Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Flight Deck Forums > Rumours & News
Reload this Page >

mytravel pilot loses appeal

Rumours & News Reporting Points that may affect our jobs or lives as professional pilots. Also, items that may be of interest to professional pilots.

mytravel pilot loses appeal

Old 26th Nov 2007, 16:06
  #61 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: EGKK
Age: 57
Posts: 66
John Boeman you cloak yourself in the semantics of the English language when losing sight of the big picture...unfortunate.
p.s. you did not answer the 3 questions raised
Flap 80 is offline  
Old 26th Nov 2007, 16:08
  #62 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Put out to graze
Age: 59
Posts: 1,034
Flaps 80 and Boeman

chill out a bit. We want to read an informed thread not a points scoring exchange between the two of you.

PM each other if you want a fight!
kick the tires is offline  
Old 26th Nov 2007, 16:30
  #63 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: EGKK
Age: 57
Posts: 66
K T T My apologies.
Flap 80 is offline  
Old 26th Nov 2007, 17:08
  #64 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: England
Posts: 119
Flap 80, if it makes you happy, - 1. No, 2. No, 3.No.

K.T.T. I understand where you are coming from. If you care to read my posts you will see that I try to stick to the facts. The majority of pilots do think that what is served up as anti-terrorism security, is farcical. That is obvious to anyone reading the threads on here even if they do not have to suffer the nonsense themselves.

You will notice I did not actually indulge in any point scoring with Flap 80, I merely pointed out the somewhat slanderous nature of his post.
You will also notice his apology was to you, not Pablo or myself.

Just as a point of fact, I have shared a cockpit with Pablo a good many years ago. I cannot comment on his career before or since. All I can say is that I found him to be a caring human being and a conscientious and professionally mannered pilot.

Thanks for the vote of confidence in us David.
John Boeman is offline  
Old 26th Nov 2007, 19:55
  #65 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Tracey Island
Posts: 1,496
He has only lost out on the internal appeal. His next step would be to lodge the case at an employment tribunal. However, I do not think that he has much hope in that arena. The criteria would not be, was the reason for sacking correct or not. It would be, whether the procedures leading up to the sacking were fair. This would take into account any prior warnings etc..

As a matter of interest, a question to those who think that he has been harshly treated because he should have some say on what happens on his plane. What would constitute a breaking of a rule that should lead to sacking?
I ask out of genuine interest. I have no thought one way or the other over Pablo's demise.
call100 is offline  
Old 26th Nov 2007, 21:16
  #66 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: UK
Age: 76
Posts: 49
As a fairly long retired pilot, I would be interested to know who does make the rules for flight deck visits or lack thereoff. Is it the airline as part of their "approved" ops manual or is it the law of the land"?

With regard to "bending the rules", I'm sure many, perhaps most of us have, at some time, but in my case only if my "right hand man" was happy and if WE felt it was a safe and expedient action in the interests of the flight. Does anyone know what the first officer/co-pilot thought? If he was in agreement, then presumably he also faced some kind of disciplinary board. If he did'nt agree or wasn't consulted, what chance CRM?
hautemude is offline  
Old 26th Nov 2007, 23:03
  #67 (permalink)  
cym
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: uk
Posts: 237
rules are rules - and there to safeguard all pax

This guys over inflated sense of self imprortance in deciding what he considers to be appropriate is mind blowing

sounds like a bit of a reocurring situation too - big difference between flying a Tornado and an A320.......
cym is offline  
Old 26th Nov 2007, 23:17
  #68 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: U.K.
Age: 42
Posts: 3,112
It's the law.
Obviously you've never broken, bent or blatantly disregarded a "law" in your life? How about a little bit of speeding or anything else that is "against the law".

It's nice to see the fantastic holier than thou attitudes in here. Let's look at this with a sense of perspective. Letting a known figure onto the flight deck poses stuff all risk, we're not talking here about letting any old punter onto the flight deck (though I personally don't see a problem with that myself).

It's nice to see that the professional pilots of today are so slavishly bound by rules and regulation without any regard to experience and risk management skills.

You may aswell just put a robot into the cockpit if you think that sacking someone for this was a good thing.

Breaking SOP's shouldn't be done lightly, but there are times when the rule book needs to be thrown out of the window. Idiotic "safety" rules are well up on that list.

Common sense really isn't that common anymore...............
Say again s l o w l y is offline  
Old 26th Nov 2007, 23:23
  #69 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: West Yorkshire Zone
Posts: 976
After reading this thread so far, I am divided about Pablo and his 'Flight Deck Circus performance'

I still think that Airlines should give the Captain some degree of trust and decision making.

Do you think a Captain does not take everything into responsibility??

Why are other European & Worldwide Airlines still free to allow who they want into the office wether it be family/friends press??

I am also divided on the rule that the Captain is in full command of his ship in the air - So he/she decides how the show will run, And if he/she feels confident in allowing a FD visit then so be it.

The Captain signs the log, So effectively he/she has the last say so??

The comment that always irratates me - We are winning the war on Terrorism!!! - I don't believe a word of it, Try telling that to a group of children who want to meet the captain on a Santa flight but cannot

I have always said if the US had been more 'Dilligent' with security Then maybe we would not be in this post 9/11 mess!!

A re-run of 9/11 nearly happened here, But the UK inteligence prevented it happening with good surveilance The US knew about a threat but were too slow to act.

Why would a group of 'muslims' wish to learn to fly in the US.....Think about it
BYALPHAINDIA is offline  
Old 26th Nov 2007, 23:26
  #70 (permalink)  
cym
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: uk
Posts: 237
or maybe arrogance from people put in a position of trust who decide their own interperation of the LAW is something that those with 4 gold rings need to start need to considering......

Highly respected professionals you are, gods you aint
cym is offline  
Old 26th Nov 2007, 23:48
  #71 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: U.K.
Age: 42
Posts: 3,112
Just a small chip there then.

This isn't about being an arrogant "sky god", but a captain has to be able to take decisions on all matters once the doors are closed. This sort of decision just undermines command authority and you could potentially end up with a situation where people are worried about making decisions and end up in a far worse situation.

SOP's can't encompass every possible situation, so you have to rely on skill, intelligence and experience in that situation.

If I was in the sh*t on a flight I'd rather have someone like Pablo sitting next to me, rather than someone who has no ability to think outside the box and before any says much, we all know many people in both the LH and RH seats that who couldn't think of a way out of a wet paper bag unless it was written in a book.
Say again s l o w l y is offline  
Old 26th Nov 2007, 23:55
  #72 (permalink)  
cym
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: uk
Posts: 237
this was a decision which was wrong and the price needs to be paid by the pilot concered.

To say that once the doors are closed the captain can over ride whatever rules he wishes is nonsense
cym is offline  
Old 27th Nov 2007, 00:10
  #73 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: U.K.
Age: 42
Posts: 3,112
Nobody would ever say that, but where do you draw the line?

What "price" do you think is acceptable in this situation? Sacking someone for a what is a minor transgression of an idiotic rule is over the top.

To me it sounds like it was used as an excuse.

Do you think people should be fired every time they make a mistake or do something a bit daft? If so you should be fired from here for punctuation.

That's just me being daft of course, but this isn't a back and white issue and statements like
this was a decision which was wrong and the price needs to be paid by the pilot concered.
aren't really helpful.

If you've never made a mistake or disregarded a daft rule in your life, then maybe you have a point, but I somehow doubt that this is the case for anybody.
Say again s l o w l y is offline  
Old 27th Nov 2007, 00:43
  #74 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 67
Devil

There is a lot of rhetoric here about it being okay to disregard "idiotic" or "daft" rules and that the captain can break whatever rules he wants, it is his aircraft.

I may think that the 70mph rule on the motorway is daft especially as the road is clear and dry. If I get caught though I pay the penalty, I somehow do not think the judge would agree with my interpretation or disregard of the "law / rule" because I thought it was "idiotic" or "daft".

When I operate my aircraft I have the ability to go outside the "SOP" or rules but I have to be able to justify it to my company as well as the regulator. Somehow I do not think "PABLO" could do that here. He should have asked for permission and if it was not forthcoming or if he thought it would not be given then he should not have done it.

What seems to be lost here is that outside of MYT, he is running a "fear of flying company" and it could be alleged that this was as a blatant piece of self advertising for his own company, whilst working for another and breaking the law!

As for all the character references and the "whizzo" PA's I am sure there would be just as many going "he likes the sound of his own voice".

MYT have obviously reacted the way they did because of more than this one incident. There is probably no doubt that the spin doctors will not want the other linen to be washed in public as it could be damaging and not good for the "Pablo" cause. There are always TWO sides to a story.
electricjetjock is offline  
Old 27th Nov 2007, 00:56
  #75 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: uk
Posts: 47
My flying career as was is dotted with memories of characters, mavericks, renegades, call them what you will who are still around, still doing it and still the same, ultimately professional. Without them the world might be a sadder place than it is now. To the ones who were negligent, stupid, silly, go hang!
cyclic gal is offline  
Old 27th Nov 2007, 06:07
  #76 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 17
Originally Posted by Say again s l o w l y
Nobody would ever say that [once the doors are closed the captain can over ride whatever rules he wishes], but where do you draw the line?
A good starting point would be whether said action enhances the chances of the flight making it to the destination in one piece. IIRC Al Haynes on is DC10 flight into Sioux City got a suitable qualified pax up onto the flight deck to assist. There was no criticism of him - and even with the changes of rules since then, I'm firmly of the opinion his invitation woould be deemed wholly appropriate.

If Pablo's sidestick was stuck and the presence of Mr Savage to give it a good penalty kick to get it moving again was needed then fair enough - but otherwise exactly how did his presence on the flightdeck help ensure safe passage of the flight in question?

The rules are there, Pablo broke them, he got caught, had no justification - end of story.
phillipas is offline  
Old 27th Nov 2007, 07:14
  #77 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: The No Trangression Zone
Posts: 2,053
From way back at the beginning:
I wrote:"doing something like that in the US is actually a violation of federal law...and you could lose your license, pay fines or go to jail---definitely lose your carreer--- "

and OilHead wrote:

True, but he was not in the US so what is your point?



My Point was that depending on your home country's air/crimal laws he could have had far greater consequences heaped upon him, or far less as the case maybe.???

I was trying to point out that he has his most important asset his license and his freedom---He has the chance to move on with his life as a pilot--- this gentleman sounds like a talented aviator reading some of the writings in the military aviation part of PPRuNe---I hope that he should find a very happy setting that better suits his ways---I wish that for us all however

Although the details are very sketchy in my mind---

---remember the case of the NWA captain who was sacked, imprisoned and fined for being intoxicated while on duty?

He was later allowed to return but first he needed to re-do the whole entire ATPL over, I mean C-172 stuff--- IR multi, high performance/ complex you kinda know the drill....Mr. Mason should feel grateful


And believe me I think the law stinks, but we are not legislators or politicians---perish the thought---


And

as far as the USA and "homeland security" TSA?/FAA/ NTSB/and Washington AND FEMA here

Last edited by Pugilistic Animus; 27th Nov 2007 at 18:37. Reason: to add FEMA the worst of all
Pugilistic Animus is offline  
Old 27th Nov 2007, 08:08
  #78 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Put out to graze
Age: 59
Posts: 1,034
Phillipas
Al Haynes on is DC10 flight into Sioux City got a suitable qualified pax up onto the flight deck to assist.
What on earth has this pre 9/11 incident got to do with Pablo's post 9/11 transgression???
Today, and I suspect in those days too, the Captain has the authority to deviate from ANY SOP's as he sees fit in order to secure the safe operation of the aircraft. This permission is granted to allow him the freedom to deviate from the SOP's that havent been written for the more unusual emergencies.
Of course, as someone has already pointed out, the Captain has to justify his/her actions at the subsequent board of inquiry.

Last edited by kick the tires; 27th Nov 2007 at 08:10. Reason: typo
kick the tires is offline  
Old 27th Nov 2007, 08:49
  #79 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 17
Originally Posted by kick the tyres
Phillipas
Al Haynes on is DC10 flight into Sioux City got a suitable qualified pax up onto the flight deck to assist.
What on earth has this pre 9/11 incident got to do with Pablo's post 9/11 transgression???
A good question. Perhaps if you were to read the next sentence of my post you might find the answer:
Originally Posted by phillipas
There was no criticism of him - and even with the changes of rules since then, I'm firmly of the opinion his invitation woould be deemed wholly appropriate.
Originally Posted by kick the tyres
Today, and I suspect in those days too, the Captain has the authority to deviate from ANY SOP's as he sees fit in order to secure the safe operation of the aircraft. This permission is granted to allow him the freedom to deviate from the SOP's that havent been written for the more unusual emergencies.
Er, just what I said I think. The issue here is that Pablo getting Mr Savage on the flightdeck was in no way to secure the safe operation of the aircraft.
phillipas is offline  
Old 27th Nov 2007, 09:04
  #80 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Put out to graze
Age: 59
Posts: 1,034
Phillipas, I did indeed read all of your post but wont stoop to sarcasm in this answer.

Al Haynes acted in an emergency situation, Pablo did not.
kick the tires 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.