Pablo Mason (Spelled M.A.S.O.N) Tribunal
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: In my head
Posts: 694
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What a fascinating example of Jante Law alive and well again on the front page of PPRuNe for the best part of a week 
Altogether now, chant the RULES after me, PPRuNers (those of you who are the most up yourselves might even try singing the descant version but don't break any RULES doing it, there's good fellows):
Pablo, all the very best of luck to you with the case
(With acknowledgement to whomever it was that posted those ten rules on Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jante_Law )
Altogether now, chant the RULES after me, PPRuNers (those of you who are the most up yourselves might even try singing the descant version but don't break any RULES doing it, there's good fellows):
- Don't think that you are special.
- Don't think that you are of the same standing as us.
- Don't think that you are smarter than us.
- Don't fancy yourself as being better than us.
- Don't think that you know more than us.
- Don't think that you are more important than us.
- Don't think that you are good at anything.
- Don't laugh at us.
- Don't think that anyone cares about you.
- Don't think that you can teach us anything.
Pablo, all the very best of luck to you with the case
(With acknowledgement to whomever it was that posted those ten rules on Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jante_Law )
Join Date: Nov 1999
Posts: 2,312
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Stiggles, I am sure it is, but common sense is not another phrase for disregarding and violating the conditions that you have contracted to or are legally bound by, simply because it suits you to do so. I have no idea what the rules are in South Africa, and it may be that your jumpseat ride wasn't in violation of anything. On the other hand if that were not the case the comment "who's going to know" can be answered simply as the Captain, his First Officer, The cabin crew, anybody who saw you entering and remaining, you, and of course everybody now reading this thread.
That is the problem here you see. What nobody knows may well be irrelevant, but the fact is other people do know, and in the subject case it was unlawful and placed other people under an individuals command, as being complicit in that offence. If you believe that is common sense, then I am not sure you understand the concept as you seem to be applying it in this arena. I appreciate you benefited from a treat and have therefore signed up to this forum to lend your applause, but it isn't really relevant to the debate.
Some of the support for this action seems to come from people who can lend little credible argument other than chanting a few old mantras and cliches they have read on the internet. The complaint is often levelled that this forum should only be available to professional pilots and other aviation related occupations. Obviously that isn't the case, but it doesn't mean we should simply capitulate the debate to the level of the ill informed, adolescents or those with the intelligence quotient of a budgerigar.
There again, maybe it does ?
Dunbar, thanks for the comment. I own teenagers, so I am well practiced!
That is the problem here you see. What nobody knows may well be irrelevant, but the fact is other people do know, and in the subject case it was unlawful and placed other people under an individuals command, as being complicit in that offence. If you believe that is common sense, then I am not sure you understand the concept as you seem to be applying it in this arena. I appreciate you benefited from a treat and have therefore signed up to this forum to lend your applause, but it isn't really relevant to the debate.
Some of the support for this action seems to come from people who can lend little credible argument other than chanting a few old mantras and cliches they have read on the internet. The complaint is often levelled that this forum should only be available to professional pilots and other aviation related occupations. Obviously that isn't the case, but it doesn't mean we should simply capitulate the debate to the level of the ill informed, adolescents or those with the intelligence quotient of a budgerigar.
There again, maybe it does ?
Dunbar, thanks for the comment. I own teenagers, so I am well practiced!
Last edited by Bealzebub; 16th Mar 2009 at 12:59.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Around the corner
Posts: 171
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In Spain, Italy or Portugal pilots take people into the cockpit all the time. But the more you go north in Europe, the more people are obsessed with the idea of a terrorist. Could it be the lower temperatures?
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: southwest
Age: 78
Posts: 287
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
PBY
I don't know where you live, but haven't you realised that northern Europeans have a stronger desire to live by the rules?
I'd chance my life on a Dutch or Swedish pedestrian crossing any day. Italians think it's a fun game to make old ladies run.
Would a Norwegian turn in his cousin for stealing a bike? About 50/50 I'd say. Ask the same question of a Greek and he'd think you're mad.
Nothing to do with terrorists.
I'd chance my life on a Dutch or Swedish pedestrian crossing any day. Italians think it's a fun game to make old ladies run.
Would a Norwegian turn in his cousin for stealing a bike? About 50/50 I'd say. Ask the same question of a Greek and he'd think you're mad.
Nothing to do with terrorists.
Moderator
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 2,178
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This may be of Some help?
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: egsh
Posts: 415
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A lapsed PPL and frequent SLF speaking.
I don't know PM and have no axe to grind on his behalf.
I equally don't know Sully the third.
I am not sure that Sully the third followed SOPs to the letter. I don't imagine SOPs foresee river "landings", but you professionals could correct me.
He did, however, appear to get a lot of passengers down relatively safely in what must have been a little bit of a tricky situation.
If Sully the third and PM are always required only to do what is written up in the textbooks, and no more, and are not required to exercise judgement, then why not merely programme computers to do all phases of flying, passenger comfort, and all other aspects of air travel?
When I travel, I actually prefer to have at the front a pilot who can use discretion, judgement, experience, skill, and the same principle applies also to ground staff, cabin staff, and no doubt maintenance staff though I never meet the latter.
I don't know PM and have no axe to grind on his behalf.
I equally don't know Sully the third.
I am not sure that Sully the third followed SOPs to the letter. I don't imagine SOPs foresee river "landings", but you professionals could correct me.
He did, however, appear to get a lot of passengers down relatively safely in what must have been a little bit of a tricky situation.
If Sully the third and PM are always required only to do what is written up in the textbooks, and no more, and are not required to exercise judgement, then why not merely programme computers to do all phases of flying, passenger comfort, and all other aspects of air travel?
When I travel, I actually prefer to have at the front a pilot who can use discretion, judgement, experience, skill, and the same principle applies also to ground staff, cabin staff, and no doubt maintenance staff though I never meet the latter.
I am not sure that Sully the third followed SOPs to the letter.
There was nothing standard about the situation Sully found himself in.
I'm not passing judgement one way or another on Pablo Mason, but I think it's fair to say that - guests in the cockpit notwithstanding - it was an uneventful flight.
Join Date: Nov 1999
Posts: 2,312
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
They do, it is called "ditching" but I take your overall point.
If you read this thread throughout, you will see this has been discussed ad nauseum
Judgment (even underlined) means little in itself. There is good judgment and bad judgment. The judgment in one of your examples resulted in the safe ditching of an airliner in the most difficult, unexpected and unusual of circumstances.
The argument being tendered here is whether disregarding a set of lawful instructions for no particularly good reason other than to satisfy a whim constitutes good judgment.
If procedures or rules are going to be discarded in favour of an alternative course of action, then it is implicit that there needs to be a good reason or imperative for such action. The question being discussed here relates to whether that good reason or imperative is really satisfied by a commander electing to entertain a footballer on the flightdeck of an airliner in violation of clearly mandated legal instructions to the contrary.
You are quite correct in that the pilot is there to excercise discretion, judgment, experience and skill. Hence this discussion and the various contributions, argument and opinion.
If you read this thread throughout, you will see this has been discussed ad nauseum
Judgment (even underlined) means little in itself. There is good judgment and bad judgment. The judgment in one of your examples resulted in the safe ditching of an airliner in the most difficult, unexpected and unusual of circumstances.
The argument being tendered here is whether disregarding a set of lawful instructions for no particularly good reason other than to satisfy a whim constitutes good judgment.
If procedures or rules are going to be discarded in favour of an alternative course of action, then it is implicit that there needs to be a good reason or imperative for such action. The question being discussed here relates to whether that good reason or imperative is really satisfied by a commander electing to entertain a footballer on the flightdeck of an airliner in violation of clearly mandated legal instructions to the contrary.
You are quite correct in that the pilot is there to excercise discretion, judgment, experience and skill. Hence this discussion and the various contributions, argument and opinion.
Join Date: Feb 2000
Posts: 292
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If Sully the third and PM are always required only to do what is written up in the textbooks, and no more, and are not required to exercise judgement, then why not merely programme computers to do all phases of flying, passenger comfort, and all other aspects of air travel?
Following SOP's does not conflict in any way with applying one's judgement.
Your comment is meaningless because you misunderstand the concept of SOP's. The military have strict SOP's, the airlines (good ones) have strict SOP's. The crew of the space shuttle have strict SOP's.
It's the way we accomplish the task in the safest and most expeditious fashion. Nothing to do with following rules without question.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Around the corner
Posts: 171
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi guys, I have been following this tread and did not feel to answer until now. I grew up under communist rule (communist standard operating procedures). When I was 19, I worked in a factory producing guns for Iraq and Iran. One day, together with few other guys, we got fed up and started demonstrations. We were lucky, because the regime was already weakened and thus they did not kill us. You could say, we won, I say, we were lucky, because the time was right. But it was right, because some people before us were brave, even though their time was not right and they were not so lucky.
Catholic church also had its own SOP’s in the middle ages. It was called “The hammer against witches”. Whoever did not follow these SOP’s was executed by a very distressful death. What changed these SOP’s, so they are not used today? Was it the popes? No. It was outside pressure of few brave civilized people, who were sensitive to human suffering.
We as captains are human being first and than SOP’s willing executioners. Lets look at Pablo’s predicament in this light. He has a guy on his flight, who is stressed out, because of his fear of flying. Lets say, that there is a measure of stress and lets call it “stress newtons = SN”. How many SN was this guy subjected to? How many SN before we divert a flight to prevent human suffering? Any number in SOP’s? Does the SOP’s clearly states, that you should ignore human suffering? Are we robots? I think, that sometimes we have to even divert due to distress in the cabin. But Pablo used his brain. He saved the company lots of money. He asked himself a question: Is this guy a terrorist? No, because if he was, he would have dragged a bomb to overcrowded stadiums already. Does he suffer? Pablo could not measure how many SN he was under, as he is not a psychiatrist and even a psychiatrist cannot estimate it without a talk with the patient. So, here we have a situation. Either we let the guy at the back suffer in the name of terrorism (different kind of communism, catholicism or alcoholism = not using a brain isms), or we use a common sense and alleviate the guys suffering. Very difficult question. Would it be worth even to overcome the fear of loosing your job? Should you be loosing a job in the first place, just because you used your own discretion? May be, there is a time to break SOP’s. May be, there is a time to change them.
I compare some pilots of this thread to a flock of birds. Everytime they hear a gunshot they get emotionally startled. But we have moral responsibility as well.
Pablo, good luck with your trial, I am behind you!
Catholic church also had its own SOP’s in the middle ages. It was called “The hammer against witches”. Whoever did not follow these SOP’s was executed by a very distressful death. What changed these SOP’s, so they are not used today? Was it the popes? No. It was outside pressure of few brave civilized people, who were sensitive to human suffering.
We as captains are human being first and than SOP’s willing executioners. Lets look at Pablo’s predicament in this light. He has a guy on his flight, who is stressed out, because of his fear of flying. Lets say, that there is a measure of stress and lets call it “stress newtons = SN”. How many SN was this guy subjected to? How many SN before we divert a flight to prevent human suffering? Any number in SOP’s? Does the SOP’s clearly states, that you should ignore human suffering? Are we robots? I think, that sometimes we have to even divert due to distress in the cabin. But Pablo used his brain. He saved the company lots of money. He asked himself a question: Is this guy a terrorist? No, because if he was, he would have dragged a bomb to overcrowded stadiums already. Does he suffer? Pablo could not measure how many SN he was under, as he is not a psychiatrist and even a psychiatrist cannot estimate it without a talk with the patient. So, here we have a situation. Either we let the guy at the back suffer in the name of terrorism (different kind of communism, catholicism or alcoholism = not using a brain isms), or we use a common sense and alleviate the guys suffering. Very difficult question. Would it be worth even to overcome the fear of loosing your job? Should you be loosing a job in the first place, just because you used your own discretion? May be, there is a time to break SOP’s. May be, there is a time to change them.
I compare some pilots of this thread to a flock of birds. Everytime they hear a gunshot they get emotionally startled. But we have moral responsibility as well.
Pablo, good luck with your trial, I am behind you!
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: egsh
Posts: 415
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Maximum
I defer of course to your superior knowledge (and, no, I am not being sarcastic)
But in my limited understanding of SOPs, they mostly have to do with technical parameters of the aircraft itself.
As a SLF, I would not mind in the least a Captain exercising his judgement to allow (apparently in this case a nervous PAX) into the cockpit.
If it helps the smooth conclusion of the flight, why not?
The Captain has a huge responsability, and must answer for errors of judgement which endagered the flight or other aircraft around the flight, but is it not a part of that same trust which must allow him or her to use discretion?
I defer of course to your superior knowledge (and, no, I am not being sarcastic)
But in my limited understanding of SOPs, they mostly have to do with technical parameters of the aircraft itself.
As a SLF, I would not mind in the least a Captain exercising his judgement to allow (apparently in this case a nervous PAX) into the cockpit.
If it helps the smooth conclusion of the flight, why not?
The Captain has a huge responsability, and must answer for errors of judgement which endagered the flight or other aircraft around the flight, but is it not a part of that same trust which must allow him or her to use discretion?
Join Date: Feb 2000
Posts: 292
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
PBY, in the words of Dr. Evil (Austin Powers):
rrright.....................(apply little finger to corner of mouth).
....with all due respect, I think your analogy is stretching credence just a little too far.
To paraphrase, when I go by the SOP's I'm like a communist dictator or perhaps even Torquemada? I think you're having an Eric Cantona moment........
One analogy too far.
rrright.....................(apply little finger to corner of mouth).
....with all due respect, I think your analogy is stretching credence just a little too far.
To paraphrase, when I go by the SOP's I'm like a communist dictator or perhaps even Torquemada? I think you're having an Eric Cantona moment........
One analogy too far.
Join Date: Dec 1998
Location: Oxford, UK
Posts: 368
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Eh,
How did Paul's action save the company money? Moreover, there's a world of difference between a Captain acting beyond the scope and remit of SOP's to deal with a once in a lifetime, life-threatening situation (Capt. Sullenberger, for example) and choosing to ignore a rule that is exceedingly well publicised, and by abiding by did not lead to the safety of the flight being compromised.
As an FO, guys like this can be a bloody nightmare unless you're fortunate enough to be able to second guess them, or see the world their way to start with. The pressure his grandstanding places on subordinate crew members is unfair and ill-considered.
Many on here seem to be applauding the fact that this man "stood up" to the security regime. We don't get to pick and choose what we do and what we don't as contracted airline employees except when to not go outside those rules might lead to an accident - and here I think is the nub of this particular incident - Savage, in the flight deck was not demonstrably necessary to the safe conduct of this flight. Chesley Sullenberger's actions saved an entire aircraft full of people. To compare the two is, to my mind, to thoroughly insult (or sully, if you will), the profound achievement made by Sullenberger when he was forced to operate outside the scope of the normal operation.
I suspect that it's merely because we're all a bit ticked off to say the least with the apparently mindless security procedures in place at the moment, especially it seems in the UK, that we're applauding to some extent this man cocking a snook at things but the fact remains, he knowingly broached those rules, seems to think of himself of something a bit special to say the least and might be better suited to single pilot operations from what's been said.
To quote Douglas Bader's famous and hackneyed maxim in support of this action is lazy and not germane to this particular event.
I'm awfully glad that the Captains in my airline don't choose to put us first officers under the pressure of having to deal with such a situation to satisfy the ego of a man who seems to think he is above the law and the terms of his contract.
Notwithstanding anything, this tribunal is about whether or not he was unfairly dismissed, not whether his thoughts towards the UK security situation were apt or not. On that note, and with himself as his lawyer, I suspect it might just be another attempt to ratchet up the self-fulfilling publicity machine that is Paul Mason.
How did Paul's action save the company money? Moreover, there's a world of difference between a Captain acting beyond the scope and remit of SOP's to deal with a once in a lifetime, life-threatening situation (Capt. Sullenberger, for example) and choosing to ignore a rule that is exceedingly well publicised, and by abiding by did not lead to the safety of the flight being compromised.
As an FO, guys like this can be a bloody nightmare unless you're fortunate enough to be able to second guess them, or see the world their way to start with. The pressure his grandstanding places on subordinate crew members is unfair and ill-considered.
Many on here seem to be applauding the fact that this man "stood up" to the security regime. We don't get to pick and choose what we do and what we don't as contracted airline employees except when to not go outside those rules might lead to an accident - and here I think is the nub of this particular incident - Savage, in the flight deck was not demonstrably necessary to the safe conduct of this flight. Chesley Sullenberger's actions saved an entire aircraft full of people. To compare the two is, to my mind, to thoroughly insult (or sully, if you will), the profound achievement made by Sullenberger when he was forced to operate outside the scope of the normal operation.
I suspect that it's merely because we're all a bit ticked off to say the least with the apparently mindless security procedures in place at the moment, especially it seems in the UK, that we're applauding to some extent this man cocking a snook at things but the fact remains, he knowingly broached those rules, seems to think of himself of something a bit special to say the least and might be better suited to single pilot operations from what's been said.
To quote Douglas Bader's famous and hackneyed maxim in support of this action is lazy and not germane to this particular event.
I'm awfully glad that the Captains in my airline don't choose to put us first officers under the pressure of having to deal with such a situation to satisfy the ego of a man who seems to think he is above the law and the terms of his contract.
Notwithstanding anything, this tribunal is about whether or not he was unfairly dismissed, not whether his thoughts towards the UK security situation were apt or not. On that note, and with himself as his lawyer, I suspect it might just be another attempt to ratchet up the self-fulfilling publicity machine that is Paul Mason.
Join Date: Feb 2000
Posts: 292
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wings folded, please take this reply in the good natured way it is intended, but you have obviously no understanding of SOP's, as you yourself imply.
They cover far more than simply the technical side of things. In fact they tend to be more about how we operate together as human beings, to cut out misunderstood communication for example. What words do we use to describe certain actions for example? Is it 'gear up', retract gear' or 'undercarriage up'? Do we 'set thrust' on take off? Or do we 'set take off thrust'? Or would 'take off thrust' be better?
Who's responsible for what checks and when? When do we do them? Who calls them? Who responds to them? Do we use the checklist as we do them? Do we do them first and then use the checklist? Do we do them from memory as we do this and then check?
Who calls passing altitudes? PF or PNF? Does this change if the autopliot's engaged?
When we come onto stand, what if there's equipment over the white lines but we know we'll miss it? What if we continue onto stand but hit something we didn't see?
How and when should we brief the cabin crew in an emergency? Should we use a standard system or would any old chit chat do? How do we call them to the flight deck? PA? Chimes? What if the PA isn't working?
When's it safe for one pilot to leave the flightdeck in flight? Should we have a sterile cockpit below 10000'? If we do, should we disregard it if we think we're good enough?
etc etc etc.........
Or how about you let every Captain on every flight with every different F/O use his judgement and decide how he's going to do all these things?
I'm only scratching the surface but I hope you get the picture.
They cover far more than simply the technical side of things. In fact they tend to be more about how we operate together as human beings, to cut out misunderstood communication for example. What words do we use to describe certain actions for example? Is it 'gear up', retract gear' or 'undercarriage up'? Do we 'set thrust' on take off? Or do we 'set take off thrust'? Or would 'take off thrust' be better?
Who's responsible for what checks and when? When do we do them? Who calls them? Who responds to them? Do we use the checklist as we do them? Do we do them first and then use the checklist? Do we do them from memory as we do this and then check?
Who calls passing altitudes? PF or PNF? Does this change if the autopliot's engaged?
When we come onto stand, what if there's equipment over the white lines but we know we'll miss it? What if we continue onto stand but hit something we didn't see?
How and when should we brief the cabin crew in an emergency? Should we use a standard system or would any old chit chat do? How do we call them to the flight deck? PA? Chimes? What if the PA isn't working?
When's it safe for one pilot to leave the flightdeck in flight? Should we have a sterile cockpit below 10000'? If we do, should we disregard it if we think we're good enough?
etc etc etc.........
Or how about you let every Captain on every flight with every different F/O use his judgement and decide how he's going to do all these things?
I'm only scratching the surface but I hope you get the picture.
Join Date: Nov 1999
Posts: 2,312
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As a SLF, I would not mind in the least a Captain exercising his judgement to allow (apparently in this case a nervous PAX) into the cockpit.
If it helps the smooth conclusion of the flight, why not?
I have no problem with anybody wanting to start a revolution, fight communism, extinguish burning witches, tend to alcoholics, depressives, nervous flyers or any other cause. However do it in your own time, not when your employer is paying you to fulfill your contractual obligation to them.
is it not a part of that same trust which must allow him or her to use discretion?
Join Date: Dec 1998
Location: Oxford, UK
Posts: 368
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wings Folded,
Sorry, you might be satisfied with a nervous passenger being admitted to the flight deck, indeed I might, except I can never be one hundred percent sure that this person is indeed a nervous flier and not some extremely committed, talented individual using that as a reason to enter the cockpit and conduct whatever operation they see fit. Indeed, if that sort of attitude were sanctioned and became widely known, it doesn't take a great leap of logic to see drama camps for the training of extremists. Ok, a bit on the glib side, but I hope you see where my concerns lie. Again, going outside the scope of the normal operation and QRH (or whatever you will call it) for the purposes of an unforeseen and potentially catastrophic scenario and chumming it up with a B-list soccer player and then trying to justify the incident post-event are just not comparable.
PS To add, Bealzebub makes the point infinitely more eloquently than I might. Consideration of the greater legal implications alone and the effect that might have on his colleagues and company should have stopped him from doing what he did. That it didn't speaks volumes to me about the quality of his judgement.
Sorry, you might be satisfied with a nervous passenger being admitted to the flight deck, indeed I might, except I can never be one hundred percent sure that this person is indeed a nervous flier and not some extremely committed, talented individual using that as a reason to enter the cockpit and conduct whatever operation they see fit. Indeed, if that sort of attitude were sanctioned and became widely known, it doesn't take a great leap of logic to see drama camps for the training of extremists. Ok, a bit on the glib side, but I hope you see where my concerns lie. Again, going outside the scope of the normal operation and QRH (or whatever you will call it) for the purposes of an unforeseen and potentially catastrophic scenario and chumming it up with a B-list soccer player and then trying to justify the incident post-event are just not comparable.
PS To add, Bealzebub makes the point infinitely more eloquently than I might. Consideration of the greater legal implications alone and the effect that might have on his colleagues and company should have stopped him from doing what he did. That it didn't speaks volumes to me about the quality of his judgement.
Last edited by MrBunker; 16th Mar 2009 at 17:28. Reason: To echo Bealzebub
PBY
Or how many 'Stress Newtons' would the passenger have needed before totally flipping and as a strong athletic chap, becoming a total flight saftey hazard in the cockpit.
There are some issues that need seperating here. Pablo is making a stand against idiotic security rules that unreasonably affect Flight Crew doing their day to day job, and I applaud him for that. Then there is the issue of him breaking SOP's in what can definitely be described as a Standard Situation. I am amazed as to how many people are sucked in by his charismatic nature. With all due respect to the self confessed SLF on here, your comments are wholly inappropriate. Being a nice guy is sadly not the only criteria for being good at your job, and those of you commenting have absolutely no idea of Pablo's job profficieny.
Now at risk of repeating myself just to try and make this whole situation really clear.
He will get lots of publicity which he will love, It sets him up for his next book and soon you will see him on Sky presenting another series on Aviation disasters. The tribunal should in theory be un-winnable on his part.
SOP stands for 'Standard Operating Procedure', note the term 'Standard'. If it is a requirement to operate to SOP's then that is that, however if a Captain finds himself in a 'non-standard situation' then he or she can use all resources available to come up with a decision that they believe will offer the safest outcome. I do not see how it can be argued that the footballers requirement to go on the flightdeck was a 'non-standard situation', more like an opportunity for a bit of networking by Pablo (he would just love those footballers parties!).
All the references to Col Bud Holland on the B52 are 100% valid. He was a rule breaker, nobody stopped him and just came out with terms like ' Oh I know but hey that's Bud you know', he was a maverick and thought himself to be above the rest. Not only did he kill the crew but four families had to grow up without their 'Dad".
Norman is on the money, so everyone please take note of what he says. The crash he had in the Tornado was pilot error. Now I know Pablo well, and nice and charismatic he is. But Gulf war hero.. No. Fantastic pilot ...No. There is a lot more and like Norman I will stay nap, there is enough of what he got up to in the Prune archives. However I also know the navigator of the Jet that Pablo flew into the ground, I worked with him for two years. Had it not been for RW, both he and Pablo would have been dead. I flew over the crash site 30 minutes or so after the event and it was clearly a very close call, with one chute being perhaps only 50 meters from the first impact of the aircraft. RW suffered for a long time after as a result of what was really flying misconduct.
I am glad he is raising a public view to the idiotic security measures faced by everyone, but as for all the other waxing lyrical about the guy on here, please stop it. He is charismatic, that's it, and a lot of people on this thread have been sucked in by that.
Some FOs would feel under unbearable pressure with PMs style of 'leadership'. Remember Jakob Van Zanten.
It seems funny that many people who do not know him think him a great aviator and Captain and many that do have a somewhat different opinion.
Pablo will take all these comments on this forum in his stride as that is his nature, and I feel uncomfortable about public discussion of someone, but he is now in the public domain and that is what he likes. Good luck to him but please stop saying he is a great Captain and Aviator when you have no idea.
Or how many 'Stress Newtons' would the passenger have needed before totally flipping and as a strong athletic chap, becoming a total flight saftey hazard in the cockpit.
There are some issues that need seperating here. Pablo is making a stand against idiotic security rules that unreasonably affect Flight Crew doing their day to day job, and I applaud him for that. Then there is the issue of him breaking SOP's in what can definitely be described as a Standard Situation. I am amazed as to how many people are sucked in by his charismatic nature. With all due respect to the self confessed SLF on here, your comments are wholly inappropriate. Being a nice guy is sadly not the only criteria for being good at your job, and those of you commenting have absolutely no idea of Pablo's job profficieny.
Now at risk of repeating myself just to try and make this whole situation really clear.
He will get lots of publicity which he will love, It sets him up for his next book and soon you will see him on Sky presenting another series on Aviation disasters. The tribunal should in theory be un-winnable on his part.
SOP stands for 'Standard Operating Procedure', note the term 'Standard'. If it is a requirement to operate to SOP's then that is that, however if a Captain finds himself in a 'non-standard situation' then he or she can use all resources available to come up with a decision that they believe will offer the safest outcome. I do not see how it can be argued that the footballers requirement to go on the flightdeck was a 'non-standard situation', more like an opportunity for a bit of networking by Pablo (he would just love those footballers parties!).
All the references to Col Bud Holland on the B52 are 100% valid. He was a rule breaker, nobody stopped him and just came out with terms like ' Oh I know but hey that's Bud you know', he was a maverick and thought himself to be above the rest. Not only did he kill the crew but four families had to grow up without their 'Dad".
Norman is on the money, so everyone please take note of what he says. The crash he had in the Tornado was pilot error. Now I know Pablo well, and nice and charismatic he is. But Gulf war hero.. No. Fantastic pilot ...No. There is a lot more and like Norman I will stay nap, there is enough of what he got up to in the Prune archives. However I also know the navigator of the Jet that Pablo flew into the ground, I worked with him for two years. Had it not been for RW, both he and Pablo would have been dead. I flew over the crash site 30 minutes or so after the event and it was clearly a very close call, with one chute being perhaps only 50 meters from the first impact of the aircraft. RW suffered for a long time after as a result of what was really flying misconduct.
I am glad he is raising a public view to the idiotic security measures faced by everyone, but as for all the other waxing lyrical about the guy on here, please stop it. He is charismatic, that's it, and a lot of people on this thread have been sucked in by that.
Some FOs would feel under unbearable pressure with PMs style of 'leadership'. Remember Jakob Van Zanten.
It seems funny that many people who do not know him think him a great aviator and Captain and many that do have a somewhat different opinion.
Pablo will take all these comments on this forum in his stride as that is his nature, and I feel uncomfortable about public discussion of someone, but he is now in the public domain and that is what he likes. Good luck to him but please stop saying he is a great Captain and Aviator when you have no idea.
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: In the upper parishes
Posts: 13
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There was not the slightest hint of justification for breaking the law and allowing this person - whoever he is/was - to occupy an ACM seat in the cockpit. This is completely defenseless and reckless behaviour. I don't care who was who, or what was what; it is breaking the laws of both the land, and of common sense, it's that simple. He's toast and rightfully so.
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: egsh
Posts: 415
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Maximum
I accept your "good natured" way, but I did, I think, indicate what my credentials (or lack of) were.
You are, however, a bit harsh to say that I have no understanding of SOPs, and then wheel out a lot of examples, most if not all of which I would not hesitate one instant to classify as being on the "technical" side of things. (Gear up... undercarriage up ... retract gear - these for me are technical issues
When I flew as student PPL I was a bit of a stickler for proper RT procedure for example. My instructor was kind enough to remark upon it more than once.
All of your examples have to do with safety in flight or on the ground, unambiguous commands and so forth. I agree totally with your examples within my limited knowledge.
It is not so long ago that I was often invited into the cockpit, when it was "allowed", and so were others. I am nostalgic.
I would simply be interested to know whether flight safety was compromised by this Captain's actions.
I do not carry any baggage to do with the personality of the individual, or anybody who might behave similarly
I accept your "good natured" way, but I did, I think, indicate what my credentials (or lack of) were.
You are, however, a bit harsh to say that I have no understanding of SOPs, and then wheel out a lot of examples, most if not all of which I would not hesitate one instant to classify as being on the "technical" side of things. (Gear up... undercarriage up ... retract gear - these for me are technical issues
When I flew as student PPL I was a bit of a stickler for proper RT procedure for example. My instructor was kind enough to remark upon it more than once.
All of your examples have to do with safety in flight or on the ground, unambiguous commands and so forth. I agree totally with your examples within my limited knowledge.
It is not so long ago that I was often invited into the cockpit, when it was "allowed", and so were others. I am nostalgic.
I would simply be interested to know whether flight safety was compromised by this Captain's actions.
I do not carry any baggage to do with the personality of the individual, or anybody who might behave similarly
