It is about a corporate culture of the normalisation of deviance. :hmm:

Unlikely. Most are too scared!

I extend the invitation and the challenge to the wise men in EASA who are formulating how long we may rest and work before we may legally fall asleep in the flightdeck whilst "on watch"!!

We did jet training all the time when I was flight instructing with a plane load full of students in a Lear or Citation jet. No one but the instructor on the first flight had ever flown it before and it was totally legal and known by our FAA. An airliner not on a commercial flight wouldn't be any different in my opinion.

Checkboard;
Of course it is.

The brisk demonstrations and rhetorical questions regarding "no harm done" are beside the point. The statements and defence of this inappropriate privileging of non-crew members remind me of a Director of Safety who, in a response to a very hard landing seen in the FOQA data dismissed the data with the observation that such events occurred on earlier equipment before FOQA and we never knew then and nothing happened so there's no need to do anything with such data now, (ostensibly because it would ground the airplane for a check when no crew reported the hard landing...).

Things have changed since then and so should they in terms of such voluntary exposures to risk, even as light as this silly demonstration of the quality of judgement of those involved is.

Of course the risk is low as it is in most ops today and of course it was done thousands of times. I have a newspaper photograph of a 'stew' on the lap of a pilot from the early '60's with a suitable story printed beside it.

The industry's safety record is exceptional, the fatal accident rate enviably low for the very reasons that people here are wondering out loud about the dumb priorities of an organization or an individual operation that would place non-pilots, or non-endorsed pilots in the seat whether they flew X-plane or were endorsed on F-18's or whatever.

But people will obviously continue to do this, given the available comments here.

Hi PJ2,

You know normally I'm four-square behind you, however on this occasion I think a little leeway shouldn't be out of the question. As others have pointed out, this guy *is* a licensed pilot, the flight was a press/corporate jolly rather than a scheduled service and the pilot in the opposite seat was a training captain. Therefore the question I have is - what's your definition of "inappropriate"?

The way I see it, if Norwegian regs weren't violated, conditions were good, the PIC was properly prepared and briefed - and judged the risk to be minimal - then I'm inclined to see it as a non-issue (and you know what a stickler I am for safety!).

Wait just a minute!
 

A CEO actually taking control of an aircraft? We don't even let our pilots do that.;)

Ok, I'll get my coat.

EE,that was funny but so true. He probably did better than the new hires with sim check outs because he knew how to hand fly.

Dozy;

Re no regs broken, well, if "the regs" are to be our only guide in terms of airmanship and good sense, one weeps.

The CEO's not endorsed, period; I find it tough to believe that there isn't some law against that.

FTR, I don't believe there is a high risk in this particular operation. Nor am I a regulatory guy, a frowning classroom monitor like the pompous eagle character on The Muppets. Nor am I even flying for a living now with all that goes with what is stuffed into pilots in the name of "procedures" these days and where common sense in flying an airplane has long since vacated the fix. All of what you point out was very likely in place and had anything gone wrong the guy in the right seat would have taken over while the seat exchange took place, etc.

Risky? You betcha, but a good outcome is very likely, (until/unless the inexperienced guy kicks/pushes/trips-falls-on something...)

That "nothing happened" is clearly not a supporting argument. Anyone unendorsed (and therefore untrained on type), or an unendorsed but current pilot who is in the front seat is a risk, period. Under the circumstances, I think it's just flying-club behaviour, and we're trying to grow away from that. What's it prove?

Ironically, it happens and will continue to happen because of best things about the pilot community - comradeship - we all want to share the genuine thrill and passion of what we love to do especially when it is a beautiful airplane, but for heaven's sake don't argue the case for doing so, because it can't be argued.

Re, "A CEO actually taking control of an aircraft? We don't even let our pilots do that." - EEngr

Now that is very funny.

Taking up non paying passengers in an aircraft does not require a crew certified to fly paying passengers. It has always been that way and hopefully always will. Read the regulations. They did everything right and that is the end of the story. Everything was perfectly legal.

Non-Commercial...
 

Yup...if it was a Non-Commercial flight, the rules change. Regs are made for the Commercial operators, although this all might change with the new EASA regs. As long as no money changed hands and nobody was charged, its a Private flight and who cares? That said, there are ethics and common sense involved...but...

This mindset is the most upsetting thing (to me only, of course)!

How can we EVER let a student take control of an aircraft then ???

Don´t you dare and argue against that, because then you are promoting unsafe things. (In my mind, a student is more dangerous than a F-18 fighter pilot - only if the F-18 is not armed of course)


Thats bull:mad: and judging from your posts that I have read in the past, you know it.

We in the "western world" are way to afraid, (knowadays we are afraid of being afraid) and way to much in favour of regulations these days. If you honestly think we can regulate every and anything to make things safe, then you are wrong.

If this dude is/was a fully qualified pilot, then it is COMPLETELY different than the Aeroflot story.

Btw. if a training captain in the right seat can´t do anything to keep the airplane safe, than I fail to see how supervision can be done. It must be unsafe then.

The regulations-forbid-it-brigade have got it wrong. (it might be forbidden what they did, but it isn´t in any way, shape or form dangerous)

non pilot handling of a demo flight
 

I agree...in controlled circumstances it is benign.

Back in 1989, I was a Fleet Planner for a major airline in their Corporate Plañning division.I had numerous liaisons with the aircrft manufturer as my duty called and had intimate technical aNd operational knowledge and had flown but did not have a PPL yet.I was alao a qualified Avionic Engineer.I was planning to. ThswOn a deitch careers to flying the following year.The plane we shortlisted came for a demo.with journalists and other dignitaries.On board was a test pilot and a very experienced co-pilot.From taxin take off and climb I was allowed to sit on the copilot's set and the FO took the jumpseat between us.It was a DEMO...I don't remember touching any control till we were well in the climb to a low level cruise when I was invited to feel the controls.It was a FBW type. It felt like being in a simulator(which I had experienced till that occasion).

Yes it was a major surprise but no horns were blown and it was done in broad day light and even some members of the public observed it...in the cabin was a cocktail party.No big deal really!

Total Controlled Non Event! Remember the other recent thread . This was safer than both dozing off with passengers on board.

Lordy! Thread has just landed at Stupidville.

Used to work for a chap who flew a DC3 into Kai Tak because he was presenting Cathay's first ever aircraft to the Hong Kong Science Museum. Don't recall anyone saying anything. Cannot remember if that was before or after he sold the Spitfire and bought the DH Rapide ("one engine bad, two engines good", according to his key man insurers...)

At least they were both awake!!!!!

Airline pilots asleep in the cockpit during long-haul flight - Telegraph

"At least they were both awake"

There's a whole thread on that elsewhere...

I would like to see how those who think it was acceptable and a non-event explain to those 50+ passengers on board how it is justifiable to subject them to a lesser standard of operation simply because they didn't pay for their ticket.

The passengers had every reason and right to expect the flight to be operated as any other commercial flight would.

So would you want him at the controls or one of the pay to fly or 200 hr ab initio robots?