Warning! Spouse of flight crew are security threat.
 

I am led to believe that the UK CAA have issued the following edict:

1.4 The Department for Transport has determined that other persons, not employed by the company but having staff travel privileges including relatives of company personnel and relatives of the operating flight deck and cabin crew, should not travel on flight deck supernumerary jump seats.

How very logical and sensible.

I always suspected that my partner of many years was a terrorist, especially at certain time of the month.

The lunatics have truly taken over the asylum.

Perhaps somebody should show some balls and campaign to have the CAA rescind this new edict?

Do you think anyone will?

This is completely ridiculous. Where is the logic?

Not only will it not be recinded...more will follow.
Guess "relatives" will now just have to buy tickets, and have a seat in the cabin...tough beans.
Tail is now truly wagging the dog.

Re: Warning! Spouse of flight crew are security threat.
 

I think the use of the word should is interesting. It seems to be more of a suggestion than an order.

I think 411A that it is not the tail wagging the dog, but the FAA wagging the CAA. Oh not to be a puppet regime!

BH - you said it, I thought it!

There's an awful lot of difference between the words 'should not' and 'must not' !

The people who work for the company, who I don't know and who have had no background checks made on them are the ones who worry me. I think I am pretty sure that no one in my family represents a security threat but how can I be sure about a company employee who I have never clapped eyes on and who may have only worked for the company for a few weeks.

If the new rule turns out to be true then I for one will not allow anybody on the jump seat except those who I can't refuse, ie Trainers from the company for line checks and CAA ops. inspectors.

Yet another rule dreamt up by officials who do not know thier arse from thier elbow.

>>I think 411A that it is not the tail wagging the dog, but the FAA wagging the CAA. Oh not to be a puppet regime!<<

Like it or not, much of what the FAA does filters down to the CAA. In the past couple of years issues such as locked cockpit doors and drug(s) and alcohol testing have been rejected as "never happen on _my_ aircraft" here on PPRuNe. Months later they are in the CAA regs. You'll probably see the same thing with the jumpseat restrictions.

The U.S. has to be proactive with its postion of leadership in aviation, however some of this stuff is a result of bureaucracy run amok.

somebody forgot to tell them that an aeroplane doesn't need to be G or N registered to be used as a terrorist weapon. Fat lot of use all this draconian nonsense is when the rest of the world doesn't follow.
Or look at it another way..a catagoric admission of defeat...we can't stop terrorists at the airports so lock yourselves in, don't let anybody near you and good luck.:(

This ruling is so unreasonable and illogical that it is only natural 411 should support it. Please don't anyone bite. It's only attention he wants.

Yes it is our government obediently following US policy but where is the logic? Had there been a family member on the jumpseat of the 9/11 flights the hijackers task would have been much more difficult.

Family members have NO business on the obs seat unless they have bought a ticket/pass, subload or otherwise.
However, to exclude them from the flight deck seems a bit over the top.
And, in any case, always SCD.
So whats the beef, ShotOne?:rolleyes:

SO - I agree that usually one can have ago at 411 over his posts automatically. However, on this occasion, his post on "your" side? So why the whinge?

NoD

An able-bodied passenger(s) in the jumpseat/s,known to the crew would be a considerable asset to all concerned in the event of attempted unauthorised access.Yes,my view is that j/s occupancy enhances security,not diminishes it.As ever,the bureaucrats can't see the wood for the trees......

Absolutely correct Mike Jenvey, FAR 129 calls the tune for carriers operating to the USA. Even ATCO's are not able to take advantage of the obs seats under the present regulations, which is most unfortunate. The FAA/DOT is the big kahuna in this, and other countries will just have to follow suit, like it or not...and many won't.
Simple as that. And not likely to change anytime soon.

411A

Your last post seems to suggest that the FAA has taken over from ICAO as aviation's world-wide ruling body and that everyone must do what it says. Fair enough in the US, it's your airspace and your country. But don't you think that other countries should make that sort of decision for themselves?

I´ve thought about this completely idiotic policy.

Seems to me like the FAA/DOT are trying to "support" US airlines this way.
All this "You´re either with us, or against us"-BS turning into some sort of trade-war/screwing-the-competition.

Absolutely Low-Pass, other countries have every right to set their own policy but, if they have carriers that fly to the USA, those carriers must abide by FAR129, otherwise they lose their certification. Don't like the situation any more than you, but those are the facts. It would be much better if the FAA did not stick its collective nose in others business.

The only time the spouses of flight crew are a threat, is when they get on-loaded before other staff with a higher priority!