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
aka Capt PPRuNe
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 1995
Location: UK
Posts: 4,541
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
DETR/CAA Jump Seat Restrictions
What are your views as aircrew on the latest restrictions which forbid the jump seat being used by anyone except CAA Ops Inspectors, supernumerary crew or flight crew travelling in uniform on official company business?
An example of the kind of restriction this new, and in my opinion, absurd rule is that we can no longer even take trainees, people who we have known for years who are qualified ATPL's looking for their first job, on a familiarisation flight. Never mind the fact that we cannot take our partners, parents or siblings who may be interested in knowing what our jobs are about, people who are about as well known to us as anyone can be and pose no security risk whatsoever.
In my opinion, the bureaucrats who have come up with this most restrictive of rules as some sort of panacea that will prevent a repeat of 9/11 goes to show how petty and removed from the real world these people really are. With a single rule which does not allow any interpretation from the airline, they have effectively stymied the enthusiasm of anyone with a genuine interest in what the job is all about. Add to that the number of disheartened flight crew who in the past have made numerous efforts to educate and generate enthusiasm for the 'job' and we see an 'authority' that kowtows to bureaucratic idiocy.
It is my opinion that the industry will see a massive decline in numbers of people who want to take up jobs as pilots in about 10-15 years from now as the next generation grow up with little knowledge about the job and no experience of what it is like on the flight deck of a modern airliner. Whilst this thread is NOT about the fact that we cannot allow flight deck visits anymore it is about the crass stupidity of the people who have made the decision to not even allow the jump seat to be available for suitable candidates who pose no security risk whatsoever.
The poll above is not scientific in any way but will highlight the general opinion of PPRuNe readers. In due course, if anyone is interested in leading a campaign to get the rule amended to allow a bit more common sense then please make yourself known on this thread. The sooner we have people with common sense and not jumped up bureaucrats with amoebic brains which are overwhelmed with paranoia making these decisions the better!
An example of the kind of restriction this new, and in my opinion, absurd rule is that we can no longer even take trainees, people who we have known for years who are qualified ATPL's looking for their first job, on a familiarisation flight. Never mind the fact that we cannot take our partners, parents or siblings who may be interested in knowing what our jobs are about, people who are about as well known to us as anyone can be and pose no security risk whatsoever.
In my opinion, the bureaucrats who have come up with this most restrictive of rules as some sort of panacea that will prevent a repeat of 9/11 goes to show how petty and removed from the real world these people really are. With a single rule which does not allow any interpretation from the airline, they have effectively stymied the enthusiasm of anyone with a genuine interest in what the job is all about. Add to that the number of disheartened flight crew who in the past have made numerous efforts to educate and generate enthusiasm for the 'job' and we see an 'authority' that kowtows to bureaucratic idiocy.
It is my opinion that the industry will see a massive decline in numbers of people who want to take up jobs as pilots in about 10-15 years from now as the next generation grow up with little knowledge about the job and no experience of what it is like on the flight deck of a modern airliner. Whilst this thread is NOT about the fact that we cannot allow flight deck visits anymore it is about the crass stupidity of the people who have made the decision to not even allow the jump seat to be available for suitable candidates who pose no security risk whatsoever.
The poll above is not scientific in any way but will highlight the general opinion of PPRuNe readers. In due course, if anyone is interested in leading a campaign to get the rule amended to allow a bit more common sense then please make yourself known on this thread. The sooner we have people with common sense and not jumped up bureaucrats with amoebic brains which are overwhelmed with paranoia making these decisions the better!
Join Date: Mar 2001
Posts: 152
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just voted yes on the Poll but that is a vote against banning family and wannabees from the flight deck.
Much worse is the proposal that off duty flight crew will be prohibited from travelling on the JS of their own airline.
Its like saying Im trusted to fly the thing if Im on duty but suddenly not trusted to be on the flight deck if Im off duty.
Ridiculous.
To paraphrase Black Adder, 'if the people who dreamt this up had their skulls cracked open by hungry cannibals there wouldnt be enough brains there to cover a small water biscuit'
Much worse is the proposal that off duty flight crew will be prohibited from travelling on the JS of their own airline.
Its like saying Im trusted to fly the thing if Im on duty but suddenly not trusted to be on the flight deck if Im off duty.
Ridiculous.
To paraphrase Black Adder, 'if the people who dreamt this up had their skulls cracked open by hungry cannibals there wouldnt be enough brains there to cover a small water biscuit'
Join Date: Aug 1998
Location: Transylvania
Posts: 22
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Danny:
As much as I'd like to vote for option one (I REALLY would!), I feel that the world we now live in dictates that I vote for option two alone. Heres'why:
Unfortunately, as I think you realise, the days of bring along 'a friend of a friend' for a familiarisation flight have long gone. Who would carry out a background security check on even someone that is well known to you for years? Sadly, the fact that the Captain is vouching for someone is not enough in this day and age. And, if the Captain were able to vouch for someone, why not the First Officer, or the Cabin Supervisor, or any other company employee? Change the ruling to something like this, and it becomes eliteist. It also leaves a ruling open to interpretation, to the detriment of security.
Back to the subject of Background Security Checks: For anybody other than "...CAA Ops Inspectors, supernumerary crew or flight crew travelling in uniform on official company business" , a background security check would have to be a requirement. How does one work that into a company budget, no matter what size the company? I, for one, would be unhappy if this task were done in-house, as the thoroughness of such a check would be difficult for ME to verify. And believe me, I am presently unhappy of the thought of carrying a staff member on a supernumerary seat who is on duty, but who I have never met before, let alone anyone else. I also think it stupid that I can not even take a colleague who would be well known to me and every other crew member who might, for example, be trying to return from a stand-by holiday, in uniform or not! But, I also think it important that our passengers must appreciate, and be able to see clearly, that we, as professional service providers, are taking security issues seriously, and I feel that not having un-necessary people on the flight deck demonstrates that.
Which leads me to this. I wrote to my boss when these measures were implemented. I explained that one of the most heart-rending things I've ever had to do as a parent, was to tell my teen-age son that he no longer could come flying with me. That moment reduced both of us to tears. I explained to my boss that, when I was his age, some people in aviation took the time to nurture my passion for all things aeronautical, by taking me flying with them. Now I am no longer able to repay that favour, by returning that privilage and, (for me as well as them) pleasure, to the next generation of aviators.
I can appreciate why I cannot take family members or friends, because any crew member I operate with whom I have never met before, only has my word that they are a family member or friend. Vice versa, I would only have their word that it was a friend or family member of theirs that I have not met before, even be it a crewmember that I know! Reading between the lines, I hope you see how this rule could be open to abuse...... and I'm not talking of abuse by crewmembers!
The rule DOES need revising. But the questions arising from the ruling, and the possible solutions that go with any proposed changes also need discussing. This forum is a great place to do that. But, please be careful of discussing security issues here, our livelihoods and lives depend upon it.
Thank-you.
As much as I'd like to vote for option one (I REALLY would!), I feel that the world we now live in dictates that I vote for option two alone. Heres'why:
Unfortunately, as I think you realise, the days of bring along 'a friend of a friend' for a familiarisation flight have long gone. Who would carry out a background security check on even someone that is well known to you for years? Sadly, the fact that the Captain is vouching for someone is not enough in this day and age. And, if the Captain were able to vouch for someone, why not the First Officer, or the Cabin Supervisor, or any other company employee? Change the ruling to something like this, and it becomes eliteist. It also leaves a ruling open to interpretation, to the detriment of security.
Back to the subject of Background Security Checks: For anybody other than "...CAA Ops Inspectors, supernumerary crew or flight crew travelling in uniform on official company business" , a background security check would have to be a requirement. How does one work that into a company budget, no matter what size the company? I, for one, would be unhappy if this task were done in-house, as the thoroughness of such a check would be difficult for ME to verify. And believe me, I am presently unhappy of the thought of carrying a staff member on a supernumerary seat who is on duty, but who I have never met before, let alone anyone else. I also think it stupid that I can not even take a colleague who would be well known to me and every other crew member who might, for example, be trying to return from a stand-by holiday, in uniform or not! But, I also think it important that our passengers must appreciate, and be able to see clearly, that we, as professional service providers, are taking security issues seriously, and I feel that not having un-necessary people on the flight deck demonstrates that.
Which leads me to this. I wrote to my boss when these measures were implemented. I explained that one of the most heart-rending things I've ever had to do as a parent, was to tell my teen-age son that he no longer could come flying with me. That moment reduced both of us to tears. I explained to my boss that, when I was his age, some people in aviation took the time to nurture my passion for all things aeronautical, by taking me flying with them. Now I am no longer able to repay that favour, by returning that privilage and, (for me as well as them) pleasure, to the next generation of aviators.
I can appreciate why I cannot take family members or friends, because any crew member I operate with whom I have never met before, only has my word that they are a family member or friend. Vice versa, I would only have their word that it was a friend or family member of theirs that I have not met before, even be it a crewmember that I know! Reading between the lines, I hope you see how this rule could be open to abuse...... and I'm not talking of abuse by crewmembers!
The rule DOES need revising. But the questions arising from the ruling, and the possible solutions that go with any proposed changes also need discussing. This forum is a great place to do that. But, please be careful of discussing security issues here, our livelihoods and lives depend upon it.
Thank-you.
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Swanwick
Posts: 59
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am an ATC "bod" at Swanwick. I used to organise Familiarisation flights for ATC staff prior to Sept 11th and the feedback I received from both the flight deck crew and the ATC staff that access to the flight deck to see the operation first hand was very important and it enhanced flight safety. A few years ago there was a serious incident, and one of the factors in that incident was that the controller did not appreciate a particular aspect of the aircrafts operation with a recommendation that ATC staff have more fam flights to preclude this.
We are all security cleared and have all signed the Offical Secrets Act, but under these new rules we are banned from access to the flight deck
We are all security cleared and have all signed the Offical Secrets Act, but under these new rules we are banned from access to the flight deck
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: 24/7 Hardcore Heaven
Posts: 525
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Is this is a very recent ruling?
My significant other works for a British long-haul carrier(clue...not BA),and their policy post sept 11 was to only offer JPS on non US bound routes...which resulted in yours truly ending up stuck in LAX through lack of knowledge of this new rule.
Anyway,I'm starting on the ATCO course in Oct2003 and was REALLY looking forward to the flightdeck fam trips......as an ex-dispatcher for aforementioned carrier,I used to escort a lot of trainee ATCOs up the front.
Does this new ruling mean it's now a definite no-no for trainee ATCO flightdeck fam trips?
More importantly,will I be able to get JPS from non-US destinations when on a jolly/holiday with the missus?!(obviuosly kidding about that....fam trip much more important!)
My significant other works for a British long-haul carrier(clue...not BA),and their policy post sept 11 was to only offer JPS on non US bound routes...which resulted in yours truly ending up stuck in LAX through lack of knowledge of this new rule.
Anyway,I'm starting on the ATCO course in Oct2003 and was REALLY looking forward to the flightdeck fam trips......as an ex-dispatcher for aforementioned carrier,I used to escort a lot of trainee ATCOs up the front.
Does this new ruling mean it's now a definite no-no for trainee ATCO flightdeck fam trips?
More importantly,will I be able to get JPS from non-US destinations when on a jolly/holiday with the missus?!(obviuosly kidding about that....fam trip much more important!)
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: london
Posts: 18
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Fallows, I completely agree. This is getting to the point where it is positively harming saftey. Like everything else in this country a reasonable albeit uncomfortable restriction was put on jump seat use and we had to put up with it, but now the bureaucratic self justifying job'sworths have got involved I can no longer commute in my uniform with my airline i.d in the jumpseat. I can however use that i.d. to swipe in and get in my jumbo and fly over their houses. We must do something about this or the job will become intolerable.
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Sunny Warwickshire
Posts: 438
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As an ATCO, I have found fam flights / jumpseating a very useful tool in appreciating different a/c performance and requirements, and also different company sop's, I never knew about E145 airframe speed limitations below FL80 or appreciated just how involved and busy the crew are during the first couple of thousand feet during the climbout. Fortunately I got to spend some time up front talking to the guys and gals.
They also gained a lot from my talking to them, about sequencing, spacing, radar separation, speed limits/restrictions.
I and all other ATCO's have been security cleared by the spooks in London, I and my colleagues wil gladly produce our airport id, ATCO licence whatever it takes.
I wasa fortunate in that I managed to get to spend time up front, my newer colleagues are doubly unlucky:
1) They can't gain this valuable experience
2) They have to listen to me drone on about the time I was on the Midland out of Leeds and we had the u/c problem etc etc etc
They also gained a lot from my talking to them, about sequencing, spacing, radar separation, speed limits/restrictions.
I and all other ATCO's have been security cleared by the spooks in London, I and my colleagues wil gladly produce our airport id, ATCO licence whatever it takes.
I wasa fortunate in that I managed to get to spend time up front, my newer colleagues are doubly unlucky:
1) They can't gain this valuable experience
2) They have to listen to me drone on about the time I was on the Midland out of Leeds and we had the u/c problem etc etc etc
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 21
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm with Danny on this one.
I have just recieved the latest missive from the company and it's got more holes in it than a lump of swiss cheese.These 'enhanced security measures' are dreamed up by the same people who's thinking process works in the same way as the folk who advised after the bomb goes off in Mombassa to "Take care in Nairobi"
I have just recieved the latest missive from the company and it's got more holes in it than a lump of swiss cheese.These 'enhanced security measures' are dreamed up by the same people who's thinking process works in the same way as the folk who advised after the bomb goes off in Mombassa to "Take care in Nairobi"
Alba Gu Brath
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Merseyside
Age: 55
Posts: 738
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Whilst I can appreciate the reasoning behind the ruling, I do think it is putting aviation relationships back a number of years. As has been said here, and on other threads in the past, a fam flight can provide valuable information to the ground based staff.
It also precludes ops/crewing staff from being given a brief but eye-opening insight into what really goes on pre, during and post flight. Relationships built up in this way go a long way in breaking down the barriers that exist between the ops-room and the flight deck. How many cantankerous old codgers (air and ground) have turned out to be genuine, helpful colleagues who would go the extra mile when asked, all because they were introduced to someone from 'the other side of the fence' and were able to pu a face to a name.
I fear we are into an era of pilots being anonymous, faceless employees. There is something very wrong with the fact that it is the pilots who are being locked away whilst the perpetrators roam free.
It also precludes ops/crewing staff from being given a brief but eye-opening insight into what really goes on pre, during and post flight. Relationships built up in this way go a long way in breaking down the barriers that exist between the ops-room and the flight deck. How many cantankerous old codgers (air and ground) have turned out to be genuine, helpful colleagues who would go the extra mile when asked, all because they were introduced to someone from 'the other side of the fence' and were able to pu a face to a name.
I fear we are into an era of pilots being anonymous, faceless employees. There is something very wrong with the fact that it is the pilots who are being locked away whilst the perpetrators roam free.
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: In my seat
Posts: 822
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I will always keep allowing people I personally know well, like my wife/ children and parents on the jump, no matter what the CAA or the SOP say.
Captain still has the final word, and I have never nor will I ever follow idiocy.
The same thing with locking the cockpit. Safety hazard and not on my ship!
I is about time that the pilot community reacts against so-called security measures that are in fact serious safety breaches (locking of the cockpit doors) and further prohibit a clear insight in aviation and their workings.
If my wife cannot fly on the jump, than a CAA suit won't either.
Before you guys say thatI have a bad mentality, let me tell you that I am all for SOP's and I am a genuine safety addict. But I do refuse to follow rules that by all standards are ludicrous.
The world has gone mad it seems...
By the way, it is my opinion that if something happens, like an attemted hijack, 3 in cockpit will be able to defend themselves far better than 2 pilots alone. Furthermore, the jumpseat prevents them from reaching the controls! Bet the CAA didn't think about that!
Captain still has the final word, and I have never nor will I ever follow idiocy.
The same thing with locking the cockpit. Safety hazard and not on my ship!
I is about time that the pilot community reacts against so-called security measures that are in fact serious safety breaches (locking of the cockpit doors) and further prohibit a clear insight in aviation and their workings.
If my wife cannot fly on the jump, than a CAA suit won't either.
Before you guys say thatI have a bad mentality, let me tell you that I am all for SOP's and I am a genuine safety addict. But I do refuse to follow rules that by all standards are ludicrous.
The world has gone mad it seems...
By the way, it is my opinion that if something happens, like an attemted hijack, 3 in cockpit will be able to defend themselves far better than 2 pilots alone. Furthermore, the jumpseat prevents them from reaching the controls! Bet the CAA didn't think about that!
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Dublin, Ireland
Posts: 1,879
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As someone who has been writing "From the Flightdeck" articles for a number of years, for a well known aviation magazine, I need hardly say that my opinion of this new ruling is difficult to express without the use of expletives.
The jump seat was a wonderful way to inspire an interest in aviation and from my point of view, I found that people are genuinely interested - whether aspiring pilots, "anoraks" or even line pilots - in flying various different types. Going right back down the years, we have articles and footage of virtually every type flown by British airlines in various magazines and even BA's excellent heritage series of videos, which featured among other things, Cat III flying on Tridents, the L1011 and training on VC10s. All fascinating from a historical perspective.
If people want to know in 20-30 years' time, "what was it like to fly a 777, 319, etc", where are they going to get this information, for a UK carrier? There has to be some thought put into this and a complete "nyet" isn't going to work.
An interest in aviation can lead to many different careers - not just piloting, but ATC, even airline management, aeronautical engineering etc. Who gains from suppressing this interest? Of course, there'll never be a pre-9/11 situation again, but I hope that once the CAA has had time to reflect, it will see an advantage in some, even limited access, for specific persons and for the purposes of education and information.
Incidentally, does anyone know (a) if this is now the approach of all JAA member countries and (b) if there are any European countries, e.g. Switzerland or Iceland, which aren't party to the JAA? Many thanks.
The jump seat was a wonderful way to inspire an interest in aviation and from my point of view, I found that people are genuinely interested - whether aspiring pilots, "anoraks" or even line pilots - in flying various different types. Going right back down the years, we have articles and footage of virtually every type flown by British airlines in various magazines and even BA's excellent heritage series of videos, which featured among other things, Cat III flying on Tridents, the L1011 and training on VC10s. All fascinating from a historical perspective.
If people want to know in 20-30 years' time, "what was it like to fly a 777, 319, etc", where are they going to get this information, for a UK carrier? There has to be some thought put into this and a complete "nyet" isn't going to work.
An interest in aviation can lead to many different careers - not just piloting, but ATC, even airline management, aeronautical engineering etc. Who gains from suppressing this interest? Of course, there'll never be a pre-9/11 situation again, but I hope that once the CAA has had time to reflect, it will see an advantage in some, even limited access, for specific persons and for the purposes of education and information.
Incidentally, does anyone know (a) if this is now the approach of all JAA member countries and (b) if there are any European countries, e.g. Switzerland or Iceland, which aren't party to the JAA? Many thanks.
Last edited by akerosid; 17th Dec 2002 at 16:54.
Join Date: Apr 2001
Posts: 118
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
For the avoidance of doubt (as they say) I cannot take on the js a colleague who I have known for years, who has a valid company ID and who is commuting to work, but I must take someone who I don't know from Adam, but has a bit of plastic with his photo on it, claiming that he works for the CAA?
I think not.
I think not.
So the argument 'for' the new rule is that it prevents having an unknown person in the cockpit who has been vouchsafed by the other crew member. This includes those with ID passes such as off duty crew, ATC etc
Meanwhile one still flies with an often unknown 'other crew member'.
Lets see. A If I wanted to take over an airliner would I arrange to be guest/deadhead on the flight deck where I would have all flight crew to incapacitate (one would expect, unless some one suddenly rallied to the cause...), or would I wait until I was next on duty, get out of my - legitimate - seat to have a p!ss then clobber the other guy with the axe. Or the tech log. Or the Jep. manual. Or my nav bag. Garrotte with my shoe lace? etc etc etc.
Again, if I were a cabin crew member would I try to incapacitate each of the flight crew while in the jump seat, or would I just wait until I was next on duty & serve them 'Coffee with one lump or two (of strychnine)?'
If I were an ATC bod. intent on mischief would I try for a jumpseat & the joyous prospect of overpowering 2 flight crew or just crowd 20 a/c into the same 80 cubic metres of airspace?
If I'm ground staff would I try for a jump seat famil. ride or just wait until I'm next on duty & leave a little ticking present in some part of the a/c to which I have access. After I get the captain's signature on the load sheet, of course. Or hold up the last of the gear pins. Or whatever.
What next? A security barrier between each & every crew member?
Stupid rules are just that.
Meanwhile one still flies with an often unknown 'other crew member'.
Lets see. A If I wanted to take over an airliner would I arrange to be guest/deadhead on the flight deck where I would have all flight crew to incapacitate (one would expect, unless some one suddenly rallied to the cause...), or would I wait until I was next on duty, get out of my - legitimate - seat to have a p!ss then clobber the other guy with the axe. Or the tech log. Or the Jep. manual. Or my nav bag. Garrotte with my shoe lace? etc etc etc.
Again, if I were a cabin crew member would I try to incapacitate each of the flight crew while in the jump seat, or would I just wait until I was next on duty & serve them 'Coffee with one lump or two (of strychnine)?'
If I were an ATC bod. intent on mischief would I try for a jumpseat & the joyous prospect of overpowering 2 flight crew or just crowd 20 a/c into the same 80 cubic metres of airspace?
If I'm ground staff would I try for a jump seat famil. ride or just wait until I'm next on duty & leave a little ticking present in some part of the a/c to which I have access. After I get the captain's signature on the load sheet, of course. Or hold up the last of the gear pins. Or whatever.
What next? A security barrier between each & every crew member?
Stupid rules are just that.
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: England
Posts: 86
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sadly, a locked cockpit door is the final obstacle that anyone determined to endanger the flight crew has to encounter. When that happens it means that all other security measures have failed, which is unacceptable. There are too many gaping holes in the security net we have at the moment, even before someone with criminal intent boards an aircraft. Look at the news.
Notwithstanding the above, a steel, lockable, cockpit door will not prevent a determined terrorist from blowing up the aircraft or taking control of it by many engenious, determined people. Once they get to the aircraft threshold, you are probably damned. Little comfort when you have lost control of the aircraft that you have even a 6 inch armour palted door covering your back!
Pass the buck to the airline and hold them accountable! That's what the authorities do, whilst they ignore very efficient security detterents available on the market that could very significantly reduce the threat of a terrorist getting past check-in! But that costs money, ha!
Notwithstanding the above, a steel, lockable, cockpit door will not prevent a determined terrorist from blowing up the aircraft or taking control of it by many engenious, determined people. Once they get to the aircraft threshold, you are probably damned. Little comfort when you have lost control of the aircraft that you have even a 6 inch armour palted door covering your back!
Pass the buck to the airline and hold them accountable! That's what the authorities do, whilst they ignore very efficient security detterents available on the market that could very significantly reduce the threat of a terrorist getting past check-in! But that costs money, ha!
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Ballymun
Posts: 108
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
After Sep 11 the adminers that make these knee-jerk rules just went for the easiest media friendly option, barricade the flight deck at all costs without really looking at the security issues. The Pilots are the cheapest and easiest group to deal with.
For instance, Captains at the metal detector getting their toe clippers confiscated!! Why? What was he going to do? Stab himself? Hijack himself?!!! There's a great big sodding axe there for F**KS sake!
Imagine this, a jumpseating Pilot in full uniform, travelling to work, denied a jumpseat by a fellow colleague, when this Pilot is going to fly the aeroplane on it's next leg!!! Madness!
Who is more likely to be a terrorist/nutter, the wife/children/colleagues of the Pilots or, for example only, some 3-month-in-the-company caterer with an unhealthy interest in Islam?
Indeed a security barrier between each & every crew member is what they'll dream up next!!!
As for the unfortunate next generation of potential pilots, buy some shares in that company that does the From the Cockpit video series!!
For instance, Captains at the metal detector getting their toe clippers confiscated!! Why? What was he going to do? Stab himself? Hijack himself?!!! There's a great big sodding axe there for F**KS sake!
Imagine this, a jumpseating Pilot in full uniform, travelling to work, denied a jumpseat by a fellow colleague, when this Pilot is going to fly the aeroplane on it's next leg!!! Madness!
Who is more likely to be a terrorist/nutter, the wife/children/colleagues of the Pilots or, for example only, some 3-month-in-the-company caterer with an unhealthy interest in Islam?
Indeed a security barrier between each & every crew member is what they'll dream up next!!!
As for the unfortunate next generation of potential pilots, buy some shares in that company that does the From the Cockpit video series!!
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: London England UK
Posts: 86
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As for the unfortunate next generation of potential pilots, buy some shares in that company that does the From the Cockpit video series!!
Seriously, I'm at this moment staring at a Boing 777 and an A340 Flight Deck photograph proudly displayed in the office and wondering if this is the closest I will ever get to one.
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: uk
Posts: 21
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Voted yes.
Daft rule introduced with little apparent insight to the business of security.
The irony is that on my current type (EMB 145) with the jump seat occupied univited visits to the flight deck are impossible..it blocks the door.
This is even acknowledged by the company who advise, in the event of hijack and serious disruption in the Cabin deploy the jumpseat to protect the cockpit !!!
flippin bonkers the lot of em .
The irony is that on my current type (EMB 145) with the jump seat occupied univited visits to the flight deck are impossible..it blocks the door.
This is even acknowledged by the company who advise, in the event of hijack and serious disruption in the Cabin deploy the jumpseat to protect the cockpit !!!
flippin bonkers the lot of em .
I was persuaded by a post some months ago that suggested that on each flight the crew should actually seek a passenger to place on the jumpseat.
Just like at present ABP's are selected for certain seats.
On most flights it is perfectly possible to find a passenger who is perhaps travelling with his/her children. Is an off-duty police officer or airport/airline worker with ID. Or is clearly the local Vicar.
He or She could be asked to volunteer to sit on the jumpseat - if there is nobody suitable or willing then so be it.
The advantages of them on the jumpseat are:
1) In many types their seat acts as a barrier to a flightdeck storming.
2) During such a storming they may actively defend the flightdeck.
3) Their presence acts as a defence against the FO as sleeper terrorist scenario.
4) Their presence acts as a defence against the Cabin Crew as sleeper terrorist.
Whatever, the current situation is ridiculous. Off duty, often positioning from home, pilots being refused the jumpseat is contemptuous. The authorities should not place those at the sharp end in a position whereby they are contemptuous of the rules or the rulemakers.
Elsewise the rules will be floated or at least there is a great temptation to flout the rules.
I fail to see anyway how the new rules would have prevented a Sept11th?
All manner of people these days have to submit to police background checks; nursey school assistants for example.
Would it not be reasonable to make a rule that the Captain could permit jumpseat use IF that person can present a police background check certificate. In this way Spouses, offspring and airline/airport workers could, at modest cost, enable their passage on the flightdeck at the Captains discretion.
WWW
Just like at present ABP's are selected for certain seats.
On most flights it is perfectly possible to find a passenger who is perhaps travelling with his/her children. Is an off-duty police officer or airport/airline worker with ID. Or is clearly the local Vicar.
He or She could be asked to volunteer to sit on the jumpseat - if there is nobody suitable or willing then so be it.
The advantages of them on the jumpseat are:
1) In many types their seat acts as a barrier to a flightdeck storming.
2) During such a storming they may actively defend the flightdeck.
3) Their presence acts as a defence against the FO as sleeper terrorist scenario.
4) Their presence acts as a defence against the Cabin Crew as sleeper terrorist.
Whatever, the current situation is ridiculous. Off duty, often positioning from home, pilots being refused the jumpseat is contemptuous. The authorities should not place those at the sharp end in a position whereby they are contemptuous of the rules or the rulemakers.
Elsewise the rules will be floated or at least there is a great temptation to flout the rules.
I fail to see anyway how the new rules would have prevented a Sept11th?
All manner of people these days have to submit to police background checks; nursey school assistants for example.
Would it not be reasonable to make a rule that the Captain could permit jumpseat use IF that person can present a police background check certificate. In this way Spouses, offspring and airline/airport workers could, at modest cost, enable their passage on the flightdeck at the Captains discretion.
WWW