Mr Diamond in Virgin Flight Deck LOS-LHR?
cyflyer,
I quite agree, it would be an honour and I would be very happy to have him (as said above, this one not the last) visit the flight deck or use the jump seat IF it had been pre-authorised by the relevant manager. If it had not the answer, unfortunately and ridiculously, would have to be no.
Again, ridiculous, but yes they are.
That is the most ridiculous and stupidly absurd thing I have ever heard ! He is the PRIME MINISTER, and it would be an honour for any airline to have him take the time to visit the guys up front
I don't think the rules are so dumbfoundedly rigid that they take into account people of that stature
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Alton Hants
Age: 89
Posts: 74
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The law?
Where does the UK law say it is illegal to carry passengers on a jump seat in the cockpit of a UK registered aircraft? All that we have seen on this thread is a letter from the Civil Service directing that it shall not be done.
However it is possible that as a result of the letter the CAA directed Public Transport Operators with AOCs to include an appropriate instruction in the company's Operations Manual.
Breach of the requirements of the OM is not, in itself, a breach of the law. but the operator may discipline, ie sack, the pilot.
However it is possible that as a result of the letter the CAA directed Public Transport Operators with AOCs to include an appropriate instruction in the company's Operations Manual.
Breach of the requirements of the OM is not, in itself, a breach of the law. but the operator may discipline, ie sack, the pilot.
Join Date: May 2002
Location: dubai
Posts: 942
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There is one more rule even more insane than no access to the cockpit. It is the padding down of cockpit crew, to relieve them of weapons that could be used should they wish to take over control of the aircraft.
Well I damned well hope the cockpit crew will have control of the aircraft. When they get to the flight deck, they have an axe, first aid kit, O2 and any number of potential weapons they are able to get their hands on.
Sanity will never prevail and the terrorists must be p
g in their pants with laughter over the whole shambles.
Well I damned well hope the cockpit crew will have control of the aircraft. When they get to the flight deck, they have an axe, first aid kit, O2 and any number of potential weapons they are able to get their hands on.
Sanity will never prevail and the terrorists must be p
g in their pants with laughter over the whole shambles.
Join Date: Nov 1999
Posts: 2,312
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well, you can argue about the value of rules, laws and legal binding direction until the cows come home. It doesn't change the point in fact. In the USA and the UK and various other countries, the rules have been made clear as they apply to aircraft commanders through the companies operating certificate. Specifically through the operations manual, which makes it clear who may and who may not enter the flight deck "in flight" and at other specific times.
There is no exemption for footballers, Bank executives, or ministers of the crown, unless they also happen to be a qualified and authorized member of the crew.
The captain and everyone under his/her command is charged with ensuring that the rules and the regulations that they operate within, are complied with to the best of their ability. There are inevitably times when compliance is not desirable or possible for reasons of overriding necessity, however entertaining the "rich and famous," or indeed anybody else, isn't one of them.
Whatever my opinion of some of these rules, I am paid and expected to ensure full compliance. If I need to deviate from that compliance, then the company and the regulator have a right to an explanation for that action. Common sense would dictate that situations do arise to reasonably justify such deviance. However you would need to come up with something good to defend this type of deviance outside of an emergency.
There are lots of rules we all love and hate. I cannot understand why I am restricted to 70 MPH on a deserted motorway at 3am in the morning. If I chose to deviate from that regulation because I feel it is absurd, that is my choice. I doubt my opinion would provide much defence to a subsequent prosecution. However if I am being paid by an employer to drive his car, I not only run the risk of prosecution, but also of breaching the likely terms and conditions of my employment.
All talk of "the captain is king" and "nazi war trials" and "maverick personality types" is all very interesting, but the rules are not optional. The truth is, most people know that.
There is no exemption for footballers, Bank executives, or ministers of the crown, unless they also happen to be a qualified and authorized member of the crew.
The captain and everyone under his/her command is charged with ensuring that the rules and the regulations that they operate within, are complied with to the best of their ability. There are inevitably times when compliance is not desirable or possible for reasons of overriding necessity, however entertaining the "rich and famous," or indeed anybody else, isn't one of them.
Whatever my opinion of some of these rules, I am paid and expected to ensure full compliance. If I need to deviate from that compliance, then the company and the regulator have a right to an explanation for that action. Common sense would dictate that situations do arise to reasonably justify such deviance. However you would need to come up with something good to defend this type of deviance outside of an emergency.
There are lots of rules we all love and hate. I cannot understand why I am restricted to 70 MPH on a deserted motorway at 3am in the morning. If I chose to deviate from that regulation because I feel it is absurd, that is my choice. I doubt my opinion would provide much defence to a subsequent prosecution. However if I am being paid by an employer to drive his car, I not only run the risk of prosecution, but also of breaching the likely terms and conditions of my employment.
All talk of "the captain is king" and "nazi war trials" and "maverick personality types" is all very interesting, but the rules are not optional. The truth is, most people know that.
Hey ho, one rule for management *and another for the rest of us I suppose. * But isn't it time the CAA stopped looking after their friends and showed some teeth
Really ? So if Richard Branson was on that flight and you were captain, you would refuse him entry ? Yeah, I'd like to see that !
Last edited by Zeus; 23rd Jul 2011 at 18:28.
It seems security standards in Cyprus are pretty low
Hardly a week goes by without an Australian airliner scaring people out of their minds, so when comparing standards, look closer to home.
Join Date: Nov 1999
Posts: 2,312
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Did you read this?
In November 2002, the UK Government directed (legally instructed) foreign aircraft operators to keep the flight deck door locked when in UK airspace, including whilst the aircraft is on the ground if the engines are running.
In November 2003, the UK Government further directed UK airlines regarding access to flight crew compartments. Only persons with a justifiable operational reason are allowed access to the flight deck.
In November 2003, the UK Government further directed UK airlines regarding access to flight crew compartments. Only persons with a justifiable operational reason are allowed access to the flight deck.
Really ? So if Richard Brason was on that flight and you were captain, you would refuse him entry ? Yeah, I'd like to see that !
Errr, yes that has happened....
Errr, yes that has happened....
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Alton Hants
Age: 89
Posts: 74
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bealzebub Post 54
Yes I have read what you have said.
To break the law you have to be in breach of a specific Section of an Act of Parliament , such as The Civil Aviation Act; or you have to be in breach of an Order made under the Act ,such as an Article of the Air Navigation Order. Rules and Regulations may also be breached such as The Rules of the Air , The Dangerous Goods Regulations or The Air Navigation( General ) Regulations. There are several other sets of applicable Regulations.
One person on this thread mentioned driving at over 70 MPH on a motorway , that is a breach of The Road Traffic Act.
So Bealzebub how did the 2002 Direction legally instruct the UK aviation industry regarding access to the Flight Deck. Under which section of what Act was the Direction made.
It is not a breach of the Law to disregard a letter from a Civil Servant.
I know of no direct legislation saying that non operating persons may not be allowed on to the Flight Deck of a public Transport Aircraft.
It is possible, even likely, that the Department / UKCAA have required AOC holders to insert a requirement in to their Operations Manuals that no passengers are to be allowed on to the Flight Deck during flight. Failure to observe a requirement in an OM is not always a breach of the law but it can lead to a 'Proposal To Suspend the AOC'. It can also lead to the sacking of the operating crew.
A Government Direction will quote the Legislation under which it is made. You can prove me wrong by quoting the Legislation.
Yes I have read what you have said.
To break the law you have to be in breach of a specific Section of an Act of Parliament , such as The Civil Aviation Act; or you have to be in breach of an Order made under the Act ,such as an Article of the Air Navigation Order. Rules and Regulations may also be breached such as The Rules of the Air , The Dangerous Goods Regulations or The Air Navigation( General ) Regulations. There are several other sets of applicable Regulations.
One person on this thread mentioned driving at over 70 MPH on a motorway , that is a breach of The Road Traffic Act.
So Bealzebub how did the 2002 Direction legally instruct the UK aviation industry regarding access to the Flight Deck. Under which section of what Act was the Direction made.
It is not a breach of the Law to disregard a letter from a Civil Servant.
I know of no direct legislation saying that non operating persons may not be allowed on to the Flight Deck of a public Transport Aircraft.
It is possible, even likely, that the Department / UKCAA have required AOC holders to insert a requirement in to their Operations Manuals that no passengers are to be allowed on to the Flight Deck during flight. Failure to observe a requirement in an OM is not always a breach of the law but it can lead to a 'Proposal To Suspend the AOC'. It can also lead to the sacking of the operating crew.
A Government Direction will quote the Legislation under which it is made. You can prove me wrong by quoting the Legislation.
Join Date: Nov 1999
Posts: 2,312
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am afraid you will have to do your own homework on this one, unless somebody else can offer the statute under which HMG can enact legal instructions to an airline or any other body. I have provided the information letter that I have (stored), which should provide the clues to anybody in the know.
The letter states that HMG directed (legally instructed) UK airlines in November 2003. It wasn't the civil servant who wrote the letter, or me. All UK airlines are aware of the directive, and as far as I know have incorporated the legal instruction into their respective operations manuals. As such all relevent crew members should also be aware of the directive.
If you want to test the defence that such an instruction is non-existent, unlawful, or ineffective in it's construction, let us know how you get on. I would be interested in knowing the result.
The letter states that HMG directed (legally instructed) UK airlines in November 2003. It wasn't the civil servant who wrote the letter, or me. All UK airlines are aware of the directive, and as far as I know have incorporated the legal instruction into their respective operations manuals. As such all relevent crew members should also be aware of the directive.
If you want to test the defence that such an instruction is non-existent, unlawful, or ineffective in it's construction, let us know how you get on. I would be interested in knowing the result.
I wonder if this was taken to the European Court (after all the last time I checked UK was a member) whether the UK government have the right to issue such an edict which might infringe the Human Rights of aircraft commanders in going about their duties?
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: California
Age: 55
Posts: 203
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Anyone remember that polish/russian flight that crashed. VIP in cockpit then and it has raised many questions and accusations. A while back there was that russian flight where the pilots kid turned off the A/P when no one was driving. Clearly in some situations it increases risk. Easier to make a simple rule that denies access to all than write down all the exceptions.
Anyone remember that polish/russian flight that crashed. VIP in cockpit then and it has raised many questions and accusations. A while back there was that russian flight where the pilots kid turned off the A/P when no one was driving. Clearly in some situations it increases risk. Easier to make a simple rule that denies access to all than write down all the exceptions.
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: a few track miles south of BEKOL
Age: 57
Posts: 140
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
in the polish incident, flight deck acccess was irrelevant. the pm insisted that the aircraft land. he could do that from his seat. and the captain could refuse the pm's order to land even if the pm was in the flight deck.
i think we have learned a lot about how good training is and how good it is not. many accidents have occured due to poorly trained crews but that does not mean that in certain circumstances visitors cannot be permitted to the flight deck. blind adherance to rules has not proved to be an effective preventer of accidents.
i am all for situational awareness and common sense in the wider sense of the meanings and for smart skips to decide. those folks who adhere t the rules for the sake of the rules will be undone more often than those who know when the rules do not apply in a certain situation.
i would rather know that the person in the front left hand seat is situationally aware and blessed with common sense than with an intimate knowledge of the rules minutae.
i still think flying is more an art than a science althogh of course a high degree of scientific awareness is essential!
i think we have learned a lot about how good training is and how good it is not. many accidents have occured due to poorly trained crews but that does not mean that in certain circumstances visitors cannot be permitted to the flight deck. blind adherance to rules has not proved to be an effective preventer of accidents.
i am all for situational awareness and common sense in the wider sense of the meanings and for smart skips to decide. those folks who adhere t the rules for the sake of the rules will be undone more often than those who know when the rules do not apply in a certain situation.
i would rather know that the person in the front left hand seat is situationally aware and blessed with common sense than with an intimate knowledge of the rules minutae.
i still think flying is more an art than a science althogh of course a high degree of scientific awareness is essential!
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: New York City
Posts: 820
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I guess the story shows how careful you gotta be. Always a risk of small minded troublemakers around.
You risk getting fired for not complying with the company's Ops Manual,
but is it an offense?
If it is, what's the offense?
pressureman
Ah, the old slippery slope. 
That's a favorite of the guy in command of the parking lot. 'If I let you park there ...............'
You risk getting fired for not complying with the company's Ops Manual,
but is it an offense?
If it is, what's the offense?
pressureman
If this Capt gets away with this then I am sure a few others at Virgin will also start to ignore this
and maybe other parts of the Ops manual!
A slippery slope I feel.
and maybe other parts of the Ops manual!
A slippery slope I feel.
That's a favorite of the guy in command of the parking lot. 'If I let you park there ...............'
It's not just an Ops Manual requirement:
Originally Posted by FODCOM 21/2010
1 Introduction
1.1 Under EU-OPS, JAR-OPS 3 and the Air Navigation Order (ANO), persons carried on board an aircraft fall into only one of two categories; crew consisting of flight or cabin crew members, or passengers.
1.2 Some aircraft certificated for single-pilot operation are fitted with a second pilot's seat. For Commercial Air Transport and Public Transport operations being conducted under EU-OPS, JAR-OPS 3 or the ANO, no person may be carried on the flight deck except a crew member assigned to the flight as an operating crew member, or a passenger permitted to occupy a flight deck seat in accordance with instructions in the operator’s operations manual. Flight deck seats include 'jump seats' and empty pilot's seats whether in a separate flight deck compartment or, in smaller aircraft, at the front of the cabin.
1.3 For larger aircraft, the National Aviation Security Programme controls access to the flight deck. This FODCOM only applies where that Programme does not prohibit the carriage of passengers on the flight deck.
1.4 The purpose of this FODCOM is to alert and remind operators of the requirements for carrying persons in flight deck seats.
1.1 Under EU-OPS, JAR-OPS 3 and the Air Navigation Order (ANO), persons carried on board an aircraft fall into only one of two categories; crew consisting of flight or cabin crew members, or passengers.
1.2 Some aircraft certificated for single-pilot operation are fitted with a second pilot's seat. For Commercial Air Transport and Public Transport operations being conducted under EU-OPS, JAR-OPS 3 or the ANO, no person may be carried on the flight deck except a crew member assigned to the flight as an operating crew member, or a passenger permitted to occupy a flight deck seat in accordance with instructions in the operator’s operations manual. Flight deck seats include 'jump seats' and empty pilot's seats whether in a separate flight deck compartment or, in smaller aircraft, at the front of the cabin.
1.3 For larger aircraft, the National Aviation Security Programme controls access to the flight deck. This FODCOM only applies where that Programme does not prohibit the carriage of passengers on the flight deck.
1.4 The purpose of this FODCOM is to alert and remind operators of the requirements for carrying persons in flight deck seats.