New jumpseat regulations?
SkyGod
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Palm Coast, Florida, USA
Age: 67
Posts: 1,542
Likes: 0
Received 10 Likes
on
1 Post
Did not consider r..h.... to be racist, rather a describtin of old fashioned head gear on certain folks, besides are we supposed to be PC and polite towards terrorist now...?
(Check my previous postings again, was talking about the 9/11 scum.)
Foxmoth: if ya are disappointed over the US and the lack of freedom, why don't you just stay away, or go and visit your Arab/Muslim friends in the Middle East. That should open your eyes to what lack of freedom is.
(Check my previous postings again, was talking about the 9/11 scum.)
Foxmoth: if ya are disappointed over the US and the lack of freedom, why don't you just stay away, or go and visit your Arab/Muslim friends in the Middle East. That should open your eyes to what lack of freedom is.
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Bothell WA
Posts: 2,809
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The FAA has opened this up to comments. Below are the links to the docket.
As a commuter who uses the jumpseat to get to work, the US carriers consider the Jumpseater an additional crewmember.
411A
You really are an ass. Do you fly for AWA?
http://dms.dot.gov/search/document.c...docketid=12504
http://dms3000.dot.gov/docimages/p72/177165.pdf
14 CFR Part 129
[Docket No. FAA–2002–12504; Amendment
No. 129–33]
RIN 2120–AH70
Security Considerations for the
Flightdeck on Foreign Operated
Transport Category Airplanes
(3) No person may admit any person
to the flight deck of an aircraft unless
the person being admitted is—
(i) A crewmember,
(ii) An inspector of the civil aviation
authority responsible for oversight of
the part 129 operator, or
(iii) Any other person authorized by
the civil aviation authority responsible
for oversight of the part 129 operator.
As a commuter who uses the jumpseat to get to work, the US carriers consider the Jumpseater an additional crewmember.
Have always wondered why some pilots are too cheap to actually purchase a ticket when they live outside their respective domicile.
You really are an ass. Do you fly for AWA?
http://dms.dot.gov/search/document.c...docketid=12504
http://dms3000.dot.gov/docimages/p72/177165.pdf
14 CFR Part 129
[Docket No. FAA–2002–12504; Amendment
No. 129–33]
RIN 2120–AH70
Security Considerations for the
Flightdeck on Foreign Operated
Transport Category Airplanes
(3) No person may admit any person
to the flight deck of an aircraft unless
the person being admitted is—
(i) A crewmember,
(ii) An inspector of the civil aviation
authority responsible for oversight of
the part 129 operator, or
(iii) Any other person authorized by
the civil aviation authority responsible
for oversight of the part 129 operator.
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: hoschton, GA, USA
Posts: 147
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Right now, I don't think this applies to domestic jumpseats in the United States.
As I read it, Part 129 applies only to Foreign airlines operating in the United States:
"CHAPTER 125 INTRODUCTION TO FAR PART 129
1. GENERAL.FAR Part 129 prescribes rules governingthe operation within the United States of foreign air carriers appropriately authorized by the Civil Aeronautics Board orthe Department of Transportation (DOT)."
However, one hand washes the other; shutting of Jumpseats of foreign carriers operating in the United States surely will have a ripple effect in the US. There are a few United pilots I know of who are fed up with the US and have opted to live in Europe.
Actually, I think they are more fed up with American women than the country itself....but that's a topic for another thread entirely.
As I read it, Part 129 applies only to Foreign airlines operating in the United States:
"CHAPTER 125 INTRODUCTION TO FAR PART 129
1. GENERAL.FAR Part 129 prescribes rules governingthe operation within the United States of foreign air carriers appropriately authorized by the Civil Aeronautics Board orthe Department of Transportation (DOT)."
However, one hand washes the other; shutting of Jumpseats of foreign carriers operating in the United States surely will have a ripple effect in the US. There are a few United pilots I know of who are fed up with the US and have opted to live in Europe.
Actually, I think they are more fed up with American women than the country itself....but that's a topic for another thread entirely.
Foxmouth
You have issues.
My carrier only allows our own pilots along with our connection carriers in the actual JS, reason being all of the above pilots are in a database and that real time employment can be verified.
You have issues.
My carrier only allows our own pilots along with our connection carriers in the actual JS, reason being all of the above pilots are in a database and that real time employment can be verified.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Oop North, UK
Posts: 3,076
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tower Dog
Thanks for the suggestion but I come to the States as part of my work, unfortunately I am not well funded enough to feed my family without it!
Nothing against most Americans and have in the past helped some (properly accredited airline Staff relative) by having THEM on the jumpseat.
For your info I also visit many Muslim countries in my flying, yes they ARE more restrictive, but generally they don't deny it and with very strict laws you can feel safer in many muslim countries than in many US cities. If you travel to different countries you find they ALL have different rules and restrictions that you have to accept.
Americans comming to the UK probably find restrictions that they are not used to, but at least we don't claim to be "land of the free", which winds me up,If you are going to make a claim like this, have the balls to back it up without bringing in unneccessary legislation and this new restriction is impinging DIRECTLY on quality of life.
Another factor you might like to think about, with someone else on the FD the pilots do not have to get out of their seats to operate the door which is something I have always considered a major worry in an emergency, so this extra person does actually come in useful.
Restricting the Fd is one thing & Jumpseat pax SHOULD be vetted by the company, but this latest regulation though is WAY over the top.
Thanks for the suggestion but I come to the States as part of my work, unfortunately I am not well funded enough to feed my family without it!
Nothing against most Americans and have in the past helped some (properly accredited airline Staff relative) by having THEM on the jumpseat.
For your info I also visit many Muslim countries in my flying, yes they ARE more restrictive, but generally they don't deny it and with very strict laws you can feel safer in many muslim countries than in many US cities. If you travel to different countries you find they ALL have different rules and restrictions that you have to accept.
Americans comming to the UK probably find restrictions that they are not used to, but at least we don't claim to be "land of the free", which winds me up,If you are going to make a claim like this, have the balls to back it up without bringing in unneccessary legislation and this new restriction is impinging DIRECTLY on quality of life.
Another factor you might like to think about, with someone else on the FD the pilots do not have to get out of their seats to operate the door which is something I have always considered a major worry in an emergency, so this extra person does actually come in useful.
Restricting the Fd is one thing & Jumpseat pax SHOULD be vetted by the company, but this latest regulation though is WAY over the top.
Last edited by foxmoth; 4th Jul 2002 at 10:11.
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 226
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I worked for the same company as Foxmouth & PokaHostie until very recently.
Pre 11/9 many of the company aircraft flight decks were regularly occupied by wives, girlfriends or other invited (sometimes not invited) guests! All except mine that is, because I found it such a pain in the butt that I stopped taking them. I recall one F/O who took his girlfriend on a trip - she spent the entire time distracting him to the point that he missed nearly every RT call and his P1 ops on the return sector was pretty poor too. Normally he would be a very switched on operator.
Another time I refused flight deck travel to the CEO's secretary after she had written a note to the cabin services department to inform them she would occupying the flight deck seat because it was a none training flight - she hadn't thought to ask me if it was ok. The next day I received a telephone call from the CEO to inform me he was aware of what I had done.
Pre 11/9 many of the company aircraft flight decks were regularly occupied by wives, girlfriends or other invited (sometimes not invited) guests! All except mine that is, because I found it such a pain in the butt that I stopped taking them. I recall one F/O who took his girlfriend on a trip - she spent the entire time distracting him to the point that he missed nearly every RT call and his P1 ops on the return sector was pretty poor too. Normally he would be a very switched on operator.
Another time I refused flight deck travel to the CEO's secretary after she had written a note to the cabin services department to inform them she would occupying the flight deck seat because it was a none training flight - she hadn't thought to ask me if it was ok. The next day I received a telephone call from the CEO to inform me he was aware of what I had done.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Oop North, UK
Posts: 3,076
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not had that problem. Any flight deck pax I carry I thoroughly brief beforehand as to what to do, when they can talk etc.
Most FD pax are actually useful, at night they are a safeguard if you are nodding off, and with the locked FD door a definate boon.
As far as preventing terrorism goes I would think any serious terrorist is going to have worked out how & when he MIGHT be able to get through the door and a FD passenger is more likely to be a second line of defence rather than a terrorist!
nb. Sapco2 - Even if the Americans don't know British Aircraft I would have thought you would know the Fox Moth as that and be able to get my name right!
Most FD pax are actually useful, at night they are a safeguard if you are nodding off, and with the locked FD door a definate boon.
As far as preventing terrorism goes I would think any serious terrorist is going to have worked out how & when he MIGHT be able to get through the door and a FD passenger is more likely to be a second line of defence rather than a terrorist!
nb. Sapco2 - Even if the Americans don't know British Aircraft I would have thought you would know the Fox Moth as that and be able to get my name right!
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 226
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sorry Foxmoth,
Sacasm wasn't my intention - merely to offer another point of view. I happen to believe that visitors to the flight deck can be detrimental to flight safety. Not always - but sometimes!
Sacasm wasn't my intention - merely to offer another point of view. I happen to believe that visitors to the flight deck can be detrimental to flight safety. Not always - but sometimes!
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Hang on, I'll check my roster...
Posts: 197
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
M.Mouse - are you sure? Your company council head seems sure that its only BA staff or persons personnally known to the Captain(CAA inspector etc also I presume). The same view was also relayed to me by the skipper concerned?
Yours Confused.
Yours Confused.
Join Date: May 2002
Location: uk
Posts: 156
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There is no security risk carrying friends and relatives of the operating crew. There is minimal risk in accepting friends and relatives of staff you personally know in your own handling agency, own company etc.
There is a small, but unacceptable risk in carrying someone who insists on being in the flight deck - eg an unannounced CAA/FAA 'inspector', even if he does have an ID card.
Surely BALPA/ALPA could negotiate with government to get some deal where those on the jumpseat who only have an ID card, will be subject to extra checks on their ID and a body search just prior to boarding. No extra bags permitted in cockpit, and so on.
The Commander retains, the final say(as now), after taking everything into account.
If there are specific rules, it just helps the terroroists to plan to get round them.
The problems of getting past the vagaries of different aircraft Commanders on the day, is a good deterrent in itself.
There is a small, but unacceptable risk in carrying someone who insists on being in the flight deck - eg an unannounced CAA/FAA 'inspector', even if he does have an ID card.
Surely BALPA/ALPA could negotiate with government to get some deal where those on the jumpseat who only have an ID card, will be subject to extra checks on their ID and a body search just prior to boarding. No extra bags permitted in cockpit, and so on.
The Commander retains, the final say(as now), after taking everything into account.
If there are specific rules, it just helps the terroroists to plan to get round them.
The problems of getting past the vagaries of different aircraft Commanders on the day, is a good deterrent in itself.
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 1,691
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
M.Mouse is quite correct. The rules are quite clear about who is allowed to use the jumpseat and those rules are set by the CAA. If you're not on that list then you can't use it, regardless of how well you know the Captain. In fact there have been instances when Captains have refused the jumpseat to people travelling on BA staff tickets (usually family members of BA staff) because they have been unable to prove that they are who they say they are.
Now I may be being thick here but section 3 of that rules states:
(3) No person may admit any person
to the flight deck of an aircraft unless
the person being admitted is— .....
......(iii) Any other person authorized by
the civil aviation authority responsible
for oversight of the part 129 operator.
So I read this as if the CAA say its OK for you to be on the jumpseat of a UK aircraft then thats OK with the FAA. So effectively no change for anyone operating for a UK carrier.
Now I may be being thick here but section 3 of that rules states:
(3) No person may admit any person
to the flight deck of an aircraft unless
the person being admitted is— .....
......(iii) Any other person authorized by
the civil aviation authority responsible
for oversight of the part 129 operator.
So I read this as if the CAA say its OK for you to be on the jumpseat of a UK aircraft then thats OK with the FAA. So effectively no change for anyone operating for a UK carrier.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Timbuktu
Posts: 638
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As a matter of interest folks, what are your company policies on use of any spare 'crew seats' in the cabin?
In my gaff the hosties are under the delusion that they 'own them' and can take who they like...without telling the skipper OR EVEN GETTING HIS PERMISSION. In one recent event a CCM even refused to accept that the FOM had a final say in the matter!
Security risk or what? I ask you.
In my gaff the hosties are under the delusion that they 'own them' and can take who they like...without telling the skipper OR EVEN GETTING HIS PERMISSION. In one recent event a CCM even refused to accept that the FOM had a final say in the matter!
Security risk or what? I ask you.
Our professional ATC association had, among others, a top class Fam Flight program with a non-US cargo company flying between Europe and Asia. Sadly, because their flights staged through PANC, the new FAA regulations screwed that up nicely for us. This is very sad time for pilot/controller relations, and no more so than now when, each year, ATC worldwide is training hundreds of new generation controllers most of whom don't know and now may never know what goes on at the pointy end. Somebody mentioned the "them & us" syndrome, well I already see it at work now when I hear (off r/t) derogatory comments from young obviously quite ignorant ATCOs. SAD TIMES 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Arizona USA
Posts: 8,571
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Avman,
Although our operations will be confined to SE Asia for awhile, Eurpoean flights are a possibility.
You are invited without reservation to any of our sectors for FAM training. We will have extra business class seats in the cabin as well. Wll advise you by email when this is possible.
If pilots cannot accomodate ATC guys on a regular basis, it is a real shame. It takes two to tango, unfortunately some regulatory authorities have lost sight of this fact.
Although our operations will be confined to SE Asia for awhile, Eurpoean flights are a possibility.
You are invited without reservation to any of our sectors for FAM training. We will have extra business class seats in the cabin as well. Wll advise you by email when this is possible.
If pilots cannot accomodate ATC guys on a regular basis, it is a real shame. It takes two to tango, unfortunately some regulatory authorities have lost sight of this fact.
Join Date: Sep 1998
Location: World
Posts: 33
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Although I fully appreciate there is a requirement to heavily restrict access to the FD, I believe that some thought needs to be given to the medium and long term effects such unilateral banning of access will have.
For example, if ATCO’s are banned from observation flights, the understanding/appreciation of the controller/pilot relationship will obviously deteriorate. Surely an "approval" system could be established that would validate accredited ATCO "applicants" for FD visits. One way to keep control of such a program would be to limit the number of carriers ATCO's could travel with (maybe this does/will continue to occur?). At the end of the day, these people have similar/same security status as flight crew and are fellow aviation professionals.
You then get into the "family" aspects of such a ban. I'm sure all crews with family travelling with them, particularly kids, love having them visit and see what it is they do (I appreciate the US restrictions about not entering the FD…). Having grown up myself with numerous trips in the jump seat, I know what a privilege it is...to not have ANY flexibility in the system is in my opinion very sad.
Anyway, there will always be the argument that to keep things simple, we just say NO to everything. This keeps the regulators happy and makes it simple to control.
There are other points that could be mentioned however I've ranted enough. It seems the days of "fun" and "aviation" in the same sentence are (have?) coming to an end...
For example, if ATCO’s are banned from observation flights, the understanding/appreciation of the controller/pilot relationship will obviously deteriorate. Surely an "approval" system could be established that would validate accredited ATCO "applicants" for FD visits. One way to keep control of such a program would be to limit the number of carriers ATCO's could travel with (maybe this does/will continue to occur?). At the end of the day, these people have similar/same security status as flight crew and are fellow aviation professionals.
You then get into the "family" aspects of such a ban. I'm sure all crews with family travelling with them, particularly kids, love having them visit and see what it is they do (I appreciate the US restrictions about not entering the FD…). Having grown up myself with numerous trips in the jump seat, I know what a privilege it is...to not have ANY flexibility in the system is in my opinion very sad.
Anyway, there will always be the argument that to keep things simple, we just say NO to everything. This keeps the regulators happy and makes it simple to control.
There are other points that could be mentioned however I've ranted enough. It seems the days of "fun" and "aviation" in the same sentence are (have?) coming to an end...
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: LGW
Posts: 26
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My company are getting clarification from the FAA, but in the meantime are still allowing bookings for accompanied travel to prevent any last minute rush.
Please let us have less personal attacks it serves no purpose and clouds the issues. I am often amazed at the vitriol released from a group of supposedly intelligent people. We are better than that.
Finally if anyone can come up with a system that allows more personal freedoms than the USA answers please on a postcard to your local MEP.
Please let us have less personal attacks it serves no purpose and clouds the issues. I am often amazed at the vitriol released from a group of supposedly intelligent people. We are better than that.
Finally if anyone can come up with a system that allows more personal freedoms than the USA answers please on a postcard to your local MEP.
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 106
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The passengers dont appreciate seeing non uniformed persons entering the flight deck during flight or any other time. People are still cautious about airline security. Which pretty much rules family etc out....
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 226
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
maxalt,
You,ve raised another good point. That was another bone of contention when I worked for your company. It's an attitude stemming from your CEO telling everyone that the people up front of the aircraft are merely 'drivers'. Most of the pilots of course are just too polite to argue.
You,ve raised another good point. That was another bone of contention when I worked for your company. It's an attitude stemming from your CEO telling everyone that the people up front of the aircraft are merely 'drivers'. Most of the pilots of course are just too polite to argue.
Jump seats should be strictly limited for the use of personnel on duty. If I want to take my wife and kids then I buy them a ticket.
There is nothing worse than being stuck in a flight deck for 10 hours with someone else's loved one and their brat. It simply is not fair on the crew.
I would not entertain inflicting my tribe upon others so why should I have to put up with others?
There is nothing worse than being stuck in a flight deck for 10 hours with someone else's loved one and their brat. It simply is not fair on the crew.
I would not entertain inflicting my tribe upon others so why should I have to put up with others?