My father.... a security risk??
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 48
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My father.... a security risk??
For the first time since all the legislation on jumpseat use by the D.O.T, I had my parents on my flight yesterday.
However,the very people who helped me get into flying are deemed by the department to be a security risk and are not allowed anywhere near me or my colleague on the flightdeck.
I think it is an absolute insult that the 2 people I trust the most in this world are treated like this. I am perfectly happy to excercise the rule on passengers or people I do not know but not people I have known the longest.The use of my jumpseat should be at my discretion not at the will of some rubber-stamping nobody in London.
However,the very people who helped me get into flying are deemed by the department to be a security risk and are not allowed anywhere near me or my colleague on the flightdeck.
I think it is an absolute insult that the 2 people I trust the most in this world are treated like this. I am perfectly happy to excercise the rule on passengers or people I do not know but not people I have known the longest.The use of my jumpseat should be at my discretion not at the will of some rubber-stamping nobody in London.
Join Date: May 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 441
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm in agreement with Fullback. This whole cockpit door thing is just bloody stupid. It's just window window dressing for public perception. We all know that if somebody wants to hijack a plane they would simply wait by the galley untill a suitable moment arose when the door was open. Where the new door helps is if there were to be a riot in the plane then the pilots can feel safe that as long as they don't open the door, nobody can get to them. And that's were the door is usefull. The average pax wouldn't know or couldn't care if a non uniformed person was in the flight deck - i.e a familly member.
Far better to concentrate on passenger profiling as a way to stop potential incidentas in the future - much the same as EL AL does.
Far better to concentrate on passenger profiling as a way to stop potential incidentas in the future - much the same as EL AL does.
ASFKP,
perhaps this is the point. Just how many pax are of the really nervous variety that you describe? And how many are not?
I am inclined to think that pax aren't so dumb that they can't recognise a bloke's parents. However, I do suppose that they might get a bit upset if they aren't treated to the visit to the cockpit as well. After all, they know they're not terrorists. Might this be at the heart of the issue? Perhaps people just want to be treated like people again, instead of "security risks".
As a young hopeful lad, what do you remember most about the airline flights you were on? Was it perhaps the twinkle in the eye of the purser as he adjusted your seat belt for you? Maybe it was the really great airline food, or the really nice magazines?
Or just maybe, it was your visit to the cockpit. I would be surprised if this were not the case. Do you really think that the exclusion of non-aircrew from the flight deck will have any real effect on airline safety?
I personally think that the possibilities for terrorists are virtually endless if they want to terrorise us, especially if we are willing to accept that airline pax are nervous about anyone visiting the flight deck. Shouldn't we be showing them that we aren't over-reacting? Does anyone think that airlines adopting irrational policies is the way to reassure the travelling public? Don't you think they can see through the charade?
I'm sure there are some pax who are very nervous flyers, and many others who feel that they are being conned, abused, or insulted. Why do we choose to only hear the cries of one group?
I know that my view is not exactly orthodox, but I would hasten to add that the orthodox view is swiftly taking us along a path that leads to more terror, not less.
If you disagree, please explain to me how punishing the innocent can ultimately protect us from the guilty. Will it not just make the plight of the two so similar that the innocent will either become guilty, as may have happened on Qantas recently, or the innocent will become thoroughly disinterested in the whole flying thing, resulting in a flight from flying.
Unless you had to travel for some reason or other nowadays, would you choose to fly with all the associated security?
Are we are getting so focussed on dying that we are forgetting to live...?
perhaps this is the point. Just how many pax are of the really nervous variety that you describe? And how many are not?
I am inclined to think that pax aren't so dumb that they can't recognise a bloke's parents. However, I do suppose that they might get a bit upset if they aren't treated to the visit to the cockpit as well. After all, they know they're not terrorists. Might this be at the heart of the issue? Perhaps people just want to be treated like people again, instead of "security risks".
As a young hopeful lad, what do you remember most about the airline flights you were on? Was it perhaps the twinkle in the eye of the purser as he adjusted your seat belt for you? Maybe it was the really great airline food, or the really nice magazines?
Or just maybe, it was your visit to the cockpit. I would be surprised if this were not the case. Do you really think that the exclusion of non-aircrew from the flight deck will have any real effect on airline safety?
I personally think that the possibilities for terrorists are virtually endless if they want to terrorise us, especially if we are willing to accept that airline pax are nervous about anyone visiting the flight deck. Shouldn't we be showing them that we aren't over-reacting? Does anyone think that airlines adopting irrational policies is the way to reassure the travelling public? Don't you think they can see through the charade?
I'm sure there are some pax who are very nervous flyers, and many others who feel that they are being conned, abused, or insulted. Why do we choose to only hear the cries of one group?
I know that my view is not exactly orthodox, but I would hasten to add that the orthodox view is swiftly taking us along a path that leads to more terror, not less.
If you disagree, please explain to me how punishing the innocent can ultimately protect us from the guilty. Will it not just make the plight of the two so similar that the innocent will either become guilty, as may have happened on Qantas recently, or the innocent will become thoroughly disinterested in the whole flying thing, resulting in a flight from flying.
Unless you had to travel for some reason or other nowadays, would you choose to fly with all the associated security?
Are we are getting so focussed on dying that we are forgetting to live...?
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 1,178
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Purely out of interest in the whole post 9/11 saga.
I learnt last week, whilst completeing a security refresher, that 6 months ago airport security staff were given the all clear by DTR to allow crews to take previously restricted items on board providing pax had no access to them in flight.
This was subequently confirmed to me by one of the security staff at LGW.
Was this ever publicised?
I learnt last week, whilst completeing a security refresher, that 6 months ago airport security staff were given the all clear by DTR to allow crews to take previously restricted items on board providing pax had no access to them in flight.
This was subequently confirmed to me by one of the security staff at LGW.
Was this ever publicised?
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Arizona USA
Posts: 8,571
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Keep 'em OUT.......
The flight deck is for operating crew and positioning crew when no seat in the cabin is available. Also CAA, FAA, LBA, RLD (etc) types on flight check duty.
Also SHOULD be for ATC types for fam flights, with out question.
It is NOT for, parents, aunts, uncles, cousins....and especially snotty-nosed kids.
Keep the family right and truly....OUT.
IF they want to travel, let 'em buy a ticket, like everyone else.
Also SHOULD be for ATC types for fam flights, with out question.
It is NOT for, parents, aunts, uncles, cousins....and especially snotty-nosed kids.
Keep the family right and truly....OUT.
IF they want to travel, let 'em buy a ticket, like everyone else.
PPRuNe Person
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: see roster
Posts: 1,268
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
411a
I don't think anyone is suggesting they don't buy a ticket. Anyone working in civil aviation knows that all passengers, including staff travelling as pax, have to have a valid ticket.
The issue under discussion here is a different one.
Are you anything to do with flying, or just a wind-up merchant?
I don't think anyone is suggesting they don't buy a ticket. Anyone working in civil aviation knows that all passengers, including staff travelling as pax, have to have a valid ticket.
The issue under discussion here is a different one.
Are you anything to do with flying, or just a wind-up merchant?
Guest
Posts: n/a
It is a sad, sad world when your wife/father/son/daughter cannot spend part of their day with you in the cockpit.
We are gradually losing the "Command Authority" we need to be able to do the job in the best way possible.
We are "required" to carry people from our Company/CAA etc whom we dont know and are quite often a pain in the Bum but cannot share our profession with our family.
How many of us got the bug from an allowed visit to the front end and have had a career in Aviation?
The nutters of the world have the Insurance Brokers and the Admin Staff of most Companies calling it "required security". I dont have a problem with stronger doors to the cockpit as long as the can be observed and opened from the seat.
Having to get out in flight to open and then lock the door is a hazzard just for a cup of coffee.
The best times are gone in most areas, sad to be leaving flying but not the job.
We are gradually losing the "Command Authority" we need to be able to do the job in the best way possible.
We are "required" to carry people from our Company/CAA etc whom we dont know and are quite often a pain in the Bum but cannot share our profession with our family.
How many of us got the bug from an allowed visit to the front end and have had a career in Aviation?
The nutters of the world have the Insurance Brokers and the Admin Staff of most Companies calling it "required security". I dont have a problem with stronger doors to the cockpit as long as the can be observed and opened from the seat.
Having to get out in flight to open and then lock the door is a hazzard just for a cup of coffee.
The best times are gone in most areas, sad to be leaving flying but not the job.
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Arizona USA
Posts: 8,571
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
overstress,
Airline flying, for a very long time.
Generally had no particular problem with relatives on the flight deck. The first officer would bring his father, or the flight engineer would bring along his brother. So far, no problem
With one particular carrier however it became a real pain when said relative, arrived at the flight deck door, clutching their boarding pass, asking....."which seat is mine captain?"
As the flight was sold out, the check in staff just arbitrarily assigned a cockpit seat, knowing full well the pax was a crew members relative. Sometimes this caused acute embarrassment to the crew member.
In one particular case, we had two positioning crew occupying both obs seats, and then the 'relative' shows up looking very distressed because there was no seat for her. Called the station manager to the aircraft and told him..."tell you what, she can have MY seat and I'll return to the hotel."
Policy was changed...pronto.
Oddly enough, this was the same airline where the finance department sent the expat payroll guy on leave, and did not appoint a replacement...so come the end of the month, no pay forthcoming.
Told the station manager (FRA) that before I left the next day, an envelope had better be delivered, stuffed with marks (for all crew)before any engine would be started.
Flight left on time, everyone paid. I always looked after my assigned crew.
But 220 pound aunt Martha on the flight deck for 11+ hours is a bit much.
Airline flying, for a very long time.
Generally had no particular problem with relatives on the flight deck. The first officer would bring his father, or the flight engineer would bring along his brother. So far, no problem
With one particular carrier however it became a real pain when said relative, arrived at the flight deck door, clutching their boarding pass, asking....."which seat is mine captain?"
As the flight was sold out, the check in staff just arbitrarily assigned a cockpit seat, knowing full well the pax was a crew members relative. Sometimes this caused acute embarrassment to the crew member.
In one particular case, we had two positioning crew occupying both obs seats, and then the 'relative' shows up looking very distressed because there was no seat for her. Called the station manager to the aircraft and told him..."tell you what, she can have MY seat and I'll return to the hotel."
Policy was changed...pronto.
Oddly enough, this was the same airline where the finance department sent the expat payroll guy on leave, and did not appoint a replacement...so come the end of the month, no pay forthcoming.
Told the station manager (FRA) that before I left the next day, an envelope had better be delivered, stuffed with marks (for all crew)before any engine would be started.
Flight left on time, everyone paid. I always looked after my assigned crew.
But 220 pound aunt Martha on the flight deck for 11+ hours is a bit much.
Last edited by 411A; 2nd Jun 2003 at 11:29.
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Euroland
Posts: 959
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nobody is suggesting (as far as I can tell) that pax be allowed to use the flight deck to travel without a ticket. Those days are long gone.
Similarly, nobody is suggesting that pax that have some relationship with an operating crew member (or even an absent crew member) should have the right to a jumpseat. That too is part of ancient history.
What is being suggested is the following:
1) that the security policies adopted post 9/11 are a complete waste of time; and that
2) one of the best parts of the job, being allowed to show the office to pax of all ages and interests, has been quite unneccesarily lost to our profession.
It used to be that we could inspire future pilots, or help allay the fears of nervous flyers, or simply fascinate those who love aviation, but, for one reason or another have never been able to participate as we do. It is easy to make the case that doing all these things is commercially sensible.
However, the new way is that airport security services, terrified of being blamed for some lapse, go way beyond what is prudent and sensible. They enforce ever more ridiculous rules to no effect whatsoever. There is no logic to what they do, and very little standardisation between airports- even airports run by the same company (ie BAA in the UK).
Airlines, partly because they are driven by the same fear as the airports, and partly because they are unwilling to be seen to be politically incorrect, will not stand up to this nonsense.
I'm all for sensible, effective security that recognises the nature of the threat, and the extent to which they can prevent terrorism. We don't have that kind of security today. We have security driven by panic- knee-jerk security.
Frankly, I'm sure the terrorists we should really be afraid of- not the opportunists- must be laughing their heads off. Their real triumph is not so much the death and destruction they have caused, but the way that they have changed forever the way the western world approaches airline travel. They are actually changing our society! And we allow it. Sad.
I used to enjoy the job, but now it is made miserable by the constant nonsense we have to put up with. Very sad.
Similarly, nobody is suggesting that pax that have some relationship with an operating crew member (or even an absent crew member) should have the right to a jumpseat. That too is part of ancient history.
What is being suggested is the following:
1) that the security policies adopted post 9/11 are a complete waste of time; and that
2) one of the best parts of the job, being allowed to show the office to pax of all ages and interests, has been quite unneccesarily lost to our profession.
It used to be that we could inspire future pilots, or help allay the fears of nervous flyers, or simply fascinate those who love aviation, but, for one reason or another have never been able to participate as we do. It is easy to make the case that doing all these things is commercially sensible.
However, the new way is that airport security services, terrified of being blamed for some lapse, go way beyond what is prudent and sensible. They enforce ever more ridiculous rules to no effect whatsoever. There is no logic to what they do, and very little standardisation between airports- even airports run by the same company (ie BAA in the UK).
Airlines, partly because they are driven by the same fear as the airports, and partly because they are unwilling to be seen to be politically incorrect, will not stand up to this nonsense.
I'm all for sensible, effective security that recognises the nature of the threat, and the extent to which they can prevent terrorism. We don't have that kind of security today. We have security driven by panic- knee-jerk security.
Frankly, I'm sure the terrorists we should really be afraid of- not the opportunists- must be laughing their heads off. Their real triumph is not so much the death and destruction they have caused, but the way that they have changed forever the way the western world approaches airline travel. They are actually changing our society! And we allow it. Sad.
I used to enjoy the job, but now it is made miserable by the constant nonsense we have to put up with. Very sad.
Registered User **
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: poll position
Posts: 269
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
all this b@llocks because what you really want to do is show off, or get a bit of totty in the front.
inspire future pilots my a@se.
its no wonder crm is needed with all these pompous delusional people in this business.
inspire future pilots my a@se.
its no wonder crm is needed with all these pompous delusional people in this business.
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: London
Posts: 44
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I drive the number 7 bus. Why aren't I allowed to have my father in the "cockpit"? Why should pilots be different?
I present the 9 O'Clock news. It's MY "cockpit" why shouldn't I have my son in the jumpseat next to me?
Get real!
I present the 9 O'Clock news. It's MY "cockpit" why shouldn't I have my son in the jumpseat next to me?
Get real!
Ohcirrej
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: This is the internet FFS.........
Posts: 2,921
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hands up who as a kid went up the front of a jet a sometime or another. I've still got a TAA Junior Flyers "Wings" floating about somewhere at my parents place. And a couple of months ago, while sitting on the ground in St. Johns on an Air Canada jet, a little guy a couple of seats behind was taken up to have a look while we were waiting for the turn around. Came back with a _HUGE_ grin on his face (nice one to the crew there).
You 2 bozos here may think it's showing off, or whatever. Perhaps it is a little bit. Pride in ones profession isn't a bad thing. My wife was gobsmacked the first time she came into LTCC with me and watched what we did ("So all those little dots are jets?"....bless her. And before you start P7, I wasn't plugged in, so shut up
).
It's a shame................
You 2 bozos here may think it's showing off, or whatever. Perhaps it is a little bit. Pride in ones profession isn't a bad thing. My wife was gobsmacked the first time she came into LTCC with me and watched what we did ("So all those little dots are jets?"....bless her. And before you start P7, I wasn't plugged in, so shut up
).It's a shame................
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Switzerland
Posts: 36
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In pre-9/11-times I had the opportiuity to take my parents with me on a double Athens for two days. My father as well as my mother were treated to a t/o and landing each on the jump.
They have made it possible for me to live up to my dream (and yes, I have been up there front as a little girl). I do not know what relationship you have with your parents, but I had the feeling that I have been able to give back a part of all they have given me on that day. Not to mention that it did feel good to hear that they are proud of me for having worked hard and achieved my goal.
Does this qualify me as a show-off? I just think it's hard enough for our relatives to inagine what we are doing during a day's work, so I'm glad they had the chance to see for themselves.
Cheers
Av
They have made it possible for me to live up to my dream (and yes, I have been up there front as a little girl). I do not know what relationship you have with your parents, but I had the feeling that I have been able to give back a part of all they have given me on that day. Not to mention that it did feel good to hear that they are proud of me for having worked hard and achieved my goal.
Does this qualify me as a show-off? I just think it's hard enough for our relatives to inagine what we are doing during a day's work, so I'm glad they had the chance to see for themselves.
Cheers
Av