NO JS to anti-ALPA types

[NEDude]

As soon as the Captain signs for that airplane, then the jumpseat is his to do with as he pleases. The airline has zero right to force the Captain to allow anyone on the jumpseat, and the FAA has backed ALPA on that interpretation.

This doesn't seem to give any leeway to the PIC to deny an FAA inspector - which is why in my original statement I said the PIC has the authority to deny some people. If there is LEGAL precedent (something on record) for a PIC denying the jumpseat to an FAA inspector on official business (ie. not just trying to catch a free ride as they are known to do at times), then I stand corrected. And the FARs DO place limits on who can occupy the jumpseat. So therefore it is not the PICs "to with as he pleases".

FAR 121.548 : Whenever, in performing the duties of conducting an inspection, an inspector of the Federal Aviation Administration presents form FAA 110A, “Aviation Safety Inspector's Credential,” to the pilot in command of an aircraft operated by a certificate holder, the inspector must be given free and uninterrupted access to the pilot's compartment of that aircraft.

 

[A350]

PCL:

This is where you and I differ....I will call a guy out on the carpet when I feel he is hiding behind "safety" or "Captains Authority"....even fatigue. Of course, I don't yell it out loud to those who don't need to know, but if asked will give my opinion.

I've seen it time and time again where a CA uses the above buzzwords in the name of doing something to effect a certain result. The result usually has little to do with safety but has everything to do with abuse of the authority given to him/her. This, if it even happened, is one of them.

I uphold the CA's right to have anything he needs to safely conduct their flights. Whining about "who is sitting in the jumpseat" being a safety of flight issue is no different than flying the jet with someone you don't like or have an issue with. It is called sucking it up, being a professional, and keeping your petty BS to yourself.

A350

 

[PCL_128]

PCL:

This is where you and I differ....I will call a guy out on the carpet when I feel he is hiding behind "safety" or "Captains Authority"....even fatigue. Of course, I don't yell it out loud to those who don't need to know, but if asked will give my opinion.

I'll do the same thing with the guy behind closed doors, but I will never publicly question his authority, and when defending him in front of the company I will certainly back him up 110%, even if I think it's complete BS.

Whining about "who is sitting in the jumpseat" being a safety of flight issue is no different than flying the jet with someone you don't like or have an issue with. It is called sucking it up, being a professional, and keeping your petty BS to yourself.

I guess we disagree again. I'm a big proponent of "no fly lists" that allow pilots to specify certain other pilots that they don't feel comfortable flying with due to personality conflicts. This is one of the biggest arguments I've had with the former CP at Pinnacle who absolutely refused to separate pilots that didn't want to fly with each other, even if they were at each other's throats.

 

[Cpt Oveur]

hey Pookie,

I'm sure the Skywest newhire just loves ALPA now. Tell us, will you share this experience at the ALPA info sessions for Skywest pilots? Do you really think that FO walked away thinking "I really should vote ALPA." As a new hire, do you expect him to have the same in depth understanding or appreciation of unions as an experienced pilot?

Captain's authority to deny the jumpseat: absolutely:
Furthering the professionalism of pilots: absolutely not.

Why not do what the rest of us do, and lead by example.

 

[siucavflight]

Are you guys really still buying into this? Pookie is a SKW CA, he is just starting flame bait, he is actully anti ALPA if you read some of his previous postings.

 

[Kaman]

Hello,
I think that the Captain in question should have not asked the question in the first place. It's just flat out impolite to put someone on the spot that you don't even know, especially an ACM just trying to get a ride. Remember the old saying? "Never ask a question, if you think that you won't like the answer". Obviously, this "gentleman" hadn't heard that before. Using the jumpseat for anything other than it's intended purpose is not keeping in spirit in which this rule was written in the first place.
Now, if it comes out in conversation. The crew and ACM would be wise to avoid any and all controversial topics. Unless, of course you are all in agreement!!!

Regards,

ex-Navy Rotorhead

 

[Jet41]

You ask an opinion, got an answer you didn't like and acted like a 10 year old. You couldn't just let it go, what a Richard.

Based on the action you took, maybe Skywest guys should deny the jump seat to all ALPA crew members. They certainly would be justified.

 

[GOULET!]

Hey Pookie, thanks for all of your pro-ALPA support with the SkyWester's. Your JS denial really helped the cause in the fight to get ALPA on property there....you tool.

 

[trainer8]

YES!

1.Can I see your FAA licence, medical, and Company ID.

2. Are you an FFDO

Unless of course you don't apply because you sir after flying your 172 for 300 hours deserve this guys jumpseat and he should respect the fact that you took the time out of your day to grace him with your presence...

I like the idea of no ALPA no Jumpseat...I'll apply it to the RED tail that I fly...

After all ALPA is a brotherhood and we take care of each other

Now there is pure grape flavoring.

T8

 

[~~~^~~~]

I would have confined him to the jumpseat for the flight and schooled him.

However, it seemed that he didn't have the social grace to NOT offend someone in thier own house...

Should he have just made one opinion comment and keep the rest of his opinions nuetral? What is the topic was politics or religion? Looks like he wanted a ride and wanted to be offensive.

what do you do when someone offends you in your own house?

Perfect response. It is better to be nice and educate someone.

We see how the screw turns as the 50 seaters get parked in 2008.

 

[Axel]

I won't give a ride to someone who is on his way to cross a picket line. A real picket line. With signs and marching. That happens when there is an actual strike. Preventing a picket line from being crossed is a tangible and practical victory. Denying a seat because you are mad or because you disagree with someone's politics is just pissy.

It is a small person who lords his small power in this fashion, then publicly crows under a pseudonym.

 

[Princedietrich]

This doesn't seem to give any leeway to the PIC to deny an FAA inspector - which is why in my original statement I said the PIC has the authority to deny some people. If there is LEGAL precedent (something on record) for a PIC denying the jumpseat to an FAA inspector on official business (ie. not just trying to catch a free ride as they are known to do at times), then I stand corrected. And the FARs DO place limits on who can occupy the jumpseat. So therefore it is not the PICs "to with as he pleases".

FAR 121.548 : Whenever, in performing the duties of conducting an inspection, an inspector of the Federal Aviation Administration presents form FAA 110A, “Aviation Safety Inspector's Credential,” to the pilot in command of an aircraft operated by a certificate holder, the inspector must be given free and uninterrupted access to the pilot's compartment of that aircraft.

If I may elaborate a bit.

NEDude is correct that regulations require a federale to be given access to the cockpit and the jumpseat if requested. This does not, however, mean that the 110A is essentially a "free universal boarding pass."

Whenever a federale does an enroute check, he or she has to fill out and submit a form that is numbered and tracked, and there can be no enroute check at all unless someone from a higher paygrade has given it the A-OK. In other words, if that form gets submitted without a REALLY good explanation, or if one of the numbered pages in the form book is unaccounted for, well let's just say the FAA will be hiring soon. It is for this reason that feds won't abritrarily hitch a free ride or get a free vacation out of their 110A because it isn't permitted (although I'm sure one does occasionally fall through the cracks).

The regulation cited above is not iron-clad either, and the feds know and accept this (at least most of them do). If there is a safety of flight issue (like the JS oxy mask being inop), or if there are weight and balance restrictions, the captain is well within rights to deny the JS to a fed. The fed will shrug, say "ok captain, have a safe flight," and head over to Starbucks for some caffeinated rocket fuel. An inspector is also not allowed to interfere with air commerece, which means they can't make you late for no good reason (but this applies more to a ramp check than an enroute).

I know this is a deviation from the original topic and for that I apologise, but I just thought I'd throw in a couple centavos.

 

[~~~^~~~]

Prince - good point. I've seen the Feds turned away and be very polite about it. They understand IF the PIC makes a calm rational explanation of why this flight isn't a good opportunity.

Word to the wise - if you deny the Fed a J/S for a mechanical / MEL - make sure the defect is properly written up. My former carrier had a Fed follow up to see if the J/S was deferred for the low O2. When he learned that the O2 was neither written up, serviced, or deferred he was not a happy Fed.

And yes, they will J/S around the system when they are not performing a check. I've had the FAA going to meetings, and NTSB investigators up front.

 

[Princedietrich]

Prince - good point. I've seen the Feds turned away and be very polite about it. They understand IF the PIC makes a calm rational explanation of why this flight isn't a good opportunity.

Word to the wise - if you deny the Fed a J/S for a mechanical / MEL - make sure the defect is properly written up. My former carrier had a Fed follow up to see if the J/S was deferred for the low O2. When he learned that the O2 was neither written up, serviced, or deferred he was not a happy Fed.

And yes, they will J/S around the system when they are not performing a check. I've had the FAA going to meetings, and NTSB investigators up front.

Oh yeah, they do indeed hitch a ride on occasions when performing "official duty" such as going to a training course or going to some location where they have a work assignment. But seeing one enrouting to HNL with a set of golf clubs in tow........ well, that's grounds for suspicion.

For those who are flying for carriers that go through OKC, you've probably been forwarned that FAA HQ is located there and that hordes of inspectors are going to be clogging your jumpseats and watching your every move if you go through there. The reality is quite the opposite in that inspectors are highly discouraged from enrouting to OKC and should instead go as paying passengers on a regular ticket. This is designed to give the pilots going through OKC some relief from being constantly bombarded by enroutes.

 

[JPAustin]

Pookie set up the guy because he was Skywest. Pookie as a chip on his shoulder and an axe to grind, hence the set-up. When the JS decided he couldn't keep his damned mouth shut about it, he fell into Pookie's trap and now Pookie had a reasonable explanation (as far as he was concerned) to deny the JS.

Pookie, good luck describing that one to your JS committee if Skywest gets rather upset at this one. And if you continue to do this, shame on you, and you will risk your own pilot group's ability to JS on Skywest.

If you have any of the "untouchables" requesting a JS on your flight and you have a reciprocal agreement with them (or at least in CASS and you are feeling charitable), then you give them the damned JS, unless of course they do something stupid that pushes you to deny said JS. But don't set the guy up just because you don't like him. I don't particularly like the Go's, but if one of them wants a ride and he doesn't do something stupid, I won't deny. May not talk too much, but I won't deny it either.