Parabellum,

Case of "Nemo me impune lacessit" is it?

For the record I wouldn't have let the footballer in.

But then, I don't like footballers.

:cool:

I'd like to put it this way...without wishing to over-dramatise the issue...

Some of us believe the machinery of the state is there to serve not be served.

When the statute book incorporates such idiocy, there is something wrong.

By acquiescing to the status quo you are complicit in (or blind to) this nefarious experiment - the ever encroaching state.

The EC response to the Irish Referendum on the 28th Amendment to the Constitution of Ireland Bill?

Do it again! What?????

I'm amazed we pilots are so happy for our masters to envisage ever increasing lengths of rope on which to hang ourselves...

God forbid someone fires you for doing 254 below FL100....

:ok:

SR71 - You are, without doubt, paranoid and I suggest you seek professional help ASAP, I certainly would not fly with you and nor would any of my family. This isn't a cheap swipe but a genuine comment, you appear to have a persecution complex.

Taking a step back from this frankly extraordinary thread it occurred to me that it is a shame that this forum is anonymous otherwise it would be so useful to employers to be able to employ the boring old so and sos who undertsand the need for regulation, SOPs and a degree of intelligent interpretation of such rules and not employ those who believe that such rules and regulations should be ignored by every egostistical maverick idiot who thinks he knows better but doesn't actually have the first inkling of what actually is involved in trying to run a safe and secure airline.

It is scary that some of the posters here actually fly commercial jet transport.

Pablo Mason's transgression on its own was probably insufficient to warrant dismissal but if you wish to appear clever and continually tweak the noses of those who pay you it is imperative to cover your backside 100% of the time. In effect offering your employers the chance to rid themselves of a proverbial PIA demonstrates stupidity on a breathtaking scale.

He thought he was cleverer than everybody else but has clearly proven the exact opposite.

Mainly because he had already been found "guilty" of breaching regulations by the company and was using the tribunal as a means to get around that via the means of a possible technicality.



Which failed miserably

If only.....
http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a3...rnet/zxzxz.jpg
But not in the 21st century, I guess.....

Took me back forty years :}:}:p

Don't have to go back that far, but then I ain't a pilot so I guess certain "interpretations" of things don't count.........

(Effing 'elf'n'safety)

Post of the thread.
 

BEagle,

Spot on. Probably deserves 'Post of the thread?'.

It's like being nibbled to death by muppet(tes).

Parabellum - are you still there? Nobody actually died - in this one.

DB :D

That's the thing, DB, in days of yore the events described by BEagle would have been exactly the right approach.


But one side just had to have his "day", even when he knew he was going to lose.


Pretty effing sad from one side, ain't it...........



I guess "The Ego Has Landed"

I have a sneeking suspicion that to the question

The answer by Mr Mason just might not be

After all, how could he let his audience down?

That shows a misunderstanding of the ET process.

One thing the Service is/was good at.
Giving/receiving a bollocking and then getting on with the job.

Errrr, you generally go to an ET IF you think you have a reason your contract has been terminated unfairly, just like PM tried with his "one of the :mad: YOU think I did was not investigated properly, never mind me allowing a PAX onto the Flight Deck DESPITE the CAA and my own company saying it was WRONG". He had TWO GROSS MISCONDUCT offences on his record, before he broke CAA rules on PAX in the cockpit. According to reports in this very thread, he started his so-called defence off by saying that one of these charges against him had not been investigated fully so was not applicable. BUT, you only get a GM on your record if you actually agree that you :mad:ed up and sign the piece of paper saying you did actually :mad: up!!!



Now, shall we get back to THREE GROSS MISCONDUCT charges against him or not?


Case closed, 90% of the working population would be signing on after ONE GROSS MISCONDUCT offence. He pulled his third strike and was OUT.

(PS. Don't even THINK about telling me about ET's, because I've had to be the nasty bastard at them often enough in the past. I've saved more guys than I have condemned, but I know all about these things............ Another reason I GTF out of the UK)


(PPS, obviously there is one idiot here who willl call 100 in the UK in an emergency because he has no clue what he is actually talking about)

years ago.......
 

was called out as SCCM on a sub for AIR UK Ferry MAN-GLA, GLA-AMS-NCL-GLA

One of cabin crew said cud she bring her 6 year old daughter ? I asked , skipper said yes.. rest is history

got her through security, no safety issues, gud day out and home for tea!

imagine that now ??

You, Sir, need to figure out the emoticons...

Have a guess at what this one means....

:ok:

I don't take myself too seriously, so I suggest you don't either...

Oh, but that is half of the problem .. some people do take themselves terribly seriously on here .. to those "telling" me how their industry saved the world from Y2K ? .. ahem, yes I believe you !
I will now read rather than delete all of those very urgent FWD emails outlining in terrifying detail the latest virus wiping every hard drive, whilst fearfully contemplating having survived 20+ years on the internet sans anti virus.

In my line of business, adopting, absorbing and implementing new company procedures is 90% of the job: if one decides to depart from SOP there had better be a very good reason, justifiable in terms of that departure being ABSOLUTELY essential in order to save the day in a situation that one had not been prepared for within company training or the company SOP framework.
Doing so without fully understanding the likely repercussions is something is beyond comprehension, the rules are the rules.
Thus in my experience, one fuming UK CEO was left to find another way home, after all, they were top of the pyramid that wrote the SOP, and reinforced it with NOTAC's ..

Not my problem squire.

In contrast, it is both pleasant and mutually informative to sometimes have our (European) management on the jump seat as they return from their various meetings, and to have the latitude to extend that invitation written into our SOP's.

Born, bred and trained in the UK, the aviation mentality is one I no longer recognise, nor wish to be a part of. I hope it changes, meanwhile ...

VIVA EUROPA :p

TR

Well that was an intelligent piece! Perhaps the UK was better off without you. Typically you find it difficult to put anything constructive together without some expletive. From the camp of who shouts loudest is right eh?
Must say you comprehensively failed to convince of your authority on ET's.
You get upset too easily, and assume that others have no experience of ET's. On that you are way off the mark.
Calm down. Gather your thoughts and just think about how that stupid post makes you look....:rolleyes:

Don't think so call100. I suspect, like many of us, hellsbrink is finding it hard to comprehend why so many of you are determined to convert the bleedin' obvious into an optional subject.

Exactly M.Mouse. Now did you report the guy with fliughtdeck access and the opinion that 3000 americans did get what they deserved on 9/11? Or did you not? (which I think was your decision, since he seems to be still in your company)

Pablo Mason broke rules. You sit next to someone who is able to fly an airplane and expresses symphaty for a terroristic act and all you do is "change the subject"???

And you talk about being useful for employers and rules etc???


I for one would rather fly with Pablo Mason (though I did not like him trying to share blame with his F/O) than with a guy who thinks killing 3000+ innocent people is okay. Or a guy who thinks we can just ignore opinions like that, main thing is, that bloody door is closed (rules!!!)

Beagle,

Whilst I think what you say is very good, is there not a possibility that such a conversation had been had with PM before?