cyflyer,

I quite agree, it would be an honour and I would be very happy to have him (as said above, this one not the last) visit the flight deck or use the jump seat IF it had been pre-authorised by the relevant manager. If it had not the answer, unfortunately and ridiculously, would have to be no.

Again, ridiculous, but yes they are.

The law?
 

Where does the UK law say it is illegal to carry passengers on a jump seat in the cockpit of a UK registered aircraft? All that we have seen on this thread is a letter from the Civil Service directing that it shall not be done.
However it is possible that as a result of the letter the CAA directed Public Transport Operators with AOCs to include an appropriate instruction in the company's Operations Manual.
Breach of the requirements of the OM is not, in itself, a breach of the law. but the operator may discipline, ie sack, the pilot.

There is one more rule even more insane than no access to the cockpit. It is the padding down of cockpit crew, to relieve them of weapons that could be used should they wish to take over control of the aircraft.

Well I damned well hope the cockpit crew will have control of the aircraft. When they get to the flight deck, they have an axe, first aid kit, O2 and any number of potential weapons they are able to get their hands on.

Sanity will never prevail and the terrorists must be p:mad:g in their pants with laughter over the whole shambles.

Well, you can argue about the value of rules, laws and legal binding direction until the cows come home. It doesn't change the point in fact. In the USA and the UK and various other countries, the rules have been made clear as they apply to aircraft commanders through the companies operating certificate. Specifically through the operations manual, which makes it clear who may and who may not enter the flight deck "in flight" and at other specific times.

There is no exemption for footballers, Bank executives, or ministers of the crown, unless they also happen to be a qualified and authorized member of the crew.

The captain and everyone under his/her command is charged with ensuring that the rules and the regulations that they operate within, are complied with to the best of their ability. There are inevitably times when compliance is not desirable or possible for reasons of overriding necessity, however entertaining the "rich and famous," or indeed anybody else, isn't one of them.

Whatever my opinion of some of these rules, I am paid and expected to ensure full compliance. If I need to deviate from that compliance, then the company and the regulator have a right to an explanation for that action. Common sense would dictate that situations do arise to reasonably justify such deviance. However you would need to come up with something good to defend this type of deviance outside of an emergency.

There are lots of rules we all love and hate. I cannot understand why I am restricted to 70 MPH on a deserted motorway at 3am in the morning. If I chose to deviate from that regulation because I feel it is absurd, that is my choice. I doubt my opinion would provide much defence to a subsequent prosecution. However if I am being paid by an employer to drive his car, I not only run the risk of prosecution, but also of breaching the likely terms and conditions of my employment.

All talk of "the captain is king" and "nazi war trials" and "maverick personality types" is all very interesting, but the rules are not optional. The truth is, most people know that.

Really ? So if Richard Brason was on that flight and you were captain, you would refuse him entry ? Yeah, I'd like to see that !

It seems security standards in Cyprus are pretty low. :rolleyes:

Errr, yes that has happened....

And what makes you so sure to come out with absolute crap like that ?
Hardly a week goes by without an Australian airliner scaring people out of their minds, so when comparing standards, look closer to home.

The Law?
 

See my Post 45
I will say it again .
Breach of the requirements in an Operations Manual is not breach of UK Law.

Did you read this?

Also happened at my company shortly after the Lufthansa take over, new CEO asked to visit the flight deck and was told it was not possible. After the flight he apparently complimented the Captain on playing it by the book.

Bealzebub Post 54
Yes I have read what you have said.
To break the law you have to be in breach of a specific Section of an Act of Parliament , such as The Civil Aviation Act; or you have to be in breach of an Order made under the Act ,such as an Article of the Air Navigation Order. Rules and Regulations may also be breached such as The Rules of the Air , The Dangerous Goods Regulations or The Air Navigation( General ) Regulations. There are several other sets of applicable Regulations.
One person on this thread mentioned driving at over 70 MPH on a motorway , that is a breach of The Road Traffic Act.
So Bealzebub how did the 2002 Direction legally instruct the UK aviation industry regarding access to the Flight Deck. Under which section of what Act was the Direction made.
It is not a breach of the Law to disregard a letter from a Civil Servant.
I know of no direct legislation saying that non operating persons may not be allowed on to the Flight Deck of a public Transport Aircraft.
It is possible, even likely, that the Department / UKCAA have required AOC holders to insert a requirement in to their Operations Manuals that no passengers are to be allowed on to the Flight Deck during flight. Failure to observe a requirement in an OM is not always a breach of the law but it can lead to a 'Proposal To Suspend the AOC'. It can also lead to the sacking of the operating crew.
A Government Direction will quote the Legislation under which it is made. You can prove me wrong by quoting the Legislation.

I am afraid you will have to do your own homework on this one, unless somebody else can offer the statute under which HMG can enact legal instructions to an airline or any other body. I have provided the information letter that I have (stored), which should provide the clues to anybody in the know.

The letter states that HMG directed (legally instructed) UK airlines in November 2003. It wasn't the civil servant who wrote the letter, or me. All UK airlines are aware of the directive, and as far as I know have incorporated the legal instruction into their respective operations manuals. As such all relevent crew members should also be aware of the directive.

If you want to test the defence that such an instruction is non-existent, unlawful, or ineffective in it's construction, let us know how you get on. I would be interested in knowing the result.

I wonder if this was taken to the European Court (after all the last time I checked UK was a member) whether the UK government have the right to issue such an edict which might infringe the Human Rights of aircraft commanders in going about their duties?

It strikes me that a number of people don't know the difference between rules and laws!

Anyone remember that polish/russian flight that crashed. VIP in cockpit then and it has raised many questions and accusations. A while back there was that russian flight where the pilots kid turned off the A/P when no one was driving. Clearly in some situations it increases risk. Easier to make a simple rule that denies access to all than write down all the exceptions.

Gee, I wonder how I managed to have visitors to the flight deck for the first 25 years of my career without any mishaps - in fact, on many occasions they helped keep me awake on night flights - maybe a benefit rather than a hazard?

in the polish incident, flight deck acccess was irrelevant. the pm insisted that the aircraft land. he could do that from his seat. and the captain could refuse the pm's order to land even if the pm was in the flight deck.

i think we have learned a lot about how good training is and how good it is not. many accidents have occured due to poorly trained crews but that does not mean that in certain circumstances visitors cannot be permitted to the flight deck. blind adherance to rules has not proved to be an effective preventer of accidents.

i am all for situational awareness and common sense in the wider sense of the meanings and for smart skips to decide. those folks who adhere t the rules for the sake of the rules will be undone more often than those who know when the rules do not apply in a certain situation.

i would rather know that the person in the front left hand seat is situationally aware and blessed with common sense than with an intimate knowledge of the rules minutae.

i still think flying is more an art than a science althogh of course a high degree of scientific awareness is essential!

I guess the story shows how careful you gotta be. Always a risk of small minded troublemakers around.

You risk getting fired for not complying with the company's Ops Manual,
but is it an offense?
If it is, what's the offense? :confused:


pressuremanAh, the old slippery slope. :rolleyes:
That's a favorite of the guy in command of the parking lot. 'If I let you park there ...............' :8

It's not just an Ops Manual requirement:

If this flight was chartered by a government department, it could well be covered by "Crown Exemption" (in the service of Her Majesty). In this case, there would be no liability to any penalties set out in the ANO 2009 for any infringements of this statute.

Why is any worried whether he did or did not? Are there not better things to campaign about? Anyway the Prime Minister and travelling party are all exempt from security so no breaking of the rules occured anyway. If he gets fired he can have a job with me anytime. Those of you who are making a song and dance about it need not apply.

You're may be right, but given recent events I wouldn't take the word of any of them when it came to flight deck access........

As the CEO of Virgin was on the flight, and no doubt complicit in Mr Diamond going onto the flight deck, it would be difficult to discipline the Captain, without the CEO disciplining himself!

Judgement has nothing to do with it, there are regulations in place which, however stupid, MUST be complied with unless there is an overriding safety reason not to do so.

Your last comment is childish and incorrect

So who was the legal commander of the aircraft?

The fact that this discussion is going on is worrying. Yes the regulations are crap, but they exist. It is not a matter of judgement or common sense, if you allow ANYONE on your flight deck who is not legally entitled to be there then you are in violation of national regulations.

It does not matter if the person is some tosser of a banker who happens to be best buddies with the pope, or your own wife and kids, THE RULES ARE CLEAR!

Is it really that rare?
 

I was on a BA flight LHR-NCE in May (Flight and date withheld to protect the capt.) and the schoolkids in the row behind me 21D,E,F were invited to the flight deck. I did not care to check if they actually went in, but I doubt they were asked to stand and look at a locked door!

Rules where broken, it doesn't matter who was onboard the CEO, PM whoever. Virgin Atlantic is a UK airline that must comply with DFT rules. The Captain in the LHS should be held to account for breaking the rules unless of course he can provide written evidence of an exemption for the flight.

Why should they get away with it and the likes of Pablo Mason be punished because he wasn't surrounded by the top brass??

because he wasn't surrounded by the top brass...

How naive are you? Big difference between the PM and a obnoxious blonde locked arse of a footballer.

I dread the days of 606 returning with him chirruping away.

You do not get it
The Prime Minister and travelling party are exempt from DFT rules. So no infringemnet of the rules took place. Stop saying rules were broken. It is a bit like saying the police should be prosecuted for driving at 75 mph when on the way to a crime scene.
Those of you who are trying to make a point are scurulous barrack room lawyers and should stop trying to score brownie points against management

rebellion
Do you have a copy of the DFT rules in front of you? Good. Look at the bit that exempts the PM from the rules, please put us out of this agony!

Oh, these threads always remind me of why it's so good to NOT work for a UK airline anymore. :)

The Brits continue to set new standards in the "Befehl ist Befehl" mentality! Even the Germans in my experience are 10 times more flexible and realistic.

Disengage the brain, blindly follow orders and spend your entire paycheck on overpriced real estate and groceries: the perfect recipe for the UK totalitarian consumer society! :ugh:

Kudos to the VAA captain who still has his common sense, and I sincerely hope he will not be punished because of the backstabbing atmosphere created by some 'holier than thou' brainless button pushers here in this thread and in the main stream (talking about brainless...!) media! :yuk:

Well said Bokkenrijder
All the people who want trouble for the Virgin Captain have forgotten the vary apt addage that "rules are for the guidance of the wise but for the blind obedience of fools".
All these mille nurkers are making Britain a bad and sad place

Drivel....

You guys need to get with the program, nowt to do with DfT,
security all passed to the good ole CAA as of last month...

Bokken & hawker 750 you guys are seriously deluded...

As for the comments being proud to have the freeloader
rich kid PM in the cockpit... pass the sick bucket :yuk:

That well worn cliché used as a refuge when in the wrong.

"A spokesman for the Department for Transport (DfT) said: ‘Passengers are not permitted in the cockpit while the engines are running. The rules apply to all UK-registered planes and to any plane operating in UK airspace.
‘Clearly we will investigate if we receive details of the alleged incident.’


"But the DfT said the no-passenger rule applied to flight decks of all commercial planes, regardless of whether they were scheduled flights or private charters."

So let's await for their findings.

That makes it exciting!
 

Ok, so you can still invite friends up to the flight deck, you just have to turn the engines off first.:ok:

What gets me is that no one has explained to me why anyone would be so upset about this. I guess it is the spoilt 13 year old kid syndrome of "if I cannot have it why should anyone else". Just get on with life without exposing your inadaquacies.

Ok, for those commenting on exemptions, the PM is exempt from Screening requirements, not in flight security regulations.

Those who advocate the rules and regs can be broken because the capt decides its ok, where does it end? In this case the rules are in place on security grounds and before everyone jumps up and down, how many of you know exactly what information drove them in the first place and continues to drive them on review? MI6 officers only need respond ............
Will you apply the regs bending on say, landing minima? or the aircraft is a bit overweight but it should be ok?

I personally do not like the regs that require me to stay strapped in when it gets a little bumpy just because the capt has put his little lights on. Maybe you tell me its for safety because I might fall on someone and pilots know about flying conditions. Well, the flight deck regulation was also written with safety in mind and whether you agree with it or not it was drafted by, and with, information from people who have an understanding of security.

Persecution of crew is wrong and the sensible approach is the just culture approach. If the Capt felt pressured then the best thing is for the company to discuss it with him and assure its support of correct action in the future. Education is the way forward.

Now I have a question, one of you has posted that they were not happy they could not take there wife on the flightdeck and then later speaks about going to the Court of human rights as this regulation prevents him from doing his job. My question, how does your wife not getting a free ride up front prevent you from doing your job?:hmm:

Poltergeist, I think you are adding 2 and 2 together and making 5.

Obviously not being able to take a close family member on the flight deck during flight does not prevent one from doing one's job.

What I was aiming to highlight was just how far does an edict from a Central Government override the authority of an aircraft Commander during flight? In short, legally does HMG have the right to dictate to the aircraft Commander who is and who isn't allowed on the flight deck? Am not a legal expert but it would be interesting to take this to a higher Court.

Also there is the incongruency that someone who has been with an airline as an employee for a very short period of time may, subject to company regulations, be allowed on the flight deck, nothwithstanding a minimal security clearance, and yet someone who is well known to the Commander is not.