What a fascinating example of Jante Law alive and well again on the front page of PPRuNe for the best part of a week :bored:

Altogether now, chant the RULES after me, PPRuNers (those of you who are the most up yourselves might even try singing the descant version but don't break any RULES doing it, there's good fellows):

1. Don't think that you are special.
2. Don't think that you are of the same standing as us.
3. Don't think that you are smarter than us.
4. Don't fancy yourself as being better than us.
5. Don't think that you know more than us.
6. Don't think that you are more important than us.
7. Don't think that you are good at anything.
8. Don't laugh at us.
9. Don't think that anyone cares about you.
10. Don't think that you can teach us anything.

Now then, who among you wonders if the target of so much ire has swallowed any of those ten lately, or will have even the slightest inclination to do so any time soon ? :yuk:

Pablo, all the very best of luck to you with the case :ok:

(With acknowledgement to whomever it was that posted those ten rules on Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jante_Law )

Stiggles, I am sure it is, but common sense is not another phrase for disregarding and violating the conditions that you have contracted to or are legally bound by, simply because it suits you to do so. I have no idea what the rules are in South Africa, and it may be that your jumpseat ride wasn't in violation of anything. On the other hand if that were not the case the comment "who's going to know" can be answered simply as the Captain, his First Officer, The cabin crew, anybody who saw you entering and remaining, you, and of course everybody now reading this thread.

That is the problem here you see. What nobody knows may well be irrelevant, but the fact is other people do know, and in the subject case it was unlawful and placed other people under an individuals command, as being complicit in that offence. If you believe that is common sense, then I am not sure you understand the concept as you seem to be applying it in this arena. I appreciate you benefited from a treat and have therefore signed up to this forum to lend your applause, but it isn't really relevant to the debate.

Some of the support for this action seems to come from people who can lend little credible argument other than chanting a few old mantras and cliches they have read on the internet. The complaint is often levelled that this forum should only be available to professional pilots and other aviation related occupations. Obviously that isn't the case, but it doesn't mean we should simply capitulate the debate to the level of the ill informed, adolescents or those with the intelligence quotient of a budgerigar.

There again, maybe it does ?

Dunbar, thanks for the comment. I own teenagers, so I am well practiced! ;)

In Spain, Italy or Portugal pilots take people into the cockpit all the time. But the more you go north in Europe, the more people are obsessed with the idea of a terrorist. Could it be the lower temperatures?

PBY
 

I don't know where you live, but haven't you realised that northern Europeans have a stronger desire to live by the rules?

I'd chance my life on a Dutch or Swedish pedestrian crossing any day. Italians think it's a fun game to make old ladies run.

Would a Norwegian turn in his cousin for stealing a bike? About 50/50 I'd say. Ask the same question of a Greek and he'd think you're mad.

Nothing to do with terrorists.

Does anyone actually know the text of the legislation requiring locked doors? Anyone have a link to the text?

This may be of Some help?

A lapsed PPL and frequent SLF speaking.

I don't know PM and have no axe to grind on his behalf.

I equally don't know Sully the third.

I am not sure that Sully the third followed SOPs to the letter. I don't imagine SOPs foresee river "landings", but you professionals could correct me.

He did, however, appear to get a lot of passengers down relatively safely in what must have been a little bit of a tricky situation.

If Sully the third and PM are always required only to do what is written up in the textbooks, and no more, and are not required to exercise judgement, then why not merely programme computers to do all phases of flying, passenger comfort, and all other aspects of air travel?

When I travel, I actually prefer to have at the front a pilot who can use discretion, judgement, experience, skill, and the same principle applies also to ground staff, cabin staff, and no doubt maintenance staff though I never meet the latter.

SOP = Standard Operating Procedure. The critical word being Standard.

There was nothing standard about the situation Sully found himself in.

I'm not passing judgement one way or another on Pablo Mason, but I think it's fair to say that - guests in the cockpit notwithstanding - it was an uneventful flight.

They do, it is called "ditching" but I take your overall point.

If you read this thread throughout, you will see this has been discussed ad nauseum

Judgment (even underlined) means little in itself. There is good judgment and bad judgment. The judgment in one of your examples resulted in the safe ditching of an airliner in the most difficult, unexpected and unusual of circumstances.

The argument being tendered here is whether disregarding a set of lawful instructions for no particularly good reason other than to satisfy a whim constitutes good judgment.

If procedures or rules are going to be discarded in favour of an alternative course of action, then it is implicit that there needs to be a good reason or imperative for such action. The question being discussed here relates to whether that good reason or imperative is really satisfied by a commander electing to entertain a footballer on the flightdeck of an airliner in violation of clearly mandated legal instructions to the contrary.

You are quite correct in that the pilot is there to excercise discretion, judgment, experience and skill. Hence this discussion and the various contributions, argument and opinion.

Wingsfolded, we, as professional pilots are required to exercise judgement on any number of things before and during every flight. Exercising sound judgement is one of the many attributes of being a good Captain.

Following SOP's does not conflict in any way with applying one's judgement.

Your comment is meaningless because you misunderstand the concept of SOP's. The military have strict SOP's, the airlines (good ones) have strict SOP's. The crew of the space shuttle have strict SOP's.

It's the way we accomplish the task in the safest and most expeditious fashion. Nothing to do with following rules without question.:=

Hi guys, I have been following this tread and did not feel to answer until now. I grew up under communist rule (communist standard operating procedures). When I was 19, I worked in a factory producing guns for Iraq and Iran. One day, together with few other guys, we got fed up and started demonstrations. We were lucky, because the regime was already weakened and thus they did not kill us. You could say, we won, I say, we were lucky, because the time was right. But it was right, because some people before us were brave, even though their time was not right and they were not so lucky.
Catholic church also had its own SOP’s in the middle ages. It was called “The hammer against witches”. Whoever did not follow these SOP’s was executed by a very distressful death. What changed these SOP’s, so they are not used today? Was it the popes? No. It was outside pressure of few brave civilized people, who were sensitive to human suffering.
We as captains are human being first and than SOP’s willing executioners. Lets look at Pablo’s predicament in this light. He has a guy on his flight, who is stressed out, because of his fear of flying. Lets say, that there is a measure of stress and lets call it “stress newtons = SN”. How many SN was this guy subjected to? How many SN before we divert a flight to prevent human suffering? Any number in SOP’s? Does the SOP’s clearly states, that you should ignore human suffering? Are we robots? I think, that sometimes we have to even divert due to distress in the cabin. But Pablo used his brain. He saved the company lots of money. He asked himself a question: Is this guy a terrorist? No, because if he was, he would have dragged a bomb to overcrowded stadiums already. Does he suffer? Pablo could not measure how many SN he was under, as he is not a psychiatrist and even a psychiatrist cannot estimate it without a talk with the patient. So, here we have a situation. Either we let the guy at the back suffer in the name of terrorism (different kind of communism, catholicism or alcoholism = not using a brain isms), or we use a common sense and alleviate the guys suffering. Very difficult question. Would it be worth even to overcome the fear of loosing your job? Should you be loosing a job in the first place, just because you used your own discretion? May be, there is a time to break SOP’s. May be, there is a time to change them.
I compare some pilots of this thread to a flock of birds. Everytime they hear a gunshot they get emotionally startled. But we have moral responsibility as well.
Pablo, good luck with your trial, I am behind you!
:D

Maximum

I defer of course to your superior knowledge (and, no, I am not being sarcastic)

But in my limited understanding of SOPs, they mostly have to do with technical parameters of the aircraft itself.

As a SLF, I would not mind in the least a Captain exercising his judgement to allow (apparently in this case a nervous PAX) into the cockpit.

If it helps the smooth conclusion of the flight, why not?

The Captain has a huge responsability, and must answer for errors of judgement which endagered the flight or other aircraft around the flight, but is it not a part of that same trust which must allow him or her to use discretion?

PBY, in the words of Dr. Evil (Austin Powers):

rrright.....................(apply little finger to corner of mouth).

:ugh::ugh::ugh::ugh::ugh:

....with all due respect, I think your analogy is stretching credence just a little too far.

To paraphrase, when I go by the SOP's I'm like a communist dictator or perhaps even Torquemada? I think you're having an Eric Cantona moment........

One analogy too far.:}

Eh,

How did Paul's action save the company money? Moreover, there's a world of difference between a Captain acting beyond the scope and remit of SOP's to deal with a once in a lifetime, life-threatening situation (Capt. Sullenberger, for example) and choosing to ignore a rule that is exceedingly well publicised, and by abiding by did not lead to the safety of the flight being compromised.

As an FO, guys like this can be a bloody nightmare unless you're fortunate enough to be able to second guess them, or see the world their way to start with. The pressure his grandstanding places on subordinate crew members is unfair and ill-considered.

Many on here seem to be applauding the fact that this man "stood up" to the security regime. We don't get to pick and choose what we do and what we don't as contracted airline employees except when to not go outside those rules might lead to an accident - and here I think is the nub of this particular incident - Savage, in the flight deck was not demonstrably necessary to the safe conduct of this flight. Chesley Sullenberger's actions saved an entire aircraft full of people. To compare the two is, to my mind, to thoroughly insult (or sully, if you will), the profound achievement made by Sullenberger when he was forced to operate outside the scope of the normal operation.

I suspect that it's merely because we're all a bit ticked off to say the least with the apparently mindless security procedures in place at the moment, especially it seems in the UK, that we're applauding to some extent this man cocking a snook at things but the fact remains, he knowingly broached those rules, seems to think of himself of something a bit special to say the least and might be better suited to single pilot operations from what's been said.

To quote Douglas Bader's famous and hackneyed maxim in support of this action is lazy and not germane to this particular event.

I'm awfully glad that the Captains in my airline don't choose to put us first officers under the pressure of having to deal with such a situation to satisfy the ego of a man who seems to think he is above the law and the terms of his contract.

Notwithstanding anything, this tribunal is about whether or not he was unfairly dismissed, not whether his thoughts towards the UK security situation were apt or not. On that note, and with himself as his lawyer, I suspect it might just be another attempt to ratchet up the self-fulfilling publicity machine that is Paul Mason.

Wings folded, please take this reply in the good natured way it is intended, but you have obviously no understanding of SOP's, as you yourself imply.

They cover far more than simply the technical side of things. In fact they tend to be more about how we operate together as human beings, to cut out misunderstood communication for example. What words do we use to describe certain actions for example? Is it 'gear up', retract gear' or 'undercarriage up'? Do we 'set thrust' on take off? Or do we 'set take off thrust'? Or would 'take off thrust' be better?

Who's responsible for what checks and when? When do we do them? Who calls them? Who responds to them? Do we use the checklist as we do them? Do we do them first and then use the checklist? Do we do them from memory as we do this and then check?

Who calls passing altitudes? PF or PNF? Does this change if the autopliot's engaged?

When we come onto stand, what if there's equipment over the white lines but we know we'll miss it? What if we continue onto stand but hit something we didn't see?

How and when should we brief the cabin crew in an emergency? Should we use a standard system or would any old chit chat do? How do we call them to the flight deck? PA? Chimes? What if the PA isn't working?

When's it safe for one pilot to leave the flightdeck in flight? Should we have a sterile cockpit below 10000'? If we do, should we disregard it if we think we're good enough?

etc etc etc.........

Or how about you let every Captain on every flight with every different F/O use his judgement and decide how he's going to do all these things?

I'm only scratching the surface but I hope you get the picture.

Great, but are there any other legal instructions that you also don't mind the Captain ignoring? This particular "nervous passenger" was returning from Finland. Apparently his nerves hadn't prevented him from flying out there? Do we all now use our individual discretion to allow nervous passengers on to the flightdeck?

Because it is strictly disallowed. Willfull violation may well leave the company (who pay you to comply,) with their operators certificate withdrawn. It may leave them vulnerable to the withdrawal of their insurance coverage. It would almost certainly leave them, me and possibly other members of the crew open to the likely risk of prosecution. The repercussions may extend well beyond the simple act itself.

I have no problem with anybody wanting to start a revolution, fight communism, extinguish burning witches, tend to alcoholics, depressives, nervous flyers or any other cause. However do it in your own time, not when your employer is paying you to fulfill your contractual obligation to them.

Yes, discretion to act in a professional, mature, legally compliant way at all material times. That is the trust that the employer places in him, the passengers place in him, and just as importantly his crew place in him.

Wings Folded,

Sorry, you might be satisfied with a nervous passenger being admitted to the flight deck, indeed I might, except I can never be one hundred percent sure that this person is indeed a nervous flier and not some extremely committed, talented individual using that as a reason to enter the cockpit and conduct whatever operation they see fit. Indeed, if that sort of attitude were sanctioned and became widely known, it doesn't take a great leap of logic to see drama camps for the training of extremists. Ok, a bit on the glib side, but I hope you see where my concerns lie. Again, going outside the scope of the normal operation and QRH (or whatever you will call it) for the purposes of an unforeseen and potentially catastrophic scenario and chumming it up with a B-list soccer player and then trying to justify the incident post-event are just not comparable.

PS To add, Bealzebub makes the point infinitely more eloquently than I might. Consideration of the greater legal implications alone and the effect that might have on his colleagues and company should have stopped him from doing what he did. That it didn't speaks volumes to me about the quality of his judgement.

PBY
Or how many 'Stress Newtons' would the passenger have needed before totally flipping and as a strong athletic chap, becoming a total flight saftey hazard in the cockpit.

There are some issues that need seperating here. Pablo is making a stand against idiotic security rules that unreasonably affect Flight Crew doing their day to day job, and I applaud him for that. Then there is the issue of him breaking SOP's in what can definitely be described as a Standard Situation. I am amazed as to how many people are sucked in by his charismatic nature. With all due respect to the self confessed SLF on here, your comments are wholly inappropriate. Being a nice guy is sadly not the only criteria for being good at your job, and those of you commenting have absolutely no idea of Pablo's job profficieny.

Now at risk of repeating myself just to try and make this whole situation really clear.

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 he had in the Tornado 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.

Some FOs would feel under unbearable pressure with PMs style of 'leadership'. Remember Jakob Van Zanten.

It seems funny that many people who do not know him think him a great aviator and Captain and many that do have a somewhat different opinion.

Pablo will take all these comments on this forum in his stride as that is his nature, and I feel uncomfortable about public discussion of someone, but he is now in the public domain and that is what he likes. Good luck to him but please stop saying he is a great Captain and Aviator when you have no idea.

There was not the slightest hint of justification for breaking the law and allowing this person - whoever he is/was - to occupy an ACM seat in the cockpit. This is completely defenseless and reckless behaviour. I don't care who was who, or what was what; it is breaking the laws of both the land, and of common sense, it's that simple. He's toast and rightfully so.

Maximum

I accept your "good natured" way, but I did, I think, indicate what my credentials (or lack of) were.

You are, however, a bit harsh to say that I have no understanding of SOPs, and then wheel out a lot of examples, most if not all of which I would not hesitate one instant to classify as being on the "technical" side of things. (Gear up... undercarriage up ... retract gear - these for me are technical issues

When I flew as student PPL I was a bit of a stickler for proper RT procedure for example. My instructor was kind enough to remark upon it more than once.

All of your examples have to do with safety in flight or on the ground, unambiguous commands and so forth. I agree totally with your examples within my limited knowledge.

It is not so long ago that I was often invited into the cockpit, when it was "allowed", and so were others. I am nostalgic.

I would simply be interested to know whether flight safety was compromised by this Captain's actions.

I do not carry any baggage to do with the personality of the individual, or anybody who might behave similarly

Probably because I’ve never heard of Mr. Pablo Masson before this thread, my personal view isn’t biased towards one side or the other, although I understand perfectly the main issue with this man.

From what I’ve read so far, PM has been acting like a little 4 year old, always pushing the limits, always testing the never ending patience of Mom and Dad. Until the day Mom and Dad were fed up and gave him a smack.
Now, should Mom and Dad have smacked him hard right at the first time he broke the family rules or not? People who have kids know that there isn’t a straight forward answer for that, and mostly would go as far as a verbal reminder of what is or isn’t allowed for him. But patience has limits and parents have different tolerance levels. IMHO this “kid” has pushed just a tad too far.
Bottom line is that: if you’re pushing it, be prepared to be smacked when least expected. And then you stop crying and move on, hopefully having learned not to abuse Mom and Dad patience beyond reasonable levels.

This affair has nothing to do with violated SOPs, it has all to do with the type of behavior expected from a high responsibility profession. This person is a pilot, but what if he was a nuclear plant system operator?

Another thing I’ve noticed here is that this type of eccentric person always attracts a flock of awkward people. Chooo I say!

Wingsfolded, again with all due respect, the problem is that you are commenting on professional pilots' issues with no knowledge of such.

You say the examples I gave were technical - well that's your definition - but in fact they aren't classed as such in the profession. If I was conducting a line check on a crew most if not all I mentioned would be marked as notech items, ie, non-technical.

I mentioned what words we use to ask for the gear to be retracted. You reckon this is a technical item. Think again. How the gear operates is the technical bit - eg, what pressure is needed in the hydraulic lines to operate the gear? That's the technical bit. How we ask for it is the human factors bit where SOP's come in.

You ask was flight safety compromised by the Captain's actions? The simple answer is yes, in the context that all our actions when commanding an aircraft our determined by the consensus of opinion on what is deemed as safe. This is how the rules, regs and SOPs governing the flight evolve.

If I make up my own rules, would I be endangering the flight? Well, of course. I might get away with it, but that doesn't mean it's safe. The whole point of professional airline ops is to limit the risk. To do this we stick by the consensus of opinion that has produced the rules at any given time. In extremis, we can of course break the rules if that enhances safety.

As an aside, any time a non-pilot is on the jumpseat probably reduces the safety of the flight a little anyway, as at best he/she can be a distraction and at worst if something goes wrong, we have no knowledge of how they'll react.

Take a rapid decompression as an example. Instead of two professionals getting their masks on, establishing comms and getting on with dealing with the emergency, there is now someone who may be unable to get their own mask on, who may need help, who may be flailing around in a panic etc. A big distraction to the task at hand.

The bottom line is, us pilots are employees like anyone else. We know what the rules are. If you disregard them in such a cavalier way, you know you're heading for the chop. It's that simple.

No, the immediate end result would suggest probably not.

However when it comes to "compromise" it isn't quite that clear cut.

If you fly through turbulence without switching the seat belt sign on and nobody is injured, you may have compromised flight safety, but the end result was fine. If you fly with a blood alcohol level slightly above the legal limit, you may have compromised flight safety but would it make any difference to the end result? If you fly the aircraft overweight you may have compromised flight safety, but as long as both engines keep turning does it matter? Life is a series of compromises, however safety and security is about ensuring that limits, rules and regulations are ordinarilly adhered to such that compromises do not suddenly bite you. The rules do not permit unauthorized persons into the flightdeck. These rules (like them or not) are a result of previous serious security breaches. They are mandated instructions and the captain has no discretion other than in an emergency to disregard those instructions.

If a Captain elects to disregard the limits or the regulations in order to satisfy his own wishes in clear violation of the legalities and mandated instructions, he compromises his own job security, he compromises the crewmembers under his command, he compromises the safety and security of his passengers. He compromises the commercial security of his company. He compromises his collegues.

If you are going to make this many potential compromises, you really need to have a very good reason or imperative for doing so. Pandering to the wishes, whims or phobias of a professional football player doesn't even come close to qualifying.

I am just repeating myself.

Maximum

I really did not intend to fall out with you and still do not.

What I have learned is that the views of somebody (SLF) are not welcome on the forum.

You insist on the aspect that these are professional pilots' issues.

I suppose they are.

However, you, as professional pilots, do not appear to agree amongst yourselves.

I naively thought that an outsider contribution might assist.

I now know I am wrong.

Sort it out amongst yourselves.

Whoever said "The pressure his grandstanding places on subordinate crew members is unfair and ill-considered" hit the nail on the head.

The world sometimes needs big-ego guys like Charles de Gaulle, when the danger is extreme and one man is in charge.

In a team, we don't want big-ego guys to create the danger through lack of man-management skills.

Wingsfolded, cor blimey don't take it to heart.

The point about this being a professional issue is simply the insider knowledge we have on all the aspects of this.

Feel free to keep posting, but simply keep an open mind about us commenting too, with our knowledge of what actually goes on in the cockpit of a commercial airliner.

Should we censor ourselves because you don't like to hear the facts?

Keep posting, no problem.;)

Maximum

I love hearing facts (wish it happened more often)

I will probably post again

I am not about to slash my wrists

Seems a much better avenue of discussion than the for and against being 'a character' etc.

I encountred PAUL Mason in the RAF before he started calling himself 'Pablo'....

All the comments by military and ex-military pilots on this thread pretty well sum up the person I knew.

In the civil world, flying is hopefully 'boring' - nothing alarming for the crew and passengers is most welcome. 'Colourful' characters should not inflict their 'personalities' on fare-paying passengers.

Flying a chav-stuffed people-tube has been described as like being 'locked in a cupboard with a stranger for 2 hours 4 times per day'. Not something for people with excessive egos!

More Thoughts
 

It's occured to me this may be getting out of hand & let's not give further fuel to the effects of 9-11, I re-checked our SOPS which refer to EU OPs1.1255 which is pretty clear, I think the real truth is that 9-11 has taken away a lot of our freedoms possibly forever ?, however, it's still a great pity there isn't some room to manoevere to cater for pre-cleared 'authorised' persons.

For ref; check the full details on the EU OP's site;

EU OPS Subpart S Security
OPS 1.1235 Security requirements
OPS 1.1240 Training programmes
OPS 1.1245 Reporting acts of unlawful interference
OPS 1.1250 Aeroplane search procedure checklist
OPS 1.1255 Flight crew compartment security

stay safe (& legal ) everyone, good luck Pablo, I still think you've been treated with a heavy hand, a 'hats on' dressing down would have sufficed by the CP surely ?

Why has he been treated with a heavy hand? The guy has broken the rules on previous occasions - this is just the culmination. I'm sorry, but no one is above the law, not even a bloody airline pilot. If the guy deliberately ignored the rules and if the guy really did strip down, then he deserves to lose his job. You simply cannot call yourself a "professional" and defend this guy's conduct!

A fascinating range of views. What most, but not all, contributors are missing here is that the sacking of Pablo Mason had little or nothing to do with letting Robbie Savage into the cockpit in contravention of the rules. You can argue all day about whether or not the breach of SOPs was a sackable offence - the airline really did not care. All they cared about was getting rid of Pablo - an opportunity presented itself, they took it and the rest, as they say, is history. Love him or hate him, Pablo has been an unusually controversial figure throughout his whole career - in my time at Laarbruch he was a legend!

I am not going to publicly abuse Pablo here or go into unwholesome specifics, but it would not be betraying state secrets to say his airline were seriously displeased with Pablo and wanted him gone yesterday. He gave them an opportunity to get rid of him and they grabbed it with outstretched hands. There is a separate debate as to whether that view was justifed or not, but that is what happened nonetheless.

Without commenting on this particular case is it not a somewhat deplorable state of affairs in todays society when the above no longer has any validity.

Fletch, spot on analysis. I very much doubt he would have got his cards if the Savage stunt was the first offence.

The first thing most of us at MYT were thinking was who's going to provide the top cover now Pablo's gone!

Huge stupidity;
 

Come on; this is so stupid, if a Captain managing a multi-milion dollars aircraft can not decide what to do on a charter flight; what are we doing behind the controls? The problem today are the ones behind the tables; and those ones know nothing about aviation...

when mangled mis-quotations can be presented as brazenly as this, and allowed to bolster an unsustainable case?

In Britain's Noughties our society has become one of everyone passes Go, everyone collects £200, no one has to throw a die to get it, everyone gets off scot-free, and no one is ever at fault or responsible for their actions. "Rules are for the obedience of fools.." Bejasus! That is the deplorable state of our society today.

And this, of all places, a Professional pilot's forum, seems (collectively) perfectly happy in itself to be defending someone who has repeatedly demonstrated that they cannot or will not conform to the requirements of a Professional discipline and responsible behaviour at work, or obey the simplest of rules if it does not suit his momentary whim...Had he been a milkman and flouted rules like that he'd have deserved the boot, but as a pilot???????

Frankly, I'm horrified at the attitude, "he's done no wrong," this is the way of the chav druggie-burglar car-thief that we see every night on our TVs, blindly refusing to accept guilt even when caught red-handed.

This is not, or rather should not be the way of a trustworthy Airline pilot, or, for that matter, any member of civilised society.

Shame!

Brian A, the correct quotation is "...the guidance of wise men and the blind obedience of fools." which conveys an utterly differrent message, does it not?

It's all very simple, folks.
Airlines have rules and regulations, the respective regulatory authority have the same, and it is expected that FD crew follow these rules and regulations to the best of their ability.
Airline flying is a highly regulated endevour for a variety of very good reasons, and folks who constantly flount those rules and regulations are shown the door....and told to not let it smack 'em on the behind on the way out.
End of story....case closed.

Am finding it hard to understand why there's so much written about this. Whether one is a pilot or dustman (should I call it a Sanitation Technician these days?), there are rules, sop's, sob's whatever but they're there for you to see when you join & one of the conditions of being offered employment is that you obey the aforementioned. If you don't, you get the proverbial tin tack eventually. We all know that. I can understand why people may not agree with or like them but that is a completely different topic for debate.
As for the Pablo groupies (& this may be a sweeping generalisation), their opinions seem to be based on knowing somebody who knew him or they've read his book or some other semi-spurious reason. Apologies here to those that fall in with the groupie genre & are best buddies with the man. I however find it interesting to read the opinions of those who worked with him in mil his days & (very restrainedly) do not ascribe to the "war hero" or "great pilot" schools of thought.

Just to comment on a few points raised so far:
The Fedex case is a bad example, as most company sop's allow staff jumpseat use when on company business.
Regarding quotes and mis-qoutations (or misqoutations if we are being pedantic!), it depends which quote you mean:
Pablo,
Douglas Bader,
Oscar Wilde,
Solon (founding father of democracy),
In ascending chronological order.
Can NOBODY among the rule-bound imagine a world where there are just too many rules? And what do we do then? Are we heading that way?
Most of us are lucky enough to work for companies where those who write the rules are intelligent, experienced and practical, but the numerous commitees and agencies who would have us paralysed due to over-regulation are held back by those who value common sense, and a desire to get the job done.
Whether we learn directly from the "maveric" element, or from their mistakes, it is better to live in their world, than without them in ours.
(To misquote Gladys).