Pablo
 

All I can say is that Pablo sounds like a bloody good bloke, if I had a job vacancy for him I would employ him like a shot.................our jets do not have cockpit doors and I am very happy about it that way.
There is a saying....rules are for the guidance of the wise and for the blind obedience of fools, there seems to be a heap of the latter pontificating on this one.

Discipline
 

Whenever I start questioning the value of flight discipline I reach for "Flight Discipline" by Tony Kern (who also produced an insightful analysis of the "Bud" Holland disaster). This text should be prescribed reading for anyone in a management position in any industry and doubly so for those who value professional and rigorous standards of flying and adherence to standard procedures. I guess the loose cannons are useful in extremis (e.g. war time) but really have no place in the operational structures required to ensure safe commercial flight.

Ye gods, here we go again. 'Pablo's a great guy, blah de blah de blah'

Nobody doubts he is an interesting character. He broke rules repeatedly and paid the price. Which rule he broke for the third, final warning and hence dismissal does not actually matter in the slightest. It's just that he broke one that evokes a great deal of sentiment amongst most non pilot commentators.

Hawker - you employ him then. You aint gotta worry about the locked door SOP if you don't have them fitted. Ergo, Pablo can't break that rule.

And if I hear the adage about rules are for the guidance of wise etc again!!!

If you don't like rules/ SOP's etc then get the hell out of aviation, because they are there, they will be there and they will become ever more onerous. Having 65000 hrs spotting planes from the side of 23R at MAN does not make you an expert, nor does it allow you to comment on the rule structure we operate to. I would suggest that if you really hate the structures in place at most 1st world airlines that much, you choose caravan holidays from now on. Because every time you fly, it is those rules that try to ensure you and your family get from A to B as safely as possible!

Live with it or move on. Rather like this thread!!

ps. Yes Pablo did represent himself, he thought his personality and character would win the day. Kind of gives you an insight into the man????????

Fly
 

Having flown for 40 years and still do so I am very aware of a new breed of pilot who thinks that SOP's are the answer to everything. The type who will fly into a cliff if Air Traffic told him to do so. I bet Pablo would not do that, he would question it.
SOP's are great and a fantastic advance on 40 years ago, but they have killed quite a few who thought they were the only answer to flight safety. Lighten up a bit Fly...your job is supposed to be enjoyable, you sound like someone from a Dickens novel

Hawker

nobody disputes the advantages of SOP's nor the ability to question them when needed. What I find disheartening is 19 pages of drivel about an open and shut case of employment law.

If it were PM first mistake, it would have been tea and biccies. Nobody seems to grasp that.

As for lightening up - I only come on Pprune to realise that everywhere else is so much more fun!!!

Oh - and I am scrooge if you must know! ;)

Fly
 

Ha Ha
In my book he should have been fleet manager, I doubt if he would have fired himself!

With men like these you could fight a frigate.
 

Now why is it that when someone mentions Pablo Mason I am apt to think of Maurice Kirk? :)

Now there's a man who makes Captain Mason look like an orthodox saint. Both British god love them and good aviators all.:ok:.

I'm just amazed at all the BS that's bandied about concerning
this "incident".
Personally I wouldn't let Robbie Savage anywhere NEAR a
flight deck. IMHO the blokes a prima donna tosser, but NOT
a terrorist by any stretch of the imagination.
If he doesn't like flying send him by train and/or boat.
I just think that someone was just looking for an excuse to
get rid of Mason. And that's all there is to it.

JamesT
 

You sure don't challenge them by deciding which ones to obey and which ones not to. After all, originally there was no limit on the M1 but then one was applied due to the inability of people to drive at speed. It could be argued that limits should be RAISED as cars nowadays are far safer and can stop far faster than they could when the limits were first put in place. But that's a different argument altogether, the fact is that there is a limit which you must obey or face the consequences. (Apologies for drifting there)

If UK pilots think the rules are insane then surely the way to challenge them is to get the union to lobby Parliament, stating how other countries in the EU, as examples, do not have these same rules. Of course, since the (hmm, what's the right word here) PERCEIVED terror threat is higher in the UK for reasons I am sure Parliament would give you these rules regarding cockpit visits/locked doors/etc are in place.

After all, I guess, more of the recent "threats" have originated in the UK than in, say, Italy so the "rules" have made harsher in the UK due to these "threats". That's the argument that would be used by HMG, so until the perception that there is a risk of some nutters storming the cockpit has vanished the rules stay in place. And they have to be obeyed. End of.

OK on the ground?
 

Whilst I was still flying I used to sometimes welcome SLF (especially the young keen ones, like I used to be) to the flight deck ON THE GROUND to show them the 'steering wheel' etc.

Fire axe at the ready, just in case.....

Is this still legal and OK or could you (technically) lose your job over it?

DB :yuk:

And you would still have been given the three points necessary to ban you. After all, you are allowed "indicated speed +/-10%" so that means anything above 77 is enough especially as most speedometers are actually set "low" (the ones here average 4kph). So your indicated 80 could actually be 84+ due to the way the speedo is set up.

But why is it ok to say "I shouldn't get hit because everyone else does it"? Does the fact that others drive aove the speed limit somehow make it ok to ignore the limit because YOU feel like it?

Been discussed various times (SLF sub-forum, mainly) and the general consensus is "Yes, it's allowed depending on time constraints and SOP's". After all, if you are at the gate after a flight then the threat of a hijack is over.

Principle...
 

Hellsbrink,

I think you are getting a bit deep here.

I admit I regularly exceed the national speed limit and am aware of ALL the 10% etc and points system but I seem to have accumulated nul points in 35 years (for that sort of motoring 'offence'). I was trying to point out how reasonably 'normal' people regularly 'break rules' without really knowing it or 'take a chance' and face the music if they get it wrong or miscalculate - PM?

Have you ever been over 70 mph in this country? - if so I wouldn't confess here - but lets have a bit of honesty, please.

For the record: I would rather be sitting with my family behind PM in the cockpit than some numpty who was 'only following orders' and as somebody so elloquently put it - steered the aircraft towards a theoretical cliff face. :ugh:

The book even says one can vary SOP's but one has to be able to justify it! That's the law, as I understood it.

Are some 'rules' more sacred than others?

Just remember and say after me: 'You can't win....'

DB :ok:

Dream Buster

What you are not grasping, despite it being said repeatedly, is that he broke the rules, more than once, was CAUGHT, more than once, and THEN tried to worm his way out of the punishment.

Now, I'll ask again. If YOU were caught speeding would you say "it's a fair cop" or come out with some stupid, malebovinefaeces excuse as to why you should NOT face any penalty for speeding.


You see, that is what he did. He broke the rules, and not for the first time, was caught, not for the first time, was penalised, not for the first time, and in the end tried to get off with it on a technicality, which obviously didn't exist, AND tried to pass part of the blame onto someone else!! And somehow he has "been hard done by"?

If I was in your car, saying "go faster", would that be a valid excuse in court when YOU are hauled up for speeding?

I'd like to be sat behind someone with a good sense of self-preservation. AFAIK it was the navigator that ejected the pair of them from PM's Tornado. If that is the case then I'm not sure he has much of one.

DB

I didn't think the allowing of non aircrew onto the flight deck was part of a SOP, hence not up for varying. I understood it was mandated by the CAA.

I would like to meet the bloke and make up my own mind but from what I have read, at this moment I would say he hasn't a leg to stand on

Hmmm... Which SOP says to steer an aircraft to a theoretical cliff face? Being only a SLF I am not aware of any, but please enlighten me.:rolleyes:
Furthermore remember that a civil aircraft does not have a navigator and any ejection system! :ugh:

Why on earth is this being discussed on rumours and news?? In fact why is it being discussed at all? The guy is a maverik and has paid the price for that....end.

Breaking rules
 

Hellsbrink,

As I made clear some time ago I was officially invited to break FTL RULES all the time by my 'cowboy' Lo Co carrier. I haven't got time now to spell out all of the nuances but most of the time it was very much for the carriers benefit and yes, I (not the carrier) would have been guilty as charged in the event of an incident and subsequent paperwork trawl, 'in depth enquiry' or whatever you call it.

Isn't it a "double bind" when you are b*****ed both ways?

Frequent SLF,

What made you think there was an SOP for flying into a cliff? Many is the time we have queeried instructions and maybe done the opposite of what we had been invited to do. Are you a pilot or SLF? as this may be beyond you.

I agree; why is this still in Rumours and News? and not in some "Here we go again forum"?

DB :zzz:

Wrong.

Wrong.

Please try harder.

Maybe is beyond me...however your logic does not stand.
You are talking about instruction received, not rules. I was just trying to say that your comparison cannot stand any logic, even for a SLF.
Dismissing my comment only because I am SLF, does not do any good to your reasoning. The issue here is, follow the rules or not follow them.
Let me say something for which I am qualified as SLF, I would not sit in a plane with PM in front! A guy that is prone to break rules for the shake of his ego does not satisfy my safety standards.

Dream Buster

Did you actually do the things you were "invited" to do and, if so, would you have been happy to do so knowing that when the :mad: hit the fan YOU would have been the one without anyone defending you as YOU were the one who took the decision to agree to these things? Do you REALLY think that anyone would have stood up and said "it ws my fault he did it"? But you are talking about different circumstances, trying to use any method possible to defend the indefensible.

Doesn't matter what the "who/what/why" was, you are admitting here that you freely did things you shouldn't have, against the rules of at least your employer and possibly the CAA, and still can't see why, when someone DELIBERATELY IGNORED said rules and decided to do something without any questions being asked, and probably for his own ego (Think of a taxi driver.. "I had that Robbie Savage in my cockpit last week, nice guy"), said ":mad: the rules". You agree with him.

I'm glad he has been kicked out, because it is MY life in his hands if I fly on one of that company's aircraft so I want to KNOW they will behave according to all applicable regulations in every aspect of these regulations. I WANT to know the guy driving the thing is doing the right thing and not massaging his own ego.. If you are still flying, tell me who for (PM if you want, I can assure you I won't say who. I do have more honour than most people on this planet) so I can avoid them because someone who admits a blatant disregard of regs is dangerous.

I read this entire thread. I feel a hint of commiseration for Mr. P.M.
because he was caught repeatedly. At the same time he was lucky nothing sinister happened during his Airline time.
However, I agree with all those who have written that the SOPs have been studied and developed to be respected for the safety of all us passengers & crews in large multi-engined Airliners.
Any disrespect of it puts at potential risk not only one driver but an entire loaded multimillion Airline A/C.

In accordance with the PPrune philosophy of that Forum:
I opened this thread a few days ago under Passengers & SLF (Self Loading Freight) that maybe a sideways related topic from the Passenger's point of view:

http://www.pprune.org/passengers-slf...-_-survey.html

It does no-longer have the character of a "survey", but just a thread where to report your own experiences and/or knowledge on the matter for us passengers to learn.

Sorry for drifting O.T. -- bust or chastizise if necessary.

Why oh why do people post on these threads when they clearly have not read them prior to coming up with their little gems of wisdom. "did you know there is an old saying that rules are for the...blah blah blah", talking YET again about PM, tornado crashes, not his fault, blah blah.

MODS, please, please lock this thread. I have never seen a thread be allowed to continue for so long when it contains so much sh**e from so many people that neither know the guy nor Know the rules. He screwed up, he went to an employment tribunal, he lost, end of case. For those in the last few pages saying what a good guy, how nice in defeat etc, think about it! PM will do very very well from the publicity with his books, public speaking etc.

Last point. Pablo, I cannot believe for one minute that you have not been reading this thread. For Gods sake put everybody out there misery and make a comment and then have the thread locked. Alternatively, could the original poster press delete on the thread. Thanks.

Roger S

I think PM has posted, only he called himself Hawker750 ;)

What a fantastic pilot selection process the RAF and this charter outfit had?

Pablo
 

People think Pablo is me!!
I do not want to read the complete thread so forgive me if this has been covered before but what I want to know is how did "The Management" get to know of my, sorry his discretion?
1) I do not think he would have volunteered the information
2) Does the management have a camera in the cockpit?
3) I cannot imagine a steely eyed first officer playing sneak
So it must have been a chip on the shoulder cabin crew who reported him.

Can anybody with certainty explain how it happened?

Soooooo many ways. Pablo COULD have said something which was overheard. F/O might have said something. C/C might have said something. Of course, we can't rule out Savage HIMSELF saying something which was overheard by others, or, indeed, any other person on the flight saying something. So many variables.

Does it really matter ow management found out though? Personally, I don't think it does.

...besides, the evidence was right there in the CVR, was it not?:hmm:

Well at my Tribunal I was in the right and BMI were profoundly in the wrong, but I did not detect any level of support, or indeed, such vociferous interest in the outcome.

Maybe I did something wrong, won.

I hate to say it, but I think in this case it was only right to terminate this Captains contract. I am all for sensible security rules and SOP's but in this situation the rule was and still is 'no flight deck visits permitted', to knowingly go against this was a poor decision and always was putting his position at risk just on this one point let alone all of the other instances as well!! In my experience Captains like Pablo are always a nightmare to fly with, on the surface they are 'jolly' lovely guys but behind the flightdeck door there are 'rebels' hidden beneath who's sole purpose just seems to be 'challange' all the rules that they don't like at every turn making for a very unpleasant day out.

Artificial Horizon

Spot on fella! All points I have been trying to make since this thread started way back.

Your interpretation of the chap is EXACTLY right.
Case closed, thread stopped.

Can we move our lives on now???? :D

I can only assume that as this thread keeps going round and round and round, and round and round and round that Pablo must in fact be one of the Mods, and is stopping the thread being closed.

Would any airline employ Pablo after this ?

AFAIK PMs in his late 50s so reaching the end of his CPL life. Being a cynical so-and-so I reckon that he reckoned that the publicity from this should tee him up nicely for his next career of after-dinner speaking and so on.

Cats Five

Exactly!

Now can someone please close the thread.

Given the amount of flak the Mods have had to take from PPRuNers quite recently regarding accusations of "Censorship" and "Unreasonable Deleting" etc. in other parts of this BB I think the various time wasters, vvankers and other hamsters have been very well treated and accommodated on this thread.

Mason, with two final warnings on his file, chose to blatantly disregard his company's and the JAAs/CAAs instructions/rules regarding flight deck visits, silly man. Endex.

Artificial Horizon and parabellum are spot on.

My opinion of Pablo, as one who flew with him several times at Airtours (which later became MyTravel):

As a Human Being, nowhere near an aeroplane...
One of the kindsest, most considerate, warm-heared, compassionate and generous men it's ever been my privelidge to know. The kind of chap who makes you feel just that bit happier and content in life simply by being in his company, putting a warm glow in your heart and smile on your face that will linger long after you've bid him goodbye.

As a single-crew/military pilot...
I'm not qualified to say. Perhaps his record speaks for itself.

As a multi-crew/airliner pilot...
An absolute disaster area on legs. A total liability. An incident (of which he had several), indeed possibly worse, just waiting to happen. An anathema to inter-pilot CRM (whilst being brilliant with the crew and passengers). A man who will literally scare you when you go flying together, to the degree that you'll still be affected long after the Parking Brake is set. The kind of name that makes one bang his head in disbelief and dread when it appears on your roster. When he was finally sacked, he wasn't on his umpteenth formal warning for no reason. Need I continue....

The truth might hurt sometimes but that doesn't stop it from being true. I do genuinely wish Pablo all the best for his future. He certainly deserves it.

Baby called Pablo??????
 

I flew with Pablo in 1970's, did Medevac Feb 16 1979, pregnant woman, think they called baby Pablo anybody know if it was true.

Brgds Pablo all clear above and behind

Mole Man :ok: