I routinely operated in & out of Africa & know the Nairobi and Entebbe scene very well. I often socialised with the BA crews in Entebbe. If this guy was wearing a Captain's uniform (someone posted that there is TV evidence of this) it will have been noticed by other crew members on lay-over. How come no-one, including his fellow Captains never said anything to him ? Often, the greater majority and some times the entire BA crew would go off to some school or orphanage for this type of, heartfelt, off duty activity.Wood's activity, in going off to some school dressed as a Captain, would not have gone without notice to his fellow crew members.

While on lay-over. Technically, you still represent your Company & your activities should be conducted in that respect. In my Company, there was a time when long haul crews started to go a bit over the top down route. We were all sent a reminder of codes of conduct and a warning that certain crew members might be switched to short-haul only unless behaviour was moderated. Very next day, tumbled into bed after an overnighter but huge noise in the pool. Looked out to observe one of our Captains' dressed as a hostess & a Hostess dressed as a Captain, frolicking wildly about while other crew members looked on, noisely too. Yes, they were "moved" to short-haul after being reported by Hotel staff. My point being that odd behavior does not go with notice. I also have first hand evidece of a F/O who liked to dress up as a girl as soon as we hit the Hotels. EVERYONE noticed that one. Yes, we stopped him. It WAS inappropriate behaviour whilst representing the Company on lay-overs. (Before you freedom of rights, cross dressers, trans-whatevers, politically correctness lobbyists, etc, etc, jump all over me).

Finally, 15 years as a FO and doing his fave trips has nothing to do with it. And, disparaging remarks about his professionalism is hardly helpful. Being Senior, he will have had a bid-line of choice. Preferring to remain in the RHS is probably a good career decision for many. I have flown with many career First Officers &, by the way, JW411 & others of the same ilk, a damn fine job they do of being the "Second in Command" and "work" very hard indeed.

On thread, not condoning any of this guy's disgusting and disgraceful behaviour. I do wonder how it was not noticed by anyone.

Landflap:

I think you do me a dis-service. I do not recall making any disparaging comments about long term first officers. In fact I have flown with a fair few of them and they were all good. Most of them have their own reasons for staying where they are. One that I recall flew Lancasters in WW II, got shot down and ended up as one of Hitler's guests. He simply did not want the responsibility any more and was quite happy where he was.

This assumes he wore the bogus uniform around the hotel and other crew members and didn't simply change when he got to where he was going. I'm sure wearing a captains uniform around the hotel would have been a big red flag to others so why make such an elementary mistake given the lengths he'd already gone to to conceal his crimes? He might as well have worn a gold tracksuit and a Jim'll Fix It badge in the lobby.

VCtenderness;

I also knew him for a very long time, shared meals, flights and laughs with him (not at BA) and had absolutely no idea. I believed him to be a gentle, rather religious character, now I wonder if I will ever understand my fellow men again.

Someone once told me that you never know what is going on behind another person's eyes, I get that concept now.

Yes indeed, JW411. Unconditional apology. It was BOAC doing the trolling but I sometimes think of you when I read his comments.I will be MORE careful. Your admonishment ,clearly, from an Officer & Gentleman.And, I will not confuse posters.Ouch, sitting on the "embarassment chair" for the rest of the day!

Simon Wood Prior to joining BA had previously had worked as helicopter pilot on North Sea operations and as a freelance pilot on helicopters, including flying very senior politicians in the run up to one general election.

In the early nineties he was a Captain on Viscounts on mail flights between Edinburgh and Coventry, I think the company was British Air Ferries. After that he was a Captain on BAC 1-11 flying out of Edinburgh or Glasgow for a charter airline. After that I think he went to BA.

I was introduced to Simon Wood through a friend, who was a dietician, who worked on the same summer camps for a number of years for diabetic children.Simon would also turn up in a R22 to these summer camps and take both children and adults on pleasure flights

In the time I knew Simon Wood he never really seemed settled, he always seemed to want to change direction, despite being well qualified and experienced, at one stage he wanted to become an instructor at Oxford, and at another stage he considered taking taking up holy Orders. He was as I understand it similar to Jimmy Saville, a Roman catholic and I never was aware he was ever in a relationship with a woman or man.

But like the BBC, I'm not sure how nobody within BA as an organisation never became suspicious.

athonite,I think it's because, even in the RAF and BA, we meet 'different' people and become accustomed to making allowances in order for our company to function. Being slightly 'odd' doesn't necessarily make them 'bad'.
I'm sure that our man covered up major pointers.

I'm sure, like me, you've occasionally thought; 'Is it him or is it me?' (That's rhetorical, BTW ;))

Old saying: All the world's queer, 'cept thee and me, but even thee's a little queer.

There was never any questioning of his ability to do his job, so I would suggest it went something along the lines of:

1. Simon checks into the hotel as usual with the crew.
2. He's either told his colleagues that he's off to do a bit of charity work and will see them at pick-up or he's just said he's got things to do and will see them at pick-up. Nothing suspicious there and it happens every day. There is certainly no need for everybody to be welded to each other during a layover.
3. Dressed in shorts and t-shirt he makes his way to the orphanage with his bogus captain's uniform in a backpack.
4. Changing before he reaches the establishment, he appears before the welcoming committee as an airline captain, with shiny bars and everything.
5. Does what he does.
6. Reverses the fancy dress costume routine on the way back to the hotel.
7. Appears at pick-up on time and either doesn't discuss his supposed activities with his colleagues (and certainly doesn't discuss his real activities) or he chats about his charity work before the talk moves on to pensions and houses.

An extremely plausible and simple explanation that would lead to no suspicion from anyone. Why is it so difficult to comprehend that BA had no idea of his activities when the guys and girls sitting next to him on the flight deck would have had no idea either?

Many times we have heard stories of people who have been able to keep personal traits such as alcoholism, drug use or criminal activity hidden from family, friends and colleagues for extended periods of time. When asked, folks say, "He was such a nice man", or "He was quiet and kept to himself, never caused any trouble".

I don't know why this would be any different. Let's face it, it's not like he's going to be regaling people with stories of his off duty diddling. In fact, given the social stigma that comes with such behaviour, he will have worked very hard to hide it. So how exactly would people know?

Once the Hyenas have creamed-off their cut of course

Just leave it all to BA's "Customer Relations" department. They're experts at denying anything and everything even when BA is responsible.

(speaking from experience) :ugh::ugh:

He could have been visiting the orphanages on his days off rather than on layovers.

If he was arrested in 2000 then pretty unlikely that his employer did not know............getting arrested and charged with impact on life when it is going on is not something that can be hidden easily.

Given nature of what he was arrested for and close ties that have always been between BA and Met Police it is inconcievable that BA were unaware of his arrest even through unofficial channels.

Sadly this is likely to end with a load of white paint and an undisclosed settlement.

Question then is are there any more individuals doing this and what will BA now do regarding its staff during layovers.

Well short of banning them from leaving the designated crew hotel and/or electronic tagging them I'm not sure what they can "do".......:ooh:

My concern is that a lot of decent crew members who have have done and continue to do good work downroute will be banned from doing so.

As far as naming BA in a court case is concerned they are possibly following the American practice of 'Deep Pockets', if that practice still exists. After it has been decided there is a case and damages are due they will be apportioned according the various defendants ability to pay rather than their level of liability.

But again, so? So BA has knowledge that he was arrested, then all charges were dismissed.

Now based on an arrest with no resultant charges, let alone conviction, BA should:

Fire him?

Transfer him to Riyadh to throw baggage?

Force him into Short Haul?

Given the highly litigious nature of BAs lawyers I suspect they'll fight any claim of liability, no matter how tenuous. Coughing up cash to pay for the (unproven) criminal acts of an employee would set a dangerous and expensive precedent. Todays Daily Wail suggests some BA managers went down to one of the orphanages in July to advise them that Woods involvement was nothing to do with BA. Doesn't sound like the actions of a company preparing to roll over.

It seems to me that some of those involved in the orphanages thought Woods involvement was in someway endorsed by or associated with the airline. BA seem to be making it quite clear that this was an entirely freelance affair which they had no oversight over. Again, doesn't sound like a company preparing to roll over.

It seems BA have issued a press statement, saying they were made aware of allegations via an anonymous letter, immediately sent a team to investigate and when cause for concern was found they alerted the police whereupon the individual was arrested.

I'd say BA have acted honourably and in a timely manner and have nothing to be ashamed of. They have dealt with this disgusting individual quickly, but first made sure it wasn't an innocent man having his life ruined.

Nope BUT if they knew he had been arrested and charged with something like this then common sense suggests that they ensure he has NOTHING to do with any BA charitable work involving children.

Also ensuring that if he has layoffs that this also applies in a personal capacity as he flew in on BA.

Pay attention, racedo. He wasn't doing "any BA Charitable work". That has been made clear here, several times. Furthermore, an employer cannot control what people do in their down-time, whether they got somewhere on their employers aircraft, bus or bicycle! :rolleyes:

Gosh, thought most airlines have a 'Terms & Conditions of Service' type of manual in addition to all the other regulations governing what we do and/or say while in the Company's time. DC3 suggests that a company cannot "control" what an employee does in his "downtime". Let us not confuse "downtime", with "layover" or "days off" etc. If on layover & on Company time then that company certainly can exercise "control" because the employee will be expected to behave in accordance with terms & conditions of service which will, almost certainly, dictate a level of appropriate behaviour. Yuck, I sound like a Lawyer ! By default, the company IS controling your behaviour. So, Wood should never have engaged in activity that might have brought the company into disrepute.Let us be clear here; while on company time. Do what you like on days off , down time etc if NOT on Company time.

For those who think that a guy who jumps into a Hotel bus with a back pack containing a Captain's uniform, changes into the uniform (where, in the back of the van, on the side of the road etc ?) , visits, regularly, in this fashion, schools etc and then returns in the van ( or are we suggesting it was the local school bus sent to collect him ?) and no-one notices or says anything , I say, bunkum ! Of course, it may not arouse suspicion of wrong doing. I did hundreds of trips where the crew stuck together & enjoyed very enjoyable times. By equal measure, there were those crew members who always did "their own thing" and we hardly ever saw them. But, there was always the odd chap and chapess who might behave in a slightly odd way who would attract attention.

Mr Wood was current as PIC on a multi engine type engaged in CAT. His employer/ passengers would have expected him to wear a captains uniform as its industry standard.
He wasn't therefore masquerading as a captain.
If he wasn't representing BA then he shouldn't/wouldn't wear a BA uniform.

Define "odd"...

For example is it the crew members who miss beer call, claiming they don't drink? Perhaps it's those who tell a tale about not being around in the evening because they are "visiting relatives"? How odd are those who say they were in the gym at 2 in the morning? What about those who go birdwatching - should I be especially vigilant? I'm just asking because I've heard all of the above and lots more over the years and now wonder if I should have reported them? .......

Salem witch trials - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It would appear fron the photos in the public domain he wasn't wearing a BA uniform.

Er.....no he wasn't, he was a first officer not a captain.

Interestingly a good friend of mine knew him both in BA and in his previous life flying helicopters on the North Sea. His comment was that he just seemed a normal sort of guy i.e. no outward behaviour which might lead one to think he was a bit odd or suspicious.

A sorry tale all round really but like the woman Tania Head who claimed to be a survivor of 9/11 I cease to be surprised by the things some outwardly normal people get up to. It was ever thus.

Yes and No, he wasn't acting for or on behalf of the company he was acting in his own name, as far as we know. Wearing a uniform with gold, not platinum, stripes, anyone seen the wings on the jacket or shirt? Can't convince myself about this, bottom line always used to be that if you mess about down route and attract the attention of the authorities then expect trouble from management when you get back.

Wrong as evidenced by
"
At Easter 2002, he was among 20 crew members from two BA flights who volunteered to spend the holiday period with the Kenyan youngsters, showering the orphanage with presents, medicines and donations raised at home.
He told the UK news agency the Press Association, which covered the trip: ‘We play, sing, organise activities and generally entertain them. We become very close to the children.’


Airline staff do not all gather together and randomly turn up at an orphanage with orphanage being unaware of what is happening.


Has BA policies in place to ensure staff are vetted accessing children abroad ?
If not why not ?

racedo

Can't speak for the specifics of the incident you describe but:

"Airline staff do not all gather together and randomly turn up at an orphanage with orphanage being unaware of what is happening"

I beg to differ because actually that's almost what does happen on occasions. Someone will have visited orphanage X before in their spare time, maybe on a previous trip. Next time they pitch up for a trip to said destination carrying a bag of goodies gathered from friends, neighbours and other crew members and usually mention that they are planning to visit said orphanage during the trip and asks if anyone wants to tag along to help out. There are usually volunteers

Seeing as I suspect ;) BA crews aren't the only ones helping out at orphanages downroute you'd better demand all airlines put in place suitable vetting...and you need to be aware that by doing so you'd kill of a lot of the practical help that the establishments currently get from airline crew members. IMHO rather than introducing vetting I suspect if pushed BA and other airlines will simply try to ban crewmembers from doing all such work downroute.

Some more info

British Airways 'Paedophile Ring' Feared after Pilot's Suicide - IBTimes UK

Stand by for the Witch Hunt.....and the protestations of innocence.

There's nothing in there that says he was working on behalf of, or representing, BA in his charity work. Sure he may have roped in some crew to volunteer over Easter, but they were volunteers just like him and didn't represent any sort of official BA charity presence. There's a lot of people on this thread trying to claim that this was some sort of BA sanctioned or sponsored charity activity. It wasn't. It was simply an individual doing his own thing and occasionally getting a few volunteers along from his crew for some legitimate charity work. The fact that he chose to 'big himself up' as a BA pilot is not BA's responsibility, any more than the fact that your average ex-Harrier pilot will let you know of the fact within minutes is the responsibility of the RAF!

As to the IBTimes article, in's interesting that lawyers are investigating claims that other BA staff were involved, but not the police. Hmmm.

M Mouse
Er.....no he wasn't, he was a first officer not a captain.

Er ....... Yes he was. Re read carefully exactly what I wrote. He was a Senior First Officer as well!

S.T.
 

Senior First Officers in BA certainly are not be expected to wear a captain's uniform.......( or was I incorrectly dressed for over 15 years :rolleyes:)

Wiggy
Mr Wood was a capt on a multi eng gas turbine powered aircraft. He wore a captains uniform. A black one with gold stripes. I have no idea what the wings badge looked like.
When flying a BA 767 he wore a blue uniform with 3 platinum stripes.
So you now know what you can do with your :rolleyes:whilst I:ugh:

Is any of that actually relevant? I doubt Ugandan slum kids or Nairobi orphanage workers know the difference or care. He probably dressed as Father Christmas one year, which presumably means the lawyer will be looking to sue Santa for his failure to protect them.

Which airline employed him as such?

Right and Press Association just randomly turn up at orphanages just in case a wandering flight crew happen by ??

No Press Association turn up at orphanages if somebody tells them there's something worth seeing there. Your huge assumption is that it was BA who told them that. Now what individual might have an interest in promoting an African orphanage? Hmmm.

I'd hazard a guess that Press Association turn up at quite a few events of this nature throughout the year, most of them with absolutely no connection to BA whatsoever. How could that be?

Uk law will NOT allow anybody work with kids in UK unless they have CRB checks done.

Walking class of kids from school to swimming pool along with teachers requires any mum or dad to get a CRB check done, if kids are at 2 different schools then you required to get it done for both schools plus aiding scouts plus football clubs etc all require individual checks.

Fact is BA knew a member of its staff who was arrested and charged previously in relation to a child abuse allegation was present with other members of staff on a reported event. BA has its own media watch team that would have had details of who was involved in 2002. BA did not disassociate itself with 2002 activity it appears.

BA staff who volunteer to help in UK for school activities (and there are many thousands of BA staff doing this :D:D:D) have to obtain CRB checks in advance but somehow requiring members of its staff to have the checks done when they volunteering overseas would stop the volunteering ? Doubt it very much.

Frankly the BA staff I have spoken to in the last week would welcome checks because it is their names that is getting tarnished and they want scumbags like this weeded out.

All UK pilots are CRB checked!