Jetstar in the news - photos of cabin crew in pilot seat

[Platy]

Jetstar in the news:

Crikey - Stewardess in the pilot's seat: Flying High on Jetstar - Stewardess in the pilot's seat: Flying High on Jetstar

An apparently impromtu photo call in the pilot's seat by a cabin crew member during a flight is under investigation. CASA claims it will not act on anonymous photos.

 

[DTM1]

What a storm in a tea cup !

Would only be a concern to me if the captain was not in the other seat. Big deal !

Before September 11, I used to be allowed to sit in the co-pilot's seat on Jumbos for a while almost every time I was flying overseas.

 

[Platy]

What a storm in a tea cup !

Would only be a concern to me if the captain was not in the other seat. Big deal !

Before September 11, I used to be allowed to sit in the co-pilot's seat on Jumbos for a while almost every time I was flying overseas.

Perhaps you are right. Not trained personally as a pilot I cannot say. Maybe others can confirm or deny whether or not the article is correct in saying "air safety regulations only allow appropriately licensed and qualified persons to occupy a control seat while an aircraft is in flight".


I do recall the Aeroflot airbus crash, although, arguably, a very different situation in that the coughpit visitors (the pilot's kids) were allowed to touch the controls:

AirDisaster.Com Accident Photo: Aeroflot 593 - Airbus A310-304 F-OGQS

 

[munitalP]

Ben Sandilands is a tule.


Again, a wonderful display of jurno incapability of comprehending a situation from a "non" situation. Ben Sandilands has visions of grandeur on his mind perhaps believing an award is in the pipeline for his desk jockey reporting

Ben Sandilands is a tule...



Mr!

 

[munitalP]

A quick google on old mate ben and it is astounding.....

Ben Sandilands News

did I mention that Ben Sandilands is a tule?

He also has a boner on bagging Qantas at every possible oportunity...





Mr!

 

[Platy]

Ben Sandilands is a tule.


Again, a wonderful display of jurno incapability of comprehending a situation from a "non" situation. Ben Sandilands has visions of grandeur on his mind perhaps believing an award is in the pipeline for his desk jockey reporting

Ben Sandilands is a tule...



Mr!

Maybe you are entirely correct, Munital, there are dufus journos aplenty out there!

I am curious to find out whether such situations breach safety process. My impression (as a non pilot I must stress) is that air safety is very much driven by a need to follow process.

 

[docjames]

Mmmkay, why do they pixel the guy's watch??

And how the hell do you know if it's in flight - you cant see out the window - it could be a simulator for all they know? And i cant make out any airspeed of altitude indicators - they could be parked on the ground for all we know.


Having said that, if it is genuine, it's just given me another reason NOT to fly onestar.

 

[nlagalle]

Maybe you are entirely correct, Munital, there are dufus journos aplenty out there!

I am curious to find out whether such situations breach safety process. My impression (as a non pilot I must stress) is that air safety is very much driven by a need to follow process.

What a joke.. Can they even confirm there were passengers in the plane? Perhaps it was a positioning flight.

And as the CAR's state:

"CAR 1988 227
(3) The pilot in command of an aircraft shall admit an authorised person
to the crew compartment and allow that person to occupy the seat or
position appropriate for the performance of his or her duties if the pilot
in command is not of the opinion that the person’s admission to the
crew compartment or occupation of that seat or position, as the case
may be, would endanger the safety of the aircraft."

I used to go up the pointy end every chance I got. Years ago friend who was a SO at the time has a photo of himself in the left hand seat on his first 747-400 flight to LHR.

Does the journalist know that you can fly the plane equally as well from the Right hand seat? Or does that make bad news?

 

[munitalP]

Well, well, well

OzEmail transfer by Nov 30: iiNet - Breaking - Technology - smh.com.au

this is a good example of Beno's whinging and I think that all credibility he may of had is easily diluted with the comments in this article...

Ben Sandilands is a Tule...

There, I'm over it and wont say it again

Ben Sandilands is a Tule

Mr!

 

[Platy]

Mmmkay, why do they pixel the guy's watch??

And how the hell do you know if it's in flight - you cant see out the window - it could be a simulator for all they know? And i cant make out any airspeed of altitude indicators - they could be parked on the ground for all we know.


Having said that, if it is genuine, it's just given me another reason NOT to fly onestar.

Dunno, maybe either the watch itself or other mark (eg tattoo) are considered to be sufficient to aid identification.

Looks like the throttles are well forward (not, I must stress, that I am a pilot) suggesting at least they are in flight (or possibly in a simulator).

 

[Platy]

"CAR 1988 227
(3) The pilot in command of an aircraft shall admit an authorised person
to the crew compartment and allow that person to occupy the seat or
position appropriate for the performance of his or her duties if the pilot
in command is not of the opinion that the person’s admission to the
crew compartment or occupation of that seat or position, as the case
may be, would endanger the safety of the aircraft."

Many thanks indeed for the info.

I read the reg differently to you, hence my bold and italics in the above quote. Sure someone (providing they are "authorised") can enter the coughpit or even sit in a seat at the pilot's discretion (and with due regard for aircraft safety), but there is also the above rider, that this is only within the context of it being appropriate for the person to do their job.

As a corollary, I might observe that people need an ASIC (aviation security ID) (or be under escort) to enter airport airside areas, but this is not enough to justify their presence airside - they must also have a lawful purpose to be at a certain place at a certain time. Thus going airside to take photos for your private collection of aircraft happy snaps is not permissable even if you have an ASIC.

No doubt the investigation will determine that the photo is dinkum, the plane was indeed in the sky, there were passengers, whether the cabin crew member had a lawful purpose for occupying the seat, etc, or not as the case may be.

 

[Platy]

Well, well, well

OzEmail transfer by Nov 30: iiNet - Breaking - Technology - smh.com.au

this is a good example of Beno's whinging and I think that all credibility he may of had is easily diluted with the comments in this article...

Ben Sandilands is a Tule...

There, I'm over it and wont say it again

Ben Sandilands is a Tule

Mr!

Whether or not the journo is a tule (as your put it!), doesn't answer the question of whether or not a technical safety breach has occurred. Ultimately that's not a question for a journo (kinda your point I guess).

 

[nlagalle]

Many thanks indeed for the info.

I read the reg differently to you, hence my bold and italics in the above quote. Sure someone (providing they are "authorised") can enter the coughpit or even sit in a seat at the pilot's discretion (and with due regard for aircraft safety), but there is also the above rider, that this is only within the context of it being appropriate for the person to do their job.

As a corollary, I might observe that people need an ASIC (aviation security ID) (or be under escort) to enter airport airside areas, but this is not enough to justify their presence airside - they must also have a lawful purpose to be at a certain place at a certain time. Thus going airside to take photos for your private collection of aircraft happy snaps is not permissable even if you have an ASIC.

No doubt the investigation will determine that the photo is dinkum, the plane was indeed in the sky, there were passengers, whether the cabin crew member had a lawful purpose for occupying the seat, etc, or not as the case may be.

Yes you are correct.. Cabin crew hold ASICs too.. It could be as simple as the Captain ducking out to go to the toilet, and requiring someone to sit in the seat. If you were sitting there, wouldn't you want a photo? I know I would. I don't believe there is any law against taking photos airside. I have an ASIC, and I don't remember reading that anywhere.

I'd laugh if it turned out to be inside a simulator!

 

[Platy]

Yes you are correct.. Cabin crew hold ASICs too.. It could be as simple as the Captain ducking out to go to the toilet, and requiring someone to sit in the seat. If you were sitting there, wouldn't you want a photo? I know I would. I don't believe there is any law against taking photos airside. I have an ASIC, and I don't remember reading that anywhere.

I'd laugh if it turned out to be inside a simulator!

I too don't know of any law to prevent taking photos airside, the point is that security regulations dictate that to go airside you must have a lawful purpose (eg. need to be there to do your job), so "fun" or "personal" reasons are unlikely to meet the regs.

 

[nlagalle]

I too don't know of any law to prevent taking photos airside, the point is that security regulations dictate that to go airside you must have a lawful purpose (eg. need to be there to do your job), so "fun" or "personal" reasons are unlikely to meet the regs.

Depends.. the FA was most likely there working, so i can't see that being unlawful. you can still go airside even if you aren't working. I've done it plenty of times at MMB (of which part of it falls under having to have a ASIC). And you'd probably get permission to do the same at MEL from the owners if you asked nicely enough.

 

[munitalP]

Whether or not the journo is a tule (as your put it!), doesn't answer the question of whether or not a technical safety breach has occurred. Ultimately that's not a question for a journo (kinda your point I guess).

Nope, wasn't my point, my point was simply that this is just another case of jurno's looking for a cheap fix and presently Qantas or their affiliates seem to be that $20 fix easily obtainable and the majority of this work is scare-mongering and generally of little or no substance except hearsay and innuendo.

This jurno is no different than the many which have been commented on in threads on the FF site and generally, I believe that most posters agree with my viewpoint.

I am an electrical engineer, my company would have it's professional indemnity insurance cancelled if I made written statements about a subject based on no substance or on hearsay. I cannot put pen to paper without investigating, analysing and understanding the information I am about to present. Jurno's should be held to the same rules of engagement as all other professionals - after all, they call themselves professionals and get paid as professionals.... that was my point... sorry if it was somewhat enigmatic in my previous posts

Mr!

 

[oz_mark]

I am an electrical engineer, my company would have it's professional indemnity insurance cancelled if I made written statements about a subject based on no substance or on hearsay. I cannot put pen to paper without investigating, analysing and understanding the information I am about to present. Jurno's should be held to the same rules of engagement as all other professionals - after all, they call themselves professionals and get paid as professionals....

Quite, and this is my biggest beef with journo's. They go around making themslves out as holier than thou, and expecting the highest of standards from everyone but themselves. What we can console ourselves with is that the quality of engineering at Qantas is infinitely better than the quality of journalism in Australia.

 

[Platy]

Quite, and this is my biggest beef with journo's. They go around making themslves out as holier than thou, and expecting the highest of standards from everyone but themselves. What we can console ourselves with is that the quality of engineering at Qantas is infinitely better than the quality of journalism in Australia.

Whilst I generally agree journo standards are woeful, it is unreasonable to expect a journo to be an expert in many subjects - sure there are correspondents whose job it is to specialise.

Journo should, however, be professional in terms of the skills required to be a journo - I think we are all agreed on that! One such art in journalism is to source and verify content. Recent events at Fairfax have exposed that these folk are given very little time to perform and may not always have the chance to do the job thoroughly - the problem in such cases is management/owners/shareholders driving for dollar and profit ahead of quality with the journos being squeezed.

In the article in question, the writer is substantially quoting a source to form the basis of the article, so is not making it up off the top of his head. Some folk in Jetstar are concerned about a growing culture of safety breaches and failure to invigorate the workforce with "outside" recruitment and have "leaked" the photo. We don't know whether they are right or wrong, but if safety breaches are evolving then a journo would regard that to be in the public interest, thus a valid story and rightly seek to write about it. As a non qualified person, obviously the journo will often quote someone with the experience/skills/qualifications to bypass thier own personal lack thereof. Good journos will double check the info and use a little analytical brain power to advance the story - although, I agree entirely, most don't meet the professional marque.

For the record, I am not a journo, but my father was a journo/head of news in newspaper, radio and TV, so I got to hear a lot about it! Oh yes, we often clash over poor journalism standards!

Plus I have little time for watching/reading news/current affairs, most of it is very badly done in Australia!

 

[Platy]

Depends.. the FA was most likely there working, so i can't see that being unlawful. you can still go airside even if you aren't working. I've done it plenty of times at MMB (of which part of it falls under having to have a ASIC). And you'd probably get permission to do the same at MEL from the owners if you asked nicely enough.

That's why the phrase "lawful purpose" is a handy one! It includes doing your job, but there are other lawful reasons to be airside, for example, as a passenger boarding an aircraft off the apron(under supervision by one or more ASIC holders)!

Airport operations officers, security staff, AFP, etc are quite within their rights to challenge anyone airside to make sure they have ID (or under escort) and lawful purpose.

But that's about airside security.

In terms of access to coughpit and coughpit seats. personally, I would not want to be the FA trying to defend my presence in the pilot seat as appropriate for the performance of my duties, if indeed that becomes a point of correct process in any investigation.

 

[nlagalle]

In terms of acces to coughpit and coughpit seats. personally, I would not want to be the FA trying to defend my presence in the pilot seat as appropriate for the performance of my duties.

If she was asked to sit there by the captain, that it no problem at all. The captain or PIC can authorise someone to sit in the seat. There isn't spare flight crew sitting around to take over. It's then up to the Captain or PIC to justify why.