Jumpseat use
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: australia
Posts: 109
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jumpseat use
The question has probably been asked before somewhere on Pprune, however here goes. From the VJ crowd, what is your airline policy regarding jumpseat use for family members whilst you are operating? QF prohibit family members having flight deck access for the jumpseat. Their interpretation of Dept of Trans. legislation. Never realised my 12 year old daughter was a security risk.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Australia
Posts: 725
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Its not a QF thing. Its the Aviation Transport Security Regulations 2005 that apply to all air transport operations.
It used to be that the pilot in command could allow anyone he/she chose to occupy the jump seat....
CAR 227 Admission to crew compartment
(1) A person may enter the crew compartment of an aircraft during flight only if:
(a) the person is a member of the operating crew of the aircraft; or
(b) the person is permitted by the pilot in command to enter that compartment.
Penalty: 50 penalty units.
.... but then the Howard government introduced the ATSRs:
Regulation 4.67 Security of flight crew compartment — all aircraft
(4) A person must not be allowed to enter the cockpit after the aircraft has taken off unless:
(a) he or she is authorised to do so by the aircraft’s pilot in command or the aircraft’s operator and:
(i) is a member of the aircraft’s crew; or
(ii) is an employee of the aircraft’s operator; or
(iii) is authorised or required by the Civil Aviation Regulations 1988 or the Civil Aviation Safety Regulations 1998 to enter the cockpit; and
(b) he or she holds appropriate identification as a person referred to in paragraph (a).
(5) If subregulation (2), (3) or (4) is contravened, the operator of the aircraft concerned commits an offence.
Penalty: 200 penalty units.
(6) A contravention of subregulation (5) is an offence of strict liability.
So yes, Amanda Vanstone and the Howard government think that my kids, your kids, are potential terrorists.
It used to be that the pilot in command could allow anyone he/she chose to occupy the jump seat....
CAR 227 Admission to crew compartment
(1) A person may enter the crew compartment of an aircraft during flight only if:
(a) the person is a member of the operating crew of the aircraft; or
(b) the person is permitted by the pilot in command to enter that compartment.
Penalty: 50 penalty units.
.... but then the Howard government introduced the ATSRs:
Regulation 4.67 Security of flight crew compartment — all aircraft
(4) A person must not be allowed to enter the cockpit after the aircraft has taken off unless:
(a) he or she is authorised to do so by the aircraft’s pilot in command or the aircraft’s operator and:
(i) is a member of the aircraft’s crew; or
(ii) is an employee of the aircraft’s operator; or
(iii) is authorised or required by the Civil Aviation Regulations 1988 or the Civil Aviation Safety Regulations 1998 to enter the cockpit; and
(b) he or she holds appropriate identification as a person referred to in paragraph (a).
(5) If subregulation (2), (3) or (4) is contravened, the operator of the aircraft concerned commits an offence.
Penalty: 200 penalty units.
(6) A contravention of subregulation (5) is an offence of strict liability.
So yes, Amanda Vanstone and the Howard government think that my kids, your kids, are potential terrorists.
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Sydney
Age: 60
Posts: 92
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Regulation 4.67 Security of flight crew compartment — all aircraft
(4) A person must not be allowed to enter the cockpit after the aircraft has taken off unless:(a) he or she is authorised to do so by the aircraft’s pilot in command or the aircraft’s operator and:
(i) is a member of the aircraft’s crew; or
(ii) is an employee of the aircraft’s operator; or
(iii) is authorised or required by the Civil Aviation Regulations 1988 or the Civil Aviation Safety Regulations 1998 to enter the cockpit; and
(b) he or she holds appropriate identification as a person referred to in paragraph (a).
(5) If subregulation (2), (3) or (4) is contravened, the operator of the aircraft concerned commits an offence.
Penalty: 200 penalty units.
Surely your daughter would have entered and been settled into the cockpit well before take off if she was to utilise a jump seat.
The regulation appears to restrict the inflight visitor, not an additional crew seat occupant that has been accepted by the pilot in command.
Seems the operator of the aircraft may be adding their own interpretation here.
VBA Eng.
Sprucegoose
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Hughes Point, where life is great! Was also resident on page 13, but now I'm lost in Cyberspace....
Age: 59
Posts: 3,485
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Nice pick up, I will remember that!
Of course if the operators ops manual has been adapted to say no one can enter or ride in the jump seat, then that is that.
Of course if the operators ops manual has been adapted to say no one can enter or ride in the jump seat, then that is that.
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Sydney
Posts: 9
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
VBA Engineer - you are correct in that the regulation restricts access after take off.
However to have access in the first place you still must satisfy one of the criteria that permit access (over and above being approved by the PIC).
Unfortunately the 12 year old daughter is still a security threat!
Regulation 4.67 Security of flight crew compartment — all aircraft
(4) A person must not be allowed to enter the cockpit after the aircraft has taken offunless:
(a) he or she is authorised to do so by the aircraft’s pilot in command or the aircraft’s operator and:
(i) is a member of the aircraft’s crew; or
(ii) is an employee of the aircraft’s operator; or
(iii) is authorised or required by the Civil Aviation Regulations 1988 or the Civil Aviation Safety Regulations 1998 to enter the cockpit; and
(b) he or she holds appropriate identification as a person referred to in paragraph (a).
(5) If subregulation (2), (3) or (4) is contravened, the operator of the aircraft concerned commits an offence.
Penalty: 200 penalty units.
However to have access in the first place you still must satisfy one of the criteria that permit access (over and above being approved by the PIC).
Unfortunately the 12 year old daughter is still a security threat!
Regulation 4.67 Security of flight crew compartment — all aircraft
(4) A person must not be allowed to enter the cockpit after the aircraft has taken offunless:
(a) he or she is authorised to do so by the aircraft’s pilot in command or the aircraft’s operator and:
(i) is a member of the aircraft’s crew; or
(ii) is an employee of the aircraft’s operator; or
(iii) is authorised or required by the Civil Aviation Regulations 1988 or the Civil Aviation Safety Regulations 1998 to enter the cockpit; and
(b) he or she holds appropriate identification as a person referred to in paragraph (a).
(5) If subregulation (2), (3) or (4) is contravened, the operator of the aircraft concerned commits an offence.
Penalty: 200 penalty units.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: australia
Posts: 109
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yeah,
I am aware of the said regulation however that still does not answer the question re Virgin's policy. If I want to take one of my children away with me whilst operating can they occupy the jumpseat prior to departure until arrival at the gate if I worked for Virgin?
I am aware of the said regulation however that still does not answer the question re Virgin's policy. If I want to take one of my children away with me whilst operating can they occupy the jumpseat prior to departure until arrival at the gate if I worked for Virgin?
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Alice Springs
Posts: 77
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Regardess of VB's policy, the above stated regs are quite clear, if you are not a member of the crew, employee of said company, and dont have casa approval as well as having valid ID then no jumpseat ride.
JarJar
JarJar
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 126
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
How about this then:
Reg 4.67 states (among other things):
(iii) is authorised or required by the Civil Aviation Regulations 1988 or the Civil Aviation Safety Regulations 1998 to enter the cockpit
the first paragraph of CAR 227 is:
Admission to crew compartment
(1) A person may enter the crew compartment of an aircraft during flight
only if:
(a) the person is a member of the operating crew of the aircraft; or
(b) the person is permitted by the pilot in command to enter that
compartment.Penalty: 50 penalty units.
So if I know them, and can identify them, in they come.
Tag
Reg 4.67 states (among other things):
(iii) is authorised or required by the Civil Aviation Regulations 1988 or the Civil Aviation Safety Regulations 1998 to enter the cockpit
the first paragraph of CAR 227 is:
Admission to crew compartment
(1) A person may enter the crew compartment of an aircraft during flight
only if:
(a) the person is a member of the operating crew of the aircraft; or
(b) the person is permitted by the pilot in command to enter that
compartment.Penalty: 50 penalty units.
So if I know them, and can identify them, in they come.
Tag
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Earth
Age: 52
Posts: 242
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think Tagneah and VBA Engineer have got it right.
Maybe we have all been caught up in the hype and listened to the wrong people.
Any aviation law guru's out there wish to comment, to the layman its looking like you could take anyone, your child or not, provided the company regs are ok with it, and they are seated before takeoff.
One wonders....
SQ
Maybe we have all been caught up in the hype and listened to the wrong people.
Any aviation law guru's out there wish to comment, to the layman its looking like you could take anyone, your child or not, provided the company regs are ok with it, and they are seated before takeoff.
One wonders....
SQ
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Living next door to Alan
Posts: 1,521
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If your company has more restrictive criteria than the regs or legislation regarding flight deck occupancy I suggest they would take precedence.
Why not ask your manager? He or she should know.
Why not ask your manager? He or she should know.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: australia
Posts: 109
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sorry I should have clarified what I was attempting to find out. Just trying to dispel a rumour that has been around for a while regarding a difference in interpretation of the regs.
LOA169
You have only got to meet those following criteria if someone enters the cockpit after take-off. If someone enters the cockpit before take-off then it isn’t applicable. Infact the whole regulation isn’t applicable. Having said all that one may run into trouble if the said jump seater/s need to use the toilet during flight. Under the letter of the law they may not be able to get back into the cockpit.
At the end of the day what's in a company’s Ops Manual will determine who can ride the jump seat. I would say most companies would be more restrictive than the regs.
However to have access in the first place you still must satisfy one of the criteria that permit access (over and above being approved by the PIC).
At the end of the day what's in a company’s Ops Manual will determine who can ride the jump seat. I would say most companies would be more restrictive than the regs.
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Australia
Posts: 182
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Read the law people....
It is clear that any person can be on the flight deck, as long as the PIC approves it, and as long as they are there before takeoff.
QF (mis)management say the rules prohibit it, but they say a lot of things. Read it for yourself (some of it has been produced above if you're lazy).
I know first hand that 4 or 5 months ago VB still used the correct interpretation of the law, as I know a member of the general public who travelled in the jumpseat with his mate who was one of the pilots.
Have they changed? I hope not!
It is clear that any person can be on the flight deck, as long as the PIC approves it, and as long as they are there before takeoff.
QF (mis)management say the rules prohibit it, but they say a lot of things. Read it for yourself (some of it has been produced above if you're lazy).
I know first hand that 4 or 5 months ago VB still used the correct interpretation of the law, as I know a member of the general public who travelled in the jumpseat with his mate who was one of the pilots.
Have they changed? I hope not!
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Australia
Posts: 725
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thank Chr!st you guys are pilots and not lawyers.
If we want to play lawyer, then we have to look at not only the one section of the regs (quoted above to give you the rough idea) but we also need to look at those regulations head of power (the Act) and also how the courts interpret the words.
Example: a rugby club mate and law student of long ago, once found a South Australian statute allowing Cab drivers to relieve themselves against the rearmost, kerbside wheel of their Cab. Dated from the 1870's when a Cab driver was taking a risk leaving their stock in trade, not to mention their horse, unattended when relieving themselves.
Quite legal he thought. So one night, this law student/cab driver parks his Yellow Cab falcon in King William Street rank, and puts his theory to the test.
And ends up in the Angas Street watch house.
You would have to be a pretty confident VB or any other jet Captain to risk 200 penalty points, disciplinary action from your airline, etc, based on a 'bush lawyers' interpretation of those words alone.
Without referring to my company's Transport Security Procedures (a company document required under ATSRs 2.29 and 2.39) I'd say the intent of the reg is -- nobody on the flight deck that isn't operating crew, company staff, or CASA.
If we want to play lawyer, then we have to look at not only the one section of the regs (quoted above to give you the rough idea) but we also need to look at those regulations head of power (the Act) and also how the courts interpret the words.
Example: a rugby club mate and law student of long ago, once found a South Australian statute allowing Cab drivers to relieve themselves against the rearmost, kerbside wheel of their Cab. Dated from the 1870's when a Cab driver was taking a risk leaving their stock in trade, not to mention their horse, unattended when relieving themselves.
Quite legal he thought. So one night, this law student/cab driver parks his Yellow Cab falcon in King William Street rank, and puts his theory to the test.
And ends up in the Angas Street watch house.
You would have to be a pretty confident VB or any other jet Captain to risk 200 penalty points, disciplinary action from your airline, etc, based on a 'bush lawyers' interpretation of those words alone.
Without referring to my company's Transport Security Procedures (a company document required under ATSRs 2.29 and 2.39) I'd say the intent of the reg is -- nobody on the flight deck that isn't operating crew, company staff, or CASA.
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: OZ
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As a military ATCO, I have on occassions when travelling domestically with both VB and Qantas, asked the dispatch staff at the gate if their was any chance of jump-seating and if they could ask the Captain, supplying appropriate ID etc.
Each time has been with no luck, with a different explanation given as to why.
Controlling these acft on a daily basis, I thought there wouldn't be a problem, provided appropriate ID was provided and that the Capt. was happy you were who you said you were.
For the drivers, is having an ATCO up the front for a sector a problem. Surely the opportunity to for us to see what's going on in the cockpit and you guys to ask any questions would more than likely be beneficial for both parties?
I understand that the regs are tight these days but we can still drive on aerodromes etc without an ASIC pass and we're trusted to provide an ATC service, so what gives?
I don't believe any pilot that actually wanted to turn up and have a look at what goes on from our end, would be turned away.
I realise you guys don't make the policy, but any ideas or info would be good, particularly how (if any) way to jump seat these days.
Cheers
BST
Each time has been with no luck, with a different explanation given as to why.
Controlling these acft on a daily basis, I thought there wouldn't be a problem, provided appropriate ID was provided and that the Capt. was happy you were who you said you were.
For the drivers, is having an ATCO up the front for a sector a problem. Surely the opportunity to for us to see what's going on in the cockpit and you guys to ask any questions would more than likely be beneficial for both parties?
I understand that the regs are tight these days but we can still drive on aerodromes etc without an ASIC pass and we're trusted to provide an ATC service, so what gives?
I don't believe any pilot that actually wanted to turn up and have a look at what goes on from our end, would be turned away.
I realise you guys don't make the policy, but any ideas or info would be good, particularly how (if any) way to jump seat these days.
Cheers
BST
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: oz
Posts: 11
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ATCOs
Mr Atco,
I think you will find that if you pre-arranged to be an authorised observer you'd have more luck. The gate staff don't have that sort of authority. The captain would have the option of saying yes or no if you were an approved observer, but would have to knock you back just on fronting up with your id.
I'd personally like to see a lot more of you up there like the old famil flight scene in the 80's. Could only help each other.
for what it's worth I agree with tagneah and VBA Eng. All companies have their own additional requirements which may be more restrictive than the regulators.
Gus
I think you will find that if you pre-arranged to be an authorised observer you'd have more luck. The gate staff don't have that sort of authority. The captain would have the option of saying yes or no if you were an approved observer, but would have to knock you back just on fronting up with your id.
I'd personally like to see a lot more of you up there like the old famil flight scene in the 80's. Could only help each other.
for what it's worth I agree with tagneah and VBA Eng. All companies have their own additional requirements which may be more restrictive than the regulators.
Gus
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Stuck in the middle...
Posts: 1,638
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
OK I'll start by saying that I haven't read the full regs - just those posted here.
But on the basis of those, I suggest there is a strong argument in law that a person can be in the crew compartment whilst the aircraft is in flight provided they entered prior to take-off.
The basis of my reasoning is the language:
A person must not be allowed to enter the cockpit after the aircraft has taken off unless etc.
The operative words/phrases are enter, after, and taken off.
Parliament has chosen those exact stipulations. If they'd have wanted to ban access or presence at all during flight, alternative words were available such that the provision could have read:
A person must not be allowed to enter or be present in the cockpit at any stage of the aircraft's operation unless etc.
Whilst there is a strong body of legal interpretation which takes a purposive stance, there is an equally strong body which takes a more literal view, especially where alternative language is easily available. I would suggest that, in this instance, Parliament had words available to it and by choosing exact words, has given effect to what it wanted to achieve - ie. making unauthorised entry into the flight deck during flight, illegal.
However, these regulations represent a minimum standard and, as has been argued by others, if an operator then chooses to put reasonable extensions on them, then that's their call. The difference is this: if a PIC lets his 9-y-o niece up front for departure (in contravention of company policy), then the PIC in question will probably not, on this analysis, have committed an offence. But they may fall foul of company regs and so face company disciplinary procedures.
But on the basis of those, I suggest there is a strong argument in law that a person can be in the crew compartment whilst the aircraft is in flight provided they entered prior to take-off.
The basis of my reasoning is the language:
A person must not be allowed to enter the cockpit after the aircraft has taken off unless etc.
The operative words/phrases are enter, after, and taken off.
Parliament has chosen those exact stipulations. If they'd have wanted to ban access or presence at all during flight, alternative words were available such that the provision could have read:
A person must not be allowed to enter or be present in the cockpit at any stage of the aircraft's operation unless etc.
Whilst there is a strong body of legal interpretation which takes a purposive stance, there is an equally strong body which takes a more literal view, especially where alternative language is easily available. I would suggest that, in this instance, Parliament had words available to it and by choosing exact words, has given effect to what it wanted to achieve - ie. making unauthorised entry into the flight deck during flight, illegal.
However, these regulations represent a minimum standard and, as has been argued by others, if an operator then chooses to put reasonable extensions on them, then that's their call. The difference is this: if a PIC lets his 9-y-o niece up front for departure (in contravention of company policy), then the PIC in question will probably not, on this analysis, have committed an offence. But they may fall foul of company regs and so face company disciplinary procedures.
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Australia
Posts: 182
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ITCZ,
We are talking about the law, and the law is clear.
Having said that, don't worry yourself, no pilot in QF is going to allow any old joe on the flight deck because QF has been clear in their instructions, and that is their perogative. Just becuase QF chooses a certain way does not make it law.
As far as I know VB interpret the law correctly and therefore they can (or at least could until recently) do it as per the regs.
QF managers, when asked have said the law is the reason, but the truth is they just got it wrong and changing a mistake in QF is like turning a supertanker with a 2hp electric motor.
We are talking about the law, and the law is clear.
Having said that, don't worry yourself, no pilot in QF is going to allow any old joe on the flight deck because QF has been clear in their instructions, and that is their perogative. Just becuase QF chooses a certain way does not make it law.
As far as I know VB interpret the law correctly and therefore they can (or at least could until recently) do it as per the regs.
QF managers, when asked have said the law is the reason, but the truth is they just got it wrong and changing a mistake in QF is like turning a supertanker with a 2hp electric motor.