Pablo Mason (Spelled M.A.S.O.N) Tribunal
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: LPPT
Age: 58
Posts: 431
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Probably because I’ve never heard of Mr. Pablo Masson before this thread, my personal view isn’t biased towards one side or the other, although I understand perfectly the main issue with this man.
From what I’ve read so far, PM has been acting like a little 4 year old, always pushing the limits, always testing the never ending patience of Mom and Dad. Until the day Mom and Dad were fed up and gave him a smack.
Now, should Mom and Dad have smacked him hard right at the first time he broke the family rules or not? People who have kids know that there isn’t a straight forward answer for that, and mostly would go as far as a verbal reminder of what is or isn’t allowed for him. But patience has limits and parents have different tolerance levels. IMHO this “kid” has pushed just a tad too far.
Bottom line is that: if you’re pushing it, be prepared to be smacked when least expected. And then you stop crying and move on, hopefully having learned not to abuse Mom and Dad patience beyond reasonable levels.
This affair has nothing to do with violated SOPs, it has all to do with the type of behavior expected from a high responsibility profession. This person is a pilot, but what if he was a nuclear plant system operator?
Another thing I’ve noticed here is that this type of eccentric person always attracts a flock of awkward people. Chooo I say!
From what I’ve read so far, PM has been acting like a little 4 year old, always pushing the limits, always testing the never ending patience of Mom and Dad. Until the day Mom and Dad were fed up and gave him a smack.
Now, should Mom and Dad have smacked him hard right at the first time he broke the family rules or not? People who have kids know that there isn’t a straight forward answer for that, and mostly would go as far as a verbal reminder of what is or isn’t allowed for him. But patience has limits and parents have different tolerance levels. IMHO this “kid” has pushed just a tad too far.
Bottom line is that: if you’re pushing it, be prepared to be smacked when least expected. And then you stop crying and move on, hopefully having learned not to abuse Mom and Dad patience beyond reasonable levels.
This affair has nothing to do with violated SOPs, it has all to do with the type of behavior expected from a high responsibility profession. This person is a pilot, but what if he was a nuclear plant system operator?
Another thing I’ve noticed here is that this type of eccentric person always attracts a flock of awkward people. Chooo I say!
Join Date: Feb 2000
Posts: 292
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wingsfolded, again with all due respect, the problem is that you are commenting on professional pilots' issues with no knowledge of such.
You say the examples I gave were technical - well that's your definition - but in fact they aren't classed as such in the profession. If I was conducting a line check on a crew most if not all I mentioned would be marked as notech items, ie, non-technical.
I mentioned what words we use to ask for the gear to be retracted. You reckon this is a technical item. Think again. How the gear operates is the technical bit - eg, what pressure is needed in the hydraulic lines to operate the gear? That's the technical bit. How we ask for it is the human factors bit where SOP's come in.
You ask was flight safety compromised by the Captain's actions? The simple answer is yes, in the context that all our actions when commanding an aircraft our determined by the consensus of opinion on what is deemed as safe. This is how the rules, regs and SOPs governing the flight evolve.
If I make up my own rules, would I be endangering the flight? Well, of course. I might get away with it, but that doesn't mean it's safe. The whole point of professional airline ops is to limit the risk. To do this we stick by the consensus of opinion that has produced the rules at any given time. In extremis, we can of course break the rules if that enhances safety.
As an aside, any time a non-pilot is on the jumpseat probably reduces the safety of the flight a little anyway, as at best he/she can be a distraction and at worst if something goes wrong, we have no knowledge of how they'll react.
Take a rapid decompression as an example. Instead of two professionals getting their masks on, establishing comms and getting on with dealing with the emergency, there is now someone who may be unable to get their own mask on, who may need help, who may be flailing around in a panic etc. A big distraction to the task at hand.
The bottom line is, us pilots are employees like anyone else. We know what the rules are. If you disregard them in such a cavalier way, you know you're heading for the chop. It's that simple.
You say the examples I gave were technical - well that's your definition - but in fact they aren't classed as such in the profession. If I was conducting a line check on a crew most if not all I mentioned would be marked as notech items, ie, non-technical.
I mentioned what words we use to ask for the gear to be retracted. You reckon this is a technical item. Think again. How the gear operates is the technical bit - eg, what pressure is needed in the hydraulic lines to operate the gear? That's the technical bit. How we ask for it is the human factors bit where SOP's come in.
You ask was flight safety compromised by the Captain's actions? The simple answer is yes, in the context that all our actions when commanding an aircraft our determined by the consensus of opinion on what is deemed as safe. This is how the rules, regs and SOPs governing the flight evolve.
If I make up my own rules, would I be endangering the flight? Well, of course. I might get away with it, but that doesn't mean it's safe. The whole point of professional airline ops is to limit the risk. To do this we stick by the consensus of opinion that has produced the rules at any given time. In extremis, we can of course break the rules if that enhances safety.
As an aside, any time a non-pilot is on the jumpseat probably reduces the safety of the flight a little anyway, as at best he/she can be a distraction and at worst if something goes wrong, we have no knowledge of how they'll react.
Take a rapid decompression as an example. Instead of two professionals getting their masks on, establishing comms and getting on with dealing with the emergency, there is now someone who may be unable to get their own mask on, who may need help, who may be flailing around in a panic etc. A big distraction to the task at hand.
The bottom line is, us pilots are employees like anyone else. We know what the rules are. If you disregard them in such a cavalier way, you know you're heading for the chop. It's that simple.
Join Date: Nov 1999
Posts: 2,312
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I would simply be interested to know whether flight safety was compromised by this Captain's actions.
However when it comes to "compromise" it isn't quite that clear cut.
If you fly through turbulence without switching the seat belt sign on and nobody is injured, you may have compromised flight safety, but the end result was fine. If you fly with a blood alcohol level slightly above the legal limit, you may have compromised flight safety but would it make any difference to the end result? If you fly the aircraft overweight you may have compromised flight safety, but as long as both engines keep turning does it matter? Life is a series of compromises, however safety and security is about ensuring that limits, rules and regulations are ordinarilly adhered to such that compromises do not suddenly bite you. The rules do not permit unauthorized persons into the flightdeck. These rules (like them or not) are a result of previous serious security breaches. They are mandated instructions and the captain has no discretion other than in an emergency to disregard those instructions.
If a Captain elects to disregard the limits or the regulations in order to satisfy his own wishes in clear violation of the legalities and mandated instructions, he compromises his own job security, he compromises the crewmembers under his command, he compromises the safety and security of his passengers. He compromises the commercial security of his company. He compromises his collegues.
If you are going to make this many potential compromises, you really need to have a very good reason or imperative for doing so. Pandering to the wishes, whims or phobias of a professional football player doesn't even come close to qualifying.
I am just repeating myself.
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: egsh
Posts: 415
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Maximum
I really did not intend to fall out with you and still do not.
What I have learned is that the views of somebody (SLF) are not welcome on the forum.
You insist on the aspect that these are professional pilots' issues.
I suppose they are.
However, you, as professional pilots, do not appear to agree amongst yourselves.
I naively thought that an outsider contribution might assist.
I now know I am wrong.
Sort it out amongst yourselves.
I really did not intend to fall out with you and still do not.
What I have learned is that the views of somebody (SLF) are not welcome on the forum.
You insist on the aspect that these are professional pilots' issues.
I suppose they are.
However, you, as professional pilots, do not appear to agree amongst yourselves.
I naively thought that an outsider contribution might assist.
I now know I am wrong.
Sort it out amongst yourselves.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: southwest
Age: 78
Posts: 287
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Whoever said "The pressure his grandstanding places on subordinate crew members is unfair and ill-considered" hit the nail on the head.
The world sometimes needs big-ego guys like Charles de Gaulle, when the danger is extreme and one man is in charge.
In a team, we don't want big-ego guys to create the danger through lack of man-management skills.
The world sometimes needs big-ego guys like Charles de Gaulle, when the danger is extreme and one man is in charge.
In a team, we don't want big-ego guys to create the danger through lack of man-management skills.
Join Date: Feb 2000
Posts: 292
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wingsfolded, cor blimey don't take it to heart.
The point about this being a professional issue is simply the insider knowledge we have on all the aspects of this.
Feel free to keep posting, but simply keep an open mind about us commenting too, with our knowledge of what actually goes on in the cockpit of a commercial airliner.
Should we censor ourselves because you don't like to hear the facts?
Keep posting, no problem.
The point about this being a professional issue is simply the insider knowledge we have on all the aspects of this.
Feel free to keep posting, but simply keep an open mind about us commenting too, with our knowledge of what actually goes on in the cockpit of a commercial airliner.
Should we censor ourselves because you don't like to hear the facts?
Keep posting, no problem.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: up north
Posts: 310
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There seems to be a lack of understanding of how company disciplinary procedures work in the UK. Most of them follow as a minimum the model code published by ACAS. This has been agreed by both sides of industry, and arguably does lean in favour of the employee.
From what I've read, the individual in this case was already subject to the company's disciplinary procedure, reportedly following two incidents within the space of a month in 2006 at BHX, including stripping down to his underwear to make a point (arguably that in itself would be grounds for a dismissal for gross misconduct, bringing the company into disrepute). As a result, he was subject to a final written warning (translate as "step out of line once more, and you are out").
The tribunal will therefore look at whether the previous disciplinary actions were "fair" (fair means were the allegations investigated fairly, with the individual concerned, etc). If so, was the subsequent cockpit incident also dealt with fairly ?
If the answer is yes to both, the company has no case to answer.
A final written warning is exactly what it says, and even the smallest aberration thereafter is grounds for "fair" instant dismissal.
From what I've read, the individual in this case was already subject to the company's disciplinary procedure, reportedly following two incidents within the space of a month in 2006 at BHX, including stripping down to his underwear to make a point (arguably that in itself would be grounds for a dismissal for gross misconduct, bringing the company into disrepute). As a result, he was subject to a final written warning (translate as "step out of line once more, and you are out").
The tribunal will therefore look at whether the previous disciplinary actions were "fair" (fair means were the allegations investigated fairly, with the individual concerned, etc). If so, was the subsequent cockpit incident also dealt with fairly ?
If the answer is yes to both, the company has no case to answer.
A final written warning is exactly what it says, and even the smallest aberration thereafter is grounds for "fair" instant dismissal.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Tracey Island
Posts: 1,496
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There seems to be a lack of understanding of how company disciplinary procedures work in the UK. Most of them follow as a minimum the model code published by ACAS. This has been agreed by both sides of industry, and arguably does lean in favour of the employee.
From what I've read, the individual in this case was already subject to the company's disciplinary procedure, reportedly following two incidents within the space of a month in 2006 at BHX, including stripping down to his underwear to make a point (arguably that in itself would be grounds for a dismissal for gross misconduct, bringing the company into disrepute). As a result, he was subject to a final written warning (translate as "step out of line once more, and you are out").
The tribunal will therefore look at whether the previous disciplinary actions were "fair" (fair means were the allegations investigated fairly, with the individual concerned, etc). If so, was the subsequent cockpit incident also dealt with fairly ?
If the answer is yes to both, the company has no case to answer.
A final written warning is exactly what it says, and even the smallest aberration thereafter is grounds for "fair" instant dismissal.
From what I've read, the individual in this case was already subject to the company's disciplinary procedure, reportedly following two incidents within the space of a month in 2006 at BHX, including stripping down to his underwear to make a point (arguably that in itself would be grounds for a dismissal for gross misconduct, bringing the company into disrepute). As a result, he was subject to a final written warning (translate as "step out of line once more, and you are out").
The tribunal will therefore look at whether the previous disciplinary actions were "fair" (fair means were the allegations investigated fairly, with the individual concerned, etc). If so, was the subsequent cockpit incident also dealt with fairly ?
If the answer is yes to both, the company has no case to answer.
A final written warning is exactly what it says, and even the smallest aberration thereafter is grounds for "fair" instant dismissal.
I encountred PAUL Mason in the RAF before he started calling himself 'Pablo'....
All the comments by military and ex-military pilots on this thread pretty well sum up the person I knew.
In the civil world, flying is hopefully 'boring' - nothing alarming for the crew and passengers is most welcome. 'Colourful' characters should not inflict their 'personalities' on fare-paying passengers.
Flying a chav-stuffed people-tube has been described as like being 'locked in a cupboard with a stranger for 2 hours 4 times per day'. Not something for people with excessive egos!
All the comments by military and ex-military pilots on this thread pretty well sum up the person I knew.
In the civil world, flying is hopefully 'boring' - nothing alarming for the crew and passengers is most welcome. 'Colourful' characters should not inflict their 'personalities' on fare-paying passengers.
Flying a chav-stuffed people-tube has been described as like being 'locked in a cupboard with a stranger for 2 hours 4 times per day'. Not something for people with excessive egos!
More Thoughts
It's occured to me this may be getting out of hand & let's not give further fuel to the effects of 9-11, I re-checked our SOPS which refer to EU OPs1.1255 which is pretty clear, I think the real truth is that 9-11 has taken away a lot of our freedoms possibly forever ?, however, it's still a great pity there isn't some room to manoevere to cater for pre-cleared 'authorised' persons.
For ref; check the full details on the EU OP's site;
EU OPS Subpart S Security
OPS 1.1235 Security requirements
OPS 1.1240 Training programmes
OPS 1.1245 Reporting acts of unlawful interference
OPS 1.1250 Aeroplane search procedure checklist
OPS 1.1255 Flight crew compartment security
stay safe (& legal ) everyone, good luck Pablo, I still think you've been treated with a heavy hand, a 'hats on' dressing down would have sufficed by the CP surely ?
For ref; check the full details on the EU OP's site;
EU OPS Subpart S Security
OPS 1.1235 Security requirements
OPS 1.1240 Training programmes
OPS 1.1245 Reporting acts of unlawful interference
OPS 1.1250 Aeroplane search procedure checklist
OPS 1.1255 Flight crew compartment security
stay safe (& legal ) everyone, good luck Pablo, I still think you've been treated with a heavy hand, a 'hats on' dressing down would have sufficed by the CP surely ?
Last edited by old-timer; 16th Mar 2009 at 21:28.
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: London
Posts: 516
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why has he been treated with a heavy hand? The guy has broken the rules on previous occasions - this is just the culmination. I'm sorry, but no one is above the law, not even a bloody airline pilot. If the guy deliberately ignored the rules and if the guy really did strip down, then he deserves to lose his job. You simply cannot call yourself a "professional" and defend this guy's conduct!
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: 'An Airfield Somewhere in England'
Posts: 1,094
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A fascinating range of views. What most, but not all, contributors are missing here is that the sacking of Pablo Mason had little or nothing to do with letting Robbie Savage into the cockpit in contravention of the rules. You can argue all day about whether or not the breach of SOPs was a sackable offence - the airline really did not care. All they cared about was getting rid of Pablo - an opportunity presented itself, they took it and the rest, as they say, is history. Love him or hate him, Pablo has been an unusually controversial figure throughout his whole career - in my time at Laarbruch he was a legend!
I am not going to publicly abuse Pablo here or go into unwholesome specifics, but it would not be betraying state secrets to say his airline were seriously displeased with Pablo and wanted him gone yesterday. He gave them an opportunity to get rid of him and they grabbed it with outstretched hands. There is a separate debate as to whether that view was justifed or not, but that is what happened nonetheless.
I am not going to publicly abuse Pablo here or go into unwholesome specifics, but it would not be betraying state secrets to say his airline were seriously displeased with Pablo and wanted him gone yesterday. He gave them an opportunity to get rid of him and they grabbed it with outstretched hands. There is a separate debate as to whether that view was justifed or not, but that is what happened nonetheless.
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Sale, Australia
Age: 80
Posts: 3,832
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Rules are for the obedience of fools and the guidance of wise men
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: Middle England
Posts: 611
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Fletch, spot on analysis. I very much doubt he would have got his cards if the Savage stunt was the first offence.
The first thing most of us at MYT were thinking was who's going to provide the top cover now Pablo's gone!
The first thing most of us at MYT were thinking was who's going to provide the top cover now Pablo's gone!
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Shanghai
Age: 60
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Huge stupidity;
Come on; this is so stupid, if a Captain managing a multi-milion dollars aircraft can not decide what to do on a charter flight; what are we doing behind the controls? The problem today are the ones behind the tables; and those ones know nothing about aviation...
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 2,584
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Rules are for the obedience of fools and the guidance of wise men
is it not a somewhat deplorable state of affairs in todays society
In Britain's Noughties our society has become one of everyone passes Go, everyone collects £200, no one has to throw a die to get it, everyone gets off scot-free, and no one is ever at fault or responsible for their actions. "Rules are for the obedience of fools.." Bejasus! That is the deplorable state of our society today.
And this, of all places, a Professional pilot's forum, seems (collectively) perfectly happy in itself to be defending someone who has repeatedly demonstrated that they cannot or will not conform to the requirements of a Professional discipline and responsible behaviour at work, or obey the simplest of rules if it does not suit his momentary whim...Had he been a milkman and flouted rules like that he'd have deserved the boot, but as a pilot???????
Frankly, I'm horrified at the attitude, "he's done no wrong," this is the way of the chav druggie-burglar car-thief that we see every night on our TVs, blindly refusing to accept guilt even when caught red-handed.
This is not, or rather should not be the way of a trustworthy Airline pilot, or, for that matter, any member of civilised society.
Shame!
Brian A, the correct quotation is "...the guidance of wise men and the blind obedience of fools." which conveys an utterly differrent message, does it not?
Last edited by Agaricus bisporus; 17th Mar 2009 at 10:45.
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Arizona USA
Posts: 8,571
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's all very simple, folks.
Airlines have rules and regulations, the respective regulatory authority have the same, and it is expected that FD crew follow these rules and regulations to the best of their ability.
Airline flying is a highly regulated endevour for a variety of very good reasons, and folks who constantly flount those rules and regulations are shown the door....and told to not let it smack 'em on the behind on the way out.
End of story....case closed.
Airlines have rules and regulations, the respective regulatory authority have the same, and it is expected that FD crew follow these rules and regulations to the best of their ability.
Airline flying is a highly regulated endevour for a variety of very good reasons, and folks who constantly flount those rules and regulations are shown the door....and told to not let it smack 'em on the behind on the way out.
End of story....case closed.
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Paris
Posts: 51
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Am finding it hard to understand why there's so much written about this. Whether one is a pilot or dustman (should I call it a Sanitation Technician these days?), there are rules, sop's, sob's whatever but they're there for you to see when you join & one of the conditions of being offered employment is that you obey the aforementioned. If you don't, you get the proverbial tin tack eventually. We all know that. I can understand why people may not agree with or like them but that is a completely different topic for debate.
As for the Pablo groupies (& this may be a sweeping generalisation), their opinions seem to be based on knowing somebody who knew him or they've read his book or some other semi-spurious reason. Apologies here to those that fall in with the groupie genre & are best buddies with the man. I however find it interesting to read the opinions of those who worked with him in mil his days & (very restrainedly) do not ascribe to the "war hero" or "great pilot" schools of thought.
As for the Pablo groupies (& this may be a sweeping generalisation), their opinions seem to be based on knowing somebody who knew him or they've read his book or some other semi-spurious reason. Apologies here to those that fall in with the groupie genre & are best buddies with the man. I however find it interesting to read the opinions of those who worked with him in mil his days & (very restrainedly) do not ascribe to the "war hero" or "great pilot" schools of thought.
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: uk
Posts: 302
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just to comment on a few points raised so far:
The Fedex case is a bad example, as most company sop's allow staff jumpseat use when on company business.
Regarding quotes and mis-qoutations (or misqoutations if we are being pedantic!), it depends which quote you mean:
Pablo,
Douglas Bader,
Oscar Wilde,
Solon (founding father of democracy),
In ascending chronological order.
Can NOBODY among the rule-bound imagine a world where there are just too many rules? And what do we do then? Are we heading that way?
Most of us are lucky enough to work for companies where those who write the rules are intelligent, experienced and practical, but the numerous commitees and agencies who would have us paralysed due to over-regulation are held back by those who value common sense, and a desire to get the job done.
Whether we learn directly from the "maveric" element, or from their mistakes, it is better to live in their world, than without them in ours.
(To misquote Gladys).
The Fedex case is a bad example, as most company sop's allow staff jumpseat use when on company business.
Regarding quotes and mis-qoutations (or misqoutations if we are being pedantic!), it depends which quote you mean:
Pablo,
Douglas Bader,
Oscar Wilde,
Solon (founding father of democracy),
In ascending chronological order.
Can NOBODY among the rule-bound imagine a world where there are just too many rules? And what do we do then? Are we heading that way?
Most of us are lucky enough to work for companies where those who write the rules are intelligent, experienced and practical, but the numerous commitees and agencies who would have us paralysed due to over-regulation are held back by those who value common sense, and a desire to get the job done.
Whether we learn directly from the "maveric" element, or from their mistakes, it is better to live in their world, than without them in ours.
(To misquote Gladys).