Jump-seats & Accidents
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: With my head in the clouds
Age: 54
Posts: 108
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thank you Stan for catching my drift, and putting to words so eloquently what I could not.
And yes, i will agree, Avjet at Aspen is a pretty good case for the prosecution, especially if you read through the witness (passenger/dispatch) statements.
Not sure the NTSB ever looked into it but Weigmann and Goh (I think it was them... that discussed a a correlation between passengers and fatal accidents in the GA environment.
Thanks for en excellent thread Framer, and please keep the ideas coming!!!!
J.
And yes, i will agree, Avjet at Aspen is a pretty good case for the prosecution, especially if you read through the witness (passenger/dispatch) statements.
Not sure the NTSB ever looked into it but Weigmann and Goh (I think it was them... that discussed a a correlation between passengers and fatal accidents in the GA environment.
Thanks for en excellent thread Framer, and please keep the ideas coming!!!!
J.
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: USA
Posts: 245
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think it's an interesting question and I do agree with STAN's point about recovering data of non-accident flights with jump seat occupants.
It seems to me underlying this question is a psychological thesis. Namely, one of distraction. It would seem to me then that the real issue isn't simply whether or not there is a physical human being occupying the third seat but the nature of the interaction between the flight crew and the third/fourth person. If the "third person" was a flight engineer you would consider that person part of the flight crew and not a JS occupant. Why? Because you would assume that the nature of the interaction between the the FE and the rest of the crew to be a professional one. And if it wasn't, you wouldn't blame that on the fact they literally sat in a third seat but on CRM.
To me this issue is similar to the issue of cell phones in autos. No one seriously thinks that the mere physical presence of cell phones in autos leads to more car crashes. The problem is what people do with the cell phones that causes the higher accident rates.
I got here from the SpanAir thread and I'll repeat what I said there. I don't think that the mere physical presence of a "visitor" to the flight deck is the type of thing that--alone--should be enough to cause distraction to the flight crew. "Sit down and shut up" should be enough to solve any distraction issues. It's when the visitor begins to interact with the FC in unprofessional ways that the problem arises.
It seems to me underlying this question is a psychological thesis. Namely, one of distraction. It would seem to me then that the real issue isn't simply whether or not there is a physical human being occupying the third seat but the nature of the interaction between the flight crew and the third/fourth person. If the "third person" was a flight engineer you would consider that person part of the flight crew and not a JS occupant. Why? Because you would assume that the nature of the interaction between the the FE and the rest of the crew to be a professional one. And if it wasn't, you wouldn't blame that on the fact they literally sat in a third seat but on CRM.
To me this issue is similar to the issue of cell phones in autos. No one seriously thinks that the mere physical presence of cell phones in autos leads to more car crashes. The problem is what people do with the cell phones that causes the higher accident rates.
I got here from the SpanAir thread and I'll repeat what I said there. I don't think that the mere physical presence of a "visitor" to the flight deck is the type of thing that--alone--should be enough to cause distraction to the flight crew. "Sit down and shut up" should be enough to solve any distraction issues. It's when the visitor begins to interact with the FC in unprofessional ways that the problem arises.
