Without meeting the chap... I am giving him the benefit of the doubt... just as I would give you too, 1.3VStall:E

The press quote in relation to action taken against the FO says:-

"He (PM) felt his punishment was more “drastic” compared with treatment to his First Officer Kevin Davenport, who was with him in the cockpit on the 2007 flight. He said: “The most dramatic, drastic possible action has been taken against me. I contest absolutely no action has been taken against my First Officer.”

The airline’s former chief pilot Martin Mahoney said Mr Davenport had been given an informal interview after the *incident. The tribunal continues.

I still can't see what input the FO could have had in this incident and why PM feels hard done by in terms of the action taken against the FO.

Callum,
Sure is.
Show that clip to the court - case dismissed ;)

Slim,
Now, come on, some of those footballers can be a bit badly behaved :E

A2
Thanks for that quote from the media.

Now faced with that little gem, what do all the Pablo supporters think of him now? A good Captain?, a good leader? a nice chap? I think he has just hit barrel bottom! Now those of you that compared him to 'Sully', please apologise, can you ever imagine Sully making a comment like that? Infact never mind Sully, any Captain worth his salt would never come out with a line like that, it is shameful.

So based on that quotation, he does not even understand the basic premise of command and making final decisions.

I really doubt that's what Bader meant.

"He (PM) felt his punishment was more “drastic” compared with treatment to his First Officer Kevin Davenport, who was with him in the cockpit on the 2007 flight. He said: “The most dramatic, drastic possible action has been taken against me. I contest absolutely no action has been taken against my First Officer.”

So Captain Mason decided to let a passenger into the flightdeck, in clear contravention of the rules on flightdeck access, and thereby putting his FO in the unenviable position of either acquiescing in the rule-breaking, or arguing with his commander in-flight. And then he defends himself by claiming that no subsequent action was taken against his FO? Charming.

As an FO myself, I'm mightily relieved that there are fewer and fewer 'Pablos' out there.

Many years ago I knew a wonderful man who was a Squadron Leader on Puma helicopters at a secret airbase near Basingstoke. He was teaching a "refresher" course on some subject or other and the issue of his crash in NI came up. Pardon me if the details are errant, time is no friend of memory.

He was flying an operation out of Aldergrove in a Puma with a left seat pilot and crewman and had recently dropped a patrol in a rural area. They were leaving the drop off point at low level and slow speed, (<70kts), when he experienced a tail rotor failure. The flip cards regarding tail rotor failures for the Puma were all a bit "try this" but the conventional wisdom was that if you were going faster than 70kts then the tail pylon should be sufficient to maintain heading and you should find a runway and do a running landing. Fine, but he was going slower than 70kts and the resulting yaw at low level was about to crash his aircraft. The actions to be carried out below 70kts required the pilot to carry out a complete shutdown of both engines which requires a minimum of 10 actions if I remember correctly, (it's been more than 20 years). He decided that the danger was sufficient that he would circumvent the procedure and simply pulled the two fuel shutoff levers. A thoroughly expedient solution to a rather urgent problem. With the lack of torque he regained directional control of the aircraft made a rolling landing in Riley's somewhat marshy bottom field. The marsh conspired against him and the aircraft turned on it's side and beat itself to death with the remaining energy in the head. The upshot was three crew walking away and an airframe that I believe was only Cat3. The BOI castigated him on the grounds that his shutdown of the engines was improper. I really believe that he was somewhat bitter about that experience and he made a statement that has stuck with me ever since. He said "If you are ever in a crash you walk away from get back into the cockpit when you can, pull out your flip cards and place all the switches and levers in pleasing and eyecatching positions before the investigators get there".

A long story with no apparent purpose? Not really, the moral of the story is quite clear: It's their airframe, they can do with it as they please including telling their pilot how they want him to act. Failure to do so, (even if you are right), may result in disciplinary action up to and including dismissal.

Sir, if you are reading this, you know who you are... http://www.hqrafregiment.net/images/smilies/salute.gif

Knowing PM and his attitude to (especially young or inexperienced) F/O's, it comes as no surprise to hear that he is throwing dirt in that direction.

Tyke
I find it sickening to be honest. How low can one stoop? I really hope he loses the case now.

One wonders whether, if all the great Captains out there were allowed to use their superior good judgement as to who they would and would not let into the flightdeck, why one would need the prohibition anyway?

:E

On the one hand argue against ID cards that further emasculate us, yet kowtow to the insanity that obliges/permits/allows me to carry a crew member who I've never come across in my life on the jumpseat, but not my father?

Talk about the law being an ass.

By the way, looking at it through another prism, the Bud Holland story is the story of a desperately incompetent management.

Some years ago (but post 9/11), I flew with an old Captain, who mid-way through the flight, admitted his extremely handicapped child and quite ill wife (they both died not long after I believe) to the flightdeck in complete contravention of the rules.

In the circumstances, I did not object, although, to be honest, I was not consulted a priori as to my opinion on the matter.

What would you have done?

I find it somewhat sad that PM stooped so low as to involve the FO.

In the absence of any (no matter how subtle) verbal intervention by the FO however one could argue (in a CRM perfect world) that the FO is indeed implicated simply by his lack of action.

In the circumstances Pablo might have a point, no matter how distasteful it might sound.

SR71, while sympathising with the captain's desire to brighten his wife and son's day I believe he was wrong to put you in that position. He was allowing emotion to cloud is sound judgement. What would I have done? What 90% of FOs would do, acquiesce in quiet annoyance.

Those of us who have been FOs all have memories of being put in difficult positions by captains who should really know better.

Your refer to superior judgment of captains being allowed to decide on flight deck access in flight. Playing devil's advocate for a moment. A week or two after September 11th I flew with one of our Muslim FOs. I knew him from previous trips and to all intents and purposes he was (and still is as far as I know) a sound pilot and colleague. The conversation inevitably turned to the attacks in NY and he firmly declared that America 'got what it deserved'. I felt the best course of action was to rapidly change the subject. Now fast forward to today and say that I am flying with that same FO. He then tells me his brother is travelling with him and would like him to sit on the FD. I am afraid my superior judgement would have difficulty with that one.

UK and US airlines are prime targets for Islamic terrorists, far more so than any other country's airlines for reasons that are obvious. For that reason alone we are stuck with very strict rules regarding FD access whatever we would like to see.

Pablo Mason decided he knew better. His employers begged to differ. He who pays the piper calls the tune. Quite simple really.

I am a retired pilot - so maybe should shut-up...
Many years of flying, not far from 24,000 hrs... no accidents, no violations.
xxx
Oops, violations...! - Well, honestly, many. Maybe at least one per flight.
Some "exceeding 250 below 10,000" - some "busting DH on ILS by 20 ft".
And many "admitting armed terrorists in flight deck".
xxx
Pprune is mostly "UK territory", and "UK opinions"...
As a kid, I admired UK (originally from Belgium, you guys liberated us in 1944).
UK (and USA) meant "Liberty" and "Freedom" to me.
Compared to what was Germany 1933-1945...
"Befehl ist befehl" - Nazi order, and "der discipline" with no discussions.
xxx
I do not recognize UK...
You gentlemen sit on regulation books and never bend any rules.
You are so perfect in observing the law, makes me sick.
Famous soccer players, on charter flights, top the list of terrorists.
And you never pass me (on the left) 20 mph over limit when on the M-1...
I thought Germans were like that. They are very far from these manners.
They observe the rules when required, and bend rules if they do not apply.
xxx
I think about private pilots who got to observe a takeoff and landing...
These kids on my lap, age 10 "flying my 747", fostering a pilot career...?
Little old ladies who never again got afraid to fly, with AK-47 in handbag.
The father who took in-flight pictures of their kids wearing pilots earphones.
Newlyweds on their honeymoon, passing the Equator in the flight deck.
And a personal acquaintance (tenor) Andrea Bocelli, on the jump seat.
Definitely (being blind), he is, of all of them, the most dangerous terrorist.
xxx
:*
Happy contrails, from my rocking chair

M.Mouse, so the ill woman and son of your captain on the flightdeck would really bother you and the racist/pro terror comment of a F/O did trigger which reaction? You changed the subject.

Did YOU report this guy?

Is this guy dangerous or is a football celebrity on a private charter a problem?

Sometimes its hard to believe what one reads here on pprune....

BelArgUSA + 1

I suppose that explains your responses in the, (somewhat fun), "French" thread in the Military Forum then.

What is it that you don't understand about the fact that SOP's are written so that all aircraft are flown in a similar, effective, safe and efficient manner and that, as owners of the airframes themselves, you, (as an "own nothing" pilot) are simply their employee and therefore subject to their whims?

Or is there an "arrogance thing" that shows through in some of your posts pervading all of them?

Chuckles
 

So Pablo is unhappy that his FO isn't punished.

My my.... he's not even Captain worthy.

1/60

Re The mud slung at the FO;

Perhaps the company knew just how PM treated his colleagues and made due allowance for the fact that even if the FO had dared to speak up he would probably have been over-ruled anyway.

Many a flight safety issue has arisen in the past from such behaviour, I just hoped that in these days of CRM, SOPs et al we had finally driven ego bound buffoons out of the flight deck.

As a young FO I regularly flew with one such "character". He was brought to heel when a deputation of FOs took a letter signed by every FO on the fleet to management. The aeronautical equivalent of the black spot sorted the problem. A much chastened captain approached us individually and apologised. Like most I was happy to accept, some gave him their true opinions of him and one met him in the car park. Captain was off sick for 5 weeks after that chat.

PM may think he is a character, and may take joy in fighting management,
but I doubt he spared a single thought for any of his colleagues who could so easilly be tarred by his brush. I have a need for a new P1 at the moment, PM needn't apply. I would be deeply concerned about what he was up to as soon as he got on the crew buss.

Very black and white in your world, guys, eh?

Suppose you do something a little less than your usual intelligent self. Ends up with a loss of job, which , due to a sudden and unexpected decline in airline business you suddenly find you need rather badly.

Go to a solicitor and he says, "Well, that's interesting, apparently your FO, who was part and party, (though maybe not quite as much so,) did not even get a reprimand, I think you've got yourself a case here, my son."

Of course you would all turn round and say, "Not on your life, I wouldn't sully my name with such a tactic." as you watch you life savings and what remains of your career dribble away.

Of course.


I think it perhaps a little simplistic to compare Mr Masson with Bud Holland. Holland had a record of endangering aircraft and flying them outside their envelopes. Are you saying that Mr Masson has such a record? Or is he just a good pilot who has issues with authority stupidly used? I don't know, I wasn't there, and I don't know him.

Long before 911 I believed that all public transport aircraft should have lockable cockpit doors, and that was while my children and I enjoyed several very fine cockpit visits. Was Mr Masson's infringement a real risk to safety or just an excuse to get rid of an inconvenient annoyance?

Would I rather fly with a Masson or a 3,000 hr newly promoted captain who sticks rigidly to the rules but maybe is untested in adversity? I don't really know.