UAL unauthorized MLB cockpit visitor...

[1southernman]

That 's not gonna be a slap on the wrist...Reminds me of a fellow FO on a long haul while CAP on break wanting to "surprise" an FA by both of us being seatless after calling her in...I refused outright and after calling her in he proceeded to tell her about it...They both agreed I was no fun... :)...PS... Just remembered the one where an FA sat in CAPs lap on landing?...Not UAL...

[BFSGrad]

Incident occurred 4/10/24
DEN to YYZ
UAL 757 charter for Colorado Rockies
Pilots removed from duty by UAL during investigation

FAA probe: United Airlines passengers filmed in Boeing 757 cockpit midflight (https://www.aerotime.aero/articles/united-airlines-faa-investigates-cockpit-passengers)

[BFSGrad]

Left seat squatter now identified as Rockies’ hitting coach, Hensley “Bam Bam” Meulens. Incriminating X video embedded in linked news article.

Rockies hitting coach cockpit visit triggers FAA investigation (https://www.msn.com/en-us/sports/mlb/rockies-hitting-coach-hensley-meulens-cockpit-visit-triggers-faa-investigation/ar-AA1njo0O)

[212man]

Left seat squatter now identified as Rockies’ hitting coach, Hensley “Bam Bam” Meulens. Incriminating X video embedded in linked news article.

Rockies hitting coach cockpit visit triggers FAA investigation (https://www.msn.com/en-us/sports/mlb/rockies-hitting-coach-hensley-meulens-cockpit-visit-triggers-faa-investigation/ar-AA1njo0O)

How can anyone be so dumb - and let it be filmed? In this day and age. Do they live in a cave?

[tdracer]

How can anyone be so dumb - and let it be filmed? In this day and age. Do they live in a cave?
There is something about social media 'clicks' that makes normal people do incredibly stupid stuff (see the Darwin Award thread in Jet Blast for a number of examples).

[IGh]

see RED FLAGs learnt from past "mysterious" inflight upsets :
https://www.pprune.org/safety-crm-qa-emergency-response-planning/394431-pilot-ethics-pro-standards-housekeeping.html#post5291331

[megan]

How can anyone be so dumb - and let it be filmed? In this day and age. Do they live in a caveThere are those who believe rules only apply to the "little" people.

[sitigeltfel]

What could possibly have gone wrong?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aeroflot_Flight_593

[FullWings]

What could possibly have gone wrong?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aeroflot_Flight_593
I remember being told about an exchange in the Paris TMA not long after this became public:

[ATC]”Aeroflot XX, turn right heading 240”
...
[ATC]”Aeroflot XX, turn right heading 260”
...
[ATC]”Aeroflot XX, turn right NOW heading 290”
...
[British voice]”Aeroflot XX, tell your dad that French ATC want to talk to him”
[ATC]”Who said zat!"

[Liffy 1M]

What could possibly have gone wrong?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aeroflot_Flight_593

And this USAF crash: https://www.baaa-acro.com/crash/crash-boeing-ec-135n-walkersville-21-killed

[Pilot DAR]

This is news item number two on the morning national news in Canada today, 'sure is a bad look for the crew.....

[BRUpax]

I've been trying to add up how many times I sat in the left or right hand seat of an airliner. Lost count! Of course this was pre flake era. I hasten to add that at all times there was a qualified pilot in the other seat. For that reason I hate people quoting the Aeroflot accident. In that particular case there were no pilots in their rightful seat. That's something else.

[BRUpax]

Had a quick look at the USAF crash mentioned by Liffy 1M. In the official report report I read the following:

This phase of flight, the navigational leg, was the least demanding on the pilot and was the logical time for the passengers to come forward to view the cockpit area. There is no evidence that the presence of the passengers in the crew compartment contributed to, or caused, the accident.

[vegassun]

Maybe the captain confused a charter flight with a no pax repositioning flight.

[Liffy 1M]

Had a quick look at the USAF crash mentioned by Liffy 1M. In the official report report I read the following:

This phase of flight, the navigational leg, was the least demanding on the pilot and was the logical time for the passengers to come forward to view the cockpit area. There is no evidence that the presence of the passengers in the crew compartment contributed to, or caused, the accident.
Robert S Hopkins III, KC-135 guru, former C-135 pilot and author of this tome (https://www.crecy.co.uk/boeing-kc-135-stratotanker?osCsid=03vvkri3n71nhn54io1cek92s1), notes in it that there is a suggestion, as result of the work of an investigative journalist, that the official report into this accident was falsified and that the IP was in the jump seat and the two spouses were in the pilots' seats. He adds "Several 'old timers' from the 4950th TW echo this highly controversal conclusion". This other former EC-135 pilot also takes that view that at the least, the presence of the passengers in the cockpit was a factor. https://code7700.com/case_study_ec-135n_61-0328.htm#section1

[BFSGrad]

Had a quick look at the USAF crash mentioned by Liffy 1M. In the official report report I read the following:

This phase of flight, the navigational leg, was the least demanding on the pilot and was the logical time for the passengers to come forward to view the cockpit area. There is no evidence that the presence of the passengers in the crew compartment contributed to, or caused, the accident.
Based on the words you quoted in bold italics, are you concluding that the presence of the passengers in the cockpit did not contribute to the accident? In other words, the presence of the passengers in the cockpit, including one in a pilot’s seat, is just coincidental with the mysterious nose down trim, auto-pilot disengagement, and subsequent aircraft upset? That’s certainly some coincidence.

What would have been the potential sources of evidence that a passenger did contribute to the accident? Seems the only way to know that there were passengers in the cockpit, including one in the pilot’s seat, would have been a CVR. Similarly, to know that the trim was run full nose down implies the presence of an FDR though certainly rudimentary by today’s standards. Is there any FDR evidence that could have indicated a passenger contributed to the accident? Unlikely given that an FDR of that era would not indicate operation of flight controls specific to left or right seat. What would have been evidence on the CVR? Audible cues such as a passenger saying “hey, what does this switch do?” or the seated pilot saying “hey, honey, don’t touch that switch!” The absence of such audible cues does not allow the conclusion that a passenger did not intentionally or inadvertently operate an aircraft system or flight control, causing or contributing to the accident.

With the aircraft upset that did occur, you’re left with one hopefully belted-in pilot to recover from the upset with a cockpit full of unrestrained and likely injured bodies flying around further interfering with upset recovery. Given the G-forces involved and the rapid progression to an unrecoverable flight condition, it seems highly unlikely that the second pilot was able to remove the wife from the left seat, occupy the left seat, and assist with upset recovery.

Unauthorized, untrained, and unbelted personnel should never be allowed on the flight deck during flight operations.

[BRUpax]

I quoted the official report. The rest is hearsay.

[Claybird]

It's official, the pilots have been suspended pending further investigative action by the airline and FAA

[Sandy78]

I've been trying to add up how many times I sat in the left or right hand seat of an airliner. Lost count! Of course this was pre flake era. I hasten to add that at all times there was a qualified pilot in the other seat. For that reason I hate people quoting the Aeroflot accident. In that particular case there were no pilots in their rightful seat. That's something else.

The Co-pilot was in his seat. Page 13 paragraph 4 of the translated accident report will tell you exactly what he did.

"The co-pilot began to counter the roll 6 seconds after the aircraft reached the operating limit of 45° bank (which was indicated on the PFO by the disappearance of some of the routine information) and 2 seconds after the onset of buffeting. These pilot reaction times correspond to statistical averages for the time required to carry out the actions appropriate to the situation, including detection, identification, assessment of the situation and decision-making."

[neilki]

Maybe the captain confused a charter flight with a no pax repositioning flight.
nope. Can’t do that either…

[CVividasku]

It's funny how some perfectly acceptable practises in some parts of the world are seen as catastrophic violations, worthy of severe punishment, elsewhere in the world.

[V12]

Is it too extreme to say that we the fare-paying passenger are entitled to our aircraft being operated 100% within the rules, by professional crews, at all times?

In my thousand plus flights, I've suffered being on an MD83 operating for BAW flown LHR-TLS where the cockpit door was open throughout, and the FO opened a broadsheet French newspaper at TOC and only closed it at TOD. That's 45 mins in very busy Western France airspace where he could see none of his instrumentation at all. Also a Spanish DC9-10 flight where at one point both crew were outside the cockpit in the front galley getting coffees and chatting up the hostess, whilst the cockpit was empty and a (very attractive female) passenger was standing in the open doorway. Flying our aircraft professionally did not at that moment seem to be the primary focus of the Captain or FO !

[FUMR]

Is it too extreme to say that we the fare-paying passenger are entitled to our aircraft being operated 100% within the rules, by professional crews, at all times?

In my thousand plus flights, I've suffered being on an MD83 operating for BAW flown LHR-TLS where the cockpit door was open throughout, and the FO opened a broadsheet French newspaper at TOC and only closed it at TOD. That's 45 mins in very busy Western France airspace where he could see none of his instrumentation at all. Also a Spanish DC9-10 flight where at one point both crew were outside the cockpit in the front galley getting coffees and chatting up the hostess, whilst the cockpit was empty and a (very attractive female) passenger was standing in the open doorway. Flying our aircraft professionally did not at that moment seem to be the primary focus of the Captain or FO !

Your first experience with the newspaper is not a safety issue as such as long as one crew member is monitoring. What is unprofessional is doing it in full view of the passengers. I have flown on plenty of oceanic 2 pilot flights where the pilots take it in turn to have a nap. It also reminded of a cockpit flight I made (4 hour flight) where the FO was also reading his newspaper and the Purser asked the Captain if she could bring some visitors to the FD (this was pre 911 btw). The captain approved the visits and then suggested to the FO he put his newspaper away and looked "busy". :)

The second incident you describe is extreme and is sheer lunacy by the crew.

Although an aviation professional at the time, I was not a pilot, but I too spent time in the RHS or LHS seat during cruise on quite a few occasions. I also witnessed it on many more occasions. It wasn't unusual and it didn't shock people at the time. Still goes on a lot today as mentioned by CVividasku. It only makes the headlines if seen in certain countries.

[punkalouver]

Better not mention that ‘rumour’ of letting the captain’s private pilot buddy hand fly the jet in cruise for a bit. It is ok if it is a freighter isn’t it?

Then there was the captain on the turboprop who got suspended for letting the cargo guy land the plane(the cargo guy was in training to fly the aircraft and had completed the ground school). It was a combi and the flight attendant complained after the ‘pilot in training’ mentioned it.

The good old days working for a colourful company.

[Avman]

Or the Cambrian Airways Viscount on a newspaper night flight (no pax) landed at Belfast by the Captain's 16 year old son. Crosswind to boot!

[galaxy flyer]

It's funny how some perfectly acceptable practises in some parts of the world are seen as catastrophic violations, worthy of severe punishment, elsewhere in the world.

Where is it acceptable for non-authorized person to be seated in a crew position in flight?

[CVividasku]

Is it too extreme to say that we the fare-paying passenger are entitled to our aircraft being operated 100% within the rules, by professional crews, at all times?

There were no fare paying passengers per se on this flight.
It was a chartered flight, so they were all part of the same group, from what I'm reading elsewhere.
Where is it acceptable for non-authorized person to be seated in a crew position in flight?
Many places as long as it doesn't come out haha.
I was more talking about the visiting part. Seating in the pilot's seat is indeed one step further. Flying the plane being the next step (and a big no-no for me)

Even sitting in the pilot's seat does not shock me too much. Doesn't deserve to be fired at least.
As long as the passenger is not ill-intentioned and the other pilot is competent, there won't be any problem.
If the passenger was ill-intentioned, even having him in the flight deck would be dangerous. If they let him enter, they probably had good reasons to believe he wasn't.

You can always talk about the very remotely likely case where the passenger interfered with the safe conduct of the flight. Still, 99.99..% of these visits happen with no one batting an eye.

If we have to live under so stringent and strictly applied rules, forever, then the terrorists have won.

[Sallyann1234]

If we have to live under so stringent and strictly applied rules, forever, then the terrorists have won.
A very small victory, and far less than another 911.

[blorgwinder]

Takes a special kinda denze to do permit this.

Crew now famous for all the wring reasons and the guys junior to the Capt may all mov up one on the seniority llist

[shared reality]

Where is it acceptable for non-authorized person to be seated in a crew position in flight?

Exactly this...

I know this is a rumour network, with allegedly a whole lot of non-professionals acting out their armchair piloting skills in abundum, but give me a f-ing break!

CVividasku, I truly hope you are not a professional aviator with your apparently flawed attitude towards both flight safety, as well as established rules and regs,.
So what if this particular flight was not a scheduled pax ops, but "only" a chartered one? Does it not share airspace with all other kind of ops? Could a major malfunction not happen all of a sudden on a charter flight, needing the immediate attention of a trained crew, seated at their station?

What kind of message does this send to the traveling public, of which many have some sort of apprehension towards strapping themselves into a thin tube of metal high up in the air? Is this sort of behaviour promoting our pilot community in the eyes of the world?

I have a hard time understanding the thought process of the so called Commander of this UA flight, what the f##k was she thinking? This particular crew will get sacked, for sure, and will have a lot of time contemplating their actions.

Simply unbelievable...

[CVividasku]

I'm not condoning the seating of a passenger on a pilot's seat. I'm just asking that you all take a step back and reflect about the rules that you have in place.
The US and the UK have the most stringent rules for cockpit access in the world. That's a fact. It means that all other countries are less stringent. It's your right to decide so but do not mount your high horses if someone suggets things could be done differently.

Then, having a passenger seat in the pilot's seat is two separate issues :
First, having a person outside the crew in the cockpit. Them being on the jumpseat or in the pilot's seat is a similar matter : if they're not ill-intentioned, it will not change anything to the flight conduct. If they're ill-intentioned, they're going to make a huge mess wherever they're seated.
Second, having only one qualified crew member seated. Is that acceptable ? The US pilots go to the toilets during flight too, don't they ? So the airplane should be fliable with only one pilot at the controls in cruise, momentarily.
The only "detail" is if the passenger has a negative, unintentional reaction when at the controls. That's why it's not possible to condone the passenger on the pilot's seat, but it's still a very remote possibility.

After that, of course, rules are rules. We have rules in our country that US and UK nationals would find absurd, and we still respect them.

It's important not to overreact to very rare occurrences.. Did Germany ban F/Os after an F/O crashed into a mountain ?
Do we carry parachutes for all passengers because on some very rare occurrences it could save everyone's lives ?

[FUMR]

I am also reminded of when I was flying C Class (paid for privately by me) on a major European carrier (post 911), westbound over the Atlantic, and my neighbour was on a freebee (upgraded to Business) and spent some considerable time on the FD. Her boyfriend was the F/O. Did it bother me? Did I feel unsafe? Did I feel the need to report this? No, I didn't. I considered it quite normal. Perk of the job and all that. What really shook me in all my life of flying was an F/O deliberately flying his aeroplane into a mountain! There have been other "alleged" well documented cases of pilot suicides taking all their passengers with them. And you want to make a fuss about a passenger seated in one of the pilot seats during the cruise? Give me a break!

[Nil by mouth]

I wonder if Mr. Hensley “Bam Bam” Meulens was tested positive for alcohol, could he be technically charged with FUI?

[tdracer]

I suspect many of us (if not most) are old enough to remember the flight deck entry rules prior to 9/11. For those who don't remember, it was pretty common - especially on longer flights - for passengers to be allowed to visit the flight deck briefly, even allowed to talk to the pilots (sitting in a pilot's seat is a whole different matter). I recall an Air Canada flight from Montreal to Vancouver back around 1990 - I'd gotten bumped up to First Class (they wanted my coach seat so a family could sit together). After a real nice First Class meal, I noticed a young child being escorted into the flight deck by one of the flight attendants. The aircraft was an A320 - still pretty new and novel on the time - and I wanted a chance to check out the flight deck so I asked a flight attendant and she promptly escorted me to the Flight Deck where I introduced myself as a Boeing Propulsion engineer and spent several minutes discussing with the crew their A320 likes and dislikes. Before 9/11, this sort of thing during a long cruise was common.
Post 9/11 everything changed - however I can see how a charter flight for a MLB team might be treated differently than a standard passenger flight.
However letting a 'guest' sit in one of the pilots' seats is way different...

[JEM60]

Ah, how well I remember the days when I asked if I could visit the Flight Deck, Heathrow to Toronto, 747-200 pre 9/11 Was called up half an hour before we were due in, was strapped into the jumpseat behind the Captain, given an approach chart and a pair of head phones. {I was a mere PPL]. Still there 20 mins after landing. First time I ever flew in a jet airliner [Trident two], asked it I could visit, same thing, strapped in etc., there 20 mins later. Concorde but not for the landing, 757 landing into Fuertaventura Umpteen A.320 holiday visits. If you didn't ask, you didn't get. Great days, great memories.!!

[megan]

The business has sure changed with respect to cockpit visits, was not unown on some airlines for the cockpit crew to scan the manifest and invite certain pax to make a visit, and you didn't necessarily have to be a noted personality.
Better not mention that ‘rumour’ of letting the captain’s private pilot buddy hand fly the jet in cruise for a bit. It is ok if it is a freighter isn’t itGrew up knowing the crew members of a private operation, they used to visit for dinner when in town and to give me a ride when possible. In the cruise in a F-27 this seventeen year old was given the left seat and allowed to make a couple of turns. Crew were all captains, the captain captain on this flight, Reg Bagwell, cut his teeth flying airlines pre WWII, notably had a gear up landing in the spinafex due engine failure in a Lockheed 10, crew and pax spent a month in the bush while the aircraft was repaired, an airstrip built and aircraft flown out. Book "Escape From the Rising Sun" by Allen Metherell gives details. The particular aircraft now sits in the US Navy Pensacola Museum dressed up in Navy garb.


https://cimg8.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/712x263/fr011_82c248dca2d29a8d5e8e120825a8fb7d98f21538.jpg
https://cimg6.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/592x433/l064_5aa1b6bfcf7f6b88a3cf6f7d0615aa488fda54ee.jpg
https://cimg5.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/568x469/l065_96c7ece1661a8fb4eb1100065aecb8a4c7effbf4.jpg

And crews these days reckon they have it hard. ;)

[anson harris]

Look, these rules are written in blood. Any pilot who disregards them, unless there's a flipping good reason to, is exhibiting one of several known attitudes that are hazardous to flight safety: a problem with authority. So whilst this incident might well have been perfectly safe, it potentially indicates a problem with the PIC's suitability to do his job. We don't know all the facts: it maybe that there was a good reason for this to happen, but it feels unlikely to me.

[CVividasku]

Look, these rules are written in blood. Any pilot who disregards them, unless there's a flipping good reason to, is exhibiting one of several known attitudes that are hazardous to flight safety: a problem with authority. So whilst this incident might well have been perfectly safe, it potentially indicates a problem with the PIC's suitability to do his job. We don't know all the facts: it maybe that there was a good reason for this to happen, but it feels unlikely to me.
They're not.
They're written in fear and changing society, evolving towards less and less acceptation of the slightest risk, and more and more towards juridicization (which is : unduly giving matters a legal dimension).
Why am I writing that ?

9/11 was, of course, not the first plane hijack. Before that, plane hijacks were commonplace. Not all of them lead to death, but it happened many times that a hijack was followed by death.
Hijacks had been happening for decades. There were several of them each year around the globe. There were also bombings and other types of attacks.
9/11 was the hijack with, by far, the most terrible consequences, but the concept wasn't new. The reaction was overly prudent.
The concept wasn't new. For example in 1994, some Algerian terrorists hijacked a plane and wanted to crash it somewhere in Paris. 7 years before 9/11. Some people died in this event, passengers and terrorists. They didn't succeed, but only because it was anticipated and the authorities and crew didn't let them. (They would have destroyed the plane in flight if needed)
What changed in between ? Just more fear. Which is exactly what terrorists want us to feel. By taking irrationnal measures we are letting them win.

Were the terrorists that day known by the flight crew ? In no way.
But nowadays in the UK/US, apparently, you can't fly in the flight deck with your own wife or kid. Except if they're flying personnel from the same airline you work at.
Is it a fair rule to ban the captain's wife to fly in the cockpit ? Do you really think the captain's wife would crash the plane ? Many countries allow the pilot's friends and families to travel in the flight deck. We're still yet to hear any story of that kind from these places.

[Asturias56]

" evolving towards less and less acceptation of the slightest risk,"

isn't that what we all want - a flight without the slightest risk?

If you want risks go mountain climbing or rally driving in your own time - not with 250 pax depending on you

[FUMR]

isn't that what we all want - a flight without the slightest risk?

Life is a constant risk. Always has been and always will be. Will denying family, friends and aviation professionals visiting the FD make flying infinitely safer? Absolutely not. You are more likely to die in an aircraft accident because of pilot error!.

[B888]

I'm not condoning the seating of a passenger on a pilot's seat. I'm just asking that you all take a step back and reflect about the rules that you have in place.
The US and the UK have the most stringent rules for cockpit access in the world. That's a fact. It means that all other countries are less stringent. It's your right to decide so but do not mount your high horses if someone suggets things could be done differently.

Then, having a passenger seat in the pilot's seat is two separate issues :
First, having a person outside the crew in the cockpit. Them being on the jumpseat or in the pilot's seat is a similar matter : if they're not ill-intentioned, it will not change anything to the flight conduct. If they're ill-intentioned, they're going to make a huge mess wherever they're seated.
Second, having only one qualified crew member seated. Is that acceptable ? The US pilots go to the toilets during flight too, don't they ? So the airplane should be fliable with only one pilot at the controls in cruise, momentarily.
The only "detail" is if the passenger has a negative, unintentional reaction when at the controls. That's why it's not possible to condone the passenger on the pilot's seat, but it's still a very remote possibility.

After that, of course, rules are rules. We have rules in our country that US and UK nationals would find absurd, and we still respect them.

It's important not to overreact to very rare occurrences.. Did Germany ban F/Os after an F/O crashed into a mountain ?
Do we carry parachutes for all passengers because on some very rare occurrences it could save everyone's lives ?

To sit in the left or right seat ( in flight ) in any Commercial airliner, you MUST be type rated in that seat.

[1southernman]

As the thread starter I admit I'm surprised at where it has gone...I have many anecdotes too...But this day and time no way...Zero upside and UAL will push termination...The union attrnys may have something but I doubt it...Oh and the Feds...No amount of retraining will fix poor judgement and they'll probably give these guys some time to piddle around the house... Bottom line it's an FAR and there're no carve outs for family members, pets or whatever...It's about mitigating distractions, like the below 10000ft FAR...You can decide which FARs you'll adhere to but will pay the price if busted...At the very least why risk your career on such a silly thing?...Way too many ways to cluster up without doing it on purpose...:)

[anson harris]

Is it a fair rule to ban the captain's wife to fly in the cockpit ? Do you really think the captain's wife would crash the plane ? Many countries allow the pilot's friends and families to travel in the flight deck. We're still yet to hear any story of that kind from these places.

Yes, I do think it's fair. What do you think the passengers would prefer? If there were two lines in the airport for two identical flights, except that on one there are proper security standards and on the other the captain is allowed to let unqualified, unscreened individuals near the controls in flight, which do you suppose they would largely choose? Our passengers have a right to expect us to follow the rules - if you don't like it, I'd strongly suggest that maybe the flightdeck isn't the right place for you.

[BFSGrad]

As the thread starter I admit I'm surprised at where it has gone...I have many anecdotes too...But this day and time no way...Zero upside...
Yes, this thread has clearly “jumped the shark.” You might even argue that certain posts have ventured into trolling.

As you point out, what is the upside other than good feelings or goodwill? Why can’t this minuscule (if any) upside be accomplished via other means (e.g., aircraft on ground, simulators) that present zero risk?

Did “Bam Bam” receive any additional vetting beyond normal passenger screening? Did he have any drugs or alcohol in his system as he sat at the controls of an airliner in cruise flight? Who cares, the FO was there to sort if all out, right?

Let’s recall that jump seat “Mushroom Man” on ASA 2059 was perfectly fine…until he wasn’t.

[tdracer]

9/11 was, of course, not the first plane hijack. Before that, plane hijacks were commonplace. Not all of them lead to death, but it happened many times that a hijack was followed by death.
Hijacks had been happening for decades. There were several of them each year around the globe. There were also bombings and other types of attacks.
9/11 was the hijack with, by far, the most terrible consequences, but the concept wasn't new. The reaction was overly prudent.

Before 9/11, the prevailing feeling was that the worst thing that could happen during a hijack was they would crash and kill everyone onboard. So once a hijack started, the emphasis was on keeping the hijackers happy enough that they didn't crash the aircraft and so minimize the 'cost'.
While there were suspicions pre-9/11 that hijacked aircraft could be used as a guided missile, they were just that - suspicions. No hard 'proof'. I seem to recall Israel shooting down a hijacked aircraft because they had intelligence that it was going to be used as such a weapon - IIRC they kept quiet and simply accepted all the criticism for shooting it down, rather than potentially expose how good their intelligence was.
9/11 changed all that - suddenly it was painfully clear that there was an outcome worse than a crash, and subsequent steps regarding hijackings have reflected that.

[FUMR]

BFSGRAD "You might even argue that certain posts have ventured into trolling."

I don't see any trolls. I see people with different opinions. Do we all have to agree with one point of view to evade the troll tag? I, for instance, immediately stated that I wasn't a pilot. I did work as an aviation professional for well over 45 years. I made countless visits to the FD, many including the take-off and landing (including Concorde) and I did on a few occasions sit in either the LHS or RHS of an airliner. For sure things have since changed, some for the better and some for no real valid reason. There are clearly two sets of opinions here and that won't ever change.

[krismiler]

Growing up I had more flight deck visits than I can remember, getting the jump seat for take off and landing wasn’t unusual. Some airlines had procedures and a minimum age for pax to visit the cockpit.

I remember one visit on the BAC 1-11 as a 12 year old, the transponder had the three different emergency codes written on it, squawk number and meaning next to it except that the last one had the meaning left blank. I got some very odd looks when I asked if that was the code for a hijack.

Newer generations will have to make do with DVDs.

[megan]

Is it a fair rule to ban the captain's wife to fly in the cockpitOne thing I've wondered about was did the presence of the FO's wife in the cockpit have an influence on the communication between the two crew members during the QF over run in Bankok, FO was the handling pilot, did Captain refrain making comments that may have been seen to be detrimental in his Wife's eyes.

[CVividasku]

" evolving towards less and less acceptation of the slightest risk,"
isn't that what we all want - a flight without the slightest risk?
If you want risks go mountain climbing or rally driving in your own time - not with 250 pax depending on you
I want to avoid risks, but real risks.
Bringing my girlfriend in the flight deck is perfectly allowed in many parts of the world but strictly forbidden elsewhere.
Is it a real risk that these countries are taking ?

Should the government put in place a screening process for anybody wanting to drive a terrestrial or aerial vehicle that could be used as a weapon ? Are you then going to screen the entire adult population ?
Yes, I do think it's fair. What do you think the passengers would prefer? If there were two lines in the airport for two identical flights, except that on one there are proper security standards and on the other the captain is allowed to let unqualified, unscreened individuals near the controls in flight, which do you suppose they would largely choose? Our passengers have a right to expect us to follow the rules - if you don't like it, I'd strongly suggest that maybe the flightdeck isn't the right place for you.
Since you are agressive with me I will be agressive with you.
If you're unable to take a step back, think about how rules are decided, which rules are more important than others, notice that some exist somewhere but not elsewhere, whereas others are the same everywhere, then maybe the flight deck isn't the right place for you.
How can you manage complex situations with conflicting constraints if you're unable to think in this way ?

Just to clarify, I am absolutely not saying that since this FAR rule is stupid, I wouldn't respect it. I am just saying that I wouldn't put this rule in place if I was in charge. Nothing more.
With my position I have flown to the UK and will fly to the US. I will respect this country-specific rule without batting an eye. However, I will do as I see fit wherever else, where it's legal to do so.
Before 9/11, the prevailing feeling was that the worst thing that could happen during a hijack was they would crash and kill everyone onboard. So once a hijack started, the emphasis was on keeping the hijackers happy enough that they didn't crash the aircraft and so minimize the 'cost'.
While there were suspicions pre-9/11 that hijacked aircraft could be used as a guided missile, they were just that - suspicions. No hard 'proof'. I seem to recall Israel shooting down a hijacked aircraft because they had intelligence that it was going to be used as such a weapon - IIRC they kept quiet and simply accepted all the criticism for shooting it down, rather than potentially expose how good their intelligence was.
9/11 changed all that - suddenly it was painfully clear that there was an outcome worse than a crash, and subsequent steps regarding hijackings have reflected that.
Thanks for proving my point.
The fact that Israel shot a plane down shows that authorities knew it could happen. The men in charge in intelligence services all over the world fully knew this type of information.
What changed with 9/11 is that then the general public knew it could happen.

So, as long as the risk was evaluated by rational, well-informed decision makers in the high spheres of their respective governments and administration, rational decisions were taken.
Then, when the general public started to worry, with its classic unability to assess low-probability events, idiotic measures started to be taken. Like water bottle screening, performed by underqualified workers who regularly fail the tests that some journalists put into place.

In Europe after some terrorist attacks, states started to take some measures. Many of them are just aimed at reassuring the public, even if they're counterproductive (for example : creating airport like security lines at malls, theaters, or even in some streets, and hence creating queues of people that constitute a perfect target for ill-intentionned people).
The real measures, the efficient ones, are behind the scenes. Intelligence on the short term. Public policy on the long term.