View Poll Results: Should the jump seat be available for wannabe or family familiarisation flights?
Yes, the DfT rule is idiotic
1,740
89.19%
No, there is too much risk involved
182
9.33%
No opinion
29
1.49%
Voters: 1951. This poll is closed
DfT/CAA Jump Seat Restrictions
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Blighty
Posts: 22
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
GET REAL !!!!!!
Aaaw diddums - you can't have your wife/children/mates accompany you on the flightdeck. TOUGH LUCK MATEY !!!!!! If this rule saves just one instance of a dangerous fd visitor, then all this bulls**t sulking is meaningless.
If a man works in a bank, do you think it's appropriate for him to be able to take his best mate into work one day to show him what his job is like? Of course not, and anybody who thinks that's wrong is blind to reality. (and I'm sure we'd all much rather Bin Laden's bestest buddy got into a bank than on a flightdeck).
FACE FACTS - FLIGHT DECK VISITS BY ANYONE WHO DOESN'T HAVE AN OPERATIONAL REQUIREMENT ARE TOTALLY INAPPROPRIATE
LIVE WITH IT and stop being selfish. Safety comes first.
OK, so the new rule might exclude some people who you feel unncecessary (family, etc). But I ask this question : Are the people that you are whining about being excluded, ESSENTIAL OCCUPANTS OF THE FLIGHTDECK? No??? Well then shut up, because your reasons for wanting them there are purely self-motivated, and you can't expect nationwide legislation to allow for your personal needs.
x
airbus pilot says "security is made on the ground, not in the air".
So if ground security is inadequate (which we all know is the case), should we not bother trying to enforce any airborne security measures??
That's like saying that our company's headquarters building alarm system isn't very good, so we'll just give up and not bother locking our money up, but leave it all out to be stolen.
You have a valid point... it's just not applicable here...
Aaaw diddums - you can't have your wife/children/mates accompany you on the flightdeck. TOUGH LUCK MATEY !!!!!! If this rule saves just one instance of a dangerous fd visitor, then all this bulls**t sulking is meaningless.
If a man works in a bank, do you think it's appropriate for him to be able to take his best mate into work one day to show him what his job is like? Of course not, and anybody who thinks that's wrong is blind to reality. (and I'm sure we'd all much rather Bin Laden's bestest buddy got into a bank than on a flightdeck).
FACE FACTS - FLIGHT DECK VISITS BY ANYONE WHO DOESN'T HAVE AN OPERATIONAL REQUIREMENT ARE TOTALLY INAPPROPRIATE
LIVE WITH IT and stop being selfish. Safety comes first.
OK, so the new rule might exclude some people who you feel unncecessary (family, etc). But I ask this question : Are the people that you are whining about being excluded, ESSENTIAL OCCUPANTS OF THE FLIGHTDECK? No??? Well then shut up, because your reasons for wanting them there are purely self-motivated, and you can't expect nationwide legislation to allow for your personal needs.
x
airbus pilot says "security is made on the ground, not in the air".
So if ground security is inadequate (which we all know is the case), should we not bother trying to enforce any airborne security measures??
That's like saying that our company's headquarters building alarm system isn't very good, so we'll just give up and not bother locking our money up, but leave it all out to be stolen.
You have a valid point... it's just not applicable here...
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Al tube.
Posts: 464
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
To most of the above replies, the starter of this topic, Winston, stated "This thread is NOT about the for/against discussion but is aimed at aircrew (pilots, cabin crew) who believe that the present ruling is ridiculous and would like to unite and find a way forward."
If you do not agree with anyone on the jump seat then no reply is appropriate here. For one I wish Winston the best of luck in wanting some unity on reversing this draconian rule.
If you do not agree with anyone on the jump seat then no reply is appropriate here. For one I wish Winston the best of luck in wanting some unity on reversing this draconian rule.
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: East Midlands
Posts: 723
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
?
I have never read the 11 page thread refered to.
So the abused wife or child on the J/S waits for the other Pilot to leave for a call of nature. Stabs family pilot with nail file, after all he got her aboard, stangles him with his own tie and kicks the post forward. Could just the same be an employee fired 30 mins ago. Flight deck locked for the sake of all aboard.
Wait till all Pilots vetted 24/7............................
So the abused wife or child on the J/S waits for the other Pilot to leave for a call of nature. Stabs family pilot with nail file, after all he got her aboard, stangles him with his own tie and kicks the post forward. Could just the same be an employee fired 30 mins ago. Flight deck locked for the sake of all aboard.
Wait till all Pilots vetted 24/7............................
Helicopter Pilots Get It Up Quicker
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location:
Posts: 885
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Whilst I can think of a couple of notable incidents...
Pre 9/11 how many relatives or collegues were a threat to the safety of the aircraft?
Can anyone supply any evidence of how locking the cockpit door has actually improved safety or prevented a terrorist incident?
Pre 9/11 how many relatives or collegues were a threat to the safety of the aircraft?
Can anyone supply any evidence of how locking the cockpit door has actually improved safety or prevented a terrorist incident?
WupWupPullUp
Not even Frederick Forsyth has your level of paranoia. Two condoms or three sir ? ( 2 be sure.) Perhaps your levels of security coincide with your lifestyle. I prefer not to be intimidated or cowed, nor to have my, nor my passengers, ease troubled by ridiculous responses to intimidatory threats.
Retreating into a panic room cuts off all smell of coffee when you wake up.
Not even Frederick Forsyth has your level of paranoia. Two condoms or three sir ? ( 2 be sure.) Perhaps your levels of security coincide with your lifestyle. I prefer not to be intimidated or cowed, nor to have my, nor my passengers, ease troubled by ridiculous responses to intimidatory threats.
Retreating into a panic room cuts off all smell of coffee when you wake up.
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: north of barlu
Posts: 6,207
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
wup wup pull up
I think that you have totaly missed the point , firstly the staff using the jumpseat will have already been cleared by the security authoritys to hold a pass and so should not be danger to security (if the DTR have done there job properly ?).
As for close relatives of the flight crew I gust cant see how they could be a problem except if a terrorist was holding a gun to the head of one of them , as the relative locked in the flight deck is less lightly to be used as a hostage than one who is in the cabin I have to think that a relative in the flight deck improves security .
The only reason for these new regulations is to cover the backs of the civil servants at the DTR , if they could ban the pilots from the flight deck they would after all then they could never be wrong.
On a final note wup wup I have to say that I think with your level of paranoia I dont know how you leave the house in the mornings.
As for close relatives of the flight crew I gust cant see how they could be a problem except if a terrorist was holding a gun to the head of one of them , as the relative locked in the flight deck is less lightly to be used as a hostage than one who is in the cabin I have to think that a relative in the flight deck improves security .
The only reason for these new regulations is to cover the backs of the civil servants at the DTR , if they could ban the pilots from the flight deck they would after all then they could never be wrong.
On a final note wup wup I have to say that I think with your level of paranoia I dont know how you leave the house in the mornings.
I think we all know that stopping cockpit access has done nothing to really enhance safety onboard the aircraft. I don't think the the history of jet aircraft that a welcomed guest of the cockpit has ever tryed to takeover the aircraft EXCEPT for the Fed Ex DC-10 incident, however in this case he was a company pilot, in uniform, someone who is still in most airlines still allowed access.
Having a guest of the crew, a close friend or family IMHO provides no decrease in the safety, infact the only thing it may do is provide another line of defence against an attack on the cockpit, in a/c such as the 737 someone sitting in the j/s impedes immediate access to the operating crew.
Having a guest of the crew, a close friend or family IMHO provides no decrease in the safety, infact the only thing it may do is provide another line of defence against an attack on the cockpit, in a/c such as the 737 someone sitting in the j/s impedes immediate access to the operating crew.
I think the Fed-Ex guy was an employee though not flight crew.
I guess most of us have accepted the fact (however stupid) that our friends and families will never be allowed to use the jumpseats again in the UK, it has been the case in the US for years and I can't see them or us changing that.
What really does strike me as completely unjustified is banning flight deck cleared staff from using them when not on duty. If your ID and security clearance is OK when you are operating what changes 45 minutes later when you are not?. Nothing. With the new security doors now being installed we are being trusted completely and unreservedly with the security of the airplane and everyone on the ground, no amount of passenger (or air marshall) power is going to prevent you doing something awfull should you choose to. We have, or certainly should have, the highest possible security clearance and it can't just change because after a mornings work you are no longer on duty anymore.
I guess most of us have accepted the fact (however stupid) that our friends and families will never be allowed to use the jumpseats again in the UK, it has been the case in the US for years and I can't see them or us changing that.
What really does strike me as completely unjustified is banning flight deck cleared staff from using them when not on duty. If your ID and security clearance is OK when you are operating what changes 45 minutes later when you are not?. Nothing. With the new security doors now being installed we are being trusted completely and unreservedly with the security of the airplane and everyone on the ground, no amount of passenger (or air marshall) power is going to prevent you doing something awfull should you choose to. We have, or certainly should have, the highest possible security clearance and it can't just change because after a mornings work you are no longer on duty anymore.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Rockytop, Tennessee, USA
Posts: 5,898
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
>>I think the Fed-Ex guy was an employee though not flight crew.<<
Auburn Calloway was a FedEx first officer. He alleged that the other pilots attacked him in a racially motivated assault but the jury didn't buy it. He's in Club Fed in ATL these days...
See: http://www.suite101.com/article.cfm/...f_flight/79391
Auburn Calloway was a FedEx first officer. He alleged that the other pilots attacked him in a racially motivated assault but the jury didn't buy it. He's in Club Fed in ATL these days...
See: http://www.suite101.com/article.cfm/...f_flight/79391
GBXRE from what I read of the accident he was riding in the cabin, muttered something to his boss who sacked him as he walked past(he paxed home daily on this flight), entered the cockpit and shot the Captain and F/O in the head and then turned the gun on himself. He was apparently sacked for stealing bar floats. Again a tragic incident but he didn't have 'permission' to be on the cockpit.
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 229
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A balanced letter from the DfT which hinges around the "need to be there".
Given the threat from terrorism which is being confirmed by daily discoveries I cannot imagine any relaxation will be forthcoming - indeed the DfT woud be considered culpable if they did so.
Anne
PS fiftyfour I like the 20/20 hindsight - there's none so blind as those who don't want to see! 9/11 re-wrote the manual and that is accepted universally.
Given the threat from terrorism which is being confirmed by daily discoveries I cannot imagine any relaxation will be forthcoming - indeed the DfT woud be considered culpable if they did so.
Anne
PS fiftyfour I like the 20/20 hindsight - there's none so blind as those who don't want to see! 9/11 re-wrote the manual and that is accepted universally.
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Oxford(ish)
Posts: 45
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Security was in the hands of the experts - lookat what has happened under their guidance. 'Be nice to hijackers, let them take over, don't resist etc etc.'
I agree completely, as it happens. The disaster than happened on September 11th 2001 was as much a testimony to the lassitude, incompetance and downright complacency of the security agencies as it was to any particular genius on the part of the hijackers. It was not a cunning, subtle, obscure of especially audacious plan. It was simply a goal no one was bothering to guard. I can't understand why there hasn't been some high-profile sackings going on. No doubt people will say that it's easy to be wise AFTER the event. But clearly the terrorists predicted this eventuality, so why couldn't the security agencies?
That having been said, it's a valid question. ARE pilots the best people to ask about security on an aircraft? Isn't it rather like asking an air marshal to land a Airliner? Certainly pilots do have a great deal of input to make, but should they be allowed the final say in allowing something the security experts say is a bad idea?
Just in case anyone thinks i'm taking a pop - i'll "lay out my stall". I do agree that when they've been married to someone for many years they're probably more likely to be brained by their colleagues from the cabin staff, or even their co-pilot, than their jumpseater. I agree that they can't just let anyone jump in there for the ride, but the new regs seem needlessly tight to the point of preventing trainee/wanabee pilots gaining valuable experiance on the flight deck. I think access to jump seats needs to be regulated, and those wishing to make use of the facility need to be carefully vetted for security purposes.
I agree completely, as it happens. The disaster than happened on September 11th 2001 was as much a testimony to the lassitude, incompetance and downright complacency of the security agencies as it was to any particular genius on the part of the hijackers. It was not a cunning, subtle, obscure of especially audacious plan. It was simply a goal no one was bothering to guard. I can't understand why there hasn't been some high-profile sackings going on. No doubt people will say that it's easy to be wise AFTER the event. But clearly the terrorists predicted this eventuality, so why couldn't the security agencies?
That having been said, it's a valid question. ARE pilots the best people to ask about security on an aircraft? Isn't it rather like asking an air marshal to land a Airliner? Certainly pilots do have a great deal of input to make, but should they be allowed the final say in allowing something the security experts say is a bad idea?
Just in case anyone thinks i'm taking a pop - i'll "lay out my stall". I do agree that when they've been married to someone for many years they're probably more likely to be brained by their colleagues from the cabin staff, or even their co-pilot, than their jumpseater. I agree that they can't just let anyone jump in there for the ride, but the new regs seem needlessly tight to the point of preventing trainee/wanabee pilots gaining valuable experiance on the flight deck. I think access to jump seats needs to be regulated, and those wishing to make use of the facility need to be carefully vetted for security purposes.
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Staffordshire
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am still unfortunately a Cessna Joc stuck on the bottom rungs of the ladder. In the light of this latest ruling I am considering making the following point to the DfT and CAA:
I regularly fly a C152 from an airfield 8nm from a fair sized international airport. I also regularly invite passengers to take the "jump seat" on that C152. My passengers are neither aircrew nor security cleared. While a C152 carries little weight and destructive powers of it's own, I'm sure that if flown 8nm to that international airport it could feasibly make a nice mess of (say) a 767.
The solution to this is simple:
I keep my C152's "jump seat" empty at all times.
When I fly a PA28 I keep the 2 jump seats in the back empty as well.
Pilots of such aircraft as the Fairchild Metro should keep the 19 or so "jump seats" behind them empty.
In fact seeing as it seems the authorities are intent on distrusting everyone, why not certificate all aircraft for single pilot ops, then eradicate the humble P2, remove the flight attendants and finally subtract the passengers and cargo. That should make for a perfectly safe aircraft environment.
Are there any 747 drivers out there who fancy doing a few 12 hour sectors as the sole occupant of the aircraft? Be prepared, it may be closer than you think. Remember its all in the name of safety.
I regularly fly a C152 from an airfield 8nm from a fair sized international airport. I also regularly invite passengers to take the "jump seat" on that C152. My passengers are neither aircrew nor security cleared. While a C152 carries little weight and destructive powers of it's own, I'm sure that if flown 8nm to that international airport it could feasibly make a nice mess of (say) a 767.
The solution to this is simple:
I keep my C152's "jump seat" empty at all times.
When I fly a PA28 I keep the 2 jump seats in the back empty as well.
Pilots of such aircraft as the Fairchild Metro should keep the 19 or so "jump seats" behind them empty.
In fact seeing as it seems the authorities are intent on distrusting everyone, why not certificate all aircraft for single pilot ops, then eradicate the humble P2, remove the flight attendants and finally subtract the passengers and cargo. That should make for a perfectly safe aircraft environment.
Are there any 747 drivers out there who fancy doing a few 12 hour sectors as the sole occupant of the aircraft? Be prepared, it may be closer than you think. Remember its all in the name of safety.
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Manchester, UK
Posts: 1,958
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Unfortunately some UK airlines have quite cynically interpreteted these new rules in such a way as to allow use of jumpseats to position their staff from A to B, yet impose a total bar on relatives.
The effect of this is that someone I have never met in my life can appear at the gate with an ID and tatty photocopy of an authorisation form and it it supposedly safe for them to fly on the jumpseat -yet to take my spouse or brother risks a terrorist attack.
The effect of this is that someone I have never met in my life can appear at the gate with an ID and tatty photocopy of an authorisation form and it it supposedly safe for them to fly on the jumpseat -yet to take my spouse or brother risks a terrorist attack.
In the light of this latest ruling I am considering making the following point to the DfT and CAA:
My Chief Pilot is a commuter, living in the UK (on weekends), does that mean that my boss is not trustworthy enough to ride in the cockpit on a jumpseat pass? Even though I've known him for twenty eight years, but a CAA inspector, who I've never seen before can enter the cockpit to check me.