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.