15 year allowed to fly, Turkish pilot fired
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Elysion
Posts: 195
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You really need to appreciate that people dont just accept the "oh you are just SLF" any more.
The "Me" seems to be worshipped and come before anything else. Everybody is an instant expert with the "right" to voice an opinion. Again, nobody seems to consider if it is appropriate.
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Sandbox
Posts: 167
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I start by saying that the closed cockpit door rules probably would have come about anyway BUT,
911 was a bunch of guys hijacking a bunch of planes with a bunch of box cutters.
Prior to that date it WAS LEGAL in the USA and many other countries to carry knives/box cutters on board as long as the blade was no more than 4 inches long.
911...whose fault?
You decide.
Sorry kids, you can't visit the cockpit any more.
911 was a bunch of guys hijacking a bunch of planes with a bunch of box cutters.
Prior to that date it WAS LEGAL in the USA and many other countries to carry knives/box cutters on board as long as the blade was no more than 4 inches long.
911...whose fault?
You decide.
Sorry kids, you can't visit the cockpit any more.
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: EGSS
Age: 62
Posts: 73
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This thread is typical of all that is wrong with the world today.
The rules are there as a standard checklist to ensure there is a standard.
They usually come about after a catalogue of experience ...most often bad and then one can extrapolate a method which works, or least likely to fail.
My mind wanders to something my father said about why they jumped from the aircraft on the CO's command.......without question.
The flightdeck is now out of bounds.....period.
This is evolution whether it be right or wrong and is now most company sop.
The job has changed, the aircraft have changed, the flightdeck has changed, whether we can accept it or not is the problem.
I could even fly unwashed and full of chicken sandwiches if I thought it would enhance my ability to command the aircraft but there is probably a notam forbidding it.
The rules are there as a standard checklist to ensure there is a standard.
They usually come about after a catalogue of experience ...most often bad and then one can extrapolate a method which works, or least likely to fail.
My mind wanders to something my father said about why they jumped from the aircraft on the CO's command.......without question.
The flightdeck is now out of bounds.....period.
This is evolution whether it be right or wrong and is now most company sop.
The job has changed, the aircraft have changed, the flightdeck has changed, whether we can accept it or not is the problem.
I could even fly unwashed and full of chicken sandwiches if I thought it would enhance my ability to command the aircraft but there is probably a notam forbidding it.
hear, hear - - - - again
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Cambridge
Posts: 12
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SLF and i dont like chicken !
Cockpit Entry - common sense is redundant. A few years ago i was flying away on holiday with my young family (UK carrier, spanish captain)
Packed flight and guess who gets the aisle seat that is not actually bolted to the floor (whole seat easily moveable by hand)
On the ramp ready to push back, everyone looking impatient, muggins standing up asking "is this all right ?" - captain summoned from the flight deck. Charming and concerned he looked at the problem and called for an engineer who said i can't fix this quickly.
Captain said do you mind stting in the cockpit jump seat if i can get permission from "head office"
Captain comes back embarrassed and angry that after several "requests" permission has been refused (post 9/11) to use the obvious solution
He then asks me what do you want to do (deplane or risk the seat) i resent having to make this decision as it should not be mine to make and feel let down by a ridiculous decision from management about the obvious solution suggested by the captain.
I resist the urge to request that the captain is the PF for the landing and that i get a guarantee of compensation if i get injured/killed
I weigh up the pros and cons of a wrecked (expensive) family holiday versus the actual risk of needing all my seat bolts on this particular flight - and go with the one bolt left !
we live in a world where remote risks are often being replaced with real ones !!
Packed flight and guess who gets the aisle seat that is not actually bolted to the floor (whole seat easily moveable by hand)
On the ramp ready to push back, everyone looking impatient, muggins standing up asking "is this all right ?" - captain summoned from the flight deck. Charming and concerned he looked at the problem and called for an engineer who said i can't fix this quickly.
Captain said do you mind stting in the cockpit jump seat if i can get permission from "head office"
Captain comes back embarrassed and angry that after several "requests" permission has been refused (post 9/11) to use the obvious solution
He then asks me what do you want to do (deplane or risk the seat) i resent having to make this decision as it should not be mine to make and feel let down by a ridiculous decision from management about the obvious solution suggested by the captain.
I resist the urge to request that the captain is the PF for the landing and that i get a guarantee of compensation if i get injured/killed
I weigh up the pros and cons of a wrecked (expensive) family holiday versus the actual risk of needing all my seat bolts on this particular flight - and go with the one bolt left !
we live in a world where remote risks are often being replaced with real ones !!
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: UK
Age: 46
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
After reading this thread with some interest and still being amazed at the ability of some contributors not to read posts addressed to them properly, I felt I had to add my tuppence worth.
My love of aviation stems from 2 incidents when I was a child, one when I was 8 being alllowed into the cockpit of a Tri-star en-route to Malta from EGKK and being in their for about half an hour being shown all the 'screens', buttons & controls by the FO whilst my mum was being chatted up by the Captain (Handy to have an attractive & single mum then lol). The second was when I was 12, again en-route from EGKK to Malaga where shortly after take off I requested to visit the FD and was allowed and proceeded to be invited to stay there in the jump seat for the entire duration of the flight including landing and taxiing... I was allowed into the LHS, allowed to take the yoke, follow through the autopilot and then for about 60 secs the AP was disengaged and I was able to hold the aircraft steady (with the FO having his hands on the RHS controls also), I was even supervised changing the co-ordinates on the AP.... It was, as you can imagine, truly amazing (the flare freaked me out a bit at the time lol).
Now, sadly the most we can hope for is a brief visit to the FD before take off, as I was able to do for my son 6 weeks ago from Orlando..
However, it intrigues me how Mercury Dancer can make comments like
"As a passenger I would have objected to a child being on the flight deck" as surely at 47 years old he would have been flying pre 9/11, even when I was 12 in 1989 he would have been 28 and just how many times did he object to a child being on the FD? I would bet that it was a big fat none. But surely, if his argument was vaild, that he would object to a child on the FD as they are an unsafe person (from a control perspective), rather than the fact that it breaks mosts companies SOP's, then he would have been objecting on most flights he's ever taken between 1961 and now - Infact I hazard a guess that he felt himself unsafe to visit the FD when he was a child and therefore doesn't see why anyone else should have had the chance to do it.
Lastly, as much as I may not like the closed FD door policy, the likelihood remains that if a policy such as 'allow little Johnny's & Janet's access during flight, what harm can it do?', would undoubtedly be exploited by those with harmful intentions at some point using an impressionable child as a tool
My love of aviation stems from 2 incidents when I was a child, one when I was 8 being alllowed into the cockpit of a Tri-star en-route to Malta from EGKK and being in their for about half an hour being shown all the 'screens', buttons & controls by the FO whilst my mum was being chatted up by the Captain (Handy to have an attractive & single mum then lol). The second was when I was 12, again en-route from EGKK to Malaga where shortly after take off I requested to visit the FD and was allowed and proceeded to be invited to stay there in the jump seat for the entire duration of the flight including landing and taxiing... I was allowed into the LHS, allowed to take the yoke, follow through the autopilot and then for about 60 secs the AP was disengaged and I was able to hold the aircraft steady (with the FO having his hands on the RHS controls also), I was even supervised changing the co-ordinates on the AP.... It was, as you can imagine, truly amazing (the flare freaked me out a bit at the time lol).
Now, sadly the most we can hope for is a brief visit to the FD before take off, as I was able to do for my son 6 weeks ago from Orlando..
However, it intrigues me how Mercury Dancer can make comments like
"As a passenger I would have objected to a child being on the flight deck" as surely at 47 years old he would have been flying pre 9/11, even when I was 12 in 1989 he would have been 28 and just how many times did he object to a child being on the FD? I would bet that it was a big fat none. But surely, if his argument was vaild, that he would object to a child on the FD as they are an unsafe person (from a control perspective), rather than the fact that it breaks mosts companies SOP's, then he would have been objecting on most flights he's ever taken between 1961 and now - Infact I hazard a guess that he felt himself unsafe to visit the FD when he was a child and therefore doesn't see why anyone else should have had the chance to do it.
Lastly, as much as I may not like the closed FD door policy, the likelihood remains that if a policy such as 'allow little Johnny's & Janet's access during flight, what harm can it do?', would undoubtedly be exploited by those with harmful intentions at some point using an impressionable child as a tool
Last edited by hot_stepper; 2nd Oct 2008 at 14:41.
Join Date: Nov 1999
Posts: 2,312
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"aux vaches"
Any professional pilot reading this would have their head in their hands.
It isn't a question of "common sense", the rules relating to who may or may not sit sit in the flight deck are from statutes empowering the DfT to issue mandatory instructions to all UK carriers and to those foreign carriers operating into and out of United Kingdom territory and airspace. The company had no discretion or authority to endorse or sanction any request that violated the law. What the Captain might have done in extremis, would no doubt be subsequently judged on its own merits, but you can be assured that any violation of this rule for purely routine maintenance items was a complete non starter.
Seats are not usually individual items, so if yours was not secured to the floor rails, presumably the entire row was insecure. If indeed this was the case, then no right minded Captain would sanction departing in such a condition. Even if the row was unoccupied, the potential danger of a loose major item of cabin equipment would normally preclude departing in that condition.
I am afraid it all sounds a little bit suspect, but if indeed the Captain sought permission to set aside the rules, and was denied that permission (as you would expect), then that is not a failing of the company managment, in fact quite the opposite, they complied as they were lawfully required to do! Your "obvious solution" wasn't in fact any solution at all. The Captain presumably knew that, otherwise he wouldn't have needed to seek further guidance. The company knew that as well.
Again, it is hard to imagine any Captain certifying the acceptance of a seat in an unsafe condition, and given the nature of these seat rows I am a little sceptical that he actually did, although I appreciate your interpretation of the situation, it may lack the full facts that were prevalant at the time. However you were there and I wasn't, so if what you say was the case, then this Captain would seem to have made some very poor and fundamentaly flawed decisions. Safety would be a paramount concern and any perception that your "expensive" holiday would be wrecked, or that statutory rules and regulations should be set aside to change that priority would be risible to any aircraft commander.
Any professional pilot reading this would have their head in their hands.
It isn't a question of "common sense", the rules relating to who may or may not sit sit in the flight deck are from statutes empowering the DfT to issue mandatory instructions to all UK carriers and to those foreign carriers operating into and out of United Kingdom territory and airspace. The company had no discretion or authority to endorse or sanction any request that violated the law. What the Captain might have done in extremis, would no doubt be subsequently judged on its own merits, but you can be assured that any violation of this rule for purely routine maintenance items was a complete non starter.
Seats are not usually individual items, so if yours was not secured to the floor rails, presumably the entire row was insecure. If indeed this was the case, then no right minded Captain would sanction departing in such a condition. Even if the row was unoccupied, the potential danger of a loose major item of cabin equipment would normally preclude departing in that condition.
I am afraid it all sounds a little bit suspect, but if indeed the Captain sought permission to set aside the rules, and was denied that permission (as you would expect), then that is not a failing of the company managment, in fact quite the opposite, they complied as they were lawfully required to do! Your "obvious solution" wasn't in fact any solution at all. The Captain presumably knew that, otherwise he wouldn't have needed to seek further guidance. The company knew that as well.
Again, it is hard to imagine any Captain certifying the acceptance of a seat in an unsafe condition, and given the nature of these seat rows I am a little sceptical that he actually did, although I appreciate your interpretation of the situation, it may lack the full facts that were prevalant at the time. However you were there and I wasn't, so if what you say was the case, then this Captain would seem to have made some very poor and fundamentaly flawed decisions. Safety would be a paramount concern and any perception that your "expensive" holiday would be wrecked, or that statutory rules and regulations should be set aside to change that priority would be risible to any aircraft commander.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Alabama
Age: 58
Posts: 366
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
However, it intrigues me how Mercury Dancer can make comments like
"As a passenger I would have objected to a child being on the flight deck" as surely at 47 years old he would have been flying pre 9/11, even when I was 12 in 1989 he would have been 28 and just how many times did he object to a child being on the FD? I would bet that it was a big fat none. But surely, if his argument was vaild, that he would object to a child on the FD as they are an unsafe person (from a control perspective), rather than the fact that it breaks mosts companies SOP's, then he would have been objecting on most flights he's ever taken between 1961 and now - Infact I hazard a guess that he felt himself unsafe to visit the FD when he was a child and therefore doesn't see why anyone else should have had the chance to do it.
"As a passenger I would have objected to a child being on the flight deck" as surely at 47 years old he would have been flying pre 9/11, even when I was 12 in 1989 he would have been 28 and just how many times did he object to a child being on the FD? I would bet that it was a big fat none. But surely, if his argument was vaild, that he would object to a child on the FD as they are an unsafe person (from a control perspective), rather than the fact that it breaks mosts companies SOP's, then he would have been objecting on most flights he's ever taken between 1961 and now - Infact I hazard a guess that he felt himself unsafe to visit the FD when he was a child and therefore doesn't see why anyone else should have had the chance to do it.
Regards
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Cambridge
Posts: 12
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
thanks bealzebub
Thanks for the professional background - sorry to force your head into your hands ! What seems obvious to SLF is never the whole story and I now understand that no means no.
The seat (mainly the back) was very loose on its mountings and it was a weekly charter that was already several hours late departing so i suspect time pressure was allowed undue influence. The engineer "fixed" the back in an upright position with reduced wobble (but i obviously would not have seen any paperwork that allowed it as a deferred defect).
presumably most other captains would have disembarked the whole plane to wait for maintenance/replacement of the seat/row ?
"aux vaches"
The seat (mainly the back) was very loose on its mountings and it was a weekly charter that was already several hours late departing so i suspect time pressure was allowed undue influence. The engineer "fixed" the back in an upright position with reduced wobble (but i obviously would not have seen any paperwork that allowed it as a deferred defect).
presumably most other captains would have disembarked the whole plane to wait for maintenance/replacement of the seat/row ?
"aux vaches"
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: lancs.UK
Age: 77
Posts: 1,191
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Playing devil's advocate...........
Mercurydancer = safety-police...It's his JOB to decide things are unsafe and therefore maintain a nice number in enforcement employment....I'd be interested to know where his god-like superior derives his superior wisdom to dictate to us foolish mortals just what "risks" we are allowed to take.
Other protagonists in the spat........
If you were in an operating theatre,(possibly as an observer) and KNEW the surgeon was departing from safe,established ,legislated procedure and had NOT been briefed on that departure, you would, IMHO be well within your rights to question him.
Just because you hold the qualification,does not exclude all others from knowledge....to suggest it does, is arrogant.
IMHO the legislation is flawed, incompetently administered and a diversionary tactic by politicos to obfuscate their bungling ineptitude.
Captain RULES the aircraft....notwithstanding the Aeroflot accident,( It's probably the ONLY accident in the history of commercial aviation in the civilised world caused by cockpit visitors) the FD crew KNOW they're in the front line if they foul up....the vast majority don't have a death-wish! They're paid to MANAGE...let them!
The brief outline of the Aeroflot accident demonstrates an extraordinary lack of crew management, discipline and procedures (Aviate Navigate Communicate, anyone?)....Hopefully all pilots learned from that....I'm sure it wouldn't happen again,if F/D visits were to be reinstated.
Mercurydancer = safety-police...It's his JOB to decide things are unsafe and therefore maintain a nice number in enforcement employment....I'd be interested to know where his god-like superior derives his superior wisdom to dictate to us foolish mortals just what "risks" we are allowed to take.
Other protagonists in the spat........
If you were in an operating theatre,(possibly as an observer) and KNEW the surgeon was departing from safe,established ,legislated procedure and had NOT been briefed on that departure, you would, IMHO be well within your rights to question him.
Just because you hold the qualification,does not exclude all others from knowledge....to suggest it does, is arrogant.
IMHO the legislation is flawed, incompetently administered and a diversionary tactic by politicos to obfuscate their bungling ineptitude.
Captain RULES the aircraft....notwithstanding the Aeroflot accident,( It's probably the ONLY accident in the history of commercial aviation in the civilised world caused by cockpit visitors) the FD crew KNOW they're in the front line if they foul up....the vast majority don't have a death-wish! They're paid to MANAGE...let them!
The brief outline of the Aeroflot accident demonstrates an extraordinary lack of crew management, discipline and procedures (Aviate Navigate Communicate, anyone?)....Hopefully all pilots learned from that....I'm sure it wouldn't happen again,if F/D visits were to be reinstated.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Durham
Age: 62
Posts: 187
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
iceman... the comments about arrogance getting people sacked was more directed at Atreyu than you, but hey if the cap fits.
OK I am outed as a Health and Safety Executive investigator! Nowadays its easier to admit to being gay (which I am not but only say so to avoid flak)
Not done any AAIB investigations but there is no reason why I shouldnt. My area of knowldege is a little specialised in that I look at bodies of people who have died in incidents. I imagine that there would be a few of them in an air crash. There certainly was a lot of them at Paddington/Ladbroke Grove. You see I'm one of those that pick up the pieces.
I dont pontificate... and NEVER judge... just the facts ma'am. The (god like) superiors I have submitted reports to and given evidence before certainly do pontificate and give judgement... Lord Cullen for one....
hot stepper... pre-9/11 I wouldnt have batted an eyelid at anyone going on to the flight deck. So thats your argument gone. Post 9/11 I would. I'd howl like a banshee. If you cant beleive that then youre not paying attention.
OK I am outed as a Health and Safety Executive investigator! Nowadays its easier to admit to being gay (which I am not but only say so to avoid flak)
Not done any AAIB investigations but there is no reason why I shouldnt. My area of knowldege is a little specialised in that I look at bodies of people who have died in incidents. I imagine that there would be a few of them in an air crash. There certainly was a lot of them at Paddington/Ladbroke Grove. You see I'm one of those that pick up the pieces.
I dont pontificate... and NEVER judge... just the facts ma'am. The (god like) superiors I have submitted reports to and given evidence before certainly do pontificate and give judgement... Lord Cullen for one....
hot stepper... pre-9/11 I wouldnt have batted an eyelid at anyone going on to the flight deck. So thats your argument gone. Post 9/11 I would. I'd howl like a banshee. If you cant beleive that then youre not paying attention.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I do not think anyone here is really clamouring for passengers being allowed to visit the cockpit in flight nowadays.
Most of us are purely looking back at what used to be and how 9/11 has changed the face of the world and it is with sadness that those changes have occurred.
We also need to remember the massive costs that 9/11 has caused our industry. I am sure it must go into $billions in security checks, delays and lost productivity to passengers.
Government have created a massive secirity industry within an industry but at the cost to aviation.
Commercial passenger flying goes back many decades and in the time up to 9/11 there must have been millions of people who have visted the flight deck in that time.
It was standard procedure once the aircraft was in the cruise to invite families and especially their kids to go up and say hello to the crew. It gave the crew the ability to communicate with their customers and to contribute to customer relationships which was something special.
It also gave the crew something else to do rather than yet another crossword.
The stupid thing is that in millions of flights 9/11 could have happened at any time even back in the days of prop driven airliners but it didnt.
What was commonplace and even encouraged is now regarded by posters here as almost a crime. That to me is indicative of the almost paranoic attitude and brainwashing 9/11 caused to our views on security.
There were so many speeches made by politicians on how the terrorists must not be allowed to win! How we had all fought for the freedoms we held so dear. Yet what empty words because the terrorists won big time and in my humble opinion we lost a lot big time.
Anyway in the business jets that I fly I still have communication with my passengers, they still wander up to say hello, I still can build relationships with them.
So it is not a demand to open the doors to the past but a sad relection of where we have got to now not only in our loss of freedom but our own attitudes.
Pace
Most of us are purely looking back at what used to be and how 9/11 has changed the face of the world and it is with sadness that those changes have occurred.
We also need to remember the massive costs that 9/11 has caused our industry. I am sure it must go into $billions in security checks, delays and lost productivity to passengers.
Government have created a massive secirity industry within an industry but at the cost to aviation.
Commercial passenger flying goes back many decades and in the time up to 9/11 there must have been millions of people who have visted the flight deck in that time.
It was standard procedure once the aircraft was in the cruise to invite families and especially their kids to go up and say hello to the crew. It gave the crew the ability to communicate with their customers and to contribute to customer relationships which was something special.
It also gave the crew something else to do rather than yet another crossword.
The stupid thing is that in millions of flights 9/11 could have happened at any time even back in the days of prop driven airliners but it didnt.
What was commonplace and even encouraged is now regarded by posters here as almost a crime. That to me is indicative of the almost paranoic attitude and brainwashing 9/11 caused to our views on security.
There were so many speeches made by politicians on how the terrorists must not be allowed to win! How we had all fought for the freedoms we held so dear. Yet what empty words because the terrorists won big time and in my humble opinion we lost a lot big time.
Anyway in the business jets that I fly I still have communication with my passengers, they still wander up to say hello, I still can build relationships with them.
So it is not a demand to open the doors to the past but a sad relection of where we have got to now not only in our loss of freedom but our own attitudes.
Pace
Last edited by Pace; 2nd Oct 2008 at 19:47.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
MercuryDancer
I suggest if you are what you say and so, so concerned with safety issues that you take yourself off on a friday night in the rush hour onto the London tube system.
Your safety obsessions would cause you many sleepless nights! You would see thousands of people pushing and clamouring through the styles of all colours and types dragging hundreds of cases behind them.
You would see trains packed with equal numbers to any airline and above all you would see NO SECURITY WHATSOVER.
Easy game for any terrorist to take as much explosives onto a train unchallenged. Why bother with aircraft?
If you hold public safety in such esteem then maybe you should make that your mission because the tubes bother me a lot.
But and its a big BUT! The Government know there is no practical way they can do anything about it, so they close their eyes and keep their fingers crossed.
Terrorism = Aviation Aviation = Terrorism.
Pace
I suggest if you are what you say and so, so concerned with safety issues that you take yourself off on a friday night in the rush hour onto the London tube system.
Your safety obsessions would cause you many sleepless nights! You would see thousands of people pushing and clamouring through the styles of all colours and types dragging hundreds of cases behind them.
You would see trains packed with equal numbers to any airline and above all you would see NO SECURITY WHATSOVER.
Easy game for any terrorist to take as much explosives onto a train unchallenged. Why bother with aircraft?
If you hold public safety in such esteem then maybe you should make that your mission because the tubes bother me a lot.
But and its a big BUT! The Government know there is no practical way they can do anything about it, so they close their eyes and keep their fingers crossed.
Terrorism = Aviation Aviation = Terrorism.
Pace
As a sidenote, 15 year old kids have been known to snap & go berserk. Once upon a time over Lake Ontario, I was demonstrating a gentle stall. Shouldn´t have, as the girl next to me got hysterical and tried her damndest to yank my hands away from the controls. Succeeded, too. Needless to say I never took her flying again.
Furthermore, I also broke off our engagement. And this was a person I thought I knew
Furthermore, I also broke off our engagement. And this was a person I thought I knew
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am shaking with fear as in the business jets I fly there are no doors between me and the 8 passenegers behind anyone of them could loose the plot and go berserk! You have identified a serious threat! Maybe someone should legislate to having doors welded into business jets or ban business jets as a high risk altogether Even that wouldnt surprise me.
Pace
Even that wouldnt surprise me.Pace
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Cheshire
Age: 78
Posts: 506
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
boredom is an issue . . . . . . . .
It also gave the crew something else to do rather than yet another crossword
I've been an AME for 23 years now, seeing literally hundreds of professional aircrew every year. Prior to Sept 2001 I doubt if I ever, ever, heard in our conversations a single mention of boredom in the cruise. Nowadays it is frequently mentioned. The crew are locked in the F/D, unable to socialise, unable to have visitors (even though the AP is actually flying the aircraft from minute to minute). We read on other threads of crews who have (both ! ) fallen asleep, and in many ways who can be surprised ?
Boredom also adds, of course, to perceived stress levels - - as if they were not high enough already !
I've made it clear in this thread already that I believe that once the rules are in place they must be obeyed - by EVERYBODY. But it's still a great disappointment . . . . . . not only for folk like me who used to enjoy visiting my own "patients" at the pointy end on most of my trips abroad, but also for them because of boredom on the very long sectors flown nowadays.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
AmeandPPL
That is a point that has been missed in the changes since 9/11. Aircraft have become far more automated and the crews more isolated.
Going back a long way crews were crews and flew together on a regular basis which still happens in the business jet invironment but does not in the airline invironment.
In the business jet invironment we still have both! passenger interaction and a co-pilot/ first officer you tend to know better or even as a friend.
In business jets the co-pilot/first officer/ captain may go back and sort the catering so there is a far greater interaction throughout the flight than in the detached airline invironment.
Where there are no night stopovers and different Captains / first officers who do not have a relationship that too makes for a slightly detached situation.
Obviously there are also problems in flying with someone you know well or as a friend but there must also be negatives in flying with a literal stranger.
You would be better placed to know whether studies have been carried out on boredom and its contribution to stress/fatigue?
Maybe the inflight entertainment system should be available to the crew too to fill the times when you wish the jet could do 2000 kts
Stress levels prob increase when there is nothing to do or keep the mind working. There is in a funny way a relaxation when you reach the descent point and your work comes alive or in the departure segment again when your mind is alive and busy.
Pace
That is a point that has been missed in the changes since 9/11. Aircraft have become far more automated and the crews more isolated.
Going back a long way crews were crews and flew together on a regular basis which still happens in the business jet invironment but does not in the airline invironment.
In the business jet invironment we still have both! passenger interaction and a co-pilot/ first officer you tend to know better or even as a friend.
In business jets the co-pilot/first officer/ captain may go back and sort the catering so there is a far greater interaction throughout the flight than in the detached airline invironment.
Where there are no night stopovers and different Captains / first officers who do not have a relationship that too makes for a slightly detached situation.
Obviously there are also problems in flying with someone you know well or as a friend but there must also be negatives in flying with a literal stranger.
You would be better placed to know whether studies have been carried out on boredom and its contribution to stress/fatigue?
Maybe the inflight entertainment system should be available to the crew too to fill the times when you wish the jet could do 2000 kts
Stress levels prob increase when there is nothing to do or keep the mind working. There is in a funny way a relaxation when you reach the descent point and your work comes alive or in the departure segment again when your mind is alive and busy.
Pace
Last edited by Pace; 2nd Oct 2008 at 21:32.
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: FORT MAQTA
Posts: 36
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Business Jets
Pace, can any random person purchase a ticket and fly aboard your business jet? Forgive my ignorance as your answer will help me understand some of the points you make.
If you fly for a "select" set of persons, might this not be why you are free to mingle with them. i believe (subject to correction) that if any member of the public could access a seat on your aircraft then things may be a bit different.
If you fly for a "select" set of persons, might this not be why you are free to mingle with them. i believe (subject to correction) that if any member of the public could access a seat on your aircraft then things may be a bit different.
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: FORT MAQTA
Posts: 36
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"Other protagonists in the spat........
If you were in an operating theatre,(possibly as an observer) and KNEW the surgeon was departing from safe,established ,legislated procedure and had NOT been briefed on that departure, you would, IMHO be well within your rights to question"
IF HE HANDED THE SCALPEL TO A 15 Y/O WANNABEE SURGEON.... I WOULD SQUEEL LIKE THE PROVERBIAL STUCK PIG
If you were in an operating theatre,(possibly as an observer) and KNEW the surgeon was departing from safe,established ,legislated procedure and had NOT been briefed on that departure, you would, IMHO be well within your rights to question"
IF HE HANDED THE SCALPEL TO A 15 Y/O WANNABEE SURGEON.... I WOULD SQUEEL LIKE THE PROVERBIAL STUCK PIG