Pablo Mason (Spelled M.A.S.O.N) Tribunal
He pushed his luck/fame seems entirely accurate.
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: crawley
Age: 74
Posts: 512
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Guys and Gals
Pablo
Was doing what everbody would have done
He did not invite into the Cockpit somedody he did not know
I know he should have not but so what ????
I Feel some one in Management did or does not like him
I Have never met him but the people I have spoke to say he was a Number 1 Aviatior he does not deserve this
Pablo
Best of luck take the basxxds for all there worth
I can only say that if David Crossland/Mike Lee had still been running the organistion this would never have gone this far
The above mentioned Gentlemen are true leaders in aviation who were
pushed out
Kind regards and Pablo Best wishes if u r reading this
Take the gixs for everthing ?????
P S I say again I do not work for My Travel/I am not related to Pablo but I Think he has been very Badly Treated
Pablo
Was doing what everbody would have done
He did not invite into the Cockpit somedody he did not know
I know he should have not but so what ????
I Feel some one in Management did or does not like him
I Have never met him but the people I have spoke to say he was a Number 1 Aviatior he does not deserve this
Pablo
Best of luck take the basxxds for all there worth
I can only say that if David Crossland/Mike Lee had still been running the organistion this would never have gone this far
The above mentioned Gentlemen are true leaders in aviation who were
pushed out
Kind regards and Pablo Best wishes if u r reading this
Take the gixs for everthing ?????
P S I say again I do not work for My Travel/I am not related to Pablo but I Think he has been very Badly Treated
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Arizona USA
Posts: 8,571
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am not related to Pablo but I Think he has been very Badly Treated
He received what he deserved, termination.
Airline flying has rules, break 'em, expect problems with either management or the CAA.
Pablo was an a**, end of story.
A totally military malcontent guy in a civvy world...an especially bad combination, make no mistake.
For Pablo, termination was (apparently) looooong overdue.
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: London
Posts: 516
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think post 45 sums it up very well indeed.
If you are a captain and you do not agree with those words, I think you've seriously misunderstood the responsibilities that come with your position.
If you are a captain and you do not agree with those words, I think you've seriously misunderstood the responsibilities that come with your position.
Join Date: Feb 2000
Posts: 292
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ain't human nature an amazing thing.
Anyone who has been around the block a few times in professional aviation has a feel for what guys like this are like. A laugh in the bar, but we'd probably rather fly with someone else. They tend to make for too stressful a day. Some inexperienced F/O's can be taken in by it all of course...
Indeed, we even have the benefit of someone who knows him well telling it like it is........and then we have Learjet50 contradicting all this. And has he ever met him? No.
I'm sorry, I certainly wouldn't.
As they say, never let the facts get in the way..............
411A, I sometimes think you're a bit harsh, but in this instance you've summed it up rather nicely for the vast majority who follow the SOP's and get on with doing the professional job we're paid to do.
Anyone who has been around the block a few times in professional aviation has a feel for what guys like this are like. A laugh in the bar, but we'd probably rather fly with someone else. They tend to make for too stressful a day. Some inexperienced F/O's can be taken in by it all of course...
Indeed, we even have the benefit of someone who knows him well telling it like it is........and then we have Learjet50 contradicting all this. And has he ever met him? No.
Pablo
Was doing what everbody would have done
Was doing what everbody would have done
As they say, never let the facts get in the way..............
411A, I sometimes think you're a bit harsh, but in this instance you've summed it up rather nicely for the vast majority who follow the SOP's and get on with doing the professional job we're paid to do.
which version of 'reality' are you running on 411A ?
411a - PLEASE CHECK YOUR VERSION OF 'REALITY CHECK ' BECAUSE IT IS BADLY IN NEED OF ADJUSTMENT ! 
PABLO IS A TOP AVIATOR & A TOP GUY TOO, PERIOD !
What is your problem with ex Mil' crew ? - they go through very thorough selection & training which followed by years of operational flying experience makes them EXTREMELY capable aviators, just the sort of folk you need especially when things go wrong such as the Hudson River incident or do you have a problem with that Captain also ?
In reply to the SOPS police have a read through this weeks Flight, some very interesting thoughts there about actual flying skills , does anyone remember those ?
PABLO IS A TOP AVIATOR & A TOP GUY TOO, PERIOD !
What is your problem with ex Mil' crew ? - they go through very thorough selection & training which followed by years of operational flying experience makes them EXTREMELY capable aviators, just the sort of folk you need especially when things go wrong such as the Hudson River incident or do you have a problem with that Captain also ?
In reply to the SOPS police have a read through this weeks Flight, some very interesting thoughts there about actual flying skills , does anyone remember those ?
Join Date: Feb 2000
Posts: 292
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Old-timer, there's nothing wrong with ex-military aircrew and I'm sure 411A would agree. But hey, he doesn't need me to speak for him.
The point is, a fellow military aviator has expressed an opinion of him in less than glowing terms as well, so where does that fit into your version of reality? You can't have it both ways.
The point is, a fellow military aviator has expressed an opinion of him in less than glowing terms as well, so where does that fit into your version of reality? You can't have it both ways.
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 141
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Maximum - you beat me to it...
Spot-on.
To non-professionals, he sounds like the kind of chap that would make you smile. To professionals - the kind of chap that would make you frown.
Anyone who has been around the block a few times in professional aviation has a feel for what guys like this are like.
To non-professionals, he sounds like the kind of chap that would make you smile. To professionals - the kind of chap that would make you frown.
In 21 years of military flying in both transport/patrol and tactical aircraft, I knew a few bad apples, but only a very few. One or two out of a hundred didn't meet my expectations but the rest were capable and reliable. During the mid-1960s when the Vietnam war was in full swing, A number of people who previously would not have graduated from U.S. Navy flight training were given their wings. They were a detriment to safety and to mission accomplishment. They didn't last long in fleet squadrons.
further thoughts
Maximum
It seems unfair to suggest 'Non-Professional' with regard to this matter, agreed, it was against SOP but the SOP in question wasn't (I.M.O) a flight safety or handling issue, it was of course a security issue which is very serious, however, given the fact the gentleman in question is very well known publically & known by everone on board a considered judgement was taken by Pablo who is probably far more aware & capable of recognising a real threat than many others I suspect, also, this was a private charter & NOT a scheduled sector - the two are significantly different.
It seems unfair to suggest 'Non-Professional' with regard to this matter, agreed, it was against SOP but the SOP in question wasn't (I.M.O) a flight safety or handling issue, it was of course a security issue which is very serious, however, given the fact the gentleman in question is very well known publically & known by everone on board a considered judgement was taken by Pablo who is probably far more aware & capable of recognising a real threat than many others I suspect, also, this was a private charter & NOT a scheduled sector - the two are significantly different.
Last edited by old-timer; 16th Mar 2009 at 00:28. Reason: UPDATE FROM THE RANKS
Join Date: Feb 2000
Posts: 292
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Weary, I couldn't have said it better myself!
Old-timer, I respect your opinion but I don't understand your point. Sorry. An SOP is an SOP. It keeps things standard so the operation flows and everyone knows where they stand and what happens next. You can't cherrypick which SOP's you'll follow and which you won't.
Of course, if safety is threatened, then you can chose to disregard an SOP and justify your actions later.
But knowing the whole focus on potential threats post 9-11, you'd really be asking for it to disregard the no-one on the jumpseat rule. Doesn't matter if you think it's daft or not, you'd just be asking for trouble. That's the whole point. What kind of judgement is that?
Also, what kind of position is the poor old first officer being put in in all of this? Does he say no, yes, have an argument, refuse to fly? Puts him in the s*^*t too.
The other point is, if your own wife isn't allowed in the cockpit, it should send signals about how seriously a breach of this rule is going to be taken.
And from the security point of view, what about the safety of the other passengers? Agree or not, part of the thinking behind this is to stop someone you know being blackmailed or otherwise coerced through threats or otherwise into doing something deadly once in the cockpit.
And I know it's tempting if it was a private charter to say it makes it somehow different, but it doesn't really, does it. That aircraft could still be used for evil purposes. Might seem far-fetched, but so did 9-11 before it happened.
The point is though, with all that sort of thinking going on, why would someone fly in the face of it so to speak? Talk about asking for it.
Old-timer, I respect your opinion but I don't understand your point. Sorry. An SOP is an SOP. It keeps things standard so the operation flows and everyone knows where they stand and what happens next. You can't cherrypick which SOP's you'll follow and which you won't.
Of course, if safety is threatened, then you can chose to disregard an SOP and justify your actions later.
But knowing the whole focus on potential threats post 9-11, you'd really be asking for it to disregard the no-one on the jumpseat rule. Doesn't matter if you think it's daft or not, you'd just be asking for trouble. That's the whole point. What kind of judgement is that?
Also, what kind of position is the poor old first officer being put in in all of this? Does he say no, yes, have an argument, refuse to fly? Puts him in the s*^*t too.
The other point is, if your own wife isn't allowed in the cockpit, it should send signals about how seriously a breach of this rule is going to be taken.
And from the security point of view, what about the safety of the other passengers? Agree or not, part of the thinking behind this is to stop someone you know being blackmailed or otherwise coerced through threats or otherwise into doing something deadly once in the cockpit.
And I know it's tempting if it was a private charter to say it makes it somehow different, but it doesn't really, does it. That aircraft could still be used for evil purposes. Might seem far-fetched, but so did 9-11 before it happened.
The point is though, with all that sort of thinking going on, why would someone fly in the face of it so to speak? Talk about asking for it.
Last edited by Maximum; 16th Mar 2009 at 00:51.
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Location
Posts: 259
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Judgement
I don't know this chap from Adam ...
If we (airline pilots) are employed for one thing, then it's our judgement.
It's all based on how we deal with the situation at the time.
I you don't have good judgement, you shouldn't be flying (especially not in the left seat).
If we (airline pilots) are employed for one thing, then it's our judgement.
It's all based on how we deal with the situation at the time.
I you don't have good judgement, you shouldn't be flying (especially not in the left seat).
Join Date: Nov 1999
Posts: 2,312
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Learjet 50
No he wasn't. You seem to be seriously missing the point. He was doing what everybody doesn't do. That is because in the jurisdiction it had been prohibited by the DfT. That instruction had been promulgated to all airlines and then on to all crews, and it was the deliberate violation of that instruction that resulted in the subject of this thread.
The directive didn't and doesn't permit you to invite anybody in this category to the flightdeck inflight, irrespective of the fact you may know them or not.
Not an assessment I am familiar with, but even if there is one, it wouldn't permit you to operate in deliberate violation of statutes, regulations and directives.
You are of course entitled to your opinion and your expression of sentiment. However there are a lot of people who do work for that company and it's successor, who operate to the highest standards and apply professionalism and conduct commensurate with those standards and more. I make that observation in part, from personal experience as I have trained with them in the past. Your comment does rather ignore that fact. In any event it is a moot point, since win or lose "everything" and "all there worth" is not going be what is on the table.
Old timer
It wasn't simply an SOP, it was a legal directive from the DfT and was compulsory. The intentional violation was not within the gift of the captain. Violation placed the company and the crew in a vulnerable position. As you say, it was serious, although that was either misunderstood or ignored.
The directive (within the jurisdiction) does not provide for exceptions in this category. It lists only those persons who may be admitted. How much of a celebrity somebody is (on either side) is completely irrelevant. The captain (whoever he is) is not permitted to make his or her own assesmement of a passenger for the purpose of allowing them to be entertained on the flight deck (in flight) for any reason. It was astonishingly poor judgment, and displayed very poor leadership in that it placed the rest of the crew in a very difficult and awkward position, quite unnecessarily.
At best you might argue they have commercial or contractual differences. From an operational and certainly legal compliance viewpoint, there is absolutely no difference at all. Most charters (in commercial air transport) are undertaken at the behest of tour operators. These operate to the same standards and rules as scheduled flights, save as to the commercial stipulations that may be specified in the contract between the buyer and seller. Even if a footballer / pop singer or other celebrity chartered the whole flight with the one sole purpose of travelling in the flight deck, the contract and stipulation would have to be refused, because it would be in violation of the statutes rules and directives that apply to these categories of Commercial air transport.
These directives seem to be well understood and adhered to by the vast majority of pilots and crews concerned. The arguments being proffered for the violation in this case, seem to centre around "protest support" and "hero worship." A mistake would perhaps be understandable, but the other justifications being trotted out are just simply erroneous. I am happy to be proved wrong on this point if anybody can link to a reference that supports the contention, but otherwise it is just hot air.
Guys and Gals
Pablo
Was doing what everbody would have done.
Pablo
Was doing what everbody would have done.
He did not invite into the Cockpit somedody he did not know
I know he should have not but so what ????
I know he should have not but so what ????
I Have never met him but the people I have spoke to say he was a Number 1 Aviatior
Best of luck take the basxxds for all there worth
Take the gixs for everthing ?????
P S I say again I do not work for My Travel
Take the gixs for everthing ?????
P S I say again I do not work for My Travel
Old timer
It seems unfair to suggest 'Non-Professional' with regard to this matter, agreed, it was against SOP but the SOP in question wasn't (I.M.O) a flight safety or handling issue, it was of course a security issue which is very serious,
given the fact the gentleman in question is very well known publically & known by everone on board a considered judgement was taken by Pablo who is probably far more aware & capable of recognising a real threat than many others I suspect
this was a private charter & NOT a scheduled sector - the two are significantly different.
These directives seem to be well understood and adhered to by the vast majority of pilots and crews concerned. The arguments being proffered for the violation in this case, seem to centre around "protest support" and "hero worship." A mistake would perhaps be understandable, but the other justifications being trotted out are just simply erroneous. I am happy to be proved wrong on this point if anybody can link to a reference that supports the contention, but otherwise it is just hot air.
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Do I come here often?
Posts: 898
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Old Timer;
The aircraft was on a private charter, BUT that still means that Public Transport rules are in place. When I fly my boss he is allowed onto the FD beceause it is his trainset and he's letting me play with it, the flight is private for him.
When someone else charters the aircraft they are not allowed by SOPs beyond the cockpit door. If they want to speak with me the CC come and get me and I go back into the cabin, although it is a Private Charter, money is changing hands and therefore it is Public Transport and is an AOC flight, just the same as the flight under discussion. All a question of semantics.
The same rules apply on this flight. The football team had chartered the AC, just the same as if it was Club Med, Club Carribean or Club Anyone You Like (formerly Club 18-30) Therefore it was Public Transport (an AOC flight) and company SOPs said no pax on the FD.
I have worked for a major carrier and there was always at least one Pablo style "character" in the crewroom. He took the heat off the rest of us, but the majority of pilots would express the opinion "Why do we put up with this guy?"
Certainly PM is not a character we would want to employ. Pilots are not robotic slaves to SOPs, but they do know that SOPs are there to protect them and their passengers. If a pilot saves lives by stepping outside the boundaries then thank god for that man, if he does it just to but heads with management then he should be cleared for a standard job centre deparure with no slot delays.
The aircraft was on a private charter, BUT that still means that Public Transport rules are in place. When I fly my boss he is allowed onto the FD beceause it is his trainset and he's letting me play with it, the flight is private for him.
When someone else charters the aircraft they are not allowed by SOPs beyond the cockpit door. If they want to speak with me the CC come and get me and I go back into the cabin, although it is a Private Charter, money is changing hands and therefore it is Public Transport and is an AOC flight, just the same as the flight under discussion. All a question of semantics.
The same rules apply on this flight. The football team had chartered the AC, just the same as if it was Club Med, Club Carribean or Club Anyone You Like (formerly Club 18-30) Therefore it was Public Transport (an AOC flight) and company SOPs said no pax on the FD.
I have worked for a major carrier and there was always at least one Pablo style "character" in the crewroom. He took the heat off the rest of us, but the majority of pilots would express the opinion "Why do we put up with this guy?"
Certainly PM is not a character we would want to employ. Pilots are not robotic slaves to SOPs, but they do know that SOPs are there to protect them and their passengers. If a pilot saves lives by stepping outside the boundaries then thank god for that man, if he does it just to but heads with management then he should be cleared for a standard job centre deparure with no slot delays.
The Reverend
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Sydney,NSW,Australia
Posts: 2,020
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Basil, the hookers are mainly Russians and you'll find them sipping cock-tails in hotel piano bars etc. Better be loaded as the Arabs pay very well!
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: London
Posts: 56
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bealzebub
I admire your patience, however I fear that your well reasoned responses are likely to fall on deaf ears in this forum.
It is quite clear that the majority of ill informed replies are from the sort of people who think that once they have got Flight Sim 2000 or whatever nailed then they are suitably qualified to operate jet aircraft.
All professional aviators reading this thread will agree- Pablo is probably a great guy, but imagine a 'maverick' with the worst aircraft on the worst day with the worst copilot...in that situation, you need a predictable and SOP driven guy/gal at the helm. That's the bottom line.
I admire your patience, however I fear that your well reasoned responses are likely to fall on deaf ears in this forum.
It is quite clear that the majority of ill informed replies are from the sort of people who think that once they have got Flight Sim 2000 or whatever nailed then they are suitably qualified to operate jet aircraft.
All professional aviators reading this thread will agree- Pablo is probably a great guy, but imagine a 'maverick' with the worst aircraft on the worst day with the worst copilot...in that situation, you need a predictable and SOP driven guy/gal at the helm. That's the bottom line.
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: North West
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I suspect common sense is used more than this forum would acknowledge on this issue, only on saturday I sat in the Jumpseat for the entire flight whilst flying a domestic route in South Africa. Ths skipper judge me to be of no threat to the safety of his aircraft and invited me up after a discussion about the pro's and cons of flight training in South Africa. When I asked him if this was strictly allowed his reply was who's going to know?
It is not the first time I've jumpseated since 9-11.
Anyway there you go, sounds to me like this guy was the sort of bloke you'd like to know - in a world of jobsworths.
It is not the first time I've jumpseated since 9-11.
Anyway there you go, sounds to me like this guy was the sort of bloke you'd like to know - in a world of jobsworths.
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: U.K.
Age: 68
Posts: 380
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pablo - you're chopped.
I only met PM once whilst at BHX a few years back - I and anothor pilot were having a quiet chat outside the crew room and PM comes past and says "Getting our stories straight lads?...." Actually it was quite amusing and quick witted. No problem at all.
However PM I think you are for the chop on this one - it would set too much of a precedent if you won - plus you broke the rules and worst of all - got found out.
A colourful guy all the same. Life does go on. Good luck!
DB
However PM I think you are for the chop on this one - it would set too much of a precedent if you won - plus you broke the rules and worst of all - got found out.
A colourful guy all the same. Life does go on. Good luck!
DB