Bob, I was having some fun on the last comment :)

Now to your points - this is my view and not necessarily that of HMG

HMG does have the right to take whatever measures it deems necessary to protect the airspace and the citizens underneath it. This is enforced in EU reg 300 and ICAO annex 13 that accept that more stringent measures may be imposed. The regulation allows for those with an operational need to be on the flight deck so if they are needed to assist in the operation of the craft they are covered.

The responsibility for deciding who is suitably 'vetted' to have access is given to the operator via the accountable manager security and so not the Capt. This is because it is a requirement that undergo DFT approved training at a different level from crew that looks at these issues in a different way. Also they are the one who would potentially fce charges in relation to breaches that could include corporate manslaughter. Do not forget that the locked flight deck door policy was a result of the BA incident to Nairobi when a mentally ill passenger tried to crash the aircraft . As I recall this was pre 9/11.

I can not answer whether a court would overturn this and on what grounds. The reality is that in operational terms it is an inconvenience that would not justify an airline spending out on the legal costs and Your argument would need to demonstrate either a safety case against, an operational case against and an operational reason for its removal. Personally I do not believe you could achieve that. This is why I do not believe BALPA will win the argument on no screening for crew and carriers accept the delays in sorting out the liquids fiasco.

Hello, SLF here.

Just a question, out of curiosity, to all the Captains out here. So in your opinion - what are the justified circumstances whereby a Captain would allow a passenger to enter the flight deck?

Somehow - at least in my opinion - allowing this because the person is a friend/family/nice/famous/good looking/just plain curious - is not a justifiable reason. I mean - there are tens of thousands of professions out there where this would be absolutely unthinkable on grounds of professionalism and work ethics. Can you imagine, say a cashier at the bank inviting a friend to sit with her inside her glass cubicle for a bit of chit chat? Or a doctor having her husband sit by while she's examining patients? A teacher inviting someone over to the classroom without clearing it with the headmistress? Have you ever seen a tube or train driver invite a passenger into the cabin? Would you like to have staff's kids having a crèche at the control room of the nuclear power plant just down the road from your house?

Poltergeist, you have given a very "legalistic" response for which I am grateful but I am not surprised by the response.

I come from an age where, for decades, visitors were allowed to the flight deck, at times deemed suitable by the Commander, and there was never a problem.

I accept that things have changed but I personally find the idea of government protecting it's citizens from terrorism quite laughable. Remember the Detroit bomber? Despite a whole raft of security procedures this one got through and guess who protected themselves? The people who were there at the time!

As a Commander I would always respect the rules but have to say that on this issue I don't agree with them. If I really thought that the rules protected passengers etc then I would agree with them. The piloting profession have only themselves to blame for allowing "nanny" government to impose such stupid rules on us.

Golf-Sierra, totally different situations methinks. When a doctor treats a patient there are issues such as confidentiality. Ok maybe a teacher would be different but surely a head teacher is on a par with an airline Captain? Trains? Well funny you should mention it but someone I taught to fly was an inter city driver and I travelled in the cab with him to Newcastle and back and this was all cleared and sanctioned by the suitable authorities! The creche at the nuclear control room?! We're not talking about unsupervised minors being allowed on the flight deck are we? Are you seriously comparing a bank cashier's role to that of an airline aircraft Commander - once again surely it would be better to compare the Bank Manager, wouldn't it? Or has respect for the piloting profession fallen that low now?

Obviously from this thread there are opposing views but if HMG cannot trust aircraft Commanders to make a sensible decision then, my belief is that the lunatics are now running the asylums.

I think you'll find its not who is on the flight deck but about the number of times the locked flight deck door is opened. It doesn't matter if its your wife child or mistess, on a several hour leg they are going to be in and out of the flight deck. Restricting the number on the flight deck is in keeping with the locked door policy.
I don't agree with it as much as anyone else but a secure FD door opening and closing unnecessarily is seen as a security risk.

Airliners dot net is great on many levels. One I section I particularly like is the cockpit shots.

They show the view over the crews' shoulders of the approach lights or sometimes beautiful sunsets/rises. Lovely pictures.

Some are taken by supernumerary crew but on there are some well known contributors who are 'civilians'

So the closed FD door policy appears not to appear to apply to dozens of flights.

auntyice, so the current procedures for allowing cabin crew access to the flight deck and/or crew members having to go to the washroom are inadequate, is that what you are saying?

Also, why is it only the UK and USA governments that apply these rules - does something magic happen to non UK aircraft when they leave UK international airspace?

When's the last time anyone had an ATCO on the flightdeck for an observation trip?

Bearing in mind that it is a sackable offence, I would be surprised if anybody owns up to it.

Presumably taken on non UK registered a/c outside UK airspace?

fireflybob, the point I was trying to make is that a big fuss is being made over something, which in the vast majority of other professions is an unquestionable everyday fact of life. Many professions which are on par in terms of prestige, skill required and responsibility to that of airline pilot.

I'm still waiting for someone to outline what criteria are the basis of these sensible decisions. Assuming we live in a world where this is solely up to the commander, was the decision to allow Mr Diamond to enter the flightdeck during landing a sensible one? How would you rate that from the safety perspective? What about how customers perceive the professionalism of the crew - good decision, bad decision?

Golf-Sierra, I am not commenting on the actions of this particular Captain.

I agree totally that the current rules should be complied with.

But what I am saying is that it is a stupid rule that doesn't allow the Commander any discretion in the matter. When people can see the reason for a rule they are much more likely to obey it.

Choose or be Chosen?
 

If you invite (even the average) person up to the flight deck then I guess the odds of this being Terr O' Wrist are somewhat slim. If they invite themselves and you agree then the odds are significantly higher.

Stand at the side of the road long enough hitching a lift and you WILL allow a sicko to choose you, if you approach someone and ask them, your chances are around average, depending on your judgement.

We are prepared to trust the captain's judgement on so many things, why not on this?
(But follow Groucho Marx and say no to anyone who actually asks!)

Despite the best efforts of many (for which I am grateful), none hase ever been able to point to the piece of legislation which absolutely prohibits 'passengers' ie. non-operational crew from being in the flight deck of a non-UK registered aircraft inside UK airspace. I've seen that that door must be locked any time an engine is running and seen that none other than operating crew may be present on the flight of UK registered aircraft but no more that. Not even the great Google, Lycos, Ask etc. are any help. Ideas anyone?

But the Commander is ultimately responsible, otherwise the door would be locked shut from the outside before takeoff and reopened only after landing. And I am sure if there were a truly justified reason for letting pax in there would be no issue. Examples which spring to mind are a medical emergency whereby a doctor/nurse enters the cockpit to relay details of the emergency to ground via radio. Any others?


When I ws a kid (not thaaaat long ago) I would spend plenty of time at the office my Dad worked for, and on weekends I would drive the forklift trucks round the warehouse. Can't imagine that happening with today's h&s. Then again - back then flying anywhere was a luxury I could just dream about, nowadays I fly more often then I drive. Guess it is progress.

You liked those movies from the 80s didn't you ?

This story isn't about you,
even though as much as you would have liked it , our dear "SLF".

Piltdown Man,
It comes as a direction from the secretary of state and as such forms part of the National Aviation Security Program - I am not a lawyer but in the past I was pointed to
Aviation security act 1982 PartII Para 14. This empowers the secretary of state to issue directions on operators, airports etc and creates an offence by not complying with those directions. First reading points to mainly measures employing searches but as you go down through part two you will see that it does not confine the power to that.

As said, I am no lawyer but the offence, as I read it, is failing to comply with the direction.

Thanks Poltergeist - I shall have a look. But it appears that said instruction appears not to have made it to my mob.

No worries, there was a special communication that was published to the accountable managers at the time, this was replicated in the UK Nasp and continued in the single consolidated direction when EUreg 300 came in.

"No worries, there was a special communication that was published to the accountable managers at the time, this was replicated in the UK Nasp and continued in the single consolidated direction when EUreg 300 came in".

What an absolutely wonderful piece of Yukspeak!!!!

Does anyone else out there (apart from the self-generating safety industry) actually know what any of that means?

As a stupid pilot (who still owns a valid pilots licence 54 years after going solo) I am reminded of one of my fellow professional pilots who made the famous comment that if "Health and Safety" were put in charge of Trafalgar Square, then we could accommodate three pigeons in total safety.

You mention "accountable managers". It has always been my experience that they ran for the trenches when something went wrong and none of them ever ended up as being "accountable".

Can anyone tell me the last time that a manager was actually held to be accountable?

Rant over (at least for now).

JW - if you bothered to read the thread I was responding to a question that asked for the documentation that made this legal.

I am not part of the 'self generating safety industry' and I am not a 'I know everything because I am a pilot of 54 years' person either. I had to look into this several years ago in some detail that is all

JW411, I know where you're coming from but we must be careful not to shoot the messenger.

Like you I am continually dumbfounded by the amount of bureaucratic nonsense which is couched in these fluffy terms which nobody really understands.

All quite deliberately done by "nanny" governments who "know best".

Roll on the revolution!

Irishpilot,

I am slightly ashamed to say I habitually break the speed limit by considerably more than 1mph. Fast car, petrolhead, motorway commute, not enough hours in the day blah blah. Still have a clean licence though. I am also like most of us guilty of the odd minor SOP deviation and rule "flexing" at work. However allowing an unauthorised visitor to the cockpit whilst in flight would be regarded by my employer as gross misconduct which means job threatening, its in a different league.

Can't think of a single one, Fed Ex 705 in 94' was nearly bought down by someone who was legitimately on the flightdeck, look it up, nasty incident. The rules are over strict and not flexible enough and its a great shame we have lost the flexibility to offer the jumpseat to those in need of a lift home or who are genuinely interested in what goes on up front.

All a great pity but that's (post 9/11) life unfortunately.

I wonder what the 75 souls who perished on Aeroflot 593 would have to say about access to the flight deck.

FR1AThey would probably have had a great deal to say about allowing a 15 year-old boy to sit at the controls.
(Particularly one who had either not been sufficiently briefed not to touch anything or was incapable of comprehending the importance of complying with such a simple instruction.)

They would probably have thought how extremely unlucky they were to be on that particular flight (in 1994) - given that thousands of passengers had been allowed into flight decks on other flights and with other airlines over several decades without any problems, and that thousands of others were after their deaths, also without incident.

Some of them, almost certainly, would want a total ban on access. Emotion understandably makes rational thinking much more difficult, sometimes impossible.


H.

Inmates Running the Asylum.
 

For an explanation as to how we got to Sept 11th and subsequent events, please read "The New Pearl Harbour" by David Ray Griffin.

Then wonder why a 146/RJ or 737 flight deck is even more difficult to access when the jumpseat is rigged and occupied, yet the wise ones at DaFT discourage the use of this very useful barrier to the unwelcome attentions of our boxcutter fanatics.

As the creeping disease of EASA infects our industry, I am amazed we ever get off the ground with the plethora of rules & regs thought up by those who don't know the back end of an aeroplane from an APU.

We're stuck with this crazy legislation as long as those who occupy "Handbrake House" have some sort of right to legislate and direct our efforts to move bums/parcels from A to B. The latest madness from our own much-loved UK CAA, telling us all they don't & won't know if our licences are/will be valid when another bunch of distant bureaucrats takes over the asylum whilst charging us handsomely for the privilege, is just one more example of a once great industry going to rack and ruin.:ugh:

I speak as a piece of highly-travelled SLF, with several acquaintances who are pilots with UA, AA, BA and LX.

I have heard many horror stories about crew from my friends, and have personally experienced dodgy spiral and high-gradient landings by certain small European airlines (pre 2001), as well as a number of very poor takeoffs and landings, emergency landings caused by engine failure and crew incompetence (e.g. setting the galley on fire), as well as two near-misses.

As SLF, I understand the safety percentages, and I don't consider flying as pax to be fun, in any shape or form. It is a pain in the ass, even when you turn left upon entry.

Footballers, bankers, and crew members' families are not acceptable on the flight deck. I only want safe, competent, balanced, *designated*, professional individuals in control areas when I am aboard.
And, following recent headlines about drunkenness and incompetence, clearly even some of them are incapable of good judgement.

I look for tight regulations to minimise all risks, and swift, serious punishment for those uniformed smartasses who think they know better.

Virgins' immature,under-qualified and self-protecting 'GMF' has issued an insulting email to the pilots which states that the company 'misinterprited' the rules relating to the use of jumpseats.
Yes,we all loath the legislation, but the fact is that Virgin would not only have fired ANY line pilot for this(Pablo).but would have taken great delight in doing so. A whitewash. A coverup. Disgusting.

I can't help wondering if Mr Diamond was in fact less of a security risk than some of the people who are allowed into the FD during a flight.

Not questioning the rules you understand, just pointing out that Rules won't prevent terrorists getting access to the FD.

If the Prime Minister himself asked the answer would be no.

This would show up just how stupid 'our' DFT rules are.

Of course,

that might be what the captain had in mind all a long

;););)

I'm led to believe that the 'management' pilot who operated this flight with bob Diamond is the same person who took the England football team to South Africa.
Rumour has it that all interested pilots put their name into a hat to fly the team to SA. At check in the 'management' guy turned up, stood down the Captain who won the trip and flew it himself. Will the CAA do anything? Probably not.
It's no wonder the VS guys are a bit pi$$ed off with management!

So when is the DFT report due out on this incident?

I thank my luck that I now work in a country and for an airline that lets the Captian decide who can enter he flight deck, captains are expected to use good judgment but we don't have any stupid rules that have been written by civil servants who are just licking up to government ministers who are being driven by what the media might write or say.

It is such a refreshing change after being under the heel of the UK security fascists.

On one of the several occasions that I carried Mr Diamond he was lucky he didn't visit the Captain in the flight deck while wearing handcuffs!

A more rude,obnoxious Premier passenger it would be hard to find. The purser working in the First class was near to tears after being called a **** on several occasions.


I had words with him but he just ignored me and waved me away.


A couple of days later,I read in the press that he had just lost his multi million pound bonus so I guess he was a bit p*****d off!


Funnily enough some time later I carried him again and was working with the same Purser fortunately he behaved and Purser in different cabin!

Of all the things that helped convince me I wanted to fly was a jumpseat on a Stone Cutters approach to HKG (Caledonian 707).
I did what I was told and sat on my hands and marvelled.
From that day forward I never looked back.
These rules which seem peculiar to the UK and US are surely taking away some of the little boy magic.
Small wonder then if we end up with a shortage of pilots.

these rules are in general for the UK/US. In a land just across the water from the the UK Captains still authorise any one they want on the the flight deck, last month, today & tomorrow. Check to see if FO is happy & away you go! Not that long ago smoking was allowed on aircraft & it was considered normal, now light up on board & your off to jail. Flight deck visits were common in the UK, but the fluo jacket brigade have ruined it, like so much else!

Not quite, as they certainly apply in Hong Kong and other places East of Suez, although I am not sure whether that is by law or Company edict. However, in some cases flight deck visits may be permitted with the prior permission of senior management.

Irrespective of the legalities, questions of charterer's rights and so on which are often open to constructive interpretation, I should have thought that no censure could be raised against a captain who refused cockpit access to a passenger who had, at the latest, consumed anything alcoholic on that flight?

Medical Emergency
 

Interesting that some members think that a justified reason for allowing a passenger onto the flight deck would be in the event of a medical emergency (doctor or nurse speaking to the crew)

In my company's manual, the first action on being notified of a medical emergency, LOCKDOWN THE FLIGHT DECK, there is the possibility that it is a staged event to force the flight deck door to be opened.

I agree with the poster if a person is invited by the Captain, as opposed to inviting themselves they pose significantly less risk.

The CEO of my Airline recently went to our Regulating Authority to request an exemption.

He now carries an Authorization letter, giving him an exemption from the restrictions on Flight Deck access in-flight.

Problem solved for him to now ask for the Captains permission to visit the Flight deck.

The world has changed and we now live with a Flight Deck which is locked down. This is a great shame for many reasons. However, the security concerns are unlikely to go away, so we just need to accept that this is how we operate.

We can rest assured that the captain will refuse to allow the CEO to visit the flight deck.

During 2002 I was flying for Easyjet and on a turnaround at Nice, Stelios turned up and requested the Flight Deck jump- seat. I replied sure but just needed authorisation from the Chief Pilot on the company mobile. The CP's secretary or similar answered and said she would just ask him - after a minute or two she returned and after a short pause she said .......he's not authorised!

I said ' you'd better not be joking 'cos he's right here' she confirmed that the CP would not authorise him. I let Stelios have the bad news which he took without comment and he ploncked himself down in one of the middle seats near the front, the only available seat!

In my opinion it was the right decision as he had no good reason for being there and I thought the CP showed guts in following the directive.