I sense that a lot of the folks here don't fly large aircraft for a living. Nothing wrong with that but it does add some confusion to the discussion.

I am ex-Tornado aircrew who both flew in the 1991 Gulf War and was based at RAF Laarbruch in Germany on a different Squadron but at the same time as Pablo Mason. I can vouch for the truth of itwasme's statement and confirm that the only reason Pablo survived the crash was the fact the Germans had recently raised the low flying limit to 1000'agl and that his navigator initiated the command ejection sequence to autmatically eject them both. The aircraft was totally serviceable but had been placed in an irrecoverable situation by pilot error. It is a long time ago now, but from memory the mishandling was the simultaneous application of 63 or 67 deg wingsweep, high alpha and full speed brake. I vaguely remember some mod limiting wingsweep to 63 deg rather than 67, hence the doubt about the actual wingsweep on the day.

I wish Pablo no ill, but if you want a debate on this, the facts rather than apocryphal tales are best. There is considerably more that could be said here, but I will limit myself to these facts.

Anyone who has been in this industry a few years will recognise the type......

The ex mil fast jet guys fall into two categories.

Either the most brilliant, nicest, most competent, self effacing and best teachers/commanders one could get

or

total arrogant sh£t heads of questionable competence who consider themselves greater than demi gods to whom company rules did not apply.

Nothing in between.

Well I have been in it a few years, and have to say that the two extremes you describe (particularly the latter,) are so rare as to be almost non-existent. Like most people from any professional background there is the entire gamut of personalities in between. You are either very unlucky or have a severely polarized viewpoint ?

Grizzled, thanks for adding your observation regarding the changes that occurred partly as a result of the SR 111 accident. The checklists were modified subsequently to better highlight the imperative. I was replying to post no 63 which was not relevant to the date in that particular context, however I completely accept your point.

Beelzebub

So tell me, which category do come under. God's gift to aviation?

"the changes that occurred partly as a result of the SR 111 accident. The checklists were modified subsequently to better highlight the imperative."

to better highlight the imperative?!

Does the imperative need to be highlighted? Probably for the likes of you, it would need to be. Here was me thinking you had something to think with. Now I am not so sure.

May I put this too you?

If there was an amendment that appeared in your FOM stating all crew were to have a biometric chip, that contained all information about you, implanted in your forehead right between the eyes.. What would do?

No don't tell me it won't happen, it just may.

Possibly, I don't know.

You would be better consulting with the manufacturers who made the changes in light of the previous history. They did this as the imperative nature of a fire was seemingly not always being conveyed. As to your last sentence, I don't really understand the construction and cannot comment on your doubts.

You did however earlier post the statement that:
Perhaps there can be no clearer example of just why the imperative needed highlighting ?

Sorry, regarding your last paragraph, it may be as a result of the omissions in the sentence compilation, but I don't really understand the relevance, so I can make no meaningful comment.

Anyway, back to the topic.

You're an MP!! haha.

Would you comply or not? Yes or no?

Tribunals are usually only interested in whether you were sacked fairly. Usually meaning the process not the reason.
Doubt they are bothered too much about SOP's.

Rule 1: Don't break the rules.

Rule 2: Don't get caught.

Say what?? Surely that sort of situation (onboard fire) would be a Mayday, in which case (assuming that aircraft Mayday procedures are the same as marine ones, which I know about) the commander's priority will be the preservation of the lives of those on board the aircraft rather than rigid adherence to SOPs? :confused:

Like I said, I think there are a few 'posers' here.

Anyway, these idiotic cockpit cowboys who have their own rules are fortunately nearing extinction.

Don't know how the tribunals tend in the UK but in my experience the arbitration hearings in the U.S. give the union-represented pilot a very good chance of keeping a job except in the most egregious cases. Of course, sometimes the person fired is empowered when they are returned to work and the second time around the company has their ducks in a row and the termination is made permanent after a subsequent offense.

I've seen folks like Pablo time and time again over the years. They are God's Gift to Aviation, geniuses compared to those fools in management, in their own minds anyway. They get on the union forum, pound their chest like Magilla Gorilla and push the envelope with the company every chance they get. After ignoring repeated verbal and written warnings, they are terminated and squeal like stuck pigs. The union goes out, spends large amounts of money and time on lawyers and hearings and sometimes cuts a quiet deal to get the pilot back on the property to start the cycle anew.

I'll bet my balls (Oeerrr) that pablo would not have sat a 737 into the ground at Schiphol..............:eek:

Not disputing any of what you say happens in the US. Pablo Mason is not being represented by a Union....He is conducting his own defence.

It's been a long time since I read through the original thread. Is he refusing trade union representation and chosing to go at it solo? Or, is his former company non-union?

Regarding the remark made by `Pilothouse`, whether or not BALPA are supporting Pablo in this case.
Providing he was a member of BALPA, I would certainly like to see them in there batting on his behalf. Can we please have confirmation from 81 New Road Harlington, that they are supporting Pablo as much as possible.

doubleu-anker
 

I think Bealzebub has no need to respond to your last post. His previous posting admirably stated his position. I would suggest more diligence on your behalf.

Bealzebub - Perhaps this is in answer to a post from someone recently retired from aviation who has lived through the fast and loose days (if there were! I am not qualified to say.) Only a thought.

Airbubba, I think Pablo is going it alone. I don't know whether he carries a card or not, but BALPA are the recognised negotiating body in the now merged Thomas Cook/MyTravel.

Nice bloke Pablo, but he frequently pushed his luck. Despite all this "Tornado Gulf War Hero" crap, he was certainly no better an airline pilot than anyone else. Suffice to say that the management had plenty on him (only some of which has made it to Pprune) and the Savage thing was the last incident on the list. Over the years, I would venture that he had more tea without the biscuits than anyone else. He should have been able to see what was coming, everyone else could.

As far as the tribunal is concerned, he may win his case if they have screwed up how they fired him. I don't think he'll win if the question is why they fired him.

What is that old saying about a defendant that defends himself has a fool for a client? Unless Pablo is a qualified employment lawyer, he is not doing himself any favours. In my very limited experience in these matters, employees tend to win on points of procedure rather than the misinterpretation of law.
Burden of proof is normally on the employer, but it does appear to be overwhelming. If Pablo is reading this thread, he would be well advised to spend a few thousand Pounds and pay for expert advice. Unless he doesn't need this job?

He will get lots of publicity which he will love, It sets him up for his next book and soon you will see him on Sky presenting another series on Aviation disasters. The tribunal should in theory be un-winnable on his part.

SOP stands for 'Standard Operating Procedure', note the term 'Standard'. If it is a requirement to operate to SOP's then that is that, however if a Captain finds himself in a 'non-standard situation' then he or she can use all resources available to come up with a decision that they believe will offer the safest outcome. I do not see how it can be argued that the footballers requirement to go on the flightdeck was a 'non-standard situation', more like an opportunity for a bit of networking by Pablo (he would just love those footballers parties!).

All the references to Col Bud Holland on the B52 are 100% valid. He was a rule breaker, nobody stopped him and just came out with terms like ' Oh I know but hey that's Bud you know', he was a maverick and thought himself to be above the rest. Not only did he kill the crew but four families had to grow up without their 'Dad".

Norman is on the money, so everyone please take note of what he says. The crash was pilot error. Now I know Pablo well, and nice and charismatic he is. But Gulf war hero.. No. Fantastic pilot ...No. There is a lot more and like Norman I will stay nap, there is enough of what he got up to in the Prune archives. However I also know the navigator of the Jet that Pablo flew into the ground, I worked with him for two years. Had it not been for RW, both he and Pablo would have been dead. I flew over the crash site 30 minutes or so after the event and it was clearly a very close call, with one chute being perhaps only 50 meters from the first impact of the aircraft. RW suffered for a long time after as a result of what was really flying misconduct.

I am glad he is raising a public view to the idiotic security measures faced by everyone, but as for all the other waxing lyrical about the guy on here, please stop it. He is charismatic, that's it, and a lot of people on this thread have been sucked in by that.

It's obvious here
 

We've learned something.

If we are supposedly gods gift to aviation... we are allowed to bypass the SOP's as much as we want and whenever we feel like it.

If it means letting Robbie Williams on the flight deck or Vinnie Jones, Michael Jackson etc it doesn't matter because we are renowned "hero's" i.e. "legends"

Clearly Pablo is being victimised for no real apparent reason. Correct?


What exactly would have happened if he had simply stuck to the SOP's?

One he would still have his job. Two the fellow he DID not allow on the flight deck would simply get help professionally regarding fear of flying.


He pushed his luck/fame seems entirely accurate.

1/60

Correct, but he has pushed it Sooooo many times before. I am just glad that in the world of civilian aviation he was stopped over something that on the grand scale of things is a bit small, before he did a 'Bud Holland' in a passenger aircraft.

Guys and Gals

Pablo

Was doing what everbody would have done
He did not invite into the Cockpit somedody he did not know
I know he should have not but so what ????
I Feel some one in Management did or does not like him
I Have never met him but the people I have spoke to say he was a Number 1 Aviatior he does not deserve this

Pablo
Best of luck take the basxxds for all there worth

I can only say that if David Crossland/Mike Lee had still been running the organistion this would never have gone this far

The above mentioned Gentlemen are true leaders in aviation who were
pushed out

Kind regards and Pablo Best wishes if u r reading this

Take the gixs for everthing ?????

P S I say again I do not work for My Travel/I am not related to Pablo but I Think he has been very Badly Treated

Pablo broke the rules, period.
He received what he deserved, termination.
Airline flying has rules, break 'em, expect problems with either management or the CAA.

Pablo was an a**, end of story.
A totally military malcontent guy in a civvy world...an especially bad combination, make no mistake.
For Pablo, termination was (apparently) looooong overdue.

411A those are pretty harsh words about a guy you have never met or have direct knowledge of. Your words show only yourself in a poor light not Mr Mason.

I think post 45 sums it up very well indeed.

If you are a captain and you do not agree with those words, I think you've seriously misunderstood the responsibilities that come with your position.

Ain't human nature an amazing thing.

Anyone who has been around the block a few times in professional aviation has a feel for what guys like this are like. A laugh in the bar, but we'd probably rather fly with someone else. They tend to make for too stressful a day. Some inexperienced F/O's can be taken in by it all of course...

Indeed, we even have the benefit of someone who knows him well telling it like it is........and then we have Learjet50 contradicting all this. And has he ever met him? No.

I'm sorry, I certainly wouldn't.

As they say, never let the facts get in the way..............

411A, I sometimes think you're a bit harsh, but in this instance you've summed it up rather nicely for the vast majority who follow the SOP's and get on with doing the professional job we're paid to do.

which version of 'reality' are you running on 411A ?
 

411a - PLEASE CHECK YOUR VERSION OF 'REALITY CHECK ' BECAUSE IT IS BADLY IN NEED OF ADJUSTMENT ! :=:ugh:

PABLO IS A TOP AVIATOR & A TOP GUY TOO, PERIOD ! :D

What is your problem with ex Mil' crew ? - they go through very thorough selection & training which followed by years of operational flying experience makes them EXTREMELY capable aviators, just the sort of folk you need especially when things go wrong such as the Hudson River incident or do you have a problem with that Captain also ?

In reply to the SOPS police have a read through this weeks Flight, some very interesting thoughts there about actual flying skills , does anyone remember those ?

Old-timer, there's nothing wrong with ex-military aircrew and I'm sure 411A would agree. But hey, he doesn't need me to speak for him.

The point is, a fellow military aviator has expressed an opinion of him in less than glowing terms as well, so where does that fit into your version of reality? You can't have it both ways.;)

Maximum - you beat me to it...

Spot-on.
To non-professionals, he sounds like the kind of chap that would make you smile. To professionals - the kind of chap that would make you frown.

In 21 years of military flying in both transport/patrol and tactical aircraft, I knew a few bad apples, but only a very few. One or two out of a hundred didn't meet my expectations but the rest were capable and reliable. During the mid-1960s when the Vietnam war was in full swing, A number of people who previously would not have graduated from U.S. Navy flight training were given their wings. They were a detriment to safety and to mission accomplishment. They didn't last long in fleet squadrons.

further thoughts
 

Maximum

It seems unfair to suggest 'Non-Professional' with regard to this matter, agreed, it was against SOP but the SOP in question wasn't (I.M.O) a flight safety or handling issue, it was of course a security issue which is very serious, however, given the fact the gentleman in question is very well known publically & known by everone on board a considered judgement was taken by Pablo who is probably far more aware & capable of recognising a real threat than many others I suspect, also, this was a private charter & NOT a scheduled sector - the two are significantly different.

Weary, I couldn't have said it better myself!

Old-timer, I respect your opinion but I don't understand your point. Sorry. An SOP is an SOP. It keeps things standard so the operation flows and everyone knows where they stand and what happens next. You can't cherrypick which SOP's you'll follow and which you won't.

Of course, if safety is threatened, then you can chose to disregard an SOP and justify your actions later.

But knowing the whole focus on potential threats post 9-11, you'd really be asking for it to disregard the no-one on the jumpseat rule. Doesn't matter if you think it's daft or not, you'd just be asking for trouble. That's the whole point. What kind of judgement is that?

Also, what kind of position is the poor old first officer being put in in all of this? Does he say no, yes, have an argument, refuse to fly? Puts him in the s*^*t too.

The other point is, if your own wife isn't allowed in the cockpit, it should send signals about how seriously a breach of this rule is going to be taken.

And from the security point of view, what about the safety of the other passengers? Agree or not, part of the thinking behind this is to stop someone you know being blackmailed or otherwise coerced through threats or otherwise into doing something deadly once in the cockpit.

And I know it's tempting if it was a private charter to say it makes it somehow different, but it doesn't really, does it. That aircraft could still be used for evil purposes. Might seem far-fetched, but so did 9-11 before it happened.

The point is though, with all that sort of thinking going on, why would someone fly in the face of it so to speak? Talk about asking for it.

Judgement
 

I don't know this chap from Adam ...

If we (airline pilots) are employed for one thing, then it's our judgement.
It's all based on how we deal with the situation at the time.

I you don't have good judgement, you shouldn't be flying (especially not in the left seat).

Learjet 50

No he wasn't. You seem to be seriously missing the point. He was doing what everybody doesn't do. That is because in the jurisdiction it had been prohibited by the DfT. That instruction had been promulgated to all airlines and then on to all crews, and it was the deliberate violation of that instruction that resulted in the subject of this thread.

The directive didn't and doesn't permit you to invite anybody in this category to the flightdeck inflight, irrespective of the fact you may know them or not.

Not an assessment I am familiar with, but even if there is one, it wouldn't permit you to operate in deliberate violation of statutes, regulations and directives.

You are of course entitled to your opinion and your expression of sentiment. However there are a lot of people who do work for that company and it's successor, who operate to the highest standards and apply professionalism and conduct commensurate with those standards and more. I make that observation in part, from personal experience as I have trained with them in the past. Your comment does rather ignore that fact. In any event it is a moot point, since win or lose "everything" and "all there worth" is not going be what is on the table.

Old timer

It wasn't simply an SOP, it was a legal directive from the DfT and was compulsory. The intentional violation was not within the gift of the captain. Violation placed the company and the crew in a vulnerable position. As you say, it was serious, although that was either misunderstood or ignored.

The directive (within the jurisdiction) does not provide for exceptions in this category. It lists only those persons who may be admitted. How much of a celebrity somebody is (on either side) is completely irrelevant. The captain (whoever he is) is not permitted to make his or her own assesmement of a passenger for the purpose of allowing them to be entertained on the flight deck (in flight) for any reason. It was astonishingly poor judgment, and displayed very poor leadership in that it placed the rest of the crew in a very difficult and awkward position, quite unnecessarily.

At best you might argue they have commercial or contractual differences. From an operational and certainly legal compliance viewpoint, there is absolutely no difference at all. Most charters (in commercial air transport) are undertaken at the behest of tour operators. These operate to the same standards and rules as scheduled flights, save as to the commercial stipulations that may be specified in the contract between the buyer and seller. Even if a footballer / pop singer or other celebrity chartered the whole flight with the one sole purpose of travelling in the flight deck, the contract and stipulation would have to be refused, because it would be in violation of the statutes rules and directives that apply to these categories of Commercial air transport.


These directives seem to be well understood and adhered to by the vast majority of pilots and crews concerned. The arguments being proffered for the violation in this case, seem to centre around "protest support" and "hero worship." A mistake would perhaps be understandable, but the other justifications being trotted out are just simply erroneous. I am happy to be proved wrong on this point if anybody can link to a reference that supports the contention, but otherwise it is just hot air.

Old Timer;

The aircraft was on a private charter, BUT that still means that Public Transport rules are in place. When I fly my boss he is allowed onto the FD beceause it is his trainset and he's letting me play with it, the flight is private for him.

When someone else charters the aircraft they are not allowed by SOPs beyond the cockpit door. If they want to speak with me the CC come and get me and I go back into the cabin, although it is a Private Charter, money is changing hands and therefore it is Public Transport and is an AOC flight, just the same as the flight under discussion. All a question of semantics.

The same rules apply on this flight. The football team had chartered the AC, just the same as if it was Club Med, Club Carribean or Club Anyone You Like (formerly Club 18-30) Therefore it was Public Transport (an AOC flight) and company SOPs said no pax on the FD.

I have worked for a major carrier and there was always at least one Pablo style "character" in the crewroom. He took the heat off the rest of us, but the majority of pilots would express the opinion "Why do we put up with this guy?"

Certainly PM is not a character we would want to employ. Pilots are not robotic slaves to SOPs, but they do know that SOPs are there to protect them and their passengers. If a pilot saves lives by stepping outside the boundaries then thank god for that man, if he does it just to but heads with management then he should be cleared for a standard job centre deparure with no slot delays.

411A,
Just whereabouts in DXB is the Hyatt? :}:O

Basil, the hookers are mainly Russians and you'll find them sipping cock-tails in hotel piano bars etc. Better be loaded as the Arabs pay very well!:E

Bealzebub

I admire your patience, however I fear that your well reasoned responses are likely to fall on deaf ears in this forum.

It is quite clear that the majority of ill informed replies are from the sort of people who think that once they have got Flight Sim 2000 or whatever nailed then they are suitably qualified to operate jet aircraft.

All professional aviators reading this thread will agree- Pablo is probably a great guy, but imagine a 'maverick' with the worst aircraft on the worst day with the worst copilot...in that situation, you need a predictable and SOP driven guy/gal at the helm. That's the bottom line.

I suspect common sense is used more than this forum would acknowledge on this issue, only on saturday I sat in the Jumpseat for the entire flight whilst flying a domestic route in South Africa. Ths skipper judge me to be of no threat to the safety of his aircraft and invited me up after a discussion about the pro's and cons of flight training in South Africa. When I asked him if this was strictly allowed his reply was who's going to know?

It is not the first time I've jumpseated since 9-11.

Anyway there you go, sounds to me like this guy was the sort of bloke you'd like to know - in a world of jobsworths.

Pablo - you're chopped.
 

I only met PM once whilst at BHX a few years back - I and anothor pilot were having a quiet chat outside the crew room and PM comes past and says "Getting our stories straight lads?...." Actually it was quite amusing and quick witted. No problem at all.

However PM I think you are for the chop on this one - it would set too much of a precedent if you won - plus you broke the rules and worst of all - got found out.

A colourful guy all the same. Life does go on. Good luck!

DB :ok: