Quite so DIsco FEver. There's unsafe and UNSAFE. The "what if" brigade are taking over. What if they were doing 35 mph in a 30 mph area and killed a young child? I wonder how many of the above saints and disciplined professionals break the speed limit on a daily basis? I'm not talking excessive speeding, simply 5 - 10 mph above the posted limit. They ALL do it and they don't give it a second thought. Then these hypocrites come on these forums preaching SAFETY. Makes me :yuk:

Even the cops regularly break speed limits (I know, and I'm not talking about answering emergency calls either), then they too preach about safety on the roads :hmm: !

So that makes it all OK to disregard rules and operate in an unsafe manner?

Have you stopped once to consider that an unsecured body in an incident won't be bouncing around from 35mph to zero, but 150mph to zero, something which endangers the lives of not only those who disregard the rules, but all of those on board the aircraft.

There is a difference between what was done in the past and what is the done thing now - as a safety based industry this is since rules are developed to make things safer for all of us, so don't lets be blase about it and take a step back in history to the detriment of us all.

So off duty cabin crew colluding with handling agents to place two stowaways on the toilet seats without the knowlege of the Captain is OK is it.

If what has been said is true, the Captain was informed after doors closed and he made a terrible error of judgement.

I would have returned to stand called the police and had the lot arrested including the person or persons who allowed them out to the aircraft.

Captains seem to me more and more out on a limb these days without brain dead individuals making his task even more difficult.

One hopes there will be legal procedings taken against all involved in this sordid incident.

PS How come Ryanair allow stanby crew to use tha F/D jumpseats.

Spot on Re-Heat! Can not believe DIsco FEver's post. What about the fare paying passengers oblivious of the 'risk'.

Avman not sure you can compare a car at 35mph with an aircraft. Yes I like many others have exceeded the limits whilst driving my car in the knowledge that if I am caught 'its a fair cop'. Isn't this want happened here, or am i just naive.

But hay we are all entitled to our own opinions thats what makes pprune such good reading.

I think you fail to grasp the meaning of my posts. I do not condone the breaking of rules. I do, however, believe that disciplinary meassures should reflect the severity of the indiscretion. If we start to go into the "what if" grey area then I ask those same people, "what if" in the number of safety indiscretions they make in the course of their daily lives(such as driving as only one example) which affect the safety of others ? It's the hypocrisy of all the above righteous blood thirsty posters, especially AVIACO, which bugs me. The outcome should have been a severe bollocking and a memo to all staff that it's an absolute no-no with a sacking if it ever happens again. Can't continue the debate further as I'm off on a trip now.

Avman,

Rubbish you have obviously never held a position of authority within an airline.

Post 9/11 it should be impossible for non ticketed passengers to board an aircraft and stowaway. You clearly do not fully understand the security implications of this incident.

FAX boy,

They were not unticketed and even if they were, what's the problem ?? They were known personally to PIC. but......

As the stoopid flight deck access rules state " no-one can sit on jump-seat, apart from CAA officials, etc, Wouldn't know them from Adam, but fellow Pilot, Hostie who I have flown with for 20 years cant ????? What's the reasoning behind that.

SAFETY< SAFETY< bleat the liberals,, utter tosh more like..

Just watched 9/11 Security Inspection of HIJ pilots, but thats nothing to do with this thread..

The only danger that the Stowaways faced was from themselves, other PAX were not under any threat or was there any other safety issues to the PAX onboard.
As for braking from 150mph to a standstill, cant see any real danger to them either, I think you have watched one to many movies if you think it's dangerous. Main danger is over-run, or tire burst, again, not really an issue for our toilet travellers.

Plenty of places to brace yourself against in the bog, as opposed to the seats with 29" pitch, " FACE,SEAT , SEAT, FACE", better in Tommy Cooper voice.

Gota go, the voices are caling me.....

I think you will find the rules are there to limit the number of times the reinforced and locked flight deck door is opened and closed by people using the loo etc. Logic the fewer on flight deck etc.

I've been in the business for over 30 years and have seen all the bog sitting, strap hanging etc that has gone on but that is in the past.

Security now is the buzz word any sort of infringement will be jumped on. Anyone who was involved with this incident will be looking for another job soon.

Just read through this thread with a mixture of amusement and horror.

The fact that there are people in the industry who defend the individual concerned is disturbing in the extreme and I can only wonder at what corners they themselves cut, if allowing people in the toilets is acceptable.

Just goes to show the wide mix of opinion towards safety in the modern aviation industry.

Excellent point. Perhaps the posters preaching "unsafe and UNSAFE" can give examples of what hazardous practices they consider fall into each category? And how that meets with their employers' SOPs?

Oh and who they work for so that any interested slf can ensure they never fly with them again? A creeping, insidious lowering of safety standards is in nobody’s interests.

DIsco FEver:

Read facsimiles post again. And the post that was cross-posted from the cc forum.

He's talking about the bog riders, not the jump seaters. The bog riders boarded the acft via the staff door to the ramp, according to the cc post. *No-one* on the acft knew they were on board, until the cc were doing their cabin secure checks after pushback. They certainly weren't ticketed!

That's a pretty good definition of stowaway for my money, and a hanging offence for staff these days.

Having heard the account from the cc forum - if true, I have a *little* more sympathy for the capt. One can conjecture the thought process: 'OK... we go back to the gate, offload them, miss our slot, delay, (was this his last sector? Running out of hours perhaps)... that's going to have to be explained and the stupid sods will be in the deepest ****... OK we're half way to the flaming hold, let's just GO and I'll read them the riot act myself after we arrive'

Doesn't excuse a wrong decision but you can imagine the thinking that led to it.

R1

Some of you might like to read posts in full before making quite an astute reply.
They WERE ticketed pax (albeit standby ticket, so all security has been done)
They were company and not pax people (though for the law just another fare paying pax I do agree)

Having pax on the jumpseat doesn't matter at all, in respect of the amount of opening the flight deck door. Especially not short haul.

He made a mistake, a big mistake. Something he'll probably regret, but can you at least put it into PERSPECTIVE.
Guys saying that the loadsheet was now wrong, so what?!
It ain't going to crash with 120kgs more on board.

He should have just the rules as they are, now he paid the price.
I'm sorry but a little more consideration will be nice to see, and no I AM NOT condoning this type of SOP usage.

and regarding SOP's, they are there for 95% of occasions but they don't tell you everything. He bend the rules, he's "fired"...

safe flying to you all (if you are pilots)

Have you seen the damage that turbulance does to unseated people, and anything else not tied down?

But the loadsheet is incorrect. The crew have the wrong passenger number on board, on the flight plan, and contrary to what has been legally signed for. Sure the loadsheet is never exact, but this is a known error: the aircraft has more people than it is legally certified to carry, and the repercussions will and should be far-reaching.

so what is your point?

yes the loadsheet is incorrect, so?
as i say, legally not correct, but for the SAFE conducting of the flight irrelevant!

your turb comment is taken and indeed a risk for the persons involved (both crew and the 2 off duty crew members)

Shaka Zulu.

Just sit back and re-read what you have written.

Notwithstanding the whys and wherefors of the Captains actions, if a Captain, any Captain, is presented with a loadsheet he is legally obliged to certify that, to the best of his/her knowledge, the figures are correct. The buck stops there etc etc.

We all know that the ACTUAL aircraft load may vary widley to what is ACTUALLY loaded, eg estimated passenger/baggage weight, but the fact remains that one CANNOT sign for x number of passengers knowing that there are y passengers on board and then hope to escape censure when things go wrong.

Its obvious to all that the aircraft wont 'crash' with your 120kgs not accounted for, that is not the point and well you know it!

As for the jumpseat, be careful with your generalisations. Having jumpseaters and opening the flight deck door isnt the issue. The Ops manual will give guidelines for its usage and they are non negotiable; ours for example spells out the specfic occassions when it can be used and whose permission is required in such events.

Some rules can be interpretted and some most definatley cannot!
Thats why they are written down, to give you a reference to base your decisions upon - just as the Ops manual has step by step instructions for loadsheet completion!!

Its all a no brainer.

You may well wish to defend this particular chap but in doing so, dont make silly statements.

ranger one, that was my post, as i loive with one of the operating cabin crew on that flight!! they were ticketed for standby, but obviously werent issued boarding cards, and proceeded to go thru the staff doors in GRO.... sotaways, and idiots at that... i advise all to read my post, as its str8 from the horses mouth, just simple facts about that flight. everyone can make thier own assumptions to it, but read it b4 going on about rumours and threads!

thanks ranger!!:D

No wonder the airlines get away with anything these days - if you lot are professional pilots we are all :mad:!:yuk:

kick the tires, couldn't agree with you more on that post.
I did say I am not defending the guy, but for some thought processes of flight crew are a little bit difficult to understand.
There is no doubt in my mind the captain knew about all the legal implications bla bla bla... I do not need to explain you.

About the FDD, i wasn't commenting about the people that are allowed to sit on the jump seat and which people are not. My Ops Manual states exactly the same :), good to know...
I was simply referring to a guys post saying that with a guy on jumpseat the FDD would be opened more since guys need to go to the toilet.

The Buck indeed stops at making the wrong decision, that's what we are paid to do. Making the right ones...

I just find it stupid to talk about ALL the consequences it could have had ten times in the same thread.

Safe flying! (and to Stan Woolley i won't even bother replying)

Shaka Zulu:

Suggest you do the same. If there is a post saying definitively that they were ticketed pax I must have missed it - But you seem to have missed the post that was cross-posted from the CC forum, from the horses mouth:

So yes the *J/S pax* were legit, ticketed, but no-one is talking about *them*!

One can argue the toss about whether deadheading in toilets was once acceptable, in another place or a bygone era, but *stowing away* in the toilets is outrageous in any time or place, IMHO.

The staff who did so put the entire crew on that flight in a very difficult position, and by the above account led to the capt. departing without ever getting 'cabin secure' - how do you think the crew would have performed in an emergency in THAT kind of atmosphere? Professionally I'm sure, but it wouldn't have helped.

R1

There are many different views/takes of what happened so nothing that's been written here I take for granted.
I'll say again, I'm not defending what happened but trying to put it a little more into perspective.


BTW how come the boeing 737-700 has 2 jumpseats and the 737-700 only has 1? I've not seen one with 2 j/s's before....
that's why i seriously doubt that quote that you take for the truth!

Zulu,

A ticket without a boarding card isn't a ticket to fly so I don't understand your point.

The two in the toilets boarded illegally and stowed away unbeknown to the Captain until he was taxying.

Both they and those they colluded with should face prosecution.

FYI, there is a HUGE difference between being 'ticketed' and being in possession of a valid 'boarding card'. Unfortunately there are too many knicker twisters wetting themselves in outrage over the safety implications rather than the more immediate legal implications.

What-if scenarios can and no doubt will be bandied about by the morally outraged hand wringers but as there was no 'what-if' scenario it is irrelevant. What is relevant is the number of rules and regulations that were breached. Signal to noise ratio on this thread is getting unbearable! :hmm:

If the aircraft carried more passengers than it was certified for, does that in any way affect the insurance?

I don't know why the captain made the decision he did at the time but I would like to echo 'lods' & 'Strips' sentiments. Anyone who knew him would have known he was one of the most chivalrous, modest, obliging, nicest people you could meet.

I just wish to hell that those two 'idiots' :mad: who stowed away had picked another plane preferably one that had free seats on it, rather than putting this captain in the difficult position that they did and implicating & tarnishing him & his reputation at the end of a lengthy & unblemished career. Not that it has affected or changed the opinion of people who knew him for the responsible & lovely gent he is one iota.

I too would like to wish this captain many happy years of retirement with his family and boat.

Love

Coconuts xxx

facsimile:
obviously you didn't understand what i meant with what i said:
if you want to get to the gate, you would have gone through all the security before getting out to that gate, my point was that security wise in that respect they wouldn't have posed a threat!

about exactly what happened i still have my doubts (who was issued what etc), read my last postage.

Ah finally somebody gets it. A ticket and boarding card ARE completely different things, and if they only had a ticket, they hadn't necessarily been through security.

Of course you could say that FR, being ticketless, don't make the distinction - quite so - but the point is, did they have BOARDING CARDS.

Of course not - if they did, the head count from the gate (or even check-in) and the loadsheet would disagree. In this case it appears they were only discovered later, so the initial head count and the loadsheet must have agreed.

The point about the loadsheet is the POB - so if they had ditched in the Irish Sea, or gone off the end of the runway, two unlucky people would not have been looked for.

The other point is that if the aircraft had any sort of incident with two POB more than the certified maximum, the insurance cover would almost certainly have been null and void.

The point about the bog riders being extra help in an emergency is complete garbage. Even if they had managed to extricate themselves from the bogs - thus impeding the evacuation - with no uniforms on, nobody is going to pay them any attention.

It is easy to understand the way it all happened, but ffs this is 2004 and we should all know a lot better.

Frankly, I liked the old days more...

Coconuts.

My thoughts exactly, I don't condone what he did but, as I said before, he should have never have been put in a position to be able make that terrible decision.

He was badly let down by others who should have known better and he must ultimately pay the price for it by resigning.

No place in politics for him then.

I really tried to stay away from this thread as the event has been blown out of proportion. The carrying of extra non-revenue employees on seats or standing has gone on for as long as I can remember and will continue to do so in many parts of the world for years to come, might I add without incident. Although I don’t condone it I’m aware it does go on so give it a rest.

From a safety point of view the “can” is probably safer because of the confined space in an accident then rows of seats that can depart from their railings. Having standing passengers is a different thing and not really a good idea although I have seen it happen.

I’m not going to condemn the Captain for his decision as I wasn’t there so I don’t know what happened. However even though I have no axe’s to grind with Ryanair I find their actions in the firing of the Captain and his crew the sign of a spineless management. But I’ve grown to expect nothing less from the new aviation entrepreneurs whose only interest in aviation is the bottom line.

Cheers..

Interesting point MOR, something I didn't think about.

I thought that if you were on a standby ticket, you would have been screened anyway to go to the other side ("the gate in effect")

Maybe politics in Ireland works diff? JOKE

Nice guy/tosser/air force/civvy.

Who cares?

He made a gross error of judgement either through trying to be too kind or having an "Ive done 30 years and can't be touched" attitude. I suspect from the posts it was the former.

However for someone so experienced to think that he could get a way with this in this day and age, with all the security and PC crap we have to put with, is quite unbelievable.

Its indefensible and he's paid the price.

Maybe he'll live a little longer now anyway.

Shaka

I may not be worth replying to but these days if you are stupid/naive/nice enough to do anything which says ' Please Fire Me!!! ' to your boss - he will be sure to oblige, often with no choice.

Normal Nigel summed it up nicely.

Lack of management responsibility is one of the airlines' major problems but we as pilots can't have it both ways - you screw the pooch you take the hit !:rolleyes:

Tan

Let's keep this nice and simple Carrying pax in the can was illegal, period.
The captain resigned, he was not fired.

If you, as a professional pilot, have difficulty understanding the implications of this case, then I am very glad that I am unlikely to find myself on your aircraft.

I travel about 100 sectors per year as a passenger.

In doing this, I listen meticulously to the safety brief, even when it is the 3rd time I've travelled on the sub type involved in the same day and I follow the instructions of the cabin crew to the letter, even though I have been travelling since before some of them were born.

Why do I do this? Because modern civil aviation has been made safe by the implementation AND OBSERVANCE of SOPs that mitigate risk to a reasonable level. Look at the accident stats in the period 1945 to date and note the trends.

When anyone starts to circumvent the SOPs (crew or pax), then the road to ruin is beckoning. At what stage does the camel's back break from the final straw?

I don't go with some of the hysterical comments on the thread, but neither can the indefensible be defended or rationalised.

As I understand it, the Captain made the decision to take the problem into the air having been notified about it when taxing to the runway.

To me, the issue is the hidden (as opposed to ) published safety culture.

When ( a few moons ago) I was being prepared for command, it was clearly stated that if I returned to stand with any kind of problem I would be supported by the pilot management. The idea of this culture is to encourage you to err on the safe side particularly with respect to following safety rules.

However, a year into my command I had a tech problem on stand. I followed the company rules to the letter and incurred a 40 minute delay. A while later I was hauled into the office and politely reminded that punctuality was important. The airline would thank me if I broke a few rules here and there to keep the schedule on time. The hidden safety culture was quite different to the published safety culture

The subtle point is this: subsequent to that management 'chat' I started to worry about what the management might do next time I had a lengthy tech delay. Not a healthy state and, to keep things safe, I had to continually remind myself to observe the safety rules as a matter of licence protection at the very least. The airline was under pressure from the Board to be more 'go minded' and punctual.

What do you suppose was in the mind of this Captain when he decided not to return to stand?

My guess is that, like any Captain, he would have been influenced by the airline culture in making his decision.

His mental model of 'the right thing to do' might well have been formed by how he had seen colleagues treated when making similar operational decisions.

In my view it is okay to break safety rules to achieve a safe outcome in an emergency. It is never okay to break a safety rule to achieve a commercial outcome no matter what the pressure.

An operator experiencing this type of incident would suffer no harm from an external audit of its Safety Management System.

Tan,

Your post ignores two important points .....

1) Seats will 'depart their rails' once deformation beyond design specification and/or exceeding design G limits occurs (i.e in a major accident - and I believe, and no doubt more technically qualified ppruners will correct me, that minimum certification is currently 6G and in the process of being increased).

You will depart 'the can' if unrestrained by a seat belt at anything above 0.5g and impact on anything in the way, probably resulting in a a higher G deceleration and resulting injury.

2) If the person inviolved is carried in excess of the maximum permissable on board and/or in unapproved accommodation then they will be excluded from insurance cover (some recompense may be obtainable direct from the carrier for negligence - even if conducted by employees/agents - if they are still in business)

Quite simply this shouldn't have happened (and I have plodded around various parts of the world under less than SOP and do not consider myself moralistic about such issues)!

TimS

Wig Wag, very good post.

I know this question was asked before, however, what about the first officer? Can s/he be held responsible too? Could s/he have refused the PIC's decision? Did s/he in actual fact?

Also, if the cabin crew informed the PIC about the situation, then it was ultimately his decision, not theirs, so why should they be sacked? I think they are in a similar position as the first officer in that they inform the PIC, but the ultimate decision is his.

Why was the PIC informed during taxiing, and not during pushback or beforehand? This made his decision even more difficult to make. I sympathize.

pilotpilot, the buck stops with the guy with 4 bars.
and why/if/how the F/O spoke with the Captain we will all be second guessing about....maybe (this is speculation) it can be explained by the word (2 words :)) Cockpit Gradient.
Inexperienced/Rookie F/O with a very very senior Captain (understand he was in the bussiness for more than 30 years)

So far only the 2 hitchhikers and the captain have seen consequences to this severe incident and rightly so.

company culture shouldn't be a factor in decision making but really is very very important (i've seen the "fear" time and time again). it starts with cabin crew don't want to call in sick afraid of repercussions or delay to being promoted to seniors....
if you have balls and you do not agree, then get off the aircraft and face the subsequent inquiry, if you know you're right, you should be safe!

TimS

In the event of a major accident where you seat or if you are wearing a seat belt or not is immaterial as is the resulting “g” event. But during normal operations including turbulence the “can” because of its size will restrict you’re being tossed about to any great degree. As I said before I don’t condone this type of travel but for others to say how unsafe it is, in my opinion foolish.

As far as the insurance underwriters are concerned I think that they should be paying more attention to “crew fatigue” which is a far more likely and damaging event then carrying someone in the “can”.


USA from the July 26, 2004 edition
Pilot fatigue grows as problem for airlines
As the industry's finances worsen, pilots fret about falling asleep at the controls as flying hours get longer.
By Alexandra Marks | Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor NEW YORK

– The nation's top airlines are still wallowing in red ink, and their pilots are tired - some literally exhausted.
Or so says Jane Meher.
That's not her real name.

As a pilot who's not a union official, she says she's forbidden by contract to talk to the press. Still, she was concerned enough about what she sees as a deteriorating safety standard that she came forward.

And so did others."Every pilot I talk to feels like they're being pushed to the limit," says Captain Meher. "It hasn't created a problem yet, but it could."Fatigue has long been one of the top problems on the list of "Most Wanted Safety Fixes" from the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB).

Since the 2001 recession and Sept. 11 plunged the major airlines into a financial sinkhole, pilots say the fatigue problem has gotten steadily worse.

And it's reaching a nadir during this summer's peak travel season, with airline staffing pared down and more Americans returning to the skies.

Part of the problem is that many pilots are flying more hours than ever before because of work-rule concessions they made to try to help the financially strapped carriers.

Another factor is what critics call the archaic Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) rules governing how much rest pilots should get between flights.

The current ones were developed in 1985, when the airline industry was entirely different.

Critics contend that on one hand, they're inadequate in terms of ensuring the pilot gets a good night's rest - and on the other hand, their inflexibility ends up complicating scheduling, which can exacerbate the fatigue problem.

The major airlines and the FAA acknowledge that economic challenges have put new pressures on pilots, but each also insists that safety has not been compromised in any way."Our rules set a minimum standard that provides for safe flight in this country," says Alison Duquette, an FAA spokeswoman. "We believe [they are] are still providing for safe flight."

Experts hope Ms. Duquette is right, but they also say the complaints about fatigue reflect a basic problem with carriers like American, United, and Delta: They're operating with unsustainable cost structures and are inherently inefficient. To survive, they'll need to change fundamentally.

"I think they finally get it, but I'm not sure they can do it," says Richard Gritta, an aviation expert at the University of Portland in Oregon.Since 1993, the NTSB has cited fatigue as a contributing factor in three commercial airline accidents.

The most recent was the July 2002 crash of a FedEx cargo jet in Tallahassee, Fla. In that case, the pilots were flying on "the backside of the clock" - aviation jargon for a late-night, early-morning shift.

Last month the NTSB noted pointedly in findings on the crash that more research needs to be done on such flights.Pilots whom the Monitor spoke with seconded that, saying that's even more important now that strapped airlines try to cover more flights with fewer flight crews.

It's not only that crews are flying more hours, but they're also working far more erratic schedules.

One captain of a major airline says he's scheduled to fly for two days, one all-nighter, and then for two days again. "That's when you have the major fatigue problem," says the captain, who didn't want his name used. "Just try sleeping in the middle of the day, particularly in a hotel room. 'Do not disturb' signs don't mean anything to the maids."

A spokesman for the Air Transport Association, the lobbying arm of the major airlines, acknowledges that some carriers are working to increase productivity to keep costs down. "But we adamantly are not going to do that at the cost of safety," says Jack Evans.

But pilots unions aren't satisfied that is the case. They've been pushing the FAA to update fatigue rules since the early 1990s.

In 1995, the FAA proposed some changes, but since then the issue has languished in political limbo - because the airlines and pilots can't agree on new rules, and the FAA is reluctant to impose them.

"We're not holding our breath because years ago they were saying that new rules were imminent, and it keeps getting pushed back," says Bill Edmunds, a fatigue specialist at the Allied Pilots Association. "But we're still trying to get some action on it."

Copyright © 2004 The Christian Science Monitor. All rights reserved.

Tan

You miss the point regarding insurance.

If the aircraft is being operated outside of it's certified limits, it is basically no longer certified ("experimental", if you will), and insurance cover very likely automatically lapses in that event - a bit like it does if you crash a car that has no valid MOT.

It isn't a matter of concern to the insurance company at all. They just won't pay.

Similarly, they will never be concerned about crew fatigue because, if an aircraft were to crash and it was established that the crew knowingly operated whilst fatigued, they would have an instant escape clause.

All an insurance company cares about, is how it can wriggle out of a claim.

Tan,

I agree that in an 'unsurvivable accident' it matters not a jot where you are sat and how you are restrained - I was thinking more of the 'major accident' (along the lines of the BD M1 incident - or an undercarriage collapse) but you are quite correct that this becomes an issue at an even earlier stage in terms of turbulence etc.

If you are arguing the difference between being unrestrained in the cabin and toilet block you may have a marginal benefit from the lack of space/time restricting the achieved speed before impact and the resulting deceleration, but I'm not sure I would feel much comfort from this.

MOR raise an interesting point on the insurance - my interpratation was that the occupants carried illegally were uninsured, he suggests that the whole aircraft and all occupants are similalrly affected - while I'm not sure he is correct (although deliberately reporting payload (pax numbers and weights) could certainly be argued as affecting the whole aircraft) it is certainly an issue worth considering.

TimS

Ditto to all the above, what are we supposed to think if flight crew then ignore the rules and are seemingly supported in those actions?