Pablo Mason (Spelled M.A.S.O.N) Tribunal

[soddim]

Have you considered that some members of the travelling public may prefer the crew to follow the SOPs?

Was it company SOPs that Pablo was accused of violating??

I rather doubt it because SOPs are not mandatory.

In any case, I prefer to travel with airline pilots who know how to fly aircraft and use SOPs as advisory.

[Final 3 Greens]

soddim

Pax won't know the difference between different types of SOPs/laws/regulations/traffic light good practices - see the post immediately before yours for a classic reaction.

I'm not a professional pilot but I have spent an awful lot of time in the cabin and do have a very good idea of how most pax think.

I perfectly understand your feelings, but the reality is that those who were being exorted to punish MYT will neither think lilke you nor suspend their business for this reason, harsh, but true.

BTW, don't read my comments as support for the current security arrangements.

[crewrest]

I rather doubt it because SOPs are not mandatory

Really? That's OK then. I'll remember that for my line check.

[beardy]

So why did PM knowingly transgress the rules? Certainly there was no positive contribution to the safety nor efficiency of the flight. His ego was massaged perhaps? Or perhaps he just didn't like them; neither is sufficient justification. Most pertinently he knew what he was doing was against company SOPs and had no benefit to flight safety, consequently I find the quality of his decision making somewhat suspect.

It is somewhat irrelevant but, for the record, I think that the rules (in this circumstance) suck. But my opinion doesn't override my company SOPs.

[Bealzebub]

A stupid question...you are standing at a red traffic light, no cars coming...common sense is that is safe to cross the junction with the red light!
I will not cross, because the rules says that I cannot, what will you do?

You can please yourself. If you are ticketed for jaywalking or hit by a vehicle you failed to see, or never again give it a second thought, that is simply a matter for you. If, on the other hand, you are in charge of a party of 30 school children would the decision and process be the same? Then your action would affect others for whom you had been charged with responsibility for their safety. There are potential repercussions that extend beyond the immediate action. If your actions either directly or in part contributory resulted in injury or damage to one of those charges, you may find that the support and protections in place to defend you have suddenly evaporated. You may then lay yourself and or your employer open to charges of recklessness and or negligence simply because you had felt it safe to ignore the rules.

As most experienced pilots will certainly know, there are times when you have to make difficult decisions, and sometimes those decisions might be completely at variance with the rules or standard procedures. You are required to make a quick calculated risk as to the best course of action with the intention of providing for the safest possible outcome. That however should not be confused with the requirement to comply at all other times with the statutory and regulatory requirements laid down for the "standard" operation you are charged with. Likewise your employer pays you to contractually provide a service in accordance with the foregoing and their own commercial interests.

If you want to make a protest or display maverick behavioral tendancies, ignore rules, procedures or anything else, do it in your own time and with your own property. The consequences of such actions or behaviour then fall to you and not your employer or anybody else whose charge is your responsibility.

In all of us there is an element of admiration for the "characters" and "mavericks" that perhaps say the things and take the actions that we would never be prepared to. But it is rank hypocrisy to use anonymous usernames to pledge undying support for this behaviour when you know the likely repercussions of such behaviour, if allowed to be widespread, unchecked or unchallenged.

[Bealzebub]

Douglas Bader said: "Rules are for the obedience of fools and the guidance of wise men”

Perhaps because he knew that wise men realize their fallibilities and that those rules guide their actions and decisions. They are not challenges to be ignored or violated on a whim or a mood. Fools who would otherwise take actions that compromise their own safety or security, or the safety and security of others, will quickly find that the required application of those rules will govern the response to their poor actions and decisions. Only a fool would interpret such a cliche as a rallying cry for the would be mavericks ?

[Maximum]

Starbear, with all due respect to Bader's memory, perhaps he is not the best role model for a civilian airline pilot. Wartime very different to peacetime.

While most of us love stories about these characters, they can also be a bl*%dy pain in the ass. Just a general observation from experience, not aimed at any one individual. Sop's are sop's, bottom line. If you don't like them, communicate with management and try to get them changed.

Sure, in a non-normal situation you can use your judgement and disregard them if you think this is the safest course of action.

But, you'll still have to justify your actions afterwards. Fair enough, that's the responsibility we accept when we sign the tech log.

The bottom line is, if you start picking which SOP's to follow and which not to, where does it end. And for the poor old F/O, it disrupts their normal pattern of operation, becomes a bit overwhelming and tends to lead to a one man band style of operation.

I've also noticed with a lot of these 'characters' that they like to be the only one - god forbid that you try and be a 'character' as well.

[call100]

Day two ot the tribunal....
Coventry Telegraph - News - South Warwickshire News - Sacked Leamington pilot was on final warning, tribunal hears

[Capt Pit Bull]

SOP and security are now subjected to be the Captain a good chap?
Common sense? Where starts and where stops? Regulations are regulations...
A stupid question...you are standing at a red traffic light, no cars coming...common sense is that is safe to cross the junction with the red light!
I will not cross, because the rules says that I cannot, what will you do?
FSLF

Well, although the UK has lost the plot in many regards it has still to stoop to the level of stupidity that is 'jaywalking'. So I'll just go ahead and cross, given that its not illegal here. And I'll also shake my head in pity at the poor foreign visitors who have so little faith in their own judgement that they don't even know how to cross a road safely.

pb

[autobrake3]

Perhaps slightly eccentric and ex RAF() but at least, unlike the rest of us (fight crew), he has got the balls to stand up to the utterly pathetic security regime that has been forced upon us by the clowns from Whitehall and executed by your favourite jobsworth 'security' staff and airline 'management'. To someone who is saying enough of this, I say good luck.

[GS John]

I see he has a good defence team

[winkle]

Just a thought why is not letting someone in the cockpit an SOP, SOP's are NOT rules. It should be that the company RULE is that only authorised personel are allowed on the flight deck. SOP's are to allow total safety with operating the aircraft ie callouts, use of auto-flight even the method of entry to the flight deck by cabin crew etc so allowing the crew to interact and both be in the loop and maintain maximum situational awareness.
SOP's are designed to simplify the complex nature of operating aircraft. Rules are put into place by the higher authorities in order to make things as safe as possible.
So company rule is no un authorised personel on the FD, Captain decides to break the rule because he thinks for the safety of the nervous passenger he comes to the flight deck to allay his fears, captain therefore breaks the rule - in his opinion to bring about a safe outcome. Captains are given total authority within their aircraft BUT they are given rules to adhere to, breaking them is their responsibility and they will have to subsequently justify their actions.
PM nice chap met him many years ago in a hot place, hope he wins this one and highlights the stupidity and lack of common sense that is permiating its way through the entire aviation industry - glad i am out of it for now.
Best of luck to you all

[fade to grey]

Oh god, here we go again.....

SOPs are mandatory to be followed in any decent airline, UNLESS you have a cast iron reason to go against them.

This particular chap was certainly not well liked by two ex MYT pilots I know who knew him.....apparantly he believed his own publicity.

Remember the B52 crash in the states ?this is how it all begins - not adhering to procedure, deliberately parking where it says 'no parking', 'maverick ' attitude etc etc...

[Teddy Robinson]

SOP's are rules

They form part of the manual set required by the JAA for an Air Operators Certificate to be issued and maintained, were they part of an employees handbook they become "just" company rules.

Sad to say that the UK still suffers the "culture of fear" legacy of Mr.Bush/Blair. My recent experience with European operators is that an individual may be allowed on the flight deck at the captains discretion provided they are a company employee, or a person known to a member of the flight crew, UNLESS we are flying to the UK that is !!!

Being British born, this causes my crews great amusement.

That seems like a common sense approach .... as for Birmingham security ??? better start a new thread, it's a national disgrace as are all of the UK airports.

TR

[Rigga]

I like the "Jaywalking" approach to airliner safety!

If I was stood at a red light at a road with bends in it, and no traffic was coming; I too would cross after making a judgement that the road was clear enough.

Given a similar situation: What would you do if you were pushing 190 people in connected wheelchairs across?

Would you try to cross? or would you follow the rules?

[Teddy Robinson]

Rigga

were this in a civilized European state there would be no sacking no tribunal.

[Double Zero]

Pablo

I'd much rather be SLF for Pablo than some young chinless type who has much less varied experience; in an emergency, Pablo's who you want to be sitting behind !

I left BAe when my section became overan with foreign accountants like replicators from a sci-fi movie and I was offered to carry on in idiotic fashion or me or my boss should go; I voted with my feet, which didn't seem what was expected, so they made my boss redundant before my voluntary leaving party came up, replacing us both with a puppet.

Let's see, if you as SLF were given the choice, " you can fly with Pablo, a larger than life character, war veteran with thousands of hours on fighters ( well... ) to airliners, OR

You can fly with Norman, just qualified, purely trained to fly this airliner, good at it, no experience with anything else or the emergencies likely to come up in combat which might be useful...

I'd go for Pablo every time, even the SLF would !

[Crewing's Slave]

Cos experience in avoiding SAMs in the desert is just what you need flying to Majorca.....

[mini]

Nah, Norman is infinitely easier to sue...

Pablo lost the run of himself IMHO, hero he may have been in the Mil, but in civvy life you're just A.N.Other, accept it or forever be frustrated.

[Bealzebub]

Let's see, if you as SLF were given the choice, " you can fly with Pablo, a larger than life character, war veteran with thousands of hours on fighters ( well... ) to airliners, OR

How about this larger than life character.

The B-52 crash at Fairchild Air Force Base was a fatal air crash that occurred on June 24, 1994, killing the four crew members of a United States Air Force (USAF) B-52 Stratofortress named Czar 52 during an airshow practice flight. In the crash, Bud Holland, who was the command pilot of the aircraft based at Fairchild Air Force Base, flew the aircraft beyond its operational limits and lost control. As a result, the aircraft stalled, hit the ground, and was destroyed. The crash was videotaped and the video was shown repeatedly on news broadcasts throughout the United States.

The accident investigation concluded that the chain of events leading to the crash was primarily attributable to Holland's personality and behavior, USAF leaders' reactions (or lack thereof) to it, and the sequence of events during the mishap flight of the aircraft. Today, the crash is used in military and civilian aviation environments as a case study in teaching crew resource management. Also, the crash is often used by the USAF, United States Navy and United States Army during aviation safety training as an example of the importance of compliance with safety regulations and correcting the behavior of anyone who violates safety procedures.

This was the end result:



What were you saying about the SLF voting for their hero's ?

Isn't there also an irony in that in this current reported case, the claimant will be relying on civil rules and procedures and the proper application of those rules to advocate his case ?