Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > PPRuNe Social > Jet Blast
Reload this Page >

Pilot fired for allowing unauthorised flight deck visit

Jet Blast Topics that don't fit the other forums. Rules of Engagement apply.
View Poll Results: Should MYT have sacked Captain Pablo for allowing an unauthorised flight deck visit?
Yes
656
22.90%
No
2,120
74.00%
Uh?
89
3.11%
Voters: 2865. This poll is closed

Pilot fired for allowing unauthorised flight deck visit

Old 9th Oct 2007, 14:13
  #221 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Nirvana..HAHA..just kidding but,if you can tell me where it is!
Posts: 348
Bealzebub..obviously not a product of english public school then...come to think of it neither am I!
Are you sure the government rules are there to protect us!
Wish i could have my metal knife back on my meal tray on those Ozzie sectors..those plastic ones just keep bending..and I keep cutting my fingers on the crash axe!
On better reflection though...once the story is out, the self-righteous mount there hobby horses and I suppose MYT have been forced into a bit of a corner!
How about losing 2 years seniority....oh, and a quick chat over a nice cup of tea about the difficult position the company has been put into! Much nicer don't you think..but lets not go on about jeapodising flight safety any more!
If we do then we must include management (and government)backed very dodgy rostering practices that test to the limit our ability to stay awake at the controls! Now there is a worthwhile safety related subject...done to death already I fear!

Last edited by Yaw String; 9th Oct 2007 at 14:30.
Yaw String is offline  
Old 9th Oct 2007, 14:16
  #222 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: North West
Posts: 44
Silverhawk, As someone not in command, but in the right hand seat, i'm glad I don't fly with you with that attitude! So much for CRM! You may be in command but I can say from the right hand seat there is no way I would be complicit in allowing someone into the flight deck during flight, however much I disagree with the rules (which I do). Bottom line is that the rules were broken, be them sensible rules or not. Good luck for the future Pablo

Last edited by NormanDLandings; 9th Oct 2007 at 14:17. Reason: spelling
NormanDLandings is offline  
Old 9th Oct 2007, 14:20
  #223 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Duxbai
Posts: 118
Yaw String

As I have said in previous posts, the company were forced to act in this manner. The gentleman concerned had already used up his extra lives in previous situations.

In all probability, if this had been a first offence, he would have received tea and biscuits and a talking to. Probably not even a demotion. But Pablo had pushed the limits many times before. 3 strikes and your out as they say.

Without doubt, he is likeable, personable and great to be around. But in many ways he is a nightmare to employ, and to fly with.

Job done.
flyinthesky is offline  
Old 9th Oct 2007, 14:34
  #224 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 1999
Posts: 2,265
An airline with the letter M on the tail are always looking for pilots?.
Yes from time to time, but the "M" doesn't stand for Maverick, and the company also requires its crews to comply with all relevant rules and regulations including the one that is the subject of this thread. Maybe Belgium might be a better bet ?

The Captain DOES have the power to make the rules once the doors are closed. Pablo made a judgement call. IMHO that was a valid call.
No he doesn't ! A fundamental mistake. He is required to comply with the rules that are already made, only in exceptional circumstances may those rules and regulations be deviated from and then only to the extent necessary to ensure the safety of the aircraft, passengers and crew in a situation that might seriously requires such a deviation.

Command means exactly that, I AM IN COMMAND, it is not a democracy.
It may not be a "democracy", but I would suggest it is not about shouting "I AM IN COMMAND" either. Again a comand is a position of trust and leadership. What are you in command of ? A team of crewmembers who you manage, to in turn manage the aircraft and its passengers and contents, that are entrusted to your charge. The crewmembers do not expect to have to vote on your every decision, or indeed any decision. Where possible they should certainly be integrated into your decision process. However they should not, nor should your company be embarrased or compromised by being placed in invidious positions because a Captain decides that an ego driven violation of the laid down rules and procedures should prevail. Far better that everybody respects you for being in command, than don't because you shout I AM IN COMMAND.
Bealzebub is offline  
Old 9th Oct 2007, 14:36
  #225 (permalink)  
DIRECTOR
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: U.K.
Posts: 613
Can we all agree that there was no safety issue here as 411A in his old L1011could have had this footballer in the cockpit had it been chartered as could many other foreign airlines.Something that has been going on for years and years and until recently certain UK airlines encouraged pilots to have visitors up front. Pablo broke a UK rule, Yes but not worthy of a sacking. Any previous is irrelevant as each case has to be considered on its merit.You don't have a points system which when reached makes a sacking possible.
thegypsy is offline  
Old 9th Oct 2007, 14:46
  #226 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Duxbai
Posts: 118
No, you don't have a points system, but you do have warnings/ written warnings and then finally dismissal for gross misconduct.

That is very clearly laid down under employment law regulations. The company followed procedure to the letter. For a pilot to deviate so obviously from SOP's would constitute a written warning. Get 3 and unfortunately you get to clear your desk.

As I keep saying, it wasn't a first offence. The company has every right and MUST treat this employee the same as any other worker. It just so happens that this individual has quite a high profile for one reason or another and a fairly large personnel file. Reading the military forum, it seems he had one there as well!

As I said before, if it was a first offence then it would in all probability not resulted in sacking.
flyinthesky is offline  
Old 9th Oct 2007, 14:55
  #227 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Planet Earth for a short visit
Posts: 614
Never yet have I had to state ' I am in command'...... that speaks volumes I think.
silverhawk is offline  
Old 9th Oct 2007, 15:07
  #228 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hants
Posts: 2,294
Silverhawk

You may know the dictionary definition of 'Command' but you obviously do not understand the practical aspects of what makes a great Commander.

Being Democratic is one aspect of being a good Commander - amongst many other qualities which you probably think you already know, or are not interested in.

As for you having to manually fly an aircraft... whatever next? How the previous generation of pilots managed in older A/C God only knows
anotherthing is offline  
Old 9th Oct 2007, 15:11
  #229 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Arizona USA
Posts: 8,572
I really do have to laugh at some of the comments here from many who would say that...'why, the Captain is in command, and he can do as he likes'...on the one hand, and yet, when asked about decision-making on the flight deck would be the first to speak up and say...'well the era of the Atlantic Barons is right and truly over and CRM dictates what goes on now.'

Having ones cake and eating it seems to be the flavor of the day for some, who would no doubt otherwise be rather better with clear thinking at other times....hopefully
411A is offline  
Old 9th Oct 2007, 15:18
  #230 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 1999
Posts: 2,265
Can we all agree that there was no safety issue here as 411A in his old L1011could have had this footballer in the cockpit had it been chartered as could many other foreign airlines.Something that has been going on for years and years and until recently certain UK airlines encouraged pilots to have visitors up front. Pablo broke a UK rule, Yes but not worthy of a sacking. Any previous is irrelevant as each case has to be considered on its merit.You don't have a points system which when reached makes a sacking possible.
I doubt we can all agree that as has already been demonstrated. A few years ago a mentally disturbed Kenyan broke into the flight deck of a British airliner flying to Nairobi. This was prior to 09/11 and was at a time when there were no rules or directives ( in the UK) requiring reinforced flight deck doors or the exclusion of unauthorised persons on the flight deck. Though widely reported because of the seriousness, it wasn't the only such example. Safety was clearly an issue where passengers had access to the flight deck. Obviously this was not the likely case in all but a microscopic percentage of passengers or flights, but just as with 9/11 it only had to result in one catastophy for the authorities to be goaded into action, or seen to be taking some kind of action. The culmination of all of these events resulted in draconian actions being taken in some countries and certainly in the USA and UK and others.

There are few of us in commercial airline flying who are not very annoyed and frustrated at the restrictions now placed on us by the rules that evolved from these events. I cannot take my daughter, my sons, or my wife on the flightdeck with me now, when once I could. This causes difficulties from time to time and often prevents me taking them at all. However it is a regulation I am required to comply with absolutely and therefore do, of course. I often wonder why there seems to be little pressure exerted on the regulators from those with the mandate and organisation to do so ? Nevertheless like everybody else in the same position I am required to conduct my operations within these rules as with any other. If I do not feel I can for personal reasons then the option exists to resign and walk away.

The problem here is that be it a "celebrity" or my son I cannot ignore the rules that are lawfully placed on me, unless there is a compelling reason. If I don't, then not only do I place others in a very difficult situation where they are (at best) complicit in my willfull negligence, but I knowingly run the risk of jeopardising my own position. If I am happy for whatever reason to violate the rules that I am required to operate under, without justifiable and sensible argument, then yes it would be a safety matter. If for no other reason than I cannot expect my crew to keep their mouths shut to protect my whims, when I should be encouraging a culture of openness and honest communication that is part of the trust vital to the safe operation of that I am charged with. In summary, yes it is a safety issue.

I find it hard to believe this point needs to be made time and time again as it is so fundamental to the role. Nobody with any commonsense or undertanding of the job is advocating the sacking of a collegue for an honest mistake or lapse of judgement. That is why the simplistic poll above is so silly. However it is very likely that there is much more to this particular case than anything so simple. Many people have already alluded to this which rather suggests that is obvious. Like most people here I have no first hand insight into the facts, and only comment because the subject has been pushed into the public arena and then only to make comment on the generalities.
Bealzebub is offline  
Old 9th Oct 2007, 15:20
  #231 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: LHR
Posts: 427
Under UK employment law instant dismissal can only result from an offence of 'Gross Misconduct'.

That might include for example.....
- Bopping a colleague on the nose.
- Theft of company property.
- Willful damage to company property
- Dishonesty of fraud or in matters relating to safety
- Bringing an employer into serious disrepute
- The 'Reckless Endangerment' of an aircraft under your command.

The relatively minor offence of misinterpretation of a security rule falls into none of these serious categories. We must therefore presume that Captain Mason has received the statutory warnings (one verbal, two written) during a sufficient period where he has been afforded an opportunity to improve his performance over time.

When I say 'Improve his performance'...... It is self evident that he has been operating as a Captain for MYT so his technical ability appears not to have been in question. Perhaps someone from MYT could confirm that he has enjoyed unbroken service as a Captain and not been demoted at any stage for poor performance ?

The MYT statement said:
"We have a zero-tolerance policy towards any actions which could endanger the safety of our passengers and employees
Permitting one of a known, private group of travelers access to the flight deck in no way constitutes an action to "endanger the safety of our passengers and employees". If his technical competence as a Captain has been so far untarnished then MYT have a fairly strong case coming their way for constructive dismissal.

As past performance in MYT has shown, 18 months later and after much stress an Industrial Tribunal will probably order them to reinstate Captain Mason. MYT will refuse and the two parties will reach a 5 figure severance deal......
It's happened before!
Magplug is offline  
Old 9th Oct 2007, 15:34
  #232 (permalink)  
DIRECTOR
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: U.K.
Posts: 613
Bealzebub As I understand it on the BA flight you refer to the uninvited deranged passenger did not break into the flight deck but merely walked through the unlocked maybe even open door, slightly different to what happened on the MYT aircraft. Nobody is suggesting that cockpit doors should not remain locked at all times but even now anybody or particularly a large group could gain access if they really wanted to as doors have to be opened from time to time for all sorts of reasons. First Class Lavatories are close to the cockpit door on some aircraft or Business class on some B744's.
thegypsy is offline  
Old 9th Oct 2007, 15:38
  #233 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 1999
Posts: 2,265
Yes very different, and I am glad to see you read the whole reply in context and the point wasn't lost on you.
Bealzebub is offline  
Old 9th Oct 2007, 15:51
  #234 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Planet Earth for a short visit
Posts: 614
manually flying........... no not me it was the FOs leg and he did it all (3 hours apart from the brief) and he performed exceptionally well.

I'm only the Captain, I only manage. Which to take us back on track is exactly what Pablo did and did it very well.
silverhawk is offline  
Old 9th Oct 2007, 15:52
  #235 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: the midnight sky
Posts: 27
I can't believe any company would sack a Captain for one act of foolishness. I've no idea about this mans background or history so until we all know the full facts the poll is a complete waste of time. Many here are just behaving like those journo's we all love to hate; saying too much about something they know so little about.
Look forward to MYT's justification at the tribunal and the Captains mitigation and defence.
Get the feeling there may be a silver lining with his website and the publicity.
NiteKos is offline  
Old 9th Oct 2007, 15:53
  #236 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: In my seat
Posts: 822
Bealzebub,

I can imagine Pablo being welcome in Belgium as in that country, pilots mostly have some common sense.

You say that you are "frustrated" by the closed-cockpit policy, then do something about it instead of taking it as it comes "because the authorities don't want to change"
Work together with your airline in changing internal rules, ask your airline to put pressure on your CAA to change for the better. If you don't like it, change it.

I agree that Pablo breached an SOP. I agree that for that, he should have been debriefed by his CP or DFO and been told why the rules are there.
But that does not change the fact that the rules need to be relaxed in the UK.

I will tonight fly to the UK with my wife on the jumpseat by the way, drinking my coffee that I will have brought from home. That alone proofs more than 12 pages of discussions how ridiculous all of this has become.
despegue is offline  
Old 9th Oct 2007, 16:18
  #237 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: West Yorks
Age: 70
Posts: 0
'I can't believe any company would sack a Captain for one act of foolishness. I've no idea about this mans background or history so until we all know the full facts the poll is a complete waste of time.'

Other facts may be relevant to the dismissal, but on this incident alone it would seem an over reaction.

I voted 'no' based upon the wording of the question. JCC
John CC is offline  
Old 9th Oct 2007, 17:55
  #238 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 1997
Location: Penarth South Wales
Posts: 950
Just so everyone understands....
The rule regarding operating crew in the Flightdeck is not the CAA but the department for Transport. The CAA made valiant but wasted case to allow certain exceptions. The DfT case is very simple, in their minds. The more people in the flightdeck, the more the cockpit door has to be opened in flight to " service" them and each time the cockpit door is opened it represents a risk.


Furthermore ( and this is for despegue and others of the same mind), this rule applies UK registered aircraft and all public transport aircraft of ANY NATIONALITY or REGISTER entering UK Airspace.
So its operating Flight crew only, with the minor exception of flight crew who are positioning to and from their base of operation prior to, or after a flight duty.
Be warned.
Hamrah is offline  
Old 9th Oct 2007, 19:35
  #239 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: north
Posts: 115
Im shocked that somepeople think he was dobbed in by a snitch.
As Ive said before if this chap consulted his purser/fo and if either of them expressed their displeasure based on their interpretation of the allowed practice then there should have been no visit. There being no justification for it. Pablos other job is fear of flying , but he was flying for MYT.

If this was the case then this man has no place in charge of an airliner as he is just palin arrogant and self serving. I dont care how many bloody fighters hes flown. This isnt about safety its about demonstrating good leadership. If he overruled his colleagues he is just a **** with an agenda of self promotion. Therefore unsuitable for command. you see its not about the flying , that should be a given.its the overall skills that matter.

As for silverhawk,if you were operating in rvsm and brnav airspace after equipment failure without atcs knowledge of that failure then you are criminaly negligent as you will have endagered seperation.

If ATC were ok to let you fly on with the knowledge of your failure then you just had to fly a plane. Big deal. This thread has really brought the enthusiasts and two year wonder raf wannabes out of the woodwork.

Alot of belges I know are the only people that think they are hotshots so pablo will fit in well.

Hamrah ...well said
wee one is offline  
Old 9th Oct 2007, 19:42
  #240 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Arizona USA
Posts: 8,572
Which to take us back on track is exactly what Pablo did and did it very well.
Really?
The airline company didn't think so, and after all, it is them who pay his salary (not anymore, as he is gone), so good 'ole Pablo is on the street.
Fight City Hall....expect repercussions.
Younger folks simply need to follow the plot, but sadly rarely do.
What a shame.
They will eventually learn, the hard way...oddly enough, just as Pablo did.
Goodbye Pablo, you silly fool.
411A is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information -

Copyright 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.