View Full Version : DfT/CAA Jump Seat Restrictions

17th Dec 2002, 15:02
What are your views as aircrew on the latest restrictions which forbid the jump seat being used by anyone except CAA Ops Inspectors, supernumerary crew or flight crew travelling in uniform on official company business?

An example of the kind of restriction this new, and in my opinion, absurd rule is that we can no longer even take trainees, people who we have known for years who are qualified ATPL's looking for their first job, on a familiarisation flight. Never mind the fact that we cannot take our partners, parents or siblings who may be interested in knowing what our jobs are about, people who are about as well known to us as anyone can be and pose no security risk whatsoever.

In my opinion, the bureaucrats who have come up with this most restrictive of rules as some sort of panacea that will prevent a repeat of 9/11 goes to show how petty and removed from the real world these people really are. With a single rule which does not allow any interpretation from the airline, they have effectively stymied the enthusiasm of anyone with a genuine interest in what the job is all about. Add to that the number of disheartened flight crew who in the past have made numerous efforts to educate and generate enthusiasm for the 'job' and we see an 'authority' that kowtows to bureaucratic idiocy.

It is my opinion that the industry will see a massive decline in numbers of people who want to take up jobs as pilots in about 10-15 years from now as the next generation grow up with little knowledge about the job and no experience of what it is like on the flight deck of a modern airliner. Whilst this thread is NOT about the fact that we cannot allow flight deck visits anymore it is about the crass stupidity of the people who have made the decision to not even allow the jump seat to be available for suitable candidates who pose no security risk whatsoever.

The poll above is not scientific in any way but will highlight the general opinion of PPRuNe readers. In due course, if anyone is interested in leading a campaign to get the rule amended to allow a bit more common sense then please make yourself known on this thread. The sooner we have people with common sense and not jumped up bureaucrats with amoebic brains which are overwhelmed with paranoia making these decisions the better! :mad:

GearUp CheerUp
17th Dec 2002, 16:05
Just voted yes on the Poll but that is a vote against banning family and wannabees from the flight deck.

Much worse is the proposal that off duty flight crew will be prohibited from travelling on the JS of their own airline.

Its like saying Im trusted to fly the thing if Im on duty but suddenly not trusted to be on the flight deck if Im off duty.


To paraphrase Black Adder, 'if the people who dreamt this up had their skulls cracked open by hungry cannibals there wouldnt be enough brains there to cover a small water biscuit' :mad:

Prince Of Darkness
17th Dec 2002, 16:16

As much as I'd like to vote for option one (I REALLY would!), I feel that the world we now live in dictates that I vote for option two alone. Heres'why:

Unfortunately, as I think you realise, the days of bring along 'a friend of a friend' for a familiarisation flight have long gone. Who would carry out a background security check on even someone that is well known to you for years? Sadly, the fact that the Captain is vouching for someone is not enough in this day and age. And, if the Captain were able to vouch for someone, why not the First Officer, or the Cabin Supervisor, or any other company employee? Change the ruling to something like this, and it becomes eliteist. It also leaves a ruling open to interpretation, to the detriment of security.

Back to the subject of Background Security Checks: For anybody other than "...CAA Ops Inspectors, supernumerary crew or flight crew travelling in uniform on official company business" , a background security check would have to be a requirement. How does one work that into a company budget, no matter what size the company? I, for one, would be unhappy if this task were done in-house, as the thoroughness of such a check would be difficult for ME to verify. And believe me, I am presently unhappy of the thought of carrying a staff member on a supernumerary seat who is on duty, but who I have never met before, let alone anyone else. I also think it stupid that I can not even take a colleague who would be well known to me and every other crew member who might, for example, be trying to return from a stand-by holiday, in uniform or not! But, I also think it important that our passengers must appreciate, and be able to see clearly, that we, as professional service providers, are taking security issues seriously, and I feel that not having un-necessary people on the flight deck demonstrates that.

Which leads me to this. I wrote to my boss when these measures were implemented. I explained that one of the most heart-rending things I've ever had to do as a parent, was to tell my teen-age son that he no longer could come flying with me. That moment reduced both of us to tears. I explained to my boss that, when I was his age, some people in aviation took the time to nurture my passion for all things aeronautical, by taking me flying with them. Now I am no longer able to repay that favour, by returning that privilage and, (for me as well as them) pleasure, to the next generation of aviators.

I can appreciate why I cannot take family members or friends, because any crew member I operate with whom I have never met before, only has my word that they are a family member or friend. Vice versa, I would only have their word that it was a friend or family member of theirs that I have not met before, even be it a crewmember that I know! Reading between the lines, I hope you see how this rule could be open to abuse...... and I'm not talking of abuse by crewmembers!

The rule DOES need revising. But the questions arising from the ruling, and the possible solutions that go with any proposed changes also need discussing. This forum is a great place to do that. But, please be careful of discussing security issues here, our livelihoods and lives depend upon it.


Prince Of Darkness
17th Dec 2002, 16:32

I agree. Your point is very valid.

17th Dec 2002, 16:35
I am an ATC "bod" at Swanwick. I used to organise Familiarisation flights for ATC staff prior to Sept 11th and the feedback I received from both the flight deck crew and the ATC staff that access to the flight deck to see the operation first hand was very important and it enhanced flight safety. A few years ago there was a serious incident, and one of the factors in that incident was that the controller did not appreciate a particular aspect of the aircrafts operation with a recommendation that ATC staff have more fam flights to preclude this.
We are all security cleared and have all signed the Offical Secrets Act, but under these new rules we are banned from access to the flight deck

17th Dec 2002, 16:42
Is this is a very recent ruling?
My significant other works for a British long-haul carrier(clue...not BA),and their policy post sept 11 was to only offer JPS on non US bound routes...which resulted in yours truly ending up stuck in LAX through lack of knowledge of this new rule.
Anyway,I'm starting on the ATCO course in Oct2003 and was REALLY looking forward to the flightdeck fam trips......as an ex-dispatcher for aforementioned carrier,I used to escort a lot of trainee ATCOs up the front.
Does this new ruling mean it's now a definite no-no for trainee ATCO flightdeck fam trips?
More importantly,will I be able to get JPS from non-US destinations when on a jolly/holiday with the missus?!(obviuosly kidding about that....fam trip much more important!)

17th Dec 2002, 16:43
Fallows, I completely agree. This is getting to the point where it is positively harming saftey. Like everything else in this country a reasonable albeit uncomfortable restriction was put on jump seat use and we had to put up with it, but now the bureaucratic self justifying job'sworths have got involved I can no longer commute in my uniform with my airline i.d in the jumpseat. I can however use that i.d. to swipe in and get in my jumbo and fly over their houses. We must do something about this or the job will become intolerable.

17th Dec 2002, 16:57
As an ATCO, I have found fam flights / jumpseating a very useful tool in appreciating different a/c performance and requirements, and also different company sop's, I never knew about E145 airframe speed limitations below FL80 or appreciated just how involved and busy the crew are during the first couple of thousand feet during the climbout. Fortunately I got to spend some time up front talking to the guys and gals.
They also gained a lot from my talking to them, about sequencing, spacing, radar separation, speed limits/restrictions.

I and all other ATCO's have been security cleared by the spooks in London, I and my colleagues wil gladly produce our airport id, ATCO licence whatever it takes.

I wasa fortunate in that I managed to get to spend time up front, my newer colleagues are doubly unlucky:

1) They can't gain this valuable experience
2) They have to listen to me drone on about the time I was on the Midland out of Leeds and we had the u/c problem etc etc etc

Fat Boy Sim
17th Dec 2002, 17:12
I'm with Danny on this one.

I have just recieved the latest missive from the company and it's got more holes in it than a lump of swiss cheese.These 'enhanced security measures' are dreamed up by the same people who's thinking process works in the same way as the folk who advised after the bomb goes off in Mombassa to "Take care in Nairobi"

Big Tudor
17th Dec 2002, 17:24
Whilst I can appreciate the reasoning behind the ruling, I do think it is putting aviation relationships back a number of years. As has been said here, and on other threads in the past, a fam flight can provide valuable information to the ground based staff.

It also precludes ops/crewing staff from being given a brief but eye-opening insight into what really goes on pre, during and post flight. Relationships built up in this way go a long way in breaking down the barriers that exist between the ops-room and the flight deck. How many cantankerous old codgers (air and ground) have turned out to be genuine, helpful colleagues who would go the extra mile when asked, all because they were introduced to someone from 'the other side of the fence' and were able to pu a face to a name.

I fear we are into an era of pilots being anonymous, faceless employees. There is something very wrong with the fact that it is the pilots who are being locked away whilst the perpetrators roam free.

17th Dec 2002, 17:30
I will always keep allowing people I personally know well, like my wife/ children and parents on the jump, no matter what the CAA or the SOP say.
Captain still has the final word, and I have never nor will I ever follow idiocy.
The same thing with locking the cockpit. Safety hazard and not on my ship!
I is about time that the pilot community reacts against so-called security measures that are in fact serious safety breaches (locking of the cockpit doors) and further prohibit a clear insight in aviation and their workings.
If my wife cannot fly on the jump, than a CAA suit won't either.
Before you guys say thatI have a bad mentality, let me tell you that I am all for SOP's and I am a genuine safety addict. But I do refuse to follow rules that by all standards are ludicrous.
The world has gone mad it seems...
By the way, it is my opinion that if something happens, like an attemted hijack, 3 in cockpit will be able to defend themselves far better than 2 pilots alone. Furthermore, the jumpseat prevents them from reaching the controls! Bet the CAA didn't think about that!

17th Dec 2002, 17:38
As someone who has been writing "From the Flightdeck" articles for a number of years, for a well known aviation magazine, I need hardly say that my opinion of this new ruling is difficult to express without the use of expletives.

The jump seat was a wonderful way to inspire an interest in aviation and from my point of view, I found that people are genuinely interested - whether aspiring pilots, "anoraks" or even line pilots - in flying various different types. Going right back down the years, we have articles and footage of virtually every type flown by British airlines in various magazines and even BA's excellent heritage series of videos, which featured among other things, Cat III flying on Tridents, the L1011 and training on VC10s. All fascinating from a historical perspective.

If people want to know in 20-30 years' time, "what was it like to fly a 777, 319, etc", where are they going to get this information, for a UK carrier? There has to be some thought put into this and a complete "nyet" isn't going to work.

An interest in aviation can lead to many different careers - not just piloting, but ATC, even airline management, aeronautical engineering etc. Who gains from suppressing this interest? Of course, there'll never be a pre-9/11 situation again, but I hope that once the CAA has had time to reflect, it will see an advantage in some, even limited access, for specific persons and for the purposes of education and information.

Incidentally, does anyone know (a) if this is now the approach of all JAA member countries and (b) if there are any European countries, e.g. Switzerland or Iceland, which aren't party to the JAA? Many thanks.

17th Dec 2002, 18:39
For the avoidance of doubt (as they say) I cannot take on the js a colleague who I have known for years, who has a valid company ID and who is commuting to work, but I must take someone who I don't know from Adam, but has a bit of plastic with his photo on it, claiming that he works for the CAA?

I think not.

17th Dec 2002, 19:20
So the argument 'for' the new rule is that it prevents having an unknown person in the cockpit who has been vouchsafed by the other crew member. This includes those with ID passes such as off duty crew, ATC etc

Meanwhile one still flies with an often unknown 'other crew member'.

Lets see. A If I wanted to take over an airliner would I arrange to be guest/deadhead on the flight deck where I would have all flight crew to incapacitate (one would expect, unless some one suddenly rallied to the cause...), or would I wait until I was next on duty, get out of my - legitimate - seat to have a p!ss then clobber the other guy with the axe. Or the tech log. Or the Jep. manual. Or my nav bag. Garrotte with my shoe lace? etc etc etc.

Again, if I were a cabin crew member would I try to incapacitate each of the flight crew while in the jump seat, or would I just wait until I was next on duty & serve them 'Coffee with one lump or two (of strychnine)?'

If I were an ATC bod. intent on mischief would I try for a jumpseat & the joyous prospect of overpowering 2 flight crew or just crowd 20 a/c into the same 80 cubic metres of airspace?

If I'm ground staff would I try for a jump seat famil. ride or just wait until I'm next on duty & leave a little ticking present in some part of the a/c to which I have access. After I get the captain's signature on the load sheet, of course. Or hold up the last of the gear pins. Or whatever.

What next? A security barrier between each & every crew member? :rolleyes:

Stupid rules are just that.

17th Dec 2002, 19:53
Sadly, a locked cockpit door is the final obstacle that anyone determined to endanger the flight crew has to encounter. When that happens it means that all other security measures have failed, which is unacceptable. There are too many gaping holes in the security net we have at the moment, even before someone with criminal intent boards an aircraft. Look at the news.

Notwithstanding the above, a steel, lockable, cockpit door will not prevent a determined terrorist from blowing up the aircraft or taking control of it by many engenious, determined people. Once they get to the aircraft threshold, you are probably damned. Little comfort when you have lost control of the aircraft that you have even a 6 inch armour palted door covering your back!

Pass the buck to the airline and hold them accountable! That's what the authorities do, whilst they ignore very efficient security detterents available on the market that could very significantly reduce the threat of a terrorist getting past check-in! But that costs money, ha!

Silver Tongued Cavalier
17th Dec 2002, 19:54
After Sep 11 the adminers that make these knee-jerk rules just went for the easiest media friendly option, barricade the flight deck at all costs without really looking at the security issues. The Pilots are the cheapest and easiest group to deal with.

For instance, Captains at the metal detector getting their toe clippers confiscated!! Why? What was he going to do? Stab himself? Hijack himself?!!! There's a great big sodding axe there for F**KS sake!

Imagine this, a jumpseating Pilot in full uniform, travelling to work, denied a jumpseat by a fellow colleague, when this Pilot is going to fly the aeroplane on it's next leg!!! Madness!

Who is more likely to be a terrorist/nutter, the wife/children/colleagues of the Pilots or, for example only, some 3-month-in-the-company caterer with an unhealthy interest in Islam?

Indeed a security barrier between each & every crew member is what they'll dream up next!!!

As for the unfortunate next generation of potential pilots, buy some shares in that company that does the From the Cockpit video series!!

17th Dec 2002, 21:49
As for the unfortunate next generation of potential pilots, buy some shares in that company that does the From the Cockpit video series!!


Seriously, I'm at this moment staring at a Boing 777 and an A340 Flight Deck photograph proudly displayed in the office and wondering if this is the closest I will ever get to one. :mad:

17th Dec 2002, 21:57
I have a question.

How does the company that produces the "From the Cockpit" videos manage to get onto the flight deck to shoot the video in the first place.

18th Dec 2002, 00:03
Daft rule introduced with little apparent insight to the business of security.

The irony is that on my current type (EMB 145) with the jump seat occupied univited visits to the flight deck are impossible..it blocks the door.

This is even acknowledged by the company who advise, in the event of hijack and serious disruption in the Cabin deploy the jumpseat to protect the cockpit !!!

flippin bonkers the lot of em .


Wee Weasley Welshman
18th Dec 2002, 01:48
I was persuaded by a post some months ago that suggested that on each flight the crew should actually seek a passenger to place on the jumpseat.

Just like at present ABP's are selected for certain seats.

On most flights it is perfectly possible to find a passenger who is perhaps travelling with his/her children. Is an off-duty police officer or airport/airline worker with ID. Or is clearly the local Vicar.

He or She could be asked to volunteer to sit on the jumpseat - if there is nobody suitable or willing then so be it.

The advantages of them on the jumpseat are:

1) In many types their seat acts as a barrier to a flightdeck storming.

2) During such a storming they may actively defend the flightdeck.

3) Their presence acts as a defence against the FO as sleeper terrorist scenario.

4) Their presence acts as a defence against the Cabin Crew as sleeper terrorist.

Whatever, the current situation is ridiculous. Off duty, often positioning from home, pilots being refused the jumpseat is contemptuous. The authorities should not place those at the sharp end in a position whereby they are contemptuous of the rules or the rulemakers.

Elsewise the rules will be floated or at least there is a great temptation to flout the rules.

I fail to see anyway how the new rules would have prevented a Sept11th?

All manner of people these days have to submit to police background checks; nursey school assistants for example.

Would it not be reasonable to make a rule that the Captain could permit jumpseat use IF that person can present a police background check certificate. In this way Spouses, offspring and airline/airport workers could, at modest cost, enable their passage on the flightdeck at the Captains discretion.


18th Dec 2002, 11:05
If they were to bring in police checks (PCUs) then make sure you apply for it six weeks before you need to fly, it takes a while

18th Dec 2002, 11:54
At long last there is some discussion on this crazy situation. The americans have 911 and then panic. Yes there have to be changes as a result of what happened, but it seems the the US can make the rules for all of us. Is there no one in the CAA who hasn't scratched their head and had a good look at this stupid situation????????????? Very annoying:mad:

A and C
18th Dec 2002, 12:20
Danny you have realy hit the nail on the head with this thread the new regulations are no help what so ever in increasing security and in some cases REDUCE security.

The only security that is increased is the job security of the people who wrote the regualtions as these new rules will stop any chance of them taking any flack from the people who are realy driving this , the fleet street editors and we all know how much that bunch of parasites know about aviation security.

I cant understand how any aircrew can suport these regualtions ,I can only think that those who do have got carried away with the media frenzy and have not taken time to think over the situation or have such a low opinion of other crew members that there ability to co-operate with other crew menbers has to be drawn into question.

The bottom line is that an aircrew/ATC pass should be enough to permit a person to be on the flight deck .

If not what is this saying about the vetting that has taken place to issue the pass ?.

18th Dec 2002, 13:15
Can I just comment that as a humble ppl and nurd who has enjoyed many cockpit visits and who has with no axe to grind in terms of being able to take people in a jump seat, that the ruling seems to me to smell like an attempt to try to make it look as if something positive is being done rather than an attempt to seriously achieve anything.

18th Dec 2002, 13:21
I agree very much with Danny on this one.
I'm an ATCO in TC, where, as you know, we do an awful lot of 'flying the aircraft' with speeds, using the aircraft performance etc. How are we meant to gain access to this info if we cannot talk to crews. No pax on the flight deck is fine, but there are alot of legitimate people who should be given access.
In the mean time keep unknown CAA Flight Inspectors off the flight deck until someone in authority shows some sense.

18th Dec 2002, 13:39
I'm particularly impressed with BA's new security measure of closing the curtains whilst giving the flight deck crew their breakfast. The curtain is almost certainly booby trapped.

Jet II
18th Dec 2002, 13:55
As most people in the industry seem to believe that these new regs are just so much window-dressing and will not do anything to enhance security, I was wondering if anyone from the DETR/CAA had put their head above the parapet to defend the introduction of this and possibly to give some idea of the thought that went into it before introduction.

18th Dec 2002, 13:58
Just to add my ATCO opinion, I've taken numerous fam flights over the past few years with the various airlines out of Gatwick and EVERY time I have learnt something about the aircraft or the way the companies operate. I have also been made to feel very welcome by the whole crew on every occasion for which I am always grateful and I let them know it! The fam flights are a unique opportunity as it is usually the only time ATCOs/Pilots meet face to face which gives both sides the chance to ask questions of each other. As for not allowing people in the flight deck who you work with nearly every day or have been married to for X years is ridiculous. If the commander of the aircraft can satisfy themselves that the 'visitor' in the jumpseat is genuine it should be his/her decision. Any one with Airport/Airline ID would presumably have had a counter terrorist check anyway! I for one would be quite happy to join the majority to 'petition' the CAA to be more flexible in the rules of flight deck access.

18th Dec 2002, 15:16
I'm just about to go on holiday with one of our franchise partners. It's very busy on the way down their and manic on the way back. The chances of me getting a J/S if I need it, remote.

I've got tickets with a one world memeber as backup. They're a company that doesn't even lock the door let alone ban J/S passengers.

I think this is rediculous especilly as everyone adopts such different policies.

It should always be the Skippers call, Yes or No, whether it's the Janitor or the CEO.

The DoT or whatever they call themselves these days don't have a clue.

Maybe they should do a jump seat fam flight!!!

Very Angry

18th Dec 2002, 17:52
Complete madness, should:nt all forms of public transport have the same rules, a hijacked bus in a city centre or a ship packed full of explosives would or could have the same effect as 9/11, it is time the morons who legislate the rules lived in the real world & tackled the real issues instead of producing ridiculous rules.

wilber burroughs
18th Dec 2002, 18:29
I agree. Locked cabin door is dangerous. Try un-locking it. You cant because the smoke and fire is belching and after succesfully going through evacuation procedures time is against you. The two crewmembers are bumping against one another, blinded and desperate. The door suddenly opens and they see the exit and make it to the ramp. Who opened the door of the burning cockpit ? The jumpseater, the Captains 17 year old nephew !

18th Dec 2002, 22:26
When this ruling was first muted several months back I wrote to the Minister responsible at the DTR outlining my own thoughts. My letter followed very much on the line of many of the posts above with particular emphasis that whilst most pilots agree that change has been necessary a compromise solution would be workable without affecting the goal ie. security! I asked questions such as: why does a NATS controller who has been security cleared pose a threat to security? Why does my wife of 20 years and my children pose a threat plus many other examples. I also pointed out that many people have access to a/c (cleaners, caterers, refuellers etc) who although they may hold an airside pass - how can we check the bona-fides of that person and as has been proved recently, getting airside clearance is not that difficult no matter what ones background is.

The answer I have received back is as expected in that none of my questions have been answered but also shows more than clearly that the people at the DTr have no idea.... to quote one part...

"The more people who are granted access to the flight deck......the more times the flight deck door is opened........." un quote.

Well obviously the minister has never been on a flight deck! I have carried many NATS controllers all over Europe who sit in the flight deck and generally have bladders that can last 2hrs!
My wife has sat up front for many a 11 hour sector and sits in the corner reading, sleeping and isn't constantly in and out of the cockpit.

Two final thoughts..... My brother recently gave me a full guided tour of one of our Navy's Destroyers, virtually full access and a great insight into how the Navy and a ship runs. In return he asked if there was any chance of getting a jump seat ride to see what my job is all about. You can imagine his surprise when I explained the rules......here is my brother who has probably had more access to classified material than most of us will ever have, has worked in the inner confines of the MOD but no......the DTR say he could be a security risk!!!

Finally....one of my colleagues who is about to retire has recently been reprimanded for allowing access to the flight deck to his life long friend, best man etc. How did the company find out.....a passenger wrote in to complain!

Right behind you on this one Danny.

Dubliner No.1
18th Dec 2002, 23:17
Is it possible that this decision was made on foot of some specific terrorist threat or intelligence?

I am shocked to hear of another piece of over the top legislation that will take away the freedom of the people its supposed to protect and will almost certainly not make a blind bit of difference in the future. My intrest in flying was sparked by a Jumpseat ride in an A330 which my uncle was a captain. I'm sure I'm not the first person this has happend to but its scary to think of all the people who might have also had an intrest sparked and will now be denied a chance.

18th Dec 2002, 23:59
I agree with all of the comments which back danny's thread.

Some of you guys are already picking up the idea of fighting back by not allowing CAA to travel, I am also in the same mind.

There are other things we can do when these stupid rules come into force.

I for one now insist on an extra Cabin Attendant to be carried on my 767 flights, Her duties are to occupy the jump seat in case of crew incapacition, To guard / open the door when flight deck leave for calls of nature, Also I insist that a cabin crew member stays in the forward galley at all times to guard against passengers entering through the forward curtains, This of course means no passenger may use the forward toilet.

You see both the authorities and our employer's are happy to impliment new procedures so long as it does not cost too much money, But they fight against change if costs are involved.( Duty free shops, Cabin crew in forward galley where possible etc.).

So guys, When ever there is a change we don't like, We as aircraft commanders, can insist on procedures being implimented to make them think again.

If we stand together we will win, If we leave it for someone else to fight we will lose.

19th Dec 2002, 01:24
I agree with everything that has been said about family, staff etc, but would also like to add something that almost seems contraversial now.

I have witnessed on countless occasions the anxiety vanish from a nervous pax when they have had the opportunity to spend time in the flight deck being reassured by the flight crew

This has had such an impact that it definitely makes the job of the cabin crew much easier as you can see the pax relax and no longer worry about whether they will storm the a/c door and attempt to open it at cruising altitude (this does tend to upset the other pax and cause untold disruption!)

I doubt that we'll ever get back to that again, which is very sad as they are invariably little old ladies visiting their (now distant) family - but then again, they are the recognised carriers of lethal knitting needles so maybe this is the right course of action after all!

And of course at this time of year particularly it was always a great way to raise money for charity by auctioning off a Flight Deck visit, sorry to all those charities that are now missing out!!!

Perhaps the D for T could send them something extra this year, they must have received good bonuses for this fine example of paper pushing expertise!

19th Dec 2002, 08:25
This month's BALPA Log has a must-read article in it. Anyone who flies behind a locked door will feel a shiver down their spine on reading the full story of Tim Lancaster.

In Q and A sessions BA have tried to pacify flight crew by saying such incidents as this are a one off, that they just don't happen in real life, etc.

If he were to follow current BA sops Capt Lancaster would have had to drag himself back inside and open the door himself in order that his incapacitation could be handled by the cabin crew. In the unlikely event that he wasn't able to do this, FO Atchison should have engaged the autopilot and left the controls to open the door himself. Read the article and if anyone out there can tell me how this would not have ended in a very big messy disaster under todays sops I would like to know.

19th Dec 2002, 09:09
This is a long thread and I don't have time to look right through it now, so apologies if what I am about to say has already been said..........

This ruling has been ill-conceived as far as I am concerned. Surely an airline should have the ability to make decisions based on whatever criteria necessary to vet a member of the public (especially family members etc) on to the flight-deck. Surely security is paramount in any company (and not just associated with flying).

Has this ruling stopped any chance at all of an aircraft being hi-jacked - NO !! because the failings appear to be that the person likely to cause harm is nowhere near the flight-deck. He is back there drinking his martini after cooly having passed through security with a gun.

Any member of the public is a potential security risk, who knows what goes through the mind of a seemingly normal person. The cockpit door only needs to be open for a second (for comfort breaks etc) and the perp could be in there.

Sounds paranoid, but that is where we are now. After Sept 11th things were obviously more raw. Now things should have settled to a more realistic level.

Allowing friends/family and off duty personnel associated with the business on the flight deck would be a step in the right direction.

Question.............. how many aircraft have been overtpowered by guests on the jump-seat as opposed to people forcing entry or terrorising pax ?? Hmmmmmmmmm.!!

19th Dec 2002, 09:18
The most immediate effect that Captains can have is to very politely refuse carriage of all DTR or CAA personnel on the grounds of them being unknown and therefore a potential safety hazard under their own guidlines. Then file a report explaining why ;)

19th Dec 2002, 10:28
Capt Slackbladder - I sympathise with you entirely. I was in the Navy before I left to hopefully one day become an Airline Pilot. I served as a Warfare Branch Officer, Fighter Controller sub specialist. Believe you me it was easier to get my security clearance for the Navy than it was to get an airside pass to work at Stansted airport. And yes the Navy still strongly encourageos families days, where family and friends can come onboard our warships to see whats its all about with no security check what so ever!

I can go into the cockpit during a turnaround, I can be asked to search an empty aircraft for an item of lost property, put items into and out of a hold, handle passengers baggage, all alone, with no checks on what I have done. But should I ask if I can travel on the jumpseat on an aircraft operated by my company, in my uniform, with my airline pass, so I can learn more about my chosen future profession, the CAA so I cant because I am a security risk.

The point about occupation of the jumpseat inhibiting access to the flight deck crew is a very valid one. I have been lucky enough to travel on the jumpseat before this ruling came into force. With me sat there there wasnt even enough room for the Cabin Supervisor to pass the Captain and FO their coffee, let alone for someone to get passed to the controls.

Intelligence is the key to preventing terrorist attacks, not stupid rulings. But intelligence gathering costs time and money, passing pety legislation in comparision costs very little, so the latter option takes precedence.

19th Dec 2002, 11:24
Please note that this discussion is not about flight deck visits per se but about use of the jump-seat. Whilst the DeTR are using the red herring of 'extra' opening of the flight deck door as an excuse they will never answer a valid question directly because they know they have made a ridiculous and stupid decision and as we all know anyone working for a politician will never admit to being wrong.

Please limit this debate to the jump seat issue and not general flight deck visits.

I have reason to believe that this rule was introduced not because of 9/11 but because of the nutter, sorry, mentally impaired man who was allowed to board after being stopped at the airport earlier and then stormed the flight deck of a BA 747 en route to Nairobi when one of the pilots opened the door to go to the loo. He was eventually overpowered after a struggle. In that case, I believe that the F?O was the only person at the controls whilst one of the other pilots was leaving the F/D and the third pilot was resting elsewhere on the a/c. Perhaps if there'd been another person on F/D the nutter wouldn't have managed to even reach the controls in the forst place?

Big Tudor
19th Dec 2002, 11:38

If that is the reason behind the rule then it is even more farcical. Are they now saying that the pilots cannot leave the flight deck for a pee break?!?! It just adds strength to the views here that a supplementary person (friend/relative/colleague) on the jump-seat would help, not hinder, such a situation.

Waggon rut
19th Dec 2002, 14:58
Was just reading all these replys and thought I would add a couple of points.

1. I was lucky to have a jump seat ride with a captain friend of mine in a 737-300. If the cockpit door was rammed at this point the jump seat and pax would be a very big barrier for the intruder(S) and cause a delay at least, in the mean time the Capt or the F/O could get the axe out and do the business.:D

2. About 8 years ago I was on a flight from London-japan. Asked if could go up to the cockpit "no problem was the reply" had a good chat with the crew, could not see much as it was night so asked if I could be there for the landing, mmm I will have to ask the skipper! I thought that was it, 10mins before landing a hostie took me to the flight deck for the landing at osaka in a 747-400 wow what a buzz. I will remember it forever.

Aerobatic Flyer
19th Dec 2002, 15:27
What are your views as aircrew on the latest restrictions which forbid the jump seat being used by anyone except CAA Ops Inspectors, supernumerary crew or flight crew travelling in uniform on official company business?

First of all, apologies - I'm not aircrew, just a lowly PPL.

I work for a large express freight company and have frequently been a jumpseat passenger. As well as being enjoyable (even if darned uncomfortable.... ), it gave me a much better understanding of a critical part of our business. Flight ops are the biggest cost line on the balance sheet, and management need to experience what goes on if they are to understand it - in my view.

More importantly, jump seats are how engineers and off-duty flight crew get moved around in an airline which doesn't have any passenger seats. Perhaps we should use air taxis instead..... although as some of them only have flimsy curtains where the flight deck door should be, their demise on safety grounds can't be far off.:rolleyes:

19th Dec 2002, 17:01
The world's gone mad!

This is a great exaple of shutting the stable door after the horse has bolted.

The fact that American airlines have locked their flight deck doors for years did not prevent the shocking events of 9.11 and draconian measures such as this will not prevent it happening again.

Whilst every step must be taken to make it as difficult as possible for terrorists to strike, an unarmed civil aircraft is an easy target and no amount of regulations, locked doors or vetting will stop that. A madman with a machete held to a hostie's neck can be quite convincing...

As a PPLer I've jumpseated many times and I'm enormously grateful to the crews of KLM, BA, Bmed, Emirates and Maersk for the opportunity to get the best seat in the house. I totally agree with Danny that this is sad news for wannabes everywhere.

Even the nutter on the BA 747 over Africa waited until the FO went to the loo before he struck, again unless they install a bog in every aircraft FD in the world then all this regulation is for nothing.

The horse has bolted, next time the Al Kaeda will use something else to make a bang, and nutters will always be nutters.

The answer lies in more 'profiling' of potentially dangerous pax in the El Al vein, more security on the ground and sky marshalls seem to have to have done the job for the Israelis more than once methinks.

Top 10
19th Dec 2002, 17:53
I'm with several others on this one - DETR / CAA can take a running jump 'cos there's no way there coming on any of my j/seats.

Is this ruling now in force ?

Regardless, I would follow SOP's for fear of being reported by any member of c/c (has happened !) , but I would view same company employed commuters with an ID as still valid for the j/s - they are on official company business in order to get to work, or elsewhere.

Requesting use of the j/s of course is always looked on more favourably if you are in uniform.

Usual criteria : Staff with an ID ( preferably aged between 20-35yrs and female ) , Flight Crew, Despatchers , Cabin crew.

Management, CAA, etc are an instant refusal.

Happy Christmas :D

19th Dec 2002, 20:02

Somewhere your attitude to will hurt someone. For my sake I hope I'm not one of your passengers and for your sake I hope you don't end up without a job - then the family you love, would get hurt!

If you think that we live in the same world as when you started flying, think again.

Devils Advocate
19th Dec 2002, 20:57
Should I win a double rollover on the lottery, I could go out and purchase a sodding great ( though probably second-hand ) jet airliner, I could then get type-rated on it, and subsequently do pretty much anything I damn well choose to with it - it being privately owned, and non-PublicTransport, etc....

Accordingly, much like any light-aircraft, I could invite anybody I choose onto the flight deck of this aeronautical beast, and there's sod all that the ( so called ) authorities can do about it.

However, assuming that having won the lottery I continue to work as an airline pilot, when I go to work ( maybe on the same aircraft type as I personally own ), I can no longer invite said same relations and mates into the flight deck because they're now a security risk - WHAT the ..... ?!

Oh yes, this really has been well thought through by the 'authorities' - NOT !

Dirty Mach
19th Dec 2002, 20:58
Reading this thread it is apparent that this issue is as important to everyone else as it is me. I can't, for example, take my grandad on the JS for his 80th birthday next year. Incidentally, he helped pay for my CPL. But the big question for me here is exactly what can be done?
When this rule was initially brought in there was a vague "BALPA are in discussions with the Govt" statement which told us nothing and promised less. Given the results of this poll and the depth of feeling in these postsis it not now time to give our Union a gentle nudge?
Is anyone from BALPA reading this website?
If not why not?
Can this thread (and the last one on this subject) be brought to the attention of someone who has the abiltity to put some pressure on the DETR/CAA? Danny?
If BALPA are powerless over this what is the point in them?

19th Dec 2002, 22:12
I must confess to not having read all the posts on this thread so apologies if I repeat previous points.
The current rules re jumpseats are the first instance I know of where something overrules SAFETY in aviation, although not unsafe, if you have a qualified pilot on board who is inthe cabin rather than on the FD is less safe, as in the event of an emergency he could at least pull out books/call ops/ call engineering and help out in numerous other ways. I think if someone carried a qualified pilot on the JS I think they would probably have a VERY good defence if prosecuted, that it was in the interest of safety.
Whilst I can see some sense in the locked flightdeck door (though I don't really agree with even that), I think the current rules have gone TOTALLY over the top.:rolleyes: :eek: :mad:
n.b. I did ask BALPA for their view of this shortly after the ruling came in - I am still waiting for a reply!

Sven Sixtoo
19th Dec 2002, 23:05
I can see the logic of closing the cockpit. See my post on the guns in the cockpit thread.

However, I will be eternally grateful to the BA crew who gave my wife the jump seat on the approach and landing on our honeymoon into SFX on 9/10 Jan 99. She remains scared of flying but was deeply impressed by the calm and professional environment, and by the way theaircraft threaded through lots of others in the busy multi-airport environment. It did more to reduce her fear of flying than anything I could say or do, and has bought BA a lifetime customer (2 actually).

I hope there is some way that a blanket rule, which has obvious security advantages, can be bypassed in obviously safe circumstances.


20th Dec 2002, 01:00
As a PPL, Modular ATPL, Sim Engineer 737/A320 etc I would be over the moon to experience a jump seat ride. I 'fly' simulators every week, but its not like the real thing.. even if they are ZFT.

Security gone mad ? I can't go on your flightdeck but hey you can't go on my simulator unless you have airline ID and a booking, security check etc.. joy rides? no chance..

Any of you good Astraeus guys flying LGW - INN this Saturday 21st Dec ? I'll be in the back, wishing I was at the front.. especially from Rattenburg onwards


20th Dec 2002, 03:12
I was a kid once......I think we all were.

Taking the yearly flight to Manchester from Toronto and return was what got me into aviation. Seeing those fly-boys with feet on the dash, ties off, shades on chasing the setting sun to the west gave an impression that these guys and gal's knew what they were doing. Fl 350 in an L-1011 with a call-sign like "Speedbird"...


If it had not been for the Skippers OK to have the door opened to let this red head of 10 years old in the door, maybe I wouldn't have the respect for the job of a Line Pilot as I do. I wanted to be one and didn't make the grade.

From what I gather on this thread, this regulation is completly stupid and without merit. For Captains and F/O's to not be allowed the privalige......thats what it is right? The privalige to show their younger daughter or son the right of passage to a job that carries rank, respect, and disciplin!

Don't blame the people that made this regulation about who can and cannot occupy the jump seat.....They are just trying to make aviation as safe as possible and are trying to concieve of EVERY possible scenerio possible.

Blame the faceless cowards that committed an unthinkable act on September 11 2001.........

Just my thoughts and opinion.

20th Dec 2002, 09:23
Sorry but I believe you are wrong not to blame the regulators, yes the rules are a reaction to the unspeakable acts of Sept 11, but by bringing in rules that are purely to be seen to be doing something and not consulting and thinking things through properly the regulators are doing EXACTLY what the terrorists want. As has been pointed out by many on this thread, in most pilots opinions the current JS rules do NOT enhance safety, indeed in many peoples opinion these rules are counter productive on this point.

A and C
20th Dec 2002, 09:25
Guys lets stick to the topic we will never agane be able to let any pax onto the jumpseat but to my mind this is not about that.

This new set of regulations is so restrictive as to in some cases make the flight deck LESS secure and has an effect on the safety of the aircraft , this has been detailed on posts above.

The thing that is now giving me grave concern is that these regulations are now driving a wedge between the aircraft crews and the DETR/CAA security inspectors who are just guys like us trying to do a job but have been given a set of rules almost as stupid as the dangerous dogs act to enforce.

I like a lot of you am reluctant to help them after all if I cant trust my wife why sould I trust some guy that I have never seen before just because he has a bit of plastic that says his from the DETR/CAA.

These inspectors must be running into a brick wall each time they go to do an aircraft inspection and this is because of the stupidity of the new rules.

Security requires co-operation of all the people on the "front line" and this is imposable to have if there is no respect for the rules and the people whos job it is to uphold them.

In short my message to the DETR/CAA is give us a workable set of regulations based on common sence and sound thinking and you will have the co-operation of every crewmember untill then it is you who are the real obsticals to better security because of your unwillingness to live in the real world by producing a set of rules that are intended to cover your a*** but do nothing to help secure the aircraft . untill then how can you expect any respect or co-operation from those in the industry who have to deal with the sharp end of the terrorist threat each day of there working lives ?.

Captain Stable
20th Dec 2002, 09:53
What all these rules ignore is that there was already a locked flight-deck door policy in effect in the USA before September 11th.

They are, without consultation or logic, insisting upon a rule that didn't prevent the tragedy.

20th Dec 2002, 10:35
How might this affect the carriage of flying spanners ?, can they be classed as supernumery ?. At one time (following a CAA ruling )all our company engineers engaged on flying duties had to do all appropriate safety exams ,visited the firemen & pool etc. The CAA then 'waivered' & the engs are now carried as pax.
The 'crunch' for us is the fact that being a cargo airline on some of the types we operate we only have seats on the flt. deck !.
Will we have to go back to all engs doing appropriate drills to be classified as supernumery ?. There are destinations we service which would be a 'trial' if the aircraft was minus the GE.

Human Factor
20th Dec 2002, 11:21
Question.............. how many aircraft have been overtpowered by guests on the jump-seat as opposed to people forcing entry or terrorising pax ?? Hmmmmmmmmm.!!

Well, there was the axe wielding lunatic aboard the FedEx freighter a few years ago.....

Still, I'm convinced I could trust my father on the jumpseat. He's had plenty of opportunities to kill me over the past thirty years and not exercised them, so he's probably a safe bet.

David Balchin
20th Dec 2002, 11:43
Having read your attack on despegue, I hope your never a PAX on any plane ever I fly either, or the other 93% who think this rule idiotic. This is just another Labour 'nanny state' reaction.:mad:

It would be easy (ish) to admit others for J/seat rides if pre- arranged with the airline in the case of all persons known to the crew who's conduct can be garranteed.

further more an approved system could be put in place to admit PAX if they apply well in advance with ID, GP's signiture and report their intentions to the anti terrorist branch etc....

Thus civil rights remain uneffected.

20th Dec 2002, 12:09
Hi everybody

As a wannabe, I just wanted to say that what Danny said about getting people interested important. I remember once sitting on a jump seat coming into Amsterdam, is was the most fantastic experience and the one which really started me of:) ! I personaly think that it would be very sad if in the future this would not be possible! I do belive that my flying carrer would have gone quite a different way, or were non exsistend if some of you guys had not given me the right tips!!

Regard Micky

Wee Jock
20th Dec 2002, 12:16
I find it astonishing that this kind of micro-management goes on when it isn't compulsory to have a radio in an aircraft. Not saying it should be, just think about the disparity.

:rolleyes: :cool: :rolleyes:

Captain Spunkfarter
20th Dec 2002, 16:23
C'mon! Let the Air Traffic Controllers back on for God's sake!

20th Dec 2002, 17:24
It should by up to me, as the captain, to decide who is riding on the jumpseat. If I am responsible for the safety of the flight, I am also responsable for the jumpseats.
We do not need stupid rules like that.

20th Dec 2002, 20:21
I hate to be boring, but can I ask you all to focus on one issue for a while;

Not allowing access to the jump-seat and by implication therefore allowing access to the flight deck for a visit are really one and same. Whether the person is sitting in the jumpseat or standing in the cockpit, are one and the same from a security point of view.

I have a 'vested interest' in the whole issue of security and who should even be allowed to enter an airplane or indeed, a secure area in an airport. There are products and systems that could 'kill' most of the undesirables that ever get past the first security point at an airport. As I said before, once a potential terrorist gets to the threshold of an airplane, you are probably damned. No amount of security on board such as steel cockpit doors will help you, unless you adopt the practices of El-Al. They knew and they deal very effectively with threats aganst their own.

The technology is there; it costs, but no-one will take the responsibility for airline security; not the governments, the airports nor the airlines. All of these know the opportunity is there, but they won't pay for it. My question is; 'Don't you think they should? and if so, who should pay for it?' Maybe this requires a different poll?

Devils Advocate
20th Dec 2002, 20:57
Indeed Horatio !

We now have the farce that the flight deck door is ( apparently ) locked - but only until the crew are brought their meals, and / or regular drinks, and / or they want to use the loo, i.e it's actually unlocked & opened loads of times during most flights.

To say nothing of the fact that whilst the flight deck door might indeed be armoured to the extent that it can withstand a ballistic assault, i.e. that it can resist bullets being blindly shot through it, the areas outside of the frame which hold the said same door are not armoured at all !!

....... so, wanna pop one in the skipper on a B7737 ? It's easy, just go in the forward bog, take yer gun, aim it forwards ( i.e. through the mirror ) and blaze away - and similarly so through the RHS forward galley area to pop some in the FO.

But perhaps the best bit is that, because the flightdeck door is now so robust and ( once locked ) can only be opened from within the cockpit, should any of the above happen there is supposedly no way that anybody could then gain access from the cabin into the cockpit to rescue the controls.

Thus, as the pilots lie dead or dying, what now the Sky Marshall(s) - yer terrorist martyr has done his / her work.

So, oh what a shame that more wasn't done to stop Johnny terrorist from getting onboard in the first place, as this 'last line of defence' just is not !

20th Dec 2002, 21:25
I would like to see people back on the jumpseat- but the problem lies in the passengers seeing people not in a uniform coming and going in and out of the flight deck (longhaul)- in todays hypersensitive world I just dont see it happening. But shorthaul it would be nice to lock the wannabes back in with us for the whole flight.

21st Dec 2002, 18:21
Totally pointless regulation considering that it ONLY applies to UK registered aircraft.


22nd Dec 2002, 10:02
You can ban who you like.
You can even unscrew the jumpseat and remove it altogether.
Your plane is still potentially full of loonies you know jack sh*t about.
Then there's the new way of killing us all, the MISSILE.
Not a nightmare anymore, it's REAL.
The authorities are well behind the plot. The murderous fanatics are ahead and plotting.
Re-inforce your butts, that's where it's gonna get you!!!!

22nd Dec 2002, 12:07
Have had to take the position and point of view that if my other half cannot travel on my flight deck, then no one else other than operating crew can travel on it. Sad really.:(

22nd Dec 2002, 16:21
Most of the comments here show how 'off - line' this new rule really is!
As someone else has probably said, to be in command an aircraft for one sector, then to be considered a potential security hazard if you want to fly the next sector as a j/s passenger is clearly beyond ludicrous!
The main problem is we now seem to have a generation of rule makers who are unable to think an idea through properly and seem to be limited to schoolboy logic when it comes to having to produce solutions.

22nd Dec 2002, 18:12
Although said tongue in cheek, I can see the logic in limting access to the flight deck to those who have a NEED to be there - and that would preclude all except operating crew.

So the company has to surrender revenue seats....

Anne :)

22nd Dec 2002, 18:30
Before I go any further, I would like to make it plain that I agree entirely with Danny's proposition. I feel that things have gone too far and for no recognisable purpose.

I am however quite fascinated by the brave souls on this thread who intend to invite legitimate members of the the CAA and the DETR to indulge in sex and travel when next they attempt to occupy "their" jumpseats.

I suspect that this is just a load of old bluster given out on an anonymous website by some promising hysterics who really don't think they are ever likely to have to stick their heads above the parapet. If I am wrong then I will happily apologise when they regale us with the tale of how brave they were and when and in what circumstances they actually put the "enemy" to flight.

Now don't get me wrong for I am no great lover of the "Feds" but they also have a job to do and have probably got more "law" on their side than we do and they know it better!

Just be careful out there; if you get too carried away with your own self-importance just consider how much support you are likely to get from your employer. Once you start screwing around with regulatory agencies you could very quickly find yourself on a rather good "infrequent flyer programme"!

22nd Dec 2002, 18:43
Totally rediculous ruling if you ask me.

After 11th Sept only company staff with ID (and preferably in Uniform) were allowed to travel in the J/S, which, as an engineer suits me fine.

Over the last 6 months I have lost count of the times I've been up front on my commutes from London to Scotland. Not only have I found it interesting to see what you guys do for a living, it also helps me a great deal with my own Engineering Licence studies, seeing how and why things work the way they do.

Now, it looks like me and numerous crew that I have met during these travels will have even greater troubles trying to get one of the "golddust" like seats on shuttle flights home on a weekend to see family and loved ones.

To any of the crew that have been kind enough to have me on the f/d thanks.
:mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad:

22nd Dec 2002, 21:18
:rolleyes: :eek: :)

The poll is great but what are we all going to do about it?

Why are we all wimps (me included) - this whole thing is madness.

We live in a world of supposed accountability - who are the people who make these rules ? What are their names? Why dont they have a comitee of people including Flight Crew and ATCO's etc etc to decide the right thing to do?

Is the USA (who as a country I in the main I love) dictating everything? and as someone earlier said the USA has never allowed cockpit visits and it was they who (sadly) were Hi-jacked!!

All we have to do is say (like the French do on a regular basis)
NO NO NO NO - we wont fly if this rule is enforced. A 1 day no fly threat will clear all of the Wimps who made this rule out. How is a 12 year old with his/her grandfather a threat? Or an elderly lady who has the thrill of a 10 miniute vist to the flight deck on a flight to Orlando a threat. I would rarther take my chances with one of the above than a CAA inspector any day !!!!

Cant these people get a life - or is their life so dull that they have to put this stress onto others in order to have their moment of excitement and power?

Why dont we tell them to get lost - flight safty issues yes but mentally sub-normal people who have no idea of what they are talking about in making these rules - NO.?

So thats me finished then - but it was worth the post !!!!!!!!!

:eek: :cool: :D

22nd Dec 2002, 22:34

I support one of the previous replies as to these polls are OK but what are WE doing about it?.

I do the job I do because I love aviation , I love flying and I and love being front line cabin crew.

As cabin crew mayby I should have no great view on this subject....but I do....if you as flight crew can not be able to take your wife,mother,child,boyfriend,girlfriend,lover...oh can I say that!!??... then why should you be able to take anyone with an I.D. for your own airline that you do not know?.

If I were flight crew I would be totally p***ed off that I as a pilot was not allowed to trust my own.


23rd Dec 2002, 06:39
Do these idiots really think that the cockpit is the only way to do damage to aircraft and bring them down. Look at Nairobi rescently. People on the ground trying to shoot aircraft down from the ground. I hate to let the powers that be know, but when an idiot is prepared to die for a stupid cause, you can stand on your head and you wont stop him. Next some like minded air brane will propose that the aircraft be flown by remote control, and passengers be bussed to destination, as that way there will be no intervention by humans at all.

The time for paranoia is over. We can not let a few fools in the world dictate policy to the masses who are law abiding, reasonable people.

A and C
23rd Dec 2002, 12:03
Well guys with the pole on this subject running at about 92% of us who think that this is a stupid rule what are we going to do ?..............................nothing i suspect , but if all of us who think that this new regulation is stupid was to write to the people who have imposed this on us and to the MP who reprisents you then something might just change , no
matter how strongly you put your case on these pages it will have little influence on the regulators.

Now perhaps some one who knows a lot more about this internet thing than me can get us some links to the people in power.

23rd Dec 2002, 16:38
I voted yes! (d0h!:rolleyes: )

''What all these rules ignore is that there was already a locked flight-deck door policy in effect in the USA before September 11th.

They are, without consultation or logic, insisting upon a rule that didn't prevent the tragedy''



23rd Dec 2002, 16:52
To aircrew, I apoligse. Ive just started to train for my PPL, in fact Ive got just about 12 hours and recently started in the circuit. Do you all remember that stage of your life?

If it wasnt for the wonderful guys mainly in Ryanair, I would have never have started this flying thing. After get JS, Ive been hooked and I love it. Im kicking myself that I didnt do it years ago. It nice to know a 172 inside out, but putting your knowledge into play on board a 737 is quite different.... Ah so this is how the flaps operate here!

I believe in the power of PPRUNE, its time to start a lobby and get the authorities to listen to the flight crew, the people who do a hard, serious job everyday with very little thanks.

23rd Dec 2002, 18:57
Dear Danny,

Merry Christmas first and formost!

I am a firm believer in the forum because it is read by such a wide cross section of the aviation community. To that end I would ask any airline management, BALPA and CAA representitives what they think of the advantages/disadvantages of such unilateral rulings are. One can always introduce 'catchall' legislation without looking at all the negative effects such decisions can have on aviation as a whole. Did the CAA enter into any dialog with operators or look at the ramifications of such rulings?

It would, I believe, be of great benifit to this forum to have the opinions of such bodies to be displayed in this forum and perhaps you Danny might make an approach to them to do so, for the benifit of all.

Fly safe and and have a good new year!


23rd Dec 2002, 22:12
Maybe a few emails to [email protected] might get some interesting responses…..

Other contact details at:

23rd Dec 2002, 22:36
as a ppl student i would love to be able to ride jumpseat... since 9/11 i have been in the pointy end twice but it was when parked at the gate with engines shut down.... but thanx to those pilots who broke the rules and said YES

i hope something more comes of this post......... but i feel deep inside it will take a long time if it ever happens.

i was on a myt flight from arrecife to leeds last week and i must admit the door was open more than shut

thanx again to all you pilots who agree js rides should still be allowed and i dare say most of you would say yes to us wannabes if you jobs did not depend on it

23rd Dec 2002, 22:48
The current security arrangements in the UK are designed to make the public feel safer and let the politicians show they are trying to do something about the situation.

Banning family and staff from the jump seat is daft in the extreme! This is an overreaction to a serious problem, the truth is full security will cost more money than any airline or Government is willing to pay. Anyway, no matter how much money you spend a determined terrorist will find a way to beat the system.

Passing through the Gatwick crew security area the other day I was asked to show the security guys the soles of my shoes! I am at the controls of the aircraft for gods sake I don’t need a bomb or sharp object. I have a fire axe with which to do in my F/O, and with the new flight deck door who is going to stop me crashing my aircraft into a tall building!

We need a coherent and well thought through security system. We need computer systems that can access details on passengers via passports at the time they book their tickets through to check in. This should be crosschecked against a database that contains criminal records, watch lists, etc. This of course would present problems with foreign nationals and would need to be coordinated with other countries security systems. Very expensive but are we serious about security or not.

The free world makes life easy for the terrorist, we need to change the way we address security issues urgently. Banning staff and family from the jump seat is a public relations exercise no more, someone needs to get a grip and deal with the real issues and stop prating around.

24th Dec 2002, 03:42
Fortunately for me, I work in an airline where captains are paid to make decisions. We also adhere to the policy of
"rules are for the guidance of wisemen and the observance of fools".
Is anybody reading this forum left in any doubt as to what happens on our aircraft if a crew member / family member needs or requests a jumpseat ?

Can you really take seriously the decrees from 'those in high places' whose best answer to the 'terrorist threat' is to ban steel knives on some flights but allow them on others ? (don't worry though, if you really want a steel knife, they are kept in a drawer in the rear galley).
Or decree that a door designed to break with a swift kick must now be locked to keep the baddies out. Or instead of the cabin crew asking you what you want to drink, now have to telephone you to ask, then open the door anyway.

By the way, Al Quaeda don't seem to strike the same targets twice. Are cruise ships now banned from steel knives ? Are passengers screened when boarding trains or busses ?

Merry Christmas and Happy New Year everyone


24th Dec 2002, 14:12
Just in case you might think that aviation authorities are uniquely gifted with the ability of 'solving' problems in ways that don't solve them and cause a myriad of other problems along the way, here's an interesting piece on the consequences of removing lockers in many US schools (for 'safety' reasons, of course).

NYT story (http://www.nytimes.com/2002/12/24/education/24BACK.html)

(You may need to register to see the story, but it's free)

Celtic Emerald
25th Dec 2002, 12:30
I used to love jumpseating & I'm saddened at the turn of events which makes visiting the cockpit a virtual impossibility these days. Still the memories of those pilots on Sep 11 having their throats slit etc by those evil psychopaths fills me with such revulsion & to be honest with you still brings tears to my eyes to this day that I'm willing to accept the restrictions with good grace even though I miss being up in the cockpit.

All I really care is about the safety of the pilots etc & I can understand the kneejerk reaction of aviation authorities. There are very few people who would do to human beings what those terrorists did to those poor pilots, but it's very hard to tell the good from the bad & it's easier for the authorities to cover themselves by introducing a blanket ban, I for one don't blame them no matter how unfair it seems.


Boss Raptor
25th Dec 2002, 19:56
Well wont be the first time or the last that DOT Aviation Security Branch doesn't take into account either practicality or the opinions of the operators in their latest regulation/implementation...

Would be nice if these regulations were made without the obvious political interference and motivation that is so blatently clear particularly after 9/11!

ICAO requires that state aviation regulatory authorities are free of political connection/control or interference and therefore DOT interference in aviation security as principal seems a bit close to the mark...seems that DOT are able to steam roller past the CAA as usual...and/or the CAA just agrees without question...

No doubt as usual they will claim that 'the industry was consulted'...be nice to know whom and at what company and how representative of the industry they are...

26th Dec 2002, 13:43
Surely the most practical way to prevent another sept. 11th is to prevent these maniacs getting on board the aircraft in the first place?

I think it is rediculous not allowing 'wannabes' into the flight deck. I remember back in 1992 when i was invited up front coming home from Orlando when i was 7 years old, and ever since my ambition has to become a pilot and i am determined to be one.

I ask on every occasion to visit the flightdeck, as a result of this i got to sit in the flight deck 2 times on landing into Reus with Airtours/Mytravel in 1998 and then in Aug 2001 (thanks to the guys at Skyservice) and on holiday to Mallorca, June last year i got to sit in the jumpseat of an Iberworld A310.

Experiences like this make me more determined to fulfill my ambition/dreams of becoming a pilot.

If they are going to stop F/Deck visits, at least allow young flyers a chance to view up front and maybe it may inspire them, like it did with me over 10 years ago.

26th Dec 2002, 14:33
I should just like to say that as a Licenced Engineer I have flown many times on the jump seat and found the experience extremely useful (and enjoyable) in helping my everyday dealings on the line with flight crew. ( I no longer ask why you didn't spot EGT fluctuations on the left engine whilst on a busy approach!)
It makes the world of difference to see 'the other side of the coin' and I hope has made me a better engineer .Rulings such as this one will not help the industry at all.

Thanks to all the guys up front for taking the time and trouble to explain things from a pilots veiwpoint, and best of luck in getting this rule changed.

27th Dec 2002, 10:39
I agree with and am a part of the 92%.

I have been trying to find this new rule on the CAA homepage without success.

Does anyone know where to find it? I am not a UK pilot so I may not have the information most of you have.

Anyway, I hope this rule will be changed soon!

Ali Ronn
27th Dec 2002, 17:52
What foresight the DETR have shown by banning friends and family from the flight deck...

A few months ago my 79 year old Jewish retired barrister father accompanied me on the flight deck of a 737 to Spain. I have subsequently discovered that he is in fact an under cover Islamic Al Queda terrorist and he had about his person the latest in the terrorist arsenel - yes - semtex impregnated denture cement.

The only thing that stood between us and the hereafter was the fact the crew didnt serve him anything hard enough in his meal to trigger an explosion.

Thanks to the bods at the DETR we are no longer in such mortal danger... I think we should give them three cheers.

Hip Hip - duh!

27th Dec 2002, 18:30
What gets me about these security measures is the anomoly that sharp objects are banned from the pax cabin, but possibly a hundred or so glass bottles (duty free's) can be taken in the cabin. I would have thought a broken bottle is more of a threat than a knitting needle.

I may be being cynical, but do you think they won't ban glass bottles because it might affect the airline/airport cash cow

28th Dec 2002, 11:00
......plus wooden skewers of meat served in club,mirrors in the loo's,the list just goes on.

:mad: :mad:


Junior Jet Club
28th Dec 2002, 23:11
2 points really:

1. About the start of the year, I put in my pencil case in my nav bag a single sided razor blade, just to see how long it would take the so called 'heightened security' to find it. Having been through various intl airports around the world, it is still there virtually a year later....

2. Fortunately I work for an outfit that still allows flt deck visits. The biggest benefit being the release of the boredom factor, whether the visitor comes up front and says 'Wow, look at the view!' or something more intelligent, it's nice to speak to another individual other than your mates on the flt deck.

Max Continuous
28th Dec 2002, 23:52
Ahhhh, the power of PPrune!!
As if by magic, two enormous posters have suddenly appeared in our operations office detailing the powers of the CAA/DoT to board our aircraft and travel on the jumpseat at any time. Most helpfully they provide large pictures of the format of the inspectors' passes and if we require further verification they will produce an "authorisation book".
Are we still going to refuse them access?

29th Dec 2002, 04:01
Now there's a perfect way to hijack an a/c. Forge a local CAA pass and authorisation book, wait for one crew to visit the loo. Close the secure door and take out the remaining crew member.

Does this poster tell you where to phone to verify the "inspector's" bona fides?

29th Dec 2002, 11:19

Sorry to disappoint but the posters were issued over a month ago when the DfT issued new ID cards to their inspectors. The two in the crew room were placed there to let people know what the new passes look like.

They are DfT inspectors who have no right of access to the flight deck anyway except on the ground.

The CAA pilots are the only people who have right of access to the flight deck and their passes are unchanged. The CAA will not even allow their own non-pilot inspectors in the flight deck.


You obviously don't work for a British airline because flight deck access is not an airline option - it is a statutory requirement for ALL British AOC holders.

Anne :)

29th Dec 2002, 11:24
Surely three or four reliable people in the flight deck is more secure than just two, when a terrorist tries to get into the flight deck.

Crew members known to the captain, especially those in the same company, should be allowed to request the jump seat.

I suggest that flight crew should be able to submit their wife/husband to their employer for the same security check applied to all airline flight crew employees. If the wives/husbands have a suitable and verifiable record they would get the clearance.

The captain, on the day, then decides whether to allow cockpit access - having taken into account all the circumsatances pertaining to his particular flight.

Simple and Secure.

Agaricus bisporus
29th Dec 2002, 15:56
Could someone from the DTI or whatever the've rebranded themselves this week explain why/how I am allowed on my flight deck?

No one knows who I am. My pass calls me "Captain" and names me. It even has my photo on it (which some say looks nothing like me). Did anyone check my Al-Quaida connections before I joined my present employer? Has anyone done so since I joined them, or since 11-9? The hell they have.
Have I ever been profiled? If yes, how did they accept the year I spent in and around a HIGHLY dodgy fanatical moslem "state" cos no one's ever bothered to ask me about it.

I think this whole "security" thing is an empty sham designed to pander to the witless hysteria of the public, show willing (kow-tow and grovel) to the media, to ensure imcreased empires in their parasitic bureaucracies that invent this garbage and for all I know actually assist the Terrs, cos nothing they've done to date has had a significant effect on hindering them.
Armoured doors when no-one has ever tried to shoot or kick one down, ban visits when no invited vsiitor has ever created a hi-jack, ditto friends, relatives and small kids. Fail to tell us for months never to leave the flight deck for any reason whatever - particularly if your cc are being slaughtered (I'm not sure I've actually been specifically told that even to date, which seems incredible) and than put combination locks on the new armoured doors that the cc have access to!!!! The mind boggles. Fine, put a bloody Chatsworth 40inch safe door in the way if you're worried, but to then give the clerk on the other side the key!!!!!!! That is utter insanity. Or utter hypocrisy. Or simply madness. Why not just leave the door open, it would make no difference (except to the pensions of the civil-parsites in the Ministry, and the wealth of the industries that bebefit from the umpteen billions of business these fatuous modifications cost)

Whose side are these bloody government paper-shufflers on? Not ours, or the side of increased safety, thats for sure.

Flannel, obfuscation, hot air and bullsh!t. Shame on them.

29th Dec 2002, 18:47
Agaricus Bisporus,

Possibly one of the best postings yet on this gvt sham.

Further on the point how do you know when I bring your cuppa in
that I don't intend to harm you (and I'm not saying I make a bad cuppa)as you don't know where my sympathies lie !!?>

The whole thing is ,as you say just for the public and to make them happy and before people jump down my throat yes I do want them to be happy and fly with us.

But how many more would be even happier if their child could visit the flight deck(escorted) and make their flight really special as it used to be?.

The whole thing is just jobs for the boys at the DoT.

Ah that's better :D :D .


30th Dec 2002, 12:14
I can understand some of the thought processes, especially when it is rumoured that some of the hijackers were in the FD from the beginning of the flights as "Wannabees" however what I cannot understand is why I am not allowed to travel on the FD on my company's aircraft when I am not on duty - even if I put my uniform on.

I would also like to be reassured that there are proper security checks on all airport employees that have access to the FD. The powers that be "bat" that one into the long grass.

1st Jan 2003, 11:25
We still carry ATC on famil flights as a CAA dispensation so why dont others?

2nd Jan 2003, 00:40
I know i was on BA course in june and got 2 fam flights during that (thanks very much to the pilots if you are reading this). And having saw this read before i left the college i asked the guy that organise the course if they are still going and he said yes so it is possible.
I did have a letter that i carried that had among other things the flight crew order (?) number that allowed me to sit in the jump seat, iirc is said that for atc to have a fam flight it must be on an approved course, for BA.

2nd Jan 2003, 04:54
Put someone in the jumpseat every sector and make the front row is available only to staff/commuters - people can do stuff whilst a door is merely an inanimate door.

Whatever will the "rems" (rear echelon motherf11s) come up with next?

Confused but determined

A and C
2nd Jan 2003, 09:39
I,m going to have to say that if the CAA/DOT show up on my aircraft they will be politely asked to leave untill I can check with the authoritys that they are who they say they are , as I will point out to them if I cant trust my wife why should I trust a compleat stranger ?

I,m sure that they will understand that I am just ensuring the security of my aircraft.

It would be unfortunate if comformation of there identity did not reach me before we shut the doors and push back , but I just guess thats the price of security.

Celtic Emerald
2nd Jan 2003, 15:30
What's stange about this was that before 9/11 when there were threads about jumpseating the amount of pilots who used to post who seemed to regard jumpseaters as a detested breed, 'plonkers' was one of the more complimentary terms I remembered used. This animosity was so evident that my concern became such about ever requesting a jumpseat again that I posted it on PPRuNe (not that it stopped me) :) & mind you unlike some here I found the pilots thoroughly pleasant, could I venture to say even possibly enjoying my company for which incidentally this 'plonker' here always graciously rewarded them (don't take something for nothin, that's not me)!

Now jumpseating is all but banned, seems we're flavour of the month, now all the fun's gone out of the job, your bored to your teeth & pining to have all your relations right back to your granny & grandad up there, ya's were even threatening to take extra days off Xmas due to separation anxiety.

Some people can never be pleased eh :rolleyes:


Max Angle
2nd Jan 2003, 16:59

Don't be too flattered, it is the ban on using the jumpseats ourselves when off duty, the ban on wife and kids etc., and being unable to help out collegues that is getting up our noses, not the ban on flightdeck visits.

It's a shame that interested people from the cabin can't come up anymore but I see that as a different issue from banning off-duty pilots and family members from travelling on the jumpseat. One is a sensible precaution given the situation, the other is just crass and smacks of small minded thinking.

2nd Jan 2003, 17:06
CE, beware your generalisations and confusion about the issues. Whilst there were and always will be a few pilots who don't like flight deck visitors what we are talking about here is jump seat passengers. Your comments, while likely to disturb a few people on here, are fairly obviously designed to stir up the passions of a minority who just love to have a go at non-pilots who tend to be a bit too opinionated without the experience or knowledge to back up their viewpoint.

When flight deck visits were allowed, there would sometimes be the occasional one who for one reason or another managed to go against the grain. Overall I think you would find that the majority of pilots who accepted flight deck visitors were happy to do so and often mentioned that fact here on PPRuNe.

Taking a relative or friend along for the day used to be a perk that provided useful insight to those who had very little idea what our jobs were all about. They virtually 'shadowed' you for the day and their flight as a jump seat passenger, ie. for the whole flight, was just a paart of their experience. I doubt any pilot would be as ignorant as you suggest to invite someone to shadow them for the whole day if theyr didn't really want them along in the first place.

The debate in this thread is about jump seat passengers and NOT flight deck visitors so please try and stay on topic. The long term effects of this blanket ban is likely, in my view, to have long term consequences on several aspects of our jobs. As is being proposed in several quarters, the jump seats might as well be removed and a chemical toilet with a curtain could be provided. All that is needed after that is a heavy duty padlock on the flight deck door and a panel at the bottom where our food could be slid through every few hours. I remember the scene in the film Papillon where Steve McQueen is in solitary confinement and the only physical contact with the outside world is the daily opening of the slot and a tray with some food being puched through.

The powers that be who have imposed this new rule are so far removed from the realities of what our jobs are about and the real dangers about flight security (as opposed to flight safety) that they need to be educated and we need to make sure that they take note of our concerns. I think that we were all ready to accept that flight deck visits were going to be a casualty once the government ministers lackeys thought about security but the ban on jump seat passengers, especially those we used to invite for familiarisation flights is just pig headed, arse covering, folly thought up by faceless bureaucrats whose only mission in life is to pander to their political, sound bite seeking masters.

Celtic Emerald
2nd Jan 2003, 19:15
Sorry Danny I didn't mean to upset or offend you and believe you I miss being allowed up there as much as anybody.

I'd actually be too terrified to ask now incase somebody fingered me as an Al Quaida terrorist or I drew suspicion to myself. We're all the poorer for the actions of a minority and I'm glad to realise the pleasure was not just on the side of the jumpseaters but the pilots also might have been enriched, stimulated and enjoyed meeting us as much as we enjoyed their company. :)

It may be hard to return to the old days without compromising security though hopefully a medium can be found that will make everyone happy.

Stay safe up there


Stall Inducer
3rd Jan 2003, 13:16
I can only hope that this idiotic rule will one day soon be re thought. I used to love having family and interested friends along on the jumpseat to show them what life is really like up front. Now I can't even take my own mother along with me incase, in the unlikely event she makes it through security with her nail clippers that she should hijack the aircraft by clipping the captain and myself to death! Absolutly absurd, perhaps we should all wrap ourselves up in cotton wool and stay at home!

3rd Jan 2003, 15:22
Would it not be possible to re-write this rule to exclude people with MOD Security Clearance?

Why not allow people to apply in advance for clearance. The DfT could allow for as much time as they require for the clearance and checking it.

I guess that would be to much paper work to handle :D

After all if the Government can not handle vetting the teachers :(

Would it not be possible to re-write this rule to exclude people with MOD Security Clearance?

Why not allow people to apply in advance for clearance. The DfT could allow for as much time as they require for the clearance and checking it.

I guess that would be to much paper work to handle :D

3rd Jan 2003, 16:15
JohnTrav69 and TheFox

This goes back to the DfT mandate which limits access to the flight deck (and the use of the Jump seat) to those who need to be there - not those "just nice to have along for the ride".

In Part B of those allowed access, it includes specific people such as ATC personnel who NEED to be there as part of their training. The same applies to those on type conversions where a famil flight is part of that conversion.

As to the revocation of this ruling - can you honestly see a Minister of this Government (or any other for that matter!) putting his hand to a paper which removes security restrictions in the present climate? You will see a formation of Danny's logos go past before that happens!

Happy New Year to all

Anne :)

Capt Pit Bull
5th Jan 2003, 12:12

The problem is, with famil flights, that nobody holding the purse strings will ever accept that there is a need for them.

Because, for them to do so would require it to become part of a training course syllabus, which means all students would need to do them on their employers time. No beenie would ever volunteer to accept that due to the cost (in student days, rather than tickets).

Any Pilot or ATCO that has ever done any cross discipline famil (which is most of us) knows how useful (and safety promoting) they are. Because we recognise this, most people do it on their own time, because the beenies will rarely allow it to be rostered.

I used to act as a point of contact between my company (before it was consumed) and blipdrivers LATCC visit. We had to go on our days off, and everyone found them most useful. But they don't form part of any official course as such, there being no licensing requirement for Pilot to ATC famil visits, so there is no official need.

So now we have a situation where something that we used to do off our own backs, as a function of professional responsibility, is now inhibited.

So, if we can't get rid of this dumb rule, what we need is to lobby the CAA to mandate ATCO famil flights as part of their recurrent training. E.G. something like 4 sectors on initial training and say a minimum of 2 every so often (say anually or bi-anual).


PS. The same applies for conversion courses. Find me the part of the sylabus that MANDATES a famil flight.

Boss Raptor
5th Jan 2003, 12:52
The 'need to be there' requirement is ambiguous before you even start...

As representitive of the aircraft financier and/or lessor i.e. the owner, I contractually have every right to full access to the asset and if required fly on the flight deck of the asset...in fact it is usually dictated in the finance/lease contract in the 'ongoing supervision' clauses as part of the finance lease/lease quality assurance on behalf of the owner/lessor...which is done in co-operation with the operator of course...

Bet DETR didnt think of that one...nor consult anyone in the industry who did!

My point being it appears DETR have not considered all the consequencies of their dictate and the miriad of situations it affects...!!

Dragon Knight
5th Jan 2003, 16:44
The ultimate responsibility for the security of the flight rests with the Captain (Aircraft Commander), so let's leave it at that.
I still do my best to practice common sence, also concerning jumpseats, so come and get me !

5th Jan 2003, 20:33
Captain Pit Bull

The airline I fly for includes famil flights for all pliot conversions. It is a day taken out for that specific purpose after fixed base training and before line training. It is an integral part of the course. The pilot forms part of the operating crew as an observer/

Boss Raptor

Whilst I am at a loss to understand why the financier NEEDS to ride the jump seat of any G reg aircraft you case is adequately covered by Part B. This allows the Flight Ops Director of the airline operating your aircraft to grant permission for you to access the flight deck as long as he notifies the Commander in advance in writing giving the time and phase(s) of flight.

Anne :)

Having just read your Profile I respectfully suggest you read the DfT Direction which you, assuming it is a British airline of which you are a director, must have access to!:(

Boss Raptor
5th Jan 2003, 21:25
Wrong assumption - Director of non UK airline - carrying out asset management of aircraft some of which are with UK airlines - I dont care why the authorities 'think I need' to be on flight deck - full access for lease quality assurance is required by industry/international standard lease contracts and until this changes I and the companies I represent will require it!

The reason why financiers/lessors require full access is to ensure that their asset is being operated/maintained/used correctly and not being misued/or placed at undue risk...pretty obviously really!!

5th Jan 2003, 23:46
Why don't we all just go to the CAA office in Gatwick talk to ever thought of this stupid rule (or copied it from the Americans) see if he/she can see sense and if not then-

Lock him in his office with someone he does'nt know or worse someone he does'nt get on with for 8 plus hours as in ultra long haul only to talk to someone else through the intercom - to have to track down cabin crew via call bells for food and best yet to please ask a crew member to come to the flt deck because you have to go to the loo( God hopes its only for a pi$$ and not a $hit).
Then we can see what an idiotic rule he/she has come up with.:mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad:

7th Jan 2003, 21:40
Totally agree the rule is barmy. There is no such thing as absolute security and if the cockpit door is all that separates pilots from a desperado then maybe its too late. Can't quite carry as much fuel but even a PA28 would still make a mess if pointed in the right place; surely a CAA licence counts for some standard of ethics (maybe the CAA should check all licencees?). Before 9/11 I spent many hours in j/s and know that it improved the quality and safety of my GA flying. Many belated thanks to all those pilots who have let me sit in. Lets hope it changes....

A and C
7th Jan 2003, 22:11
Can some one pelase tell be if in BA any one with a valid BA ID pass can with the captains pemision ride on the jump seat ?.

I have been told this is the case but cant see how it fits in with the new ( and stupid ) CAA/DOT edict.

8th Jan 2003, 11:47
as far as i'm aware, the captain CAN allow use of the jumpseat by an identified member of staff, but, he/she must enter the flight deck before takeoff, and cannot go in and out i.e. ideally leave the flight deck after landing.
it unnerves the pax to see people in normal clothing walking toward the flight deck door all the time...........

Max Angle
8th Jan 2003, 12:09

I think you will find that the BA, like us, are now implementing the new, and much derided, rules from the DTR that ban anybody not operationally involved with the flight from sitting on the jumpseats. If they are doing otherwise then I suspect it won't be for long because some big nose at the Ministry will get to here about it.

8th Jan 2003, 20:58
So, lets see Mr DTLR, you wish to fly to where? ALC? Well I'm sorry the flight is full.......
So you wish to use the Jump Seat? We're going to have to ask the Captain, I'm afraid.
A little while later....... I'm sorry is it for pleasure this flight or business? Pleasure..... ?! I'm sorry Capt A can't allow that under the current DTLR restrictions...... Whats that, you're security cleared? Well as Capt A is in overall command, then he's unable to allow you on the Flight Deck!

So, you work for the airline, your C/crew or F/crew, you know all the operating crew, everyone else in your party has got on but your on Sby! You can use the Jump seat! No you can't.....some DTLR inspector has taken that privledge away.....

I work for a Charter airline, someone I know is a Tower Controller here at Gods own airport. He also works for an aviation magazine. Can I arrange him a J/seat ride, NO! Can I get my Father (retired Ops Controller) a Fam flight with my company - No! Even though he's an ex policeman, RAF (VRT) officer (therefore signed the Offical Secrets Act) and an avid aviation fan.........No!
Even our own Flight Ops Director can't sanction it!

As I haven't read all the replys to this thread - I apologise if I'm repeating this, but there is talk that Westminster are looking to change the wording of the ANO to state that it will effectively be illegal for anyone not directly involved in a civil air transport flight to be in the Flight Deck .
So (as others have pointed out) - No wannabe Fam Flights, No Company Fam Flights...etc etc.
It's getting to the point where we will have to start lobbying M.P's and Mininsters of State - Danny - Backto you!

Faire d'income
8th Jan 2003, 22:18
As far as I know the UK are the only European country to introduce such FAA style nonsense this side of the ocean. I am delighted to see the sort of reaction that this has generated among UK based pilots and hope that you manage to reverse this before we all get carried away in the crazed momentum of this fight against terrorism.

What next? Pilots must carry minimum fuel to reduce the potential damage of a hi-jacking? Single crew operations are mandatory to reduce the lightlihood of a traitor in the cockpit, the right seat will be occupied by a state security officer ( air marshall ) who shall be the commander!

Any decision taken away from us is never in, my experience, returned. Don't let them take this away from you! :mad:

9th Jan 2003, 08:39
Any chance of emailing this thread to the minister responsible?

9th Jan 2003, 10:00
Try this one:;)


Try this for Mr Darling


Flying Spaniard
9th Jan 2003, 13:15
Hello guys and girls,
I recently flew a few times with Iberia to ALC from AMS via BCN and had no trouble in getting the jump-seat on all 6 ocasions.
I asked the Captain whether there are any rules regarding this according to some of them it was PIC who decided and the others said they where not aware of any rules,
can anyone clarify this? is this true?
There doesn't seem to be many IB aircrew here.

come on then
9th Jan 2003, 17:12
Arrived into stanstead on the jump seat of a German carrier yesterday. The company rule is that the captain may allow anyone he wishes onto the flight deck.

The reasoning is that if you want to get onto the flight deck you will anyway. If you sit on the front row, just wait for the hostie to open the door and bash her over the head with a rolled up newspaper or even a fist..then you are in..if you are really lucky the airline would have fitted a new high security door so when you have finshed the flight deck crew off with the crash axe, no one else can come into the flight deck and bother you.

Now we all are aware the ruling is ridiculous, so are we going to be British and just moan about it and do nothing or take action? My proposals

1. Tell Balpa to make it a top priority with lobying, press releases, etc to stop this nonsense, if not lets all resign from balpa and start a new union.

2. If other european carriers can fly into the uk without these ridiculous restrictions we should isssue a writ against the government and against the ministers personally who are responsible.

This ruling has placed us in an unfair position. Safety is reduced and loosing jump seat rights costs me money. Lets put a value on this and make a claim. Lets get media attention and ,maybe the fools will back down!

I offer £1000 to set up a fighting fund. We are professionals and our voice should be heard. Why should a bunch of ignorant fools endanger our safety and inconvenience us.

Anyone else got the guts to contribute, it's our industry, or are we just going to sit back and have our position compromised?

Wake up...wake up...wake up

PS the German authorities only allowed operating crew in the fd for a few months after 9-11, whilst they reviewed the security. Now it is ok

Notso Fantastic
10th Jan 2003, 00:15
I think my solution will make people sit up and take notice. If all UK Politicians are quietly advised by BALPA and privately by individual pilots that until this absurd legislation is rescinded, then any civil aeroplane containing UK Politicians is unlikely to actually move , let alone fly , until that Politician removes himself from the machine, then we might get somewhere. To 'black' anything containing a Politician, particularly flights to Seychelles, Tuscany, New York etc will help focus their minds before the summer recess approaches. I think it is the only way to get their attention, and can work if we apply it as rigidly as possible. During a work to rule, I remember hearing how pilots were counting paper clips in little envelopes (on the library list of the aeroplane). When the point gets home, then attention will be given.
Until then, if even my wife is not allowed on the FD because she may be a terrorist, then nobody else is either, not CAA inspectors, flight management, anybody .

10th Jan 2003, 11:00

Well said... and extend this to any civil servant at the DOT, as they are the ones that thought up the jump seat rule in the first place... and of course, their families as well.

It would be an extremely satisfying way to make our point.

10th Jan 2003, 11:51
As I mentioned in a previous post I wrote to my MP who passed it onto the Minister at the DTR. I raised virtually all the points that have been voiced on this thread and the reply I received was, as expected, a complete waste of paper! What infuriated me more than anything was that the minister stated that these new rules came into effect after "a long consultation process with all Airlines and agencies involved" . Well that's very interesting because having shown the letter to my Ops Director he informs me that there was no consultation, rather - 'this is what we are going to intoduce whether you like it or not'! Apparently, at the last meeting held with the DTR, at which every UK airline was present, every Airline (bar 2, who expressed no particular opinion) asked for a compromise solution. I gather it was along the lines of only own staff with ID allowed on jump seat or by special authorisation (which covers the case for NATS Famil flights). DTR refused to budge and won't even discuss a compromise.
What is also interesting is that my company's CAA Ops inspector tells me that there is great unease within elements of the CAA that the CAA are being steamrollered by the Government and the DTR.

So where do we go from here? BALPA really must get going on this one as up to now they seem to have 'rolled over ' and accepted the DTR ruling. If we lose this one it will be gone for good.

Notso Fantastic
10th Jan 2003, 18:37
Cobbler- the problem is realistically we don't know who are civil servants on our aeroplanes. But we do know when we have politicians on board, and this is the way to bring it home to them to 'think again'. Not many aeroplanes are 'clean'. Sometimes it can take a long time to examine faults or deficiencies. If our politicians (I find myself completely unable to use capitals on that word) know that whenever they get on an aeroplane, it probably ain't gonna move far, I think they well well decide this whole question needs 're-examining' in the light of 'changed circumstances'! I honestly think there is no other way that has any better chance of achieving success than carrying out sanctions such as this- we can talk amongst ourselves until we are blue in the face and write letters as nauseam (which will be ignored or fobbed off). But hit them where it hurts.......

10th Jan 2003, 20:08

There is a precedent to your idea I believe...

Something to do with the (female) NZ PM on an Ansett aircraft, was "stuck" for some hours at an Aus airport when the ground crew discovered she was aboard. Not entirely unconnected with Air NZ (and the NZ Govt) having milked Ansett dry and then dumped it into bankruptcy....

I'm sure my facts are somewhat inaccurate - however, the priciple I believe has some basis...

Boss Raptor
11th Jan 2003, 12:31
Capt. SlackB...exactly my points voiced some time ago in the early stages of this thread...

1. ICAO requires regulatory authority to be free of political/govt. interference and control...DETR's steamrollering is questionable in this respect in my opinion...

2. As usual they claim 'industry consultation'...whom, where, what...as usual does anyone vaguely know of anybody in their respective companies who was consulted on this?

11th Jan 2003, 15:47
Boss R

In answer to your second question - Yes!

In spring 02, the CAA called a group of aircrew (Flt Crew and Cabin crew) from across the industry. This group put forward various viewpoints which were parochial in part but formed the basis of the CAA recommendations to the DfT. The BA pilot rep was the only person in that group who continued to fight for its continued use.

CAA is responsible only for air safety - not security. The DfT are now solely responsible for aviation security. The DfT took advice from the CAA regarding the SAFETY aspects.

Capt. Slackbladder is right that those in the CAA have concerns that safety may be compromised but, at the risk of becoming repetitive, if those accessing the flight deck are only those with a need to be there, then there is not a safety issue no matter how inconvenient it may be

Anne .:)

pontius's pa
11th Jan 2003, 16:38
Come on guys, this is easy,

Either befriend someone who lives in your beloved leader Blair"s constituency or move there yourself and let him know he will lose his seat over this and it will be gone before you have finished breakfast.

11th Jan 2003, 19:26
Anne Nonymous

Your point about "need" to be there is correct as long as those who need to be there have proper security clearance.
I need to be convinced that all CC are initially and continually security checked.
The whole security package falls down every time that the FD door is opened for either pilots to come out, or cabin staff to go in when there is a toilet at the front of the aircraft and a queue of passengers.
Like all rushed legislation this one is poorly thought out. The galley/ fwd toilet is not a manufacturers product but designed by a third party. The new door is clearly in the wrong place and should have been put the other side of the toilet.
In the meantime a 3rd pilot on the FD should be an urgent consideration for security reasons alone. It will of course be resisted by those whose only concern is cost and their means of saving it is our conditions of service.

Finally would you like to name those who attended the meeting with the CAA?

Max Continuous
11th Jan 2003, 23:38
So what's BALPA's position on all this? Are they still failing to represent their members interests?

A and C
12th Jan 2003, 09:10
That is a very good question I to would like to know what BALPA is doing on this issue ?.

12th Jan 2003, 09:31
i'm flying from singapore to london this friday on BA. My understanding is that if i went with Lufthansa i could get a jumpseat ride, but because it's a british carrier, eventhough i have a cpl/ir and a clean criminal record, with absolutely no entries on it, not even a speeding ticket, but no job, i still wouldn't be able to visit the flight deck in flight just to recindle some enthusiasm in aircraft. to be honest with you being without a proper job for a year is quite depressing and i reckon a jumpseat would do just the trick to get me fired up for the next round of cv sending. maybe i should talk to my housemate who is a senior member of staff for a lib-dem M.E.P. and make it a european issue. sorry about the above was just a rant at knee jerk politics which labour seems to be full of at the moment

12th Jan 2003, 12:52

You make some valid points.

Cabin crew are subjected to exactly the same back ground checks as pilots. At least five years background has to be checked for the issue of an airside pass - I would prefer not to discuss the checks in this open forum.

The forward toilet area in most aircraft is too close to the flight deck door and I know of one company where the forward toilet on long haul is now only for the use of crew. (Doesn't please the first class pax too much but eventually you won't miss what you haven't got !) We have a policy of only opening the flt. deck door when the curtain is drawn, fwd toilet unoccupied and additional cc in the forward galley. It works.

Short haul within Europe I don't find it too much of a burden with just one door opening per sector - if that. Now with Phase 2 doors and video the problems reduce to insignificant. All British carriers with more than 19 seats will enjoy this scene 6 months ahead of the rest of Europe.

To answer your final question - No. But then, I am sure you wouldn't expect me to!

Anne :)

Notso Fantastic
12th Jan 2003, 18:42
Cortilla- it's going to be nigh on impossible to get the ruling changed for family/airline staff/ATC on FDs. I'm afraid that having pax visit the FD inflight has been consigned to history for evermore without doubt. Our Mr. Mukonyi and assorted nasty moslem acquaintances (we know several of their faces from TV) have seen to that!
I find it extraordinary that following all those terrible events, I haven't seen anybody say in print 'what sort of religion can possibly in any shape or form justify to anybody such behaviour?'. Sad sad sad. If ever it has been brought up, you get some rant about 'Crusades' coming at you. And now we take in moslem refugees and give them shelter and find them cooking (literally) up a mass killing plot of their gracious hosts. What a peculiar lifestyle and thought process!

12th Jan 2003, 21:34
The poll says...family fam flights.
So, what EXACTLY does the family ie: wife and kids have to do with fam flights?
ATC guys, yes (AVMAN included, have not forgotten)..but kids...WHAT would the possible accepted reason be?
Other than (of course)...that's what daddy does...?
Gimmie a break...!:rolleyes:

12th Jan 2003, 22:46
411A, before this stupid rule was enforced on us, over here in the UK we could, with the companies and the commanders permission take a family member or friend with us on the jump seat. As far as I am aware, over all the years that we were able to do this there was not one instance of the jump seater causing ANY problem and certainly no security issue, no matter what the relationship was between the jump seater and the pilot who had invited them along for the 'experience'.

I am not trying to compare the rules as they were in the US before or after 9/11 with regard to jump seaters. I know that over there you haven't allowed jump seaters for decades but that is not the issue. And before those posters who cannot resist having a go at the US contingent repeat the often heard jibe that the locked door policy didn't prevent the 9/11 tragedy, remember that that was achieved only because the hijack compliance advice at the time was not appropriate in that case. Since then attitudes have changed and I won't go into those details on here but as far as I am concerned the new rules banning anyone from using the jump seat here in the UK is nothing but a knee jerk reaction and a cosmetic cover for the ineptitude of the agencies that are responsible for dealing with the issue, especially the US agencies including the FBI and the CIA.

In my experience, those people who were lucky enough in the UK to enjoy a jump seat ride before the stupid rule was brought in were extremely appreciative and in most cases they told me that it was one of the highlights of their lifes experiences, especially so when the jump seater was someone who was just embarking on the tortuous career path of becoming an airline pilot. Others included professionals from other backgrounds. In every single case, those jump seaters were astounded to discover exactly what it was we do every day.

There are still a few pilots around who would prefer that our jobs be classified as a 'black art' and that we are somehow privileged to members of some sort of exclusive club. Those pilots and the anonymous bureaucrats who thought up this new rule are probably savouring the fact that they can now continue with the closing of the gap that had been open and our profession returns to the dark and their satisfaction that if they can't enjoy making use of the privilege then no one else should be able to either.

Unfortunately because of this new rule, many people will never get to know what it is we do or why we do it. They will just continue in the misguided belief that we push a button and wait for the landing at the other end, a myth perpetuated by many journalists who haven't had the pleasure of a jump seat ride. At no time was there a security problem with having someone you knew, especially a family member on the jump seat and to suggest that banning them now will make any difference is as futile as the 'closing of the stable door after the horse has bolted' cosmetic security procedures introduced since 9/11.

411A, just because you may selfish enough to not want your kids to "know what daddy does", that doesn't give you the right to demean everyone else with your self centered and smug tone. Many of us would like to be able to continue providing the experience to others who would be appreciative. To invoke the security issue is nothing but 'reactive' panic instead of 'proactive' thought which just about typifies much of the 'patching up' that has been going on recently.

12th Jan 2003, 23:14
HEAR, HEAR.:rolleyes: :) :rolleyes: :)

12th Jan 2003, 23:59
The really sad thing about this is that the first time a prospective pilot will sit in the Flightdeck of an airliner is when he has got his license.

It makes you wonder where the Industry is going.

Max Angle
13th Jan 2003, 00:09
Cabin crew are subjected to exactly the same back ground checks as pilots. At least five years background has to be checked for the issue of an airside passThe background check for the issue of an airside pass, even for aircrew post 9/11 is very rudimentry and could in no way be called a security clearance in the true sense of the word.
We have a policy of only opening the flt. deck door when the curtain is drawn, fwd toilet unoccupied and additional cc in the forward galley. It works. Has it ever been tested?. Any determined person, even working alone, could force thier way into the flightdeck when the door is open. The curtain and one extra crew member in the galley will not stop a well trained, violent person who is prepared to use extreme force.

Sky9 is quite correct, and I have said it before, the door needs to be between the galley and the cabin, and another door needs to be on the flightdeck. This would mean there is never an open access to the flightdeck from the cabin. The arrangement that is currently being installed is not a complete solution.

Pre 9/11 the only airline that really took airbourne secrurity seriously was El Al, post 9/11 I suspect that they are still the only ones doing any more than just making it look good. They have a double door.

13th Jan 2003, 14:34
I was sat on a 737 a few days ago recalling this thread and thinking...

Yes, I could quite easily bolt onto the flightdeck from here (Seat 5c). Of course, I didn't have a mind to do such a thing, but looking at the single, flimsy door behind the crew and imagining them strapped in the seats as a miscreat battered them over the heads with a bottle of duty-free, the crash-axe or simply their own hands doesn't bare thinking about. The stewardess strapped into her seat near the door for takeoff sure isn't going to be able to do much about it, if anyone tries it.

Which makes the new "jumpseat" rule less valuable than it perhaps sounds at first glance. I tend to agree about the value of El Al's "kissing gates". My understanding is that this would have prevented anyone trying the kind of attacks used on 9/11/01, admitedly they could still have slaughtered the passengers, but they're not likely to bother with that when they know they can't get to the flight deck to attack the flight crew and fly the plane into buildings.

As a frequent passenger and confirmed propellor-head, i'd have jumped (groan!) at the chance of a jump-seat ride. Looks like I won't get the chance now. Which is a crying shame.

13th Jan 2003, 14:58
For those who complain about nobody being able to see what
goes on up front in an airliner, I believe there is plenty of
videos on the market ("flying the big jets etc") that would
show what it's like.
Having been on Europen flights where the cockpit door
was a revolving door for all the kids to come up and take a look,
I think I prefer the US way where only a qualified individual is allowed to ride up front.
As far as taking away the right of a company pilot traveling
off duty in the cockpit I strongly disagree.
At the moment my airline can only take jumpseat pilots who can be verified in a database , which leaves out most other airlines, but at least I can offer a free seat in the back (if available)to
any Part 121 Airline pilot.

13th Jan 2003, 16:21
Viking737, once again I reiterate, this is not about in-flight flight deck visits. Whilst many of us do miss the opportunity to interact with our passengers, especially those with an interest in what it is like up front, we realise that the days of allowing some kids a visit whilst in flight are over. What we are objecting to is the blanket ban on using the jump seat for the whole flight for someone we can personally vouch for and is no security risk. You know very well that watching a video does not convey the actual experiece for those who have never jump seated before.

We already decided to appease the US authorities by not allowing jump seaters to and from the USA. None of these jump seat riders have ever been a security problem here in the UK and Europe but now we have to kowtow to the demands of the understandably more twitchy US dictats. Your sense of unease at the sight of kids coming and going from the flight deck whilst travelling on a European carrier is understandable considering your own countries total ban for many years already, but to suggest that carrying someone personally known to the pilot, especially a family member or friend on the jump seat is a major security risk is ridiculous and has no precedent over here.

It appears to me that the terrorists have achieved their aims and are probably laughing at us now. Everyone running scared and paranoid. Life is full of risks and I am still more likely to be killed on the drive to and from the airport than to suffer at the hands of a hijacker, suicidal or not. Yes, we need security but it is my belief that far too much is being concentrated on doing something about a terrorist who is already on board rather than preventing them from getting past check-in in the first place. What is being suggested by the new rule, to me and many others, is that it is somehow a stopgap that will go a very long way to preventing another 9/11. Typical of the thinking of people who really don't have very much imagination but like to be seen to be doing something, no matter how cosmetic!

13th Jan 2003, 18:49
Hey Danny

How about starting a petition firstly to Balpa. (if you are a member) Otherwise let's organise ourselves and fight the government.

We should make it clear to Balpa that this is a priority for us. I would far rather they spent their time working on this issue than anything else.

If Balpa have no success, or are not interested we should start our own union.

It seems that we (as usual) are the only country in Europe with this ridiculous rule and many other carriers are operating into the uk with unknown jump seat pax as well as family members on J/S.

No other profession would allow ignorant bureaucrats to interfere like this if it was completely illogical. I'm glad you have taken the initiative to start discussion but action needs to be taken.

I would certainly contribute to the cause.

13th Jan 2003, 23:52
What ever happened to IFALPA?

Surely now is the time for them to actually stand up against these ridiculous rulings. If they don't, very soon the Captains authority will have been completly taken away from him.

These rulings are absurd! I can not train in the USA without a clearance from the DOJ, even though I am qualified to fly (and have a few hundred hours) on NG Boeings - because I am not "current" on type. Anyone can learn how to program in the co-ordinates and altitude into a FMS, then select "direct to", without ever being on the flight deck.

Its time all members of IFALPA petition their local representitaves and a initiate formal protest. It was easy for IFALPA to blacklist potential Cathy Pacific newbies, but when something like this happens, they sit back and say nothing.

Perhaps the travelling public would get the message as to just how absurd the security situation has become if every airline in the did not fly for 5 hours!

14th Jan 2003, 14:30
UM! it would appeare that the Government overrode the C.A.A. on this one?:rolleyes:

16th Jan 2003, 15:02
This is what is known as "Cat and Dog logic" in political circles.

It runs like this. "All dogs have 4 legs and a tail. My cat has 4 legs and a tail, therefore my cat is a dog.

IE: "We need to do something.... This IS something.... therefore we must do it"..

Well known process.

18th Jan 2003, 11:36
Danny you have a valid point but what seems to be echoed throughout this string is that none of us are sure who is who!
I personally am a big fan of family on the flight deck because of all the benefits that result, also of helping other aviators/crew getting home, and dare I say it seeing the look of wonder on a child's face when they pop into see the pilots but I hope that I am intelligent enough to see the other side of the fence.
Even if the vote is inconclusive I hope at least the rules can be reconsidered and more imaginative investigation undertaken rather than bureacratic knee jerk reactions which at times have tipified the process since 9/11.
As per an earlier reply I would love to vote yes but alas the risks to our working environment, regardless of personal feelings, have increased since that tragic day.:confused:


Although I would love to vote Yes alas I can't!
I am in agreement with you that the rules at times are idiotic bureacratic knee jerk reactions to a drastically changed world but who knows who anybody is! Does the security check that all employees are put through guarantee that they won't ever do anything?
I was a big fan of family on the flight deck, rescueing stranded crew downroute and how I enjoyed the faces of wonder when the children popped up to see the pilots.
All I can hope that from this collection of votes an opinion is generated that will encourage more investigation and discussion before the policies are laid down.

May we all continue to slip the surly bonds of Earth in safety!

Boss Raptor
18th Jan 2003, 18:47
I can only dream about being as good at pushing paper as Gill at DETR :D

Anyway...yesterday returned on flight deck of international carrier operating into LHR...so up yours DETR...

Last week boarded a Eurostar train at Ashford Intl. Station situation covered by the same Aviation and Maritime Securities Act blah blah according to the signs...

Security cursory but adequate, nothing like the agro of LHR/LGW - returned Brussels to Ashford and at the station in Brussels you put yr boarding pass into an automatic gate and you are through...no immigration, no customs, no nothing...get off at Ashford..nobody...

Gill and rest of DETR...suggest you might want to look into this discrepancy instead of annoying most of the UK aviation industry...come on then how does a transport system under the same UK legislation operate so differently?

Because it hasn't been the subject of political 'tail wagging' by our own Govt. or been the interest of the Americans maybe ??

18th Jan 2003, 20:03
hi danny all fellow ppruners
i would like to start a new thread regarding flight deck access for relatives and staff.
This thread is NOT about the for/against discussion but is aimed at aircrew (pilots,cabin crew) who believe that the present ruling is ridiculous and would like to unite and find a way forward.
i've read the previous thread by Danny and on numourous occasions ppruners have mentioned that they are prepared to come together if BALPA are not willing to fight on our behalf and finance our own action.
By definition, as pilots, we are all intelligent, self motivated profesionals and feel that if we all came together we should be able to put together a valid argument against this silly blanket rule.
As i mentioned earlier this not about the for/against discussion and not about flight deck visits, it is solely about aircrew and relatives on the flight deck so if any ppruners are for the ruling the previous post is where your opinion wil be heard.
There has been 11 pages of discussion previously and lots of valid points against the ruling so NOW is the time for action, lets pull together and try to find away around this blanket ban.

18th Jan 2003, 21:22

You married?

Any children?

18th Jan 2003, 22:35
I didn't want this to revert to a for/against topic. This is for like minded pilots who want to take action.

18th Jan 2003, 22:38
It is all well and good to allow flight deck access to crew, relatives and friends. I still enjoy that privilege on an airline that I fly. On the other hand, if rules are rules and they have to be enforced, I would be glad to give up that privilege to talk to my friend, the pilot.

The more times that the flight deck door is opened, the more chances there are of someone of not my ilk getting in who just want to listen to the radio chatter and look at the dials. There have been too many incidents recently when crazies have tried to get in to do serious harm to the pilots.

I would be willing in a moment to give up my pleasure of the door not opening up one more time for me so that on any off-hand chance they could not get in.

18th Jan 2003, 22:50
security is made on the ground and not in the air.


18th Jan 2003, 22:55
GET REAL !!!!!!

Aaaw diddums - you can't have your wife/children/mates accompany you on the flightdeck. TOUGH LUCK MATEY !!!!!! If this rule saves just one instance of a dangerous fd visitor, then all this bulls**t sulking is meaningless.

If a man works in a bank, do you think it's appropriate for him to be able to take his best mate into work one day to show him what his job is like? Of course not, and anybody who thinks that's wrong is blind to reality. (and I'm sure we'd all much rather Bin Laden's bestest buddy got into a bank than on a flightdeck).


LIVE WITH IT and stop being selfish. Safety comes first.

OK, so the new rule might exclude some people who you feel unncecessary (family, etc). But I ask this question : Are the people that you are whining about being excluded, ESSENTIAL OCCUPANTS OF THE FLIGHTDECK? No??? Well then shut up, because your reasons for wanting them there are purely self-motivated, and you can't expect nationwide legislation to allow for your personal needs.


airbus pilot says "security is made on the ground, not in the air".

So if ground security is inadequate (which we all know is the case), should we not bother trying to enforce any airborne security measures??

That's like saying that our company's headquarters building alarm system isn't very good, so we'll just give up and not bother locking our money up, but leave it all out to be stolen.

You have a valid point... it's just not applicable here...

19th Jan 2003, 00:17
To most of the above replies, the starter of this topic, Winston, stated "This thread is NOT about the for/against discussion but is aimed at aircrew (pilots, cabin crew) who believe that the present ruling is ridiculous and would like to unite and find a way forward."

If you do not agree with anyone on the jump seat then no reply is appropriate here. For one I wish Winston the best of luck in wanting some unity on reversing this draconian rule.

19th Jan 2003, 00:59
I have never read the 11 page thread refered to.

So the abused wife or child on the J/S waits for the other Pilot to leave for a call of nature. Stabs family pilot with nail file, after all he got her aboard, stangles him with his own tie and kicks the post forward. Could just the same be an employee fired 30 mins ago. Flight deck locked for the sake of all aboard.

Wait till all Pilots vetted 24/7............................

19th Jan 2003, 01:34
Whilst I can think of a couple of notable incidents...

Pre 9/11 how many relatives or collegues were a threat to the safety of the aircraft?

Can anyone supply any evidence of how locking the cockpit door has actually improved safety or prevented a terrorist incident?

19th Jan 2003, 01:48

Not even Frederick Forsyth has your level of paranoia. Two condoms or three sir ? ( 2 be sure.) Perhaps your levels of security coincide with your lifestyle. I prefer not to be intimidated or cowed, nor to have my, nor my passengers, ease troubled by ridiculous responses to intimidatory threats.
Retreating into a panic room cuts off all smell of coffee when you wake up.

A and C
19th Jan 2003, 11:11
I think that you have totaly missed the point , firstly the staff using the jumpseat will have already been cleared by the security authoritys to hold a pass and so should not be danger to security (if the DTR have done there job properly ?).

As for close relatives of the flight crew I gust cant see how they could be a problem except if a terrorist was holding a gun to the head of one of them , as the relative locked in the flight deck is less lightly to be used as a hostage than one who is in the cabin I have to think that a relative in the flight deck improves security .

The only reason for these new regulations is to cover the backs of the civil servants at the DTR , if they could ban the pilots from the flight deck they would after all then they could never be wrong.

On a final note wup wup I have to say that I think with your level of paranoia I dont know how you leave the house in the mornings.

19th Jan 2003, 12:57
I think we all know that stopping cockpit access has done nothing to really enhance safety onboard the aircraft. I don't think the the history of jet aircraft that a welcomed guest of the cockpit has ever tryed to takeover the aircraft EXCEPT for the Fed Ex DC-10 incident, however in this case he was a company pilot, in uniform, someone who is still in most airlines still allowed access.

Having a guest of the crew, a close friend or family IMHO provides no decrease in the safety, infact the only thing it may do is provide another line of defence against an attack on the cockpit, in a/c such as the 737 someone sitting in the j/s impedes immediate access to the operating crew.

Max Angle
19th Jan 2003, 18:31
I think the Fed-Ex guy was an employee though not flight crew.

I guess most of us have accepted the fact (however stupid) that our friends and families will never be allowed to use the jumpseats again in the UK, it has been the case in the US for years and I can't see them or us changing that.

What really does strike me as completely unjustified is banning flight deck cleared staff from using them when not on duty. If your ID and security clearance is OK when you are operating what changes 45 minutes later when you are not?. Nothing. With the new security doors now being installed we are being trusted completely and unreservedly with the security of the airplane and everyone on the ground, no amount of passenger (or air marshall) power is going to prevent you doing something awfull should you choose to. We have, or certainly should have, the highest possible security clearance and it can't just change because after a mornings work you are no longer on duty anymore.

19th Jan 2003, 19:30
Plus the sacked PSA(?) worker who was on the jumpseat ...

19th Jan 2003, 23:53
>>I think the Fed-Ex guy was an employee though not flight crew.<<

Auburn Calloway was a FedEx first officer. He alleged that the other pilots attacked him in a racially motivated assault but the jury didn't buy it. He's in Club Fed in ATL these days...

See: http://www.suite101.com/article.cfm/history_of_flight/79391

20th Jan 2003, 08:55
Of course there IS a school of thought that would say that pilots should get on with flying the 'plane, and leave security to the security experts.

20th Jan 2003, 11:15
Security was in the hands of the experts - lookat what has happened under their guidance. 'Be nice to hijackers, let them take over, don't resist etc etc.'

20th Jan 2003, 15:10
GBXRE from what I read of the accident he was riding in the cabin, muttered something to his boss who sacked him as he walked past(he paxed home daily on this flight), entered the cockpit and shot the Captain and F/O in the head and then turned the gun on himself. He was apparently sacked for stealing bar floats. Again a tragic incident but he didn't have 'permission' to be on the cockpit.

20th Jan 2003, 17:07
A balanced letter from the DfT which hinges around the "need to be there".

Given the threat from terrorism which is being confirmed by daily discoveries I cannot imagine any relaxation will be forthcoming - indeed the DfT woud be considered culpable if they did so.

Anne :)

PS fiftyfour I like the 20/20 hindsight - there's none so blind as those who don't want to see! 9/11 re-wrote the manual and that is accepted universally.

20th Jan 2003, 17:30

Oh deary me. How about a big breath in, pause two three, now slowly out. There.......feeling any better?

20th Jan 2003, 17:38
Security was in the hands of the experts - lookat what has happened under their guidance. 'Be nice to hijackers, let them take over, don't resist etc etc.'

I agree completely, as it happens. The disaster than happened on September 11th 2001 was as much a testimony to the lassitude, incompetance and downright complacency of the security agencies as it was to any particular genius on the part of the hijackers. It was not a cunning, subtle, obscure of especially audacious plan. It was simply a goal no one was bothering to guard. I can't understand why there hasn't been some high-profile sackings going on. No doubt people will say that it's easy to be wise AFTER the event. But clearly the terrorists predicted this eventuality, so why couldn't the security agencies?

That having been said, it's a valid question. ARE pilots the best people to ask about security on an aircraft? Isn't it rather like asking an air marshal to land a Airliner? Certainly pilots do have a great deal of input to make, but should they be allowed the final say in allowing something the security experts say is a bad idea?

Just in case anyone thinks i'm taking a pop - i'll "lay out my stall". I do agree that when they've been married to someone for many years they're probably more likely to be brained by their colleagues from the cabin staff, or even their co-pilot, than their jumpseater. I agree that they can't just let anyone jump in there for the ride, but the new regs seem needlessly tight to the point of preventing trainee/wanabee pilots gaining valuable experiance on the flight deck. I think access to jump seats needs to be regulated, and those wishing to make use of the facility need to be carefully vetted for security purposes.

Jezz B
22nd Jan 2003, 04:08
I am still unfortunately a Cessna Joc stuck on the bottom rungs of the ladder. In the light of this latest ruling I am considering making the following point to the DfT and CAA:

I regularly fly a C152 from an airfield 8nm from a fair sized international airport. I also regularly invite passengers to take the "jump seat" on that C152. My passengers are neither aircrew nor security cleared. While a C152 carries little weight and destructive powers of it's own, I'm sure that if flown 8nm to that international airport it could feasibly make a nice mess of (say) a 767.

The solution to this is simple:

I keep my C152's "jump seat" empty at all times.
When I fly a PA28 I keep the 2 jump seats in the back empty as well.
Pilots of such aircraft as the Fairchild Metro should keep the 19 or so "jump seats" behind them empty.

In fact seeing as it seems the authorities are intent on distrusting everyone, why not certificate all aircraft for single pilot ops, then eradicate the humble P2, remove the flight attendants and finally subtract the passengers and cargo. That should make for a perfectly safe aircraft environment.

Are there any 747 drivers out there who fancy doing a few 12 hour sectors as the sole occupant of the aircraft? Be prepared, it may be closer than you think. Remember its all in the name of safety. :mad:

22nd Jan 2003, 06:10
Unfortunately some UK airlines have quite cynically interpreteted these new rules in such a way as to allow use of jumpseats to position their staff from A to B, yet impose a total bar on relatives.

The effect of this is that someone I have never met in my life can appear at the gate with an ID and tatty photocopy of an authorisation form and it it supposedly safe for them to fly on the jumpseat -yet to take my spouse or brother risks a terrorist attack.

Max Angle
22nd Jan 2003, 11:40
In the light of this latest ruling I am considering making the following point to the DfT and CAA: You have a very valid point, but I would hate to see my private flying come under the same sort of stupid rules so perhaps we ought to keep quiet about it.

24th Jan 2003, 00:50
My Chief Pilot is a commuter, living in the UK (on weekends), does that mean that my boss is not trustworthy enough to ride in the cockpit on a jumpseat pass? Even though I've known him for twenty eight years, but a CAA inspector, who I've never seen before can enter the cockpit to check me.

24th Jan 2003, 08:59
I am still unfortunately a Cessna Joc stuck on the bottom rungs of the ladder. In the light of this latest ruling I am considering making the following point to the DfT and CAA:

Still, at least you're ON the ladder. Some of us have to make do with a "proper job in computers", remember.

"Thankyou for Flying FS2002, our current altitude is approximately 2 feet. Speed, approximately stationary... Weather at our destination is largely dependant on this menu i've got here.. I'd like to apologise for the sudden cabin movement felt shortly after takeoff today. It's no cause for alarm as it was caused by my dog leaping onto my lap and knocking the controls... The dog, in case you missed it, has been dragged away in manicles because she wasn't cleared for the jump seat..We'll update you on her progress at camp X-Ray throughout the flight.... In the next few minutes the cabin staff, who have the same name as the 1st officer and captain, will be cracking open a can or two or Grolsh.. And passing them around amongst himself. One again i'd like to think you for flying inebriate airlines, and on behalf of all the staff and crew I'd like to take this opportunity to wish you a all pleasant flight"

On a more sober note.

What kind of punishment would a pilot suffer if he/she WERE to refuse access to staff in transit on the grounds that he/she wasn't convinced by the strangers shabby ID badge and photocopy of a permission form?

26th Jan 2003, 19:43
To be honest, I think a reason why some wannabes and enthuisats may have voted yes isn't so much because they think it is idiotic, but more that they just want to visit so much. I can see why the rule is in place and I appreciate it for trying to protect the travelling public and even the people on the ground . The way I see it is if Mr.X still wants to get in there, he will find a way, or even worse he isn't going to even try to get it but just blow the a/c up on approach over some densely populated settlement, meaning even less of a chance of stopping him if he doesn't need to get into the cockpit.

As for the FDX DC10, it might not happen with general crew members in future but we can never rule out flightdeck crew members from being the bad guys. I'm not saying any of them are, but it is a possibility.

As another said, fail safe cockpit doors should not even have to be relied on. A hi-jacker should never ever make it as far as the cockpit, but I suppose today with various ways of concealing very small but deadly weapons it can happen.
The security needs to be 110% if you excuse my maths, like the guys flying or button pushing as some do. In aviation we have the chance to stop terriosts, unlike in other industries and forms of transport.

29th Jan 2003, 13:46

Your allusion to the CEO got me thinking: Richard Branson apparently got the idea for Virgin's Australian operation from talking to an Australian pilot aboard a Virgin Express flight one day. Under these rules, he won't be doing that again!!

I'm not saying that these rules are going to stifle anyone setting up a new airline, but it does seem a tad strange that, unless they've taken the trouble to get their ATPL and be a rostered line pilot, then even an airline's CEO and chairperson couldn't get a look-in!! Niki Lauda did it...

Greek God
30th Jan 2003, 01:12
As with all reactive legislation lines have to drawn and in this case they seem to be a tad draconian. There may be a case for limiting relatives etc but I can see no valid case for barring Aircrew with valid IDs from the FD either in or out of uniform. Indeed, I would think their being there would actually enhance FD security; especially with the predominance of aircraft operated by only 2 FD crew.

A and C
2nd Feb 2003, 11:40
I have been following this thread for some time now and looking into a few of the misconseptions that seem to have cropped up.

First , the new regulations are a decree right from the top of the goverment and started as a set of totaly stupid and unworkable rules that only a goverment minister could think of , the CAA has been fighting the aviation industrys corner and has managed to get the very worst of the regulations stopped but the situation is far from ideal but this is the best they could do in the face of the outright stupidity of what the goverment wanted.

Second , on the subject of family members on the flight deck some research has been undertaken and it has been found that about 50% of flight crew would open the flight deck door if a family was under attack , so my question is why have the goverment made flying LESS SAFE by banning family members from the flight deck , if the family member was on the flight deck then 100% of us would keep the door shut if the aircraft was under attack !.

Mister Geezer
3rd Feb 2003, 20:28
I saw in another posting here on PPRuNe that the Nigels have managed to get a dispensation from this rule which allows ID90 pax (i.e BA staff or friends and family) to use the jumpseat if the flight is chocka?

If there any grain of truth in this?

3rd Feb 2003, 23:43
We wish!

Just a rumour I am afraid.

4th Feb 2003, 14:22
Why such a rule???
I am not in the mood for suicide, so why should I let somebody enter the cockpit I have doubts about? (And should I ever want to commit suicide, I can do it without help from the jumpseat!)
Reducing the authority of the cockpit crew is definitely the wrong approach direction.

Inverted kite
4th Feb 2003, 20:38
I agree with the majority on this subject as a lowly PPL in training with a firm intention of becoming more I feel the J/S offers the next best thing to work experience. Only at the begining of December in Flight International magazine stated that pilot training schools are now having to go out to schools to interest pupils in a career in aviation whereas a flight deck ride is all that is needed. Well just my humble view fellow ppruners.:*

inverted Hawk

5th Feb 2003, 10:15
As a 67 captain i would like to have full faith in the people checking the pax. I do think that it is the captains decision but from my point i will only let family & well know friends in the pointy end.:)

5th Feb 2003, 10:31
Does anyone have the up to date "bottom line" viz jumpseats? At Big Airways we have been allowed to have staff pax with id on J/S as well as the other authorised riders since just after 9/11.

I hear (admittedly 2nd hand) that VS are a taking family on their J/S.

Now I have just received a heads up from BALPA that DoT are about to enforce "operational crew only".

In the absence of word from work - what's the latest?

7th Feb 2003, 09:51
The latest is that TRANSEC are probably going to totally ban families of crew travelling on any flight operated by their family member.

This for precisely the reason given earlier, regarding allowing access to the flight deck, if your family is being threatened!!

Enjoy those Christmas trips people!!

Sorry if this has been covered earlier in the tread.

Sheep Guts
7th Feb 2003, 23:21
The rule has indeed gone too far.

I am traveling back to Australia via BA and QF. I work for a Regional Airline as a Captain in the Carib at the moment. But would luv to have a look up front still. It really has stuffed things up no thanks to those idiots , during 9/11.

9th Feb 2003, 17:26

Been away for a while,

can anybody tell me what B.A.L.P.A. did for our 1%. I promised myself months ago that if B.A.L.P.A. did`nt stop this madness then I would resign, thats on tomorrows do list and I urge you to do the same.


10th Feb 2003, 10:21
AS an international travelling engineer. One factor that initiated my interest in aviation and potentially obtaining a pilots license was the old jump seat visit. I believe that interest in the industry is sparked by close contact with those in it, and/or the privelege of experiencing the joys of being in the flight deck.

In the last 12 months i have sat in the back of many international flights saddened by the fact i could no longer request a visit upfront. I am still jetlagged as i write this, and prior to 9/11 i would know be calling up the local flying school about fees and flights, which would have resulted from the flightdeck buzz. Now however my only recollection is a boring long flight.

Although this new rule is terrible for the likes of myself, i do however feel that it is necessary to reduce the risk of terrorist activity. The unfortunate byproduct will definitely be a reduced interest in the industry.

11th Feb 2003, 19:33
I wonder if the answer is to ban all Government Ministers from civil aircraft because of the very real increased security risk?

And that is when they are not on government business as well.

11th Feb 2003, 20:17
It's really sad to hear the latest rumours about soon to be operating crew only at BA, I just caught that one from an F/O mate. I immediately made sure my weekend trip was J/S both ways and the crews shared my sadness at the prospect, particularly as they have both recently come off longhaul and said visits keep them sane on long sectors.

I remember my first day at work started with an 0630 shuttle to LHR for the induction and I hadn't really heard of standby/jump seats so was naturally over the moon when I was told that I'd 'have' to sit in the cockpit. What a treat, and I've enjoyed it many times since, always warmly welcomed by the crew.

I think it's crazy that a Captain can't take his 5 year old to work with him, although can understand that it's hard to define who would be acceptable (i.e. long lost brother, second cousin once removed!). As for us ground staff I guess there's a slight risk of a rogue employee gaining access (cf FedEx), but why not allow Captain's discression on both relatives and employees, a dodgy looking ID could be refused no questions asked.

Little by little all the fun is being eroded......

Max Angle
12th Feb 2003, 00:18
Little by little all the fun is being eroded...... If only it was little by little. It's going in bloody great chunks and there is not much left.

23rd Feb 2003, 18:02
Perhaps this privelage should be regulated by thorough security checks, and badged individuals only, until a foolproof method of making sure no bad guys get access.

Certainly, this wonderful benefit, just like other freedoms, has been ruined by the arabs.

(I was former ALPA Jumpseat Chairman at a major US carrier, and pilots from UA still cannot ride in cockpits at DL and NW and AA, and vice-versa)

1st Mar 2003, 15:21
If everyone who has posted here sent the same sentiments/comments to the relevant depts. i.e. Dept Transport, CAA, BALPA couldn't that have some kind of effect (positive, hopefully). No-one I know in our profession has a death wish so surely the best form of security would be to restrict the use of the jump seat to individuals known to the flt crew, and of course other company personnel carrying a valid airside pass, which is after all checked every time we turn up for our duties. As previously intimated, common sense was an early casualty in this matter.

7th Mar 2003, 22:57
Sorry but i havent read through the whole of this topic but is there an action being taken to alter this idiotic rule as yet?

If there is then how when and where?
If not WHY NOT!!



8th Mar 2003, 18:39
I find it amazing that this topic is even open for discussion. Did you all sleep throught the 9/11 events? I think what the US is doing to further secure the flight deck should have been done years ago.
Or what about P.S.A. airline 1987 or so.... Airline employee gets onto flight deck, kills the crew and the airplane crashs.

The only ones that need to be in the cockpit are:
1. Crewmembers working the flight
2. Flight Crew members on the J/S
3. Federal Authorities with the authorization to be in the J/S.

That's it! Nobody else has any need to be there, period.

10th Mar 2003, 00:02

The only ones that need to be in the cockpit are:

Huh? My father is a pilot on a well known British airline and there is nothing more he used to like than every 6 months or so me joining him on the jumpseat for a day trip to various European destinations. This ludicrous rule has obviously stopped this. As has been suggested before - why not make the rule captains discretion?

I really hope something will be done about this soon. Absolutely ridiculous - just a massive overreaction.

11th Mar 2003, 07:33
Ron, do you really believe that the flight deck is any more secure than before 9/11?
All that has changed is that there is LESS access to the flight deck in flight rather than none.
The door still gets opened often for refreshment/toilet access, so there are still many opportunities for hostile approach.
To take your point about company personnel, who is it other than company personnel who take the pilots their refreshments?

Whilst increased door 'security' has been good for airlines marketing, it has done little to reduce actual risk.
More important is airport security, which still suffers potentially catastrophic breaches.

Recently on a british carrier's flight I was on the F/O left the flight deck to listen to a 'noise' heard by a nervous passenger - leaning across to the window seat....
very vulnerable to assault!
There are many ways to get access to the flight deck and its personnel.

Nope. This jump seat rule change achieves nothing to enhance security. Look at the bigger picture.