved safety in the year since the tragic events in NYC".

Remember the DOT is the organisation that made us all use plastic cutlery - but we still carry 1 litre glass champange bottles - gallons of flamable alcohol, need I go on...

The DOT are the ones that had my leatherman taken off me but we still have a crash axe and a crowbar.

This new rule is not needed. If they want a new rule let BALPA, and IPA ask their memberships for suggestions.

Our airline has already restricted access and this is now limited to employed company staff only and their families.

If you feel strongly enough, then the DOT email is
Aviation - [email protected]
The Head of the Department is Alistair Darling

[411A]

These requirements for obs seats in the USA (and in many other areas as well) have been in force for years...and just now those in the UK are whinging...?

And yes, the FAA is subject to the "notice of rulemaking" process, and it works very well, thank you. And, still no fees for a license...yet.:rolleyes:

[Basil]

411A,
Could you enlarge on that? I'd thought (from airline gossip) that US crews could, in the past, carry family members on the FD jumpseats.

[luoto]

Its made the guardian today and Ananova with PPRUNE comments.

[Konkordski]

Speaking as someone who's always found the jumpseat ride a fascinating experience, I can't help thinking that it should be up to the Captain as to who can or can't sit in the cockpit.

Just curious -- has there ever been a case of unlawful interference of an aircraft directly involving a jumpseat passenger, regardless of whether it's a company pilot or 10-year old schoolboy with an interest in the gadgetry?

[BlueEagle]

Either FedX or UPS, a disgruntled (ex?)employee tried to axe the Tech Crew, some severe injuries before he was overpowered.

[Agaricus bisporus]

If the DOT were able to demonstrate a credible and significant risk to safety by allowing "other" people on the flight deck this would be a sensible rule. In the absence of this it is merely jobsworths restricting the freedom of Professionals to do their jobs. Pity there is such a shortage of Professionalism there, one wonders what the sad bustards will hit us with next.

Shame on the DOT :(

[Capt PPRuNe]

Gruadian article:Pilots rage at end to wives' flight deck perk
Andrew Clark
Guardian

Thursday August 8, 2002


They barely batted an eyelid at bullet-proof doors, humiliating searches and plastic cutlery. But Britain's airline pilots have drawn the line at a security rule which means their wives will be banned from travelling in the cockpit.

A new edict from the civil aviation authority has identified pilots' family members as a potential terrorist threat. Under instructions from the government, the CAA has banned an age-old perk of letting spouses use a fold-down "jumpseat" on the flight deck.

Pilots have reacted with a mixture of fury and disbelief. One said jumpseats were often used for relatives holding concessionary staff tickets when all other seats on a flight were full. "It's a very useful thing for flight crew if their wives or children are going on holiday."

The British Airline Pilots' Association yesterday wrote to the transport secretary, Alistair Darling, objecting to the rule, which will also prevent airline staff from using the seat unless there is an "operational need".

Balpa's deputy general secretary, Graham Fowler, said: "We have requested a meeting to outline our concerns."

A union spokesman said: "This is a ridiculous state of af fairs. There are no safety implications. All the CAA are doing is copying something the Americans have done."

On a website used by pilots (PPRuNe!) to exchange information, they have been venting their outrage at the regulation.

One complained that the "lunatics have truly taken over the asylum", adding: "I always knew my partner of many years was a terrorist."

Another pointed out that if terrorists tried to take control of the plane, any extra able-bodied person on the flight deck could come in handy.

"A jumpseat occupant is a positive asset to security, unless the spouse is a terrorist. But if the spouse is a terrorist, chances are so is the pilot."

British Airways yesterday confirmed it was changing its procedures to comply with the new rule, which comes into force on August 20.

[Devils Advocate]

i.e. their managers are pretty much totally discredited w.r.t. being able to manage, and so them bending over in order to be shafted by the DETR and CAA is just about what I'd expect them to do !

[Baldie Man]

As someone who had the pleasure of occupying the jumpseat on a number of occasions pre-11/9 (737 & 747) I can safely say that my fat lummocks of a body sat right behind the cockpit door would have been a time consuming object for any terrorist to get through, at least in the case of the 737 (ever tried to dismantle the jumpseat in a 737 for the first time?).
I may have had my neck slashed within seconds but in the time it would take someone to get through me and the folded down j/seat the pilots would probably have time to depressurise the aircraft, fire the plastic jungle, commence an emergency decent and grab the crash axe.

Food for thought CAA?

BM.

[Slickster]

Quite simple-don't allow anyone on the j/s. After all they can't be trusted can they?:mad:

[CAP509castaway]

aghhhhhh!
I wouldn't be a professional pilot today if it wasn't for my wife a BA stewardess getting me jump seat rides on 747's:mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad:

[BlueEagle]

I think Max Angle has hit it on the head, so lets hope the national press make this point too, we are dealing with the politics of envy, nothing more.

A ban on the pilot's family has no relevance to security whatsoever.:mad:

[Max Angle]

The DOT today issued guidelines banning pilots from the flightdeck. In response to past incidents it has been decided that pilots represent a security risk to the aircraft.

A DOT spokesperson said that although journey times would become infinate, due to the fact the aircraft never actually moved, the overall safety of the operation would be greatly enhanced by this carefully thought out measure.



God these people are idiots, I wonder what other strokes of genius they will think up to keep us safe.

[eltel]

It's surprising that no one has suggested the hostage situation. Husband flying, wife on jump seat, kids with hostage takers. Small or large IED left on Flight Deck for disaster on next leg. Do you people realise that whereas you are subjected to search before flight when you are flying the aircraft, the people who check you, police or customs, (who will not be on the aircraft)are not checked- at least by an independant authority. Same scenario,fellas. Customs Officer, wife in hostage situation, who has freedom airside plants IED on an aircraft. It has always worried me, and I have raised it many times to no avail. You have to trust somebody they say. Why not the schmuck driving the aircraft.

[luoto]

/...now the next time a senior politician or tv monkey is shown in the cockpit during flight A MIGHTY ****STORM needs to be made. Especially if it is that grinning ape Blair or the wicked witch (Oh brave Cherie, going on holiday after a miscarriage. ****, I don't wish a miscarriage on anyone but pass the airline issue sick bag)

[Low-Pass]

Ahh.. but will they be permitted on the flight deck during the flight in the first place? Could make a storm over not letting him/her up there as they are potentially a terrorist threat (just sticking to your rules Mr Prime Minister). A lot of people have a hard time trusting Mr Blair anyway ;) )

[max_cont]

They would be allowed on the flt deck.

The company concerned would make sure it was a Quisling pilot manager, or similar two faced, empire building, brown nosing yes man in the left seat. :(

[Smokie]

max-cont,

That just about sums it up mate, there are plenty of those in our company too !:eek: :eek:

[luoto]

Still could be used to show post-event hypocrisy...

I know when SLFing nowadays I can't be bothered to fly anywhere, particularly the United States of Arseholes, due to the silly regulations and indifference from many ground staffers who are probably rightly pissed off with pax, managers, govt and the world in general

[Propellerhead]

Right, so that means that I won't be able to get the jumpseat, on my own company, when I'm travelling on standby. Oh, f--king great! So, I guess I'll just have to wait until the following day when I'm operating before I stab the captain in the eye and crash the aeroplane into a major city :rolleyes: . What an inconvenience that will be. Just shows the complete beurocracy, generating knee jerk reaction decisions. What a load of cr-p! :mad:

How the hell am I suddenly a security threat when I'm paxing, when I'm (so grateful) for being allowed on the flight deck to fly the aeroplane. Just more evidence of us pilots having to suffer for others ineptitude on a grand scale. Oops, there goes the horse, and there shuts the stable door.

If Captains or F/Os can vouch for someones integrity, they should be allowed on the flight deck. It's not in our interest to let some nutter on the flight deck, but nor is it unreasonable to let someone we know and trust on it.

As someone said, a jumpseat occupant is useful on certain a/c for operating the door lock, plus could potentially help fight any hijackers, plus if the person is a pilot adds to the safety of the flight eg) an extra pair of eyes and ears.

I see Balpa hace objected to it, but lets hope airlines have the balls to stand up and fight this. I agree that we need to be seen to be doing something post 9/11, and most of this is just to make the public feel safer, but even the public would see this as laughable and doing nothing but p--s of the hardworking employees of the airlines, who have borne the brunt of things since 9/11 - job cuts, lowering terms and conditions, locked into the flight deck.

Discraceful

[Notso Fantastic]

You know it's time that something was done about the idiots firing off new rules. If, for example, no plane took off with a politician on board- it's amazing what defects can 'stop' you flying, when they realised their holidays in Tuscany weren't going to work until sense was restored to the system, then maybe they wouldn't fire such stupidity in our direction! Idea worth developing?

[wonderbusdriver]

"You´re either with us, or against us!!",

so beware of "them" "watching " the internet.

"Why??", "Because it´s the law..."

[Smokie]

There are plenty of politians on our flights and there are more than a few ways to skin a cat so I'M DEFINATELY WITH YOU ON THIS ONE !:cool: :cool:

[Max Angle]

Prop. Head,

I think if you read the regs. posted above it says that company employees, with a ticket, passport and ID are OK even if they are not on duty travel which means that company pilots will be OK as will other company staff.

So someone who could have been with the company for 2 weeks, has had no security checks run on them at all other than a reference and who you have never clapped eyes on is OK but your wife of 30 years, son, daughter, mother or father is not. Oh yeah that makes perfect sense Mr PenPusher, I feel safer already.

[Max Angle]

Could not agree more, what we do at the moment is a total waste of time dreamt up to make it look as if we are doing something. The ONLY way to secure the flightdeck in an effective way is to use the El-Al system of having two doors in an airlock type arrangement, in fact a door between the galley and the cabin would be better. In this way there is never an open access to the flightdeck from the cabin, we are talking millions for a major mod. here but as the airlines and the CAA/DOT etc. put safety first I am sure that they will decide that it's best option. NOT!.

[BlueEagle]

Many years ago, when staff travel for BA loaders etc. was threatened by the then labour government the lads just waited until a senior polly and his wife, (on a taxpayer funded trip), were on board the aircraft and then they just walked away and left it!

Threat to staff travel for loaders lifted within 24 hours!

[Devils Advocate]

Right now we have to lock the flightdeck door from just after engine start, until engine shutdown; With the exceptions being for food and beverages to be brought into us, or for us to answer a 'call of nature' and / or for any other reason that might require us to leave the flightdeck ( e.g. to stretch our legs, i.e. compared to the average pax, we seem to be strangely immune to the effects of DVT - but don't start me on that one ! ) and where during such sojourns we now have to have a flight attendant be present in the flightdeck to ensure that the flightdeck door is 'guarded' ( and / or that the other pilot doesn't seize the opportunity to crash the aircraft ).

So ( quite obviously ) at numerous points during a flight the flightdeck door is unlocked to allow a cabin crew member to enter or a pilot to leave ( a process usually commenced either from the FD by a double ding-dong on the flight-interphone - audible in the cabin - to summon a cabin crew person to ask them to enter the FD, or by the cabin crew calling us on the same interphone - an action that's often visible within the cabin ).

Now, if you're Jonnie Terrorist the ideal time to strike would be the moment when your typical 8 or 9 stone (female) cabin crew person opens the flightdeck door, and you can be very sure that your aircraft hijacker is familiar with airline SOP's, e.g. just what a double ding-dong might mean is about to happen w.r.t. the FD door, and / or a cabin crew person standing outside the FD door with two teas nearby and using the interphone - it's not exactly rocket science is it ?!
Remember also that Jonnie has been highly trained for this task and he/she is quite prepared to die and kill for his/her beliefs ( and he/she is more than likely also being aided and abetted by several cohorts, who are similarly well trained and prepared to kill and die ).
Basically your cabin crew member(s) in such an assault would not stand a chance, and in all probability their last conscious thought would be of some disturbance behind them ( Jonnie and his mates leaping into action ) just as the FD door is being opened - and all in that split second before Jonnie snaps the FA's neck in two.

So imho, this whole cabin crew 'guarding' the flightdeck and / or us locking the door is about as effective as having the cabin crew try to break-up a fight between rival football supporters - they'd basically get their arses kicked - and in case it hasn't occurred to anybody the FD door is opened ( for operational reasons ) loads of times during your average flight - the terrorist(s) just need to pick the moment to commence the assault.

One must hope that the DETR folks get to read the above proposed major failing in their plan to keep us alone and under lock-and-key, and one also rather hopes that it's somewhat 'shot their fox' ( something which is definitely not PC under 'New Labour' ) else otherwise the lunatics will have most certainly taken over the asylum. :rolleyes:

[Jetdriver]

What an absolute meaningless and unproductive piece of rule making.

Why not take about 83000 pairs of acquired nail scissors and cut this document into small pieces.

[Ranger One]

When does this piece of garbage take effect? Aug. 31st?

Ladies and Gentlemen, I think it's time to officially designate Sept. 1st as 'take your daughters to work day' :D :D :D

(If you haven't got a daughter, a son, wife, husband, parent, or, at a pinch, parent-in-law :eek: , will do)

R 1

[boofhead]

But you missed something, Devil's, I am still waiting for the FAA (and therefore all the world's airlines and other regulatory agencies that have to dance to their tune) to change the recommendations for handling a hijacking situation. As it stood before 9/11, and to the best of my knowledge (correct me, someone, please!) the duty of an airliner crew, as dictated by FAA policy, is to cooperate with a hijacker. If he says "open the cockpit door" then that is what must happen. So of what use is a bar?

The root cause of the 9/11 disaster was the reaction of the crew to the hijacking; assuming the bastids were rational. the basic policy has to change, and the FAA is the only authority that can do this. Barring the cockpit is only going to work if crews are instructed to fight any hijacking, and to forget the nonsense about cooperation.

The whole thrust of the actions taken by the authorities so far has been a whitewash. To pull the wool over the customers' eyes. We all know, as do the potential terrorists, that nothing has really changed, and if they wanted to, they could repeat 9/11.

[Devils Advocate]

I concur boofhead, and it is precisely (sort of ;) ) what I was driving at.

Scenario - The CabinCrew are about to bring you a nice cuppa, he/she goes to enter the FlightDeck ( having negiotiated the opening of the door with you on the Interphone - whilst being closely watched by JonnieT ) he/she pulls on the door to open it, at which point JonnieT and friends commence their take-over of the aircraft.
They quickly and easily dispatch the cabincrew at the door, enter the FlightDeck ( through the now open door ), grab the fire axe ( he'll know where it is ) and.............

The QRH onboard my aircraft ( a UK CAA approved document ) still reads as follows ( nearly one year on ) :

HIJACK
The safety of passengers and crew is paramount
When possible carryout the following:
Transponder..... A7500 ( albeit that JonnieT knows how to turn it off )
ATC..... Inform ( I very much doubt that you'll get the chance, e.g. as per 9/11 )
Fasten Belts...... On ( Yeah, JonnieT and his mates are really gonna take notice of that ! )
PA..... "Senior cabin crew member to the FlightDeck" ( err, which involves opening the FlightDeck door ? Duh ! )
Brief No.1...... Conduct (If Possible) ( which will be difficult when she's lying dead in the forward gangway )


General Advice

In the air:

Comply with the initial demands without prejudicing safety ( so how about, "Get out of your seat or we'll kill you in it ?" )
Negotiate patiently. Do not antagonise. Do not surrender. ( err, I myself don't reckon that you'll have too much say in the matter )
Avoid actions/movements which might appear hostile. Explain before moving any control, switch. etc. ( no need, by that point you'll be dead too, and JonnieT will be flying the aircraft )
Keep passengers calm. Prevent them from intervening. ( WHAT ! It's telling you to discount your main source of support !? )
Consider passing information to controlling authorities. ( 'Controlling Authorities', don't make me laugh )
Land at a suitable airfield. ( which to JonnieT means on top of the houses of Parliament, or right in the middle of the pitch during a ManU/Arsenal football match, i.e. lot's of TV coverage and lot's of people to kill too )

Objective

The safe release of passengers and crew.



Where the last of which will be quite unlikely, e.g. not one of the pax aboard the a/c involved on 9/11 survived and this was where the crews in all probability did have the FD doors locked - as per the FAA FAR's - and where they would have, given the chance, conducted the hijack as per the QRH ( see above ) - so all in all about as useful as a chocolate teapot !

Imho the answer is what El Al have in place, i.e. proper double entry FlightDeck doors (plus vidcams, etc) and much ( read, much ) better security screening / profiling of pax pre-boarding - ah but, that will cost a lot of money won't it ?!

Of course what would help to hinder the access to the FlightDeck ( certainly on a B737 ) would be to HAVE somebody sitting in the jumpseat ( as it's bang smack in the middle of the doorway ) - and better still prefereably somebody you know, e.g. wife, son, daughter, etc....

[Propellerhead]

Max Angle, the way I understand it is :

1) Company employees travelling on DUTY in possession of a ticket, ID and Passport.

2) Any person who has a justifiable OPERATIONAL reason to spend time on the flight deck. Before any such person is allowed to enter the cockpit the following criteria will be met.

Staff travelling on standby do not have an operational reason for travelling, therefore will not be allowed. This will also cover airline personnel travelling to work.

I hope this isn't the case, but I believe it may well be.
Also, many airlines must comply with all safety 'recommendations' from anyone, as a condition of continued membership of airline alliances (eg One-World, Star etc.) The big American players (American / United) insist on security measures as tight as there own, so effectively everyone is obeying FAA rules, or stricter.

[amos2]

20 yrs ago I instructed my flight attendants, during my briefing, that visitors to the cockpit would not be allowed.
At the same time the only jump seat personnel I allowed were company pilots.
Used to cause a hell of a stink from time to time...but I stuck to it!

[WeeWillyWinky]

This poorly thought out ruling from on high has generated much emotion.

It has been shown that the only thing this government take much notice of is 'public opinion'.

I am unable to fill the role but does anybody feel like organising petitions amongst all UK airlines followed by a mass peaceful demonstration and ceremonial delivering of same to either the Presidents house in Downing Street or the CAA headquarters at LGW.

It would make good television especially as we are generally such a conservative and placid group!

I would certainly be willing to help and attend.

Just had a final thought. BALPA might be the organisation with the ability within to organise and co-ordinate the protest.

Coupled with communication here perhaps we could stir people from their normal mode of having a good whinge into actually doing something to get things changed.

[Smokie]

WeeWillyWinky,

YOU'VE GOT MY VOTE.:)

[RoyMunson]

Devils Advocate, interestingly enough recent SEP 'Security' module said you comply with the terroists demands.....Yeah righto, I said. The first thing they'll want to do is enter the cockpit even if they aren't gonna decided to turn the aircraft into a cruise missile. However I'm not a mind reader and will not know this. That's why the door will remain locked. There is no way I am gonna comply.
Looks like tea and biscuits for me then.

Anyway moving on.....
I would be especially upset if a hijack was going on and we had just turned down a J/S request by an engineer trying to get home who might just help in saving the day.
It would be very interested to see El Al's QRH regarding hijacking. I somehow think it would be slightly different.
When will the pen pushers learn and see sense. I think the J/S should be at the discretion of flight crew not Jonnie Scribbler from the DoT. We're not monkey's don't treat us like 'em.

[MANAGP]

I have just found out that British Airways are supporting the governments plans to ban the use of jumpseats, by friends partners etc.

This plan is ill thought and a major disaster for aviation. Afterall very few pilots, cabin crew, and groundstaff have never considered using our perk.

Please BA don't let the terrorists win. With everybody working together we can come up with a solution that suits everybody.

[BOAC]

MANAGP - IF you are a pilot, and IF your company does not follow the DTR ruling on the use of jump seats, YOUR airline will be grounded, as the situation stands today.

Simple?

[Sick Squid]

BOAC, is there an FCN about this.....? If there is I've missed it. Until that comes out, then surely the situation remains as-is....

I hope the CAA can retain a sense of perspective on this...

[Engine overtemp]

BOAC, I think you missed the point of MANAGP’s posting, that is that British Airways are not only going to enforce this ban (as indeed all operators have to), but they are also supporting this ban (which not all operators will).
(Not a BA bashing attempt, merely trying to clear up confusion!)

[BOAC]

SS - FODN 32/02 - amends FCO 2454

O/temp - Sorry, I think you are wrong! My understanding is that BA, along with, I'm sure, all UK airlines, BALPA and the IPA (I assume) are campaigning to have it changed. Until then it is mandatory, and therefore amendments have to be made to Operations Manuals and the like. If your airline hasn't done it yet, I HOPE it will, as I understand it was directed by DTR to be 'as soon as practicable'.

I am not aware of any OVERT 'support' from BA for the change, more the opposite. I may have missed it, in which case MANAGP or O/T - please tell us where you saw it.

The decision to remove the authority for the immediate family
members of employees to travel on a flight deck observer seat is made on the direction of the UK Department for Transport.

I cannot see how that can be interpreted as 'support'.

The implications are severe, as it is likely that flight crew will not accept most jump seat passengers with this in force, and that will affect many commuting staff.

[M.Mouse]

The man to protest to is:

IAN DEVLIN
DOT
DIRECTOR OF TRANSPORT SECURITY

[email protected]


An e-mail to your MP might help to. To find your MP's e-mail address:

http://www.parliament.uk/commons/lib/alms.htm

[MANAGP]

BOAC

It is BALPA that have informed me that BA is supporting this dreadful act!

[M.Mouse]

MANAGP

Can you be more specific than 'BALPA' because I have in front of me a posting from a BA Company Council rep. of long standing that directly contradicts your assertion?

[MANAGP]

It was just what I was told by our rep. I do so hope that I am wrong and that all the airlines will team together and fight.

[Capt.Slackbladder]

I work for the same Company as MANAGP and was wondering if the info we got from our CC Rep refered to BA Management or the BA Pilot workforce as a whole? I would hope that a good majority of BA Pilots think this ruling stinks also.
However, aside from that point our CAA Ops inspector flew with us the other day and got a grilling from several chaps and what was interesting is that he said that many of the inspectors feel that the DTR have gone way OTT on this one and that the DTR are steamrollering over the CAA! So who is now running the Aviation Industry in this country?! ( I also gather that some of the other proposals coming from DTR are even more outrageous but thankfully have, for the time being, been shelved)

Finally, has anyone ever seen a DTR official? In my company we often see our CAA flight Ops inspectors and we also have several AAIB chaps who fly with us but I have never heard of anyone from DTR coming along for a ride to see what happens on a typical flight. So this begs the question, what background do they have in Aviation, what do they know about SOP's, human factors, CRM etc etc. Maybe BALPA should challenge the DTR to send the people who make up these rules to fly on the jump seat and see how their rules work in practise. Of course we would want to ascertain the security credentials before accepting them!!!

[exeng]

<<Is there an FCN about this.....? If there is I've missed it. Until that comes out, then surely the situation remains as-is.... >>

No FCN as yet, however the information has been published in the 'nubriefs' for the past couple of days.


Regards
Exeng

That explains it...not been in the office. Ta! See you for a coffee soon, mate. £6

[fen boy]

just to confirm in the UK the DfT has responsibility for aviation security not the CAA. The CAA has the means to forward the info on to the industry on their behalf.

[Basil]

We are, unfortunately, going the way of totalitarian states inasmuch as people with no expert knowledge or practical experience are permitted to occupy positions of of authority which they then defend for their own advancement. The damage done by these harebrained buffoons may take decades to redress.
In the UK, in addition to the DoT, the treatment of education affairs has to be a major contender for the booby prize.

[zoru]

looks like this might be plan A with a plan B alternative:

Plan B: all jump seats MUST be occupied by a 'Skymarshall',who will be armed to the teeth etc.etc.
one of his buddies,(kung fu wizzard/ex s a s/milky bar kid or similar), will ride shotgun in the cabin.

as a pliot which would you prefer Plan A or B?
personally i'd go for B,although it does sound like a bad 'B'movie.;)

[PorcoRosso]

Being in a situation where my girlfriend is FA in an european Airline, I regulary use "common law spouse" tickets to travel.
Not that long ago, and after the 11th of Sep, I was travelling with a partner airline (not the one who employ my G/f )
As usual, the airplane was full, and not many seats available.
In a desesperate attempt to board this flight, I told the check-in agent that I was pilot and would be glad to fly in the cockpit, should one of the jumpseat be available.
To my surprise, she accepted ! never had a look to my licences and booked me in the cockpit with the crew.
Once at the gate, I was expecting to be checked by the Captain or the F/O ...but it never happened !
Well, I was very happy to be there , I must admit. But also very surprised after the September events.

The Airline in question is a National Flag Carrier ....