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

[Maximum]

Double Zero, with all due respect your example is a non sequiter as your "Norman" will not be Captain of the aircraft, being as you say, newly qualified.

Also, since when has being "larger than life" indicated an ability or otherwise to be a safe airline Captain?

Most of those I would trust my life to are fairly quiet, stable individuals.

[doubleu-anker]

Oh, yes and when your a/c is burning and you want to get the thing on the ground pronto, you cant, not allowed. Why? Well the Emergency checklist (Law not an SOP) says you cant, as you are above the max landing weight. So land now or die waiting to get down to landing weight. That is the choice.

Now it is all very well you saying, "yes but the rule book can be discarded" in emergency. However, when one is conditioned to blindly accepting sop's/rules without question and be severely disciplined, should it not be so, the above scenario could creep in.

You see conditioning to strict adherence can possibly lead to disaster, in certain circumstances. Or catasphrophe, remember Nurnberg? "I was was following orders" (rules/SOP's).

Yes I realise sop's must be in place and strict adherence to them is "required" but on the down side it does produce a robotic culture.

[Airbubba]

Oh, yes and when your a/c is burning and you want to get the thing on the ground pronto, you cant, not allowed. Why? Well the Emergency checklist (Law not an SOP) says you cant, as you are above the max landing weight.

Huh? I've never seen that one.

[Final 3 Greens]

Yes I realise sop's must be in place and strict adherence to them is "required" but on the down side it does produce a robotic culture.

SOPs are not about robotic culture, but about repeatable process management.

Therefore, when the situation is normal, you follow the process, because that is the most efficient and safe approach.

When the situation is abnormal, one uses judgment to take the most appropriate action.

One of the challenges in recruiting and retaining the best airline pilots is the paradox that you need highly intelligent people with the self discipline to follow the SOPs day in, day out, but who are also capable of calm, creative problem solving, with very high levels of situational judgment when required.

I think that this is largely misunderstood by many people.

Maximum gives a good insight in saying

Most of those I would trust my life to are fairly quiet, stable individuals.

I would add to that "capable of smooth and sustained team work."

If one analyses the safety records of commercial air transport in the last 60 years, the effects of better equipment and the development of SOPs as a way of managing the flight are self evident.

[Dysag]

Double Zero

I'd like to see a 'health warning' pasted in departures so pax can see whether the flight is being operated by a larger than life character, war veteran with thousands of hours on fighters... ego bigger than his brain etc.

Then they could vote with their feet, too, if they felt scared.

Remember it was a Rambo-like character who put the A320 in the trees at Habsheim.

[Ghostflyer]

Interesting comment about War hero. Does that mean that all of us that flew in Operation Granby were war heroes or just those with handlebar moustaches, that wrote books and then crashed a perfectly servicable tonka?

Let me see, you are a chef and decide to strip to your shreddies in front of your customers so the restaurant tells you not to. You then are abusive to the maitre'd in front of the customers and get a final warning. Then despite being told no one is allowed into the kitchen to handle the food, and being on a final warning, you decide you know better and take in a visiting celebrity to stick his d*ck in the chocolate pudding.

This has nothing to do with SOPs but with one man's belief that the persona he has created for himself means he is above the law. He has a wiki page about himself which insinuates he was even a squadron boss. He seems to have graduated from distinctly average RAF pilot to distinctly crap civil pilot having never really understood what it took to be really good at either. Pablo I wish you well in the future but you really need to move on and get a life.

[strake]

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

Umm, no I don't think I would actually.

I remember him from coverage of GW1 where his public behaviour was exactly that required by a news hungry press for the "folk's back home".
His public persona (don't know about his private one) was that of a warrior ready to take the battle to the enemy. Good stuff from a fighter pilot.

However, as SLF on a simple commercial airline, I'm pretty sure that my fellow passengers want to know that there is a calm, cool team player up the front. I don't want a maverick who's going to break the rules because he thinks they're wrong.

Whilst all of us wish to spout forth anger at the security procedeures we find ourselves having to put up with, or want to visit the flight deck as we could in "the old days", we can't and we just have to put up with it for the time being.

When the going gets tough, we want Burkill's and Sullenberger's up the front and not pilot's who are going to strip to their underwear in a hissy fit.

Seems to me that Mr Mason would be happiest doing a flying job with a bit of an edge to it. I'm sure there are a few companies flying freight into the Middle East who could use his services.

[Starbear]

Airbubba

Quote:
Oh, yes and when your a/c is burning and you want to get the thing on the ground pronto, you cant, not allowed. Why? Well the Emergency checklist (Law not an SOP) says you cant, as you are above the max landing weight.
Huh? .

I've never seen that one

Really? How about the Swissair MD11 (SWR 111), which crashed near Halifax into the sea on Sept 1998, beacuse the Captain insisted on completing the checklists first?

But never forget "rules is rules"

btw Maximum, I did not intend to hold Bader up as a role model for anyone just giving the quote its source. It is the words which are important (to me at least) perhaps I could have made that clearer at the time

SOPs are a set of guidelines to assist crews in operating the aircraft and should be adhered to at all times when possible and sensible. I do not and have never advocated cherrypicking in normal ops. Security RULES are not SOPs even if some companies decided to incorporate them into the same chapter of the manual. And if you choose to disobey company rules you should and may have to accept the consequences if any. Captain Mason is now doing that.

Bealzebub, post 50: Where did Captain Mason's act of rule breaking compromise his or anyone's safety or security in this instance?

I don't know Pablo Mason or the rights and wrongs of his case but it does worry me when people keep reiterating the mantra "rules is rules"

[Bealzebub]

Oh, yes and when your a/c is burning and you want to get the thing on the ground pronto, you cant, not allowed. Why? Well the Emergency checklist (Law not an SOP) says you cant, as you are above the max landing weight. So land now or die waiting to get down to landing weight. That is the choice.

Perhaps it is an unwise assumption to assume most posters here have at least a basic understanding of aircraft operation and the command requirements that are inherent in that operation, but that aside, what a truly bizzare statement!

Laws are generally statutes that are imposed by national governments or by supranational authorities. Airplane checklists do not constitute documents enshrined in statute. They are a tool employed for the regular and safe operation of a particular aircraft. There use is to ensure that the procedures and tasks are followed in an understood and logical sequence so that items are not omitted. Checklists cannot be created for all conceivable situations, and it is implicit that their use may have to be combined or modified when the situation might warrant such action.

In the situation you describe, the checklists for the 2 Boeing airliners I have in front of me state quite unequivocally at various points: Item 1. Diversion may be needed. Initiate a diversion to the nearest suitable airport while continuing the checklist. Consider an immediate landing if the smoke fire or fumes situation becomes uncontrollable and consider an immediate landing. That is 4 times in 1 checklist. Nowhere does it even hint at not landing overweight. Indeed in the introductory narrative explaining the checklist construction and use it clearly states that:

If a smoke fire or fumes situation becomes uncontrollable, the flight crew should consider an immediate landing. Immediate landing implies immediate diversion to a runway. However, if the smoke, fire or fumes situation is severe enough, the flight crew should consider an overweight landing, a tailwing landing, an off-airport landing, or a ditching.

Notwithstanding this clear contradictory proof that your statement is nonsense, flight crews and certainly captains are expected to posess and display a developed sense of maturity, knowledge and situational awareness commensurate with the office they hold. In the example you proffer, that would clearly not be the case, on every level.

Now it is all very well you saying, "yes but the rule book can be discarded" in emergency. However, when one is conditioned to blindly accepting sop's/rules without question and be severely disciplined, should it not be so, the above scenario could creep in.

This would require a level of stupidity so breathtaking, that one wonders how the Commander ever got to be in that position. Standard operating procedures and checklists cannot be created for every conceivable situation or emergency, that must be fundamentally understood by anybody executing that position. The checklists are a tool to be properly employed during all normal and most non normal situations. In addition to the checklists, there are memory items and basic common sense and airmanship. The checklists are not a script to conduct the flight from start to finish. They are a tool to be used to ensure that routine items have been accomplished and that non routine items have been followed as per best advice and recommendation. None of this ever prevents the captain from assessing the situation and using good judgment to determine the safest course of action.

If you blindly accept anything, you are clearly not ready to undertake the role you have been charged with. You should have a much better understanding than that.

You see conditioning to strict adherence can possibly lead to disaster, in certain circumstances. Or catasphrophe, remember Nurnberg? "I was was following orders" (rules/SOP's).

By now you will hopefully have got the point that pilots and certainly captains employ adherance to the standard operating procedures at all times when such adherance is required. This will (hopefully) be most of the time. That most certainly doesn't prevent them ever from taking action that provides for the safest course of action in a given situation. I find it incredible that the point actually needs to made within a peer group. I cannot quite understand the correlation between a set of post war criminal trials for murder, rape and torture, with the common sense and maturity expected of an airline crew in the conduct of their day to day operations as well as the knowledge, understanding and behaviour expected of them in non normal situations ? Whilst mentioning torture, it might be fair to suggest that the quote above would intself constitute logic sufficiently tortured to justify its own trial at the Hague!

Yes I realise sop's must be in place and strict adherence to them is "required" but on the down side it does produce a robotic culture.

It produces a set of protocols that enables crews who may never have flown together before to have a template understanding of how a flight is to be routinely and safely conducted. It enables a crew to understand how each other should operate, and what the manufacturer, regulator and operator expect in the day to day operation of that aircraft. It is designed to enhance safety by understanding, knowledge and the application of sound judgement and common sense. It is designed to produce a routine culture and not a robotic one. Certainly routine is rarely exciting, but that is the objective of the excercise. If excitement is the personal goal, then this is the wrong profession.

[fade to grey]

No ,no, no.

I don't think several posters here can get the difference between normal everyday following of SOPs and what we would all do in a dire emergency:do what we have have to arrive alive.

And this case has nothing to do with that distinction....I wouldn't have to be a 'gung ho' ego monster to successfully land the a/c above max LW if we were on fire.That someone is either an introvert or extrovert has nothing to do with the outcome and you don't have to be a screaming example of the latter to survive such a scenario.

Again, if you have not read about Ltcol Holland and the B52 read it now....

[doubleu-anker]

Bealzebub

In summing up, I take it you weren't very happy with my post.

[Joetom]

Yes, he broke the rules.

But in a world full of PC and rules about rules it's heart warming to read about this fellow, sounds to me like a good pilot and a whole lot of fun to work with.

I wish him all the best.

[69flight]

"crashed because Captain insisted..."

Quote:
Really? How about the Swissair MD11 (SWR 111), which crashed near Halifax into the sea on Sept 1998, beacuse the Captain insisted on completing the checklists first?

Starbear, please read the final report about this accident before making statements like that one. Thanks.

[Lon More]

Bealzebub IIRC the crew of that B52 were all the heads of their various branches who had replaced the scheduled crew fearing that something like this might happen?

The Turkish Captain at Schiphol was also an excellent ex-fighter pilot.

[Bealzebub]

Bealzebub, post 50: Where did Captain Mason's act of rule breaking compromise his or anyone's safety or security in this instance?

I don't know, I wasn't there. I suppose you might argue that being fired for a breach of the rules relating to the admission of unauthorised persons into the flight deck, didn't do very much for the claimants security? It is quite likely that in other circumstances this incident would have passed by completely un-noticed. However it involved other people who presumably felt compromised by this action, and as a result it was most certainly noticed. The end result is the high profile publicity and discussion that is in part being discussed here. I don't know the individual concerned, and I am extremely reluctant to allow "Daily mail" type reporting of the events to be any part of my own personal "window on the world". I try and therefore restrict my comments to generalities that are perhaps highlighted by the public discussion generated by this topic.

When I drove home at 3 am yesterday morning down an otherwise deserted stretch of motorway, it might have been quite safe for me to drive at 120 MPH. If I had done so and been observed, that argument would have provided precious little defence to a prosecution. However the decision would have been mine, and the consequences of that action would have been mine to bear. On the other hand if I had a passenger with me, or was driving somebody elses vehicle, the potential consequences spread a little wider. It is not up to me to interpret the rules to simply satisfy my own ego, please others or even potentially compromise the safety of others by seeking to provide an inappropriate and unnecessary justification for unlawful behaviour.

There are many things that I would like to do, that do not in my opinion unreasonably compromise the safety or security of the operation I undertake. I would like to have my wife and older children travel with me on the flightdeck. I would like the opportunity to be able to offer flight deck visits on my own authority. I would like to point out to those responsible for security, the absurdity of some of their rules and modus operandi. However The statutes, rules, instructions and procedures that I am bound by, simply don't allow me to do that on penalty of increasing levels of sanction. Even if I were to ignore the rules that I am bound and contracted to, I really have no right whatsoever to improperly place others under my command, to the same level of compromise. It is at best, poor leadership.

There are regulations governing the admission of persons into a flight deck. None of them allow you to admit a high profile football player who is a bit afraid of flying. It doesn't matter how absurd I think such a rule might be. I get paid to comply with these regulations, and I am therefore contractually bound to operate in accordance with them, notwithstanding any other sanction that a deliberate violation might attract.

[grizzled]

beazlebub

Re your response to the previous postings re SOP's and a burning aircraft.

Without taking a position in this particular matter -- as I think it's actually more of a human factors issue, and therefore much more subjective than this debate accounts for -- I must, with respect, clarify something for you. You will find that those exact SOP's you refer to, re your different Boeing types, and an onboard fire, did NOT contain those same statements, guidelines, etc, prior to SWR111. They were changed, as were most all carriers and manufacturers documents, to reflect the recommendations made by the CTSB as a result of the SWR111 accident.

Articles have been written, and papers presented at conferences, discussing the specific training given, and SOP's "pre-SWR111" related to the type of situation that crew found themselves in. The decision making in that instance, though "correct" and according to the SOP's they had, lead directly to the current SOP's you refer to.

The accident report is available here: http://www.tsb.gc.ca/eng/rapports-re...3/a98h0003.pdf

Grizz

[Bushfiva]

I see Pablo Mason's Wikipedia entry has had a sudden burst of editing today by one or possibly two people with a grudge.

Update in the light of deletions: I see the IP adresses of the editor(s) has/have been removed from this post, presumably by mods. Mods should be aware that the information is publically accessible at Wikipedia itself: all edits are listed by user name (if registered at Wikipedia) or by IP address (if not registered at Wikipedia). Reverse DNS lookup is a simple procedure. IP address rather than user name indicates someone who has not felt the urge to contribute to Wikipedia previously. So, I propose a direct link between those posting on this thread and those editing the Wikipedia article. Mods should decide exactly who/what they are defending against here, and I suggest the non-computer-literate chat with SD as to whether I was engaging in witchcraft or the blindingly obvious when I posted the IP addresses here.

So, whatever you think you can do here, I can undo the changes at Wikipedia, or I can mark them as vandalism, or I can identify IP addresses that should be blocked.

[StbdD]

Yeah, those pesky corrections to self written, self aggrandizing, self promoting wikipedia articles... go figure.

Ya think maybe, just maybe, instead of a grudge they may have been correcting some ahem, innacuracies?

[itwasme]

No grudge Bushfiva, as I explained in my PM to you I spotted a couple of inaccuracies and corrected them.

1. There was no "lead Tornado Squadron" in the Gulf War - Pablo was flying with XV Squadron from Bahrain, just one of the many Tornado squadrons deployed to theatre.

2. The wiki entry said that Pablo "elected" to eject from his Tornado north of Bremen on the 10th of May 1991, which is at odds with the RAF Military Aircraft Accident Summary which can be found here:

http://www.mod.uk/NR/rdonlyres/00E4A...76_10may91.pdf

It concludes that the aircraft was probably serviceable when it hit the ground and that the weight of evidence suggested that the accident was caused by pilot mishandling. It goes on to state that the nav justifiably ejected the crew and in doing so saved their lives. Not so "elective" then.

Wiki entries must be accurate, otherwise they are pointless.

[StbdD]

So, whatever you think you can do here, I can undo the changes at Wikipedia, or I can mark them as vandalism, or I can identify IP addresses that should be blocked.

Bwhahahaaaaaaa! (organ music in the background)

Geepers mister. Didn't know you were the fan club president as well as a dark lord of the sith.

Seems the wiki site only wants people to submit versions 'approved' by the fan club, not factual evidence which isn't in line with the self attributed legend.

Ya know the difference between a grudge and an evaluation? Consistency matey.