Mr Diamond in Virgin Flight Deck LOS-LHR?

[Poltergeist]

Bob, I was having some fun on the last comment

Now to your points - this is my view and not necessarily that of HMG

HMG does have the right to take whatever measures it deems necessary to protect the airspace and the citizens underneath it. This is enforced in EU reg 300 and ICAO annex 13 that accept that more stringent measures may be imposed. The regulation allows for those with an operational need to be on the flight deck so if they are needed to assist in the operation of the craft they are covered.

The responsibility for deciding who is suitably 'vetted' to have access is given to the operator via the accountable manager security and so not the Capt. This is because it is a requirement that undergo DFT approved training at a different level from crew that looks at these issues in a different way. Also they are the one who would potentially fce charges in relation to breaches that could include corporate manslaughter. Do not forget that the locked flight deck door policy was a result of the BA incident to Nairobi when a mentally ill passenger tried to crash the aircraft . As I recall this was pre 9/11.

I can not answer whether a court would overturn this and on what grounds. The reality is that in operational terms it is an inconvenience that would not justify an airline spending out on the legal costs and Your argument would need to demonstrate either a safety case against, an operational case against and an operational reason for its removal. Personally I do not believe you could achieve that. This is why I do not believe BALPA will win the argument on no screening for crew and carriers accept the delays in sorting out the liquids fiasco.

[Golf-Sierra]

Hello, SLF here.

Just a question, out of curiosity, to all the Captains out here. So in your opinion - what are the justified circumstances whereby a Captain would allow a passenger to enter the flight deck?

Somehow - at least in my opinion - allowing this because the person is a friend/family/nice/famous/good looking/just plain curious - is not a justifiable reason. I mean - there are tens of thousands of professions out there where this would be absolutely unthinkable on grounds of professionalism and work ethics. Can you imagine, say a cashier at the bank inviting a friend to sit with her inside her glass cubicle for a bit of chit chat? Or a doctor having her husband sit by while she's examining patients? A teacher inviting someone over to the classroom without clearing it with the headmistress? Have you ever seen a tube or train driver invite a passenger into the cabin? Would you like to have staff's kids having a crèche at the control room of the nuclear power plant just down the road from your house?

[fireflybob]

Poltergeist, you have given a very "legalistic" response for which I am grateful but I am not surprised by the response.

I come from an age where, for decades, visitors were allowed to the flight deck, at times deemed suitable by the Commander, and there was never a problem.

I accept that things have changed but I personally find the idea of government protecting it's citizens from terrorism quite laughable. Remember the Detroit bomber? Despite a whole raft of security procedures this one got through and guess who protected themselves? The people who were there at the time!

As a Commander I would always respect the rules but have to say that on this issue I don't agree with them. If I really thought that the rules protected passengers etc then I would agree with them. The piloting profession have only themselves to blame for allowing "nanny" government to impose such stupid rules on us.

Somehow - at least in my opinion - allowing this because the person is a friend/family/nice/famous/good looking/just plain curious - is not a justifiable reason. I mean - there are tens of thousands of professions out there where this would be absolutely unthinkable on grounds of professionalism and work ethics. Can you imagine, say a cashier at the bank inviting a friend to sit with her inside her glass cubicle for a bit of chit chat? Or a doctor having her husband sit by while she's examining patients? A teacher inviting someone over to the classroom without clearing it with the headmistress? Have you ever seen a tube or train driver invite a passenger into the cabin? Would you like to have staff's kids having a crèche at the control room of the nuclear power plant just down the road from your house?

Golf-Sierra, totally different situations methinks. When a doctor treats a patient there are issues such as confidentiality. Ok maybe a teacher would be different but surely a head teacher is on a par with an airline Captain? Trains? Well funny you should mention it but someone I taught to fly was an inter city driver and I travelled in the cab with him to Newcastle and back and this was all cleared and sanctioned by the suitable authorities! The creche at the nuclear control room?! We're not talking about unsupervised minors being allowed on the flight deck are we? Are you seriously comparing a bank cashier's role to that of an airline aircraft Commander - once again surely it would be better to compare the Bank Manager, wouldn't it? Or has respect for the piloting profession fallen that low now?

Obviously from this thread there are opposing views but if HMG cannot trust aircraft Commanders to make a sensible decision then, my belief is that the lunatics are now running the asylums.

[auntyice]

I think you'll find its not who is on the flight deck but about the number of times the locked flight deck door is opened. It doesn't matter if its your wife child or mistess, on a several hour leg they are going to be in and out of the flight deck. Restricting the number on the flight deck is in keeping with the locked door policy.
I don't agree with it as much as anyone else but a secure FD door opening and closing unnecessarily is seen as a security risk.

[Sir George Cayley]

Airliners dot net is great on many levels. One I section I particularly like is the cockpit shots.

They show the view over the crews' shoulders of the approach lights or sometimes beautiful sunsets/rises. Lovely pictures.

Some are taken by supernumerary crew but on there are some well known contributors who are 'civilians'

So the closed FD door policy appears not to appear to apply to dozens of flights.

[fireflybob]

but a secure FD door opening and closing unnecessarily is seen as a security risk.

auntyice, so the current procedures for allowing cabin crew access to the flight deck and/or crew members having to go to the washroom are inadequate, is that what you are saying?

Also, why is it only the UK and USA governments that apply these rules - does something magic happen to non UK aircraft when they leave UK international airspace?

When's the last time anyone had an ATCO on the flightdeck for an observation trip?

[hunterboy]

Bearing in mind that it is a sackable offence, I would be surprised if anybody owns up to it.

[fireflybob]

So the closed FD door policy appears not to appear to apply to dozens of flights.

Presumably taken on non UK registered a/c outside UK airspace?

[Golf-Sierra]

Golf-Sierra, totally different situations methinks. When a doctor treats a patient...

fireflybob, the point I was trying to make is that a big fuss is being made over something, which in the vast majority of other professions is an unquestionable everyday fact of life. Many professions which are on par in terms of prestige, skill required and responsibility to that of airline pilot.

...but if HMG cannot trust aircraft Commanders to make a sensible decision

I'm still waiting for someone to outline what criteria are the basis of these sensible decisions. Assuming we live in a world where this is solely up to the commander, was the decision to allow Mr Diamond to enter the flightdeck during landing a sensible one? How would you rate that from the safety perspective? What about how customers perceive the professionalism of the crew - good decision, bad decision?

[fireflybob]

I'm still waiting for someone to outline what criteria are the basis of these sensible decisions. Assuming we live in a world where this is solely up to the commander, was the decision to allow Mr Diamond to enter the flightdeck during landing a sensible one? How would you rate that from the safety perspective? What about how customers perceive the professionalism of the crew - good decision, bad decision?

Golf-Sierra, I am not commenting on the actions of this particular Captain.

I agree totally that the current rules should be complied with.

But what I am saying is that it is a stupid rule that doesn't allow the Commander any discretion in the matter. When people can see the reason for a rule they are much more likely to obey it.

[paull]

Choose or be Chosen?

If you invite (even the average) person up to the flight deck then I guess the odds of this being Terr O' Wrist are somewhat slim. If they invite themselves and you agree then the odds are significantly higher.

Stand at the side of the road long enough hitching a lift and you WILL allow a sicko to choose you, if you approach someone and ask them, your chances are around average, depending on your judgement.

We are prepared to trust the captain's judgement on so many things, why not on this?
(But follow Groucho Marx and say no to anyone who actually asks!)

[Piltdown Man]

Despite the best efforts of many (for which I am grateful), none hase ever been able to point to the piece of legislation which absolutely prohibits 'passengers' ie. non-operational crew from being in the flight deck of a non-UK registered aircraft inside UK airspace. I've seen that that door must be locked any time an engine is running and seen that none other than operating crew may be present on the flight of UK registered aircraft but no more that. Not even the great Google, Lycos, Ask etc. are any help. Ideas anyone?

[Golf-Sierra]

But what I am saying is that it is a stupid rule that doesn't allow the Commander any discretion in the matter. When people can see the reason for a rule they are much more likely to obey it.

But the Commander is ultimately responsible, otherwise the door would be locked shut from the outside before takeoff and reopened only after landing. And I am sure if there were a truly justified reason for letting pax in there would be no issue. Examples which spring to mind are a medical emergency whereby a doctor/nurse enters the cockpit to relay details of the emergency to ground via radio. Any others?


When I ws a kid (not thaaaat long ago) I would spend plenty of time at the office my Dad worked for, and on weekends I would drive the forklift trucks round the warehouse. Can't imagine that happening with today's h&s. Then again - back then flying anywhere was a luxury I could just dream about, nowadays I fly more often then I drive. Guess it is progress.

[Harry Spotter]

Examples which spring to mind are a medical emergency whereby a doctor/nurse enters the cockpit to relay details of the emergency to ground via radio. Any others?

You liked those movies from the 80s didn't you ?

When I ws a kid (not thaaaat long ago) I would spend plenty of time at the office my Dad worked for, and on weekends I would drive the forklift trucks round the warehouse. Can't imagine that happening with today's h&s. Then again - back then flying anywhere was a luxury I could just dream about, nowadays I fly more often then I drive. Guess it is progress.

This story isn't about you,
even though as much as you would have liked it , our dear "SLF".

[Poltergeist]

Piltdown Man,
It comes as a direction from the secretary of state and as such forms part of the National Aviation Security Program - I am not a lawyer but in the past I was pointed to
Aviation security act 1982 PartII Para 14. This empowers the secretary of state to issue directions on operators, airports etc and creates an offence by not complying with those directions. First reading points to mainly measures employing searches but as you go down through part two you will see that it does not confine the power to that.

As said, I am no lawyer but the offence, as I read it, is failing to comply with the direction.

[Piltdown Man]

Thanks Poltergeist - I shall have a look. But it appears that said instruction appears not to have made it to my mob.

[Poltergeist]

No worries, there was a special communication that was published to the accountable managers at the time, this was replicated in the UK Nasp and continued in the single consolidated direction when EUreg 300 came in.

[JW411]

"No worries, there was a special communication that was published to the accountable managers at the time, this was replicated in the UK Nasp and continued in the single consolidated direction when EUreg 300 came in".

What an absolutely wonderful piece of Yukspeak!!!!

Does anyone else out there (apart from the self-generating safety industry) actually know what any of that means?

As a stupid pilot (who still owns a valid pilots licence 54 years after going solo) I am reminded of one of my fellow professional pilots who made the famous comment that if "Health and Safety" were put in charge of Trafalgar Square, then we could accommodate three pigeons in total safety.

You mention "accountable managers". It has always been my experience that they ran for the trenches when something went wrong and none of them ever ended up as being "accountable".

Can anyone tell me the last time that a manager was actually held to be accountable?

Rant over (at least for now).

[Poltergeist]

JW - if you bothered to read the thread I was responding to a question that asked for the documentation that made this legal.

I am not part of the 'self generating safety industry' and I am not a 'I know everything because I am a pilot of 54 years' person either. I had to look into this several years ago in some detail that is all

[fireflybob]

JW411, I know where you're coming from but we must be careful not to shoot the messenger.

Like you I am continually dumbfounded by the amount of bureaucratic nonsense which is couched in these fluffy terms which nobody really understands.

All quite deliberately done by "nanny" governments who "know best".

Roll on the revolution!