bocastephen

Until what happens? An unarmed baseball hitting coach on a private charter full of baseball players and staff hijacks a plane? The last time a private charter was hijacked was Airport 77, and they had to use sleeping gas to pull it off.

I think/hope we can all agree there was zero security risk here - the issue is judgement and following the rules - again - unless there is something else in the background we don't know about.

JimInOhio

It's not a good idea to make an on-the-fly judgment of the validity or worthiness of safety rules. Yes, you might get it right but safety rules are there because we often can't or simply fail to understand and consider all the possibilities on what can happen. That's why these rules can take months to develop and review instead of a person or two coming up with them in a few minutes.

bocastephen

I'm not saying we scrap the safety rules - part 121 is part 121, charter or not. I am just saying the risk for hijacking in this case was about zero. The risk wasn't hijacking, it was accidental or intentional touching of controls and settings, creating a risk for the aircraft, or others nearby. Those risks are also considered for part 121 rules on who can enter the flight deck.

The broader risk is 1. United hiring and employing pilots who exhibit poor judgement (less likely) or 2. United's sales/marketing arm pushing down a threat or coercion on the operations arm that led to the rules being broken on this flight because no one expected it would be a safety risk, or even become known by the public.

JimInOhio

If it turns out this action was suggested from above then it really shows why the FAA has UA under a microscope right now. Things like that should never happen when safety is treated all across the coproration like it truly is #1.

WineCountryUA

Reminder to the forum this is pure speculation without supporting evidence.

notquiteaff

There is no reason to even allow a judgement call here. There is just no good reason for letting a passenger into the cockpit while in flight. The pilots should focus on their job, which is flying the damn plane, not vetting passengers for possible security risks and then giving guided tours of the cockpit. Don’t they always tell us that unexpected turbulence can happen without warning, and to keep the seat belt fastened when seated? Having a civilian climb around the in the flight deck just makes zero sense.

(and I don’t care if airlines or regulators in other parts of the world use different rules - Lufthansa/Germanwings learned the hard way that it was a bad idea to not have a rule requiring an FA to replace a pilot on lav break in the cockpit)

mahasamatman

Like there's zero risk of a pilot intentionally flying the plane into a mountain? There is non-zero risk in anything, anywhere, at any time.

elmira56925

Come on. Rules r there for a reason. This was a complete lack of brains situation to put everyone in. If u want to do this before or after the flight I’m fine with it. However, U never know a person mental state of mind at any time. That’s why any of us get extremely vetted before going to the White House. Yes it’s different situation but the principle is exactly the same.

IAH-OIL-TRASH

I spent 10 years on the corporate risk committee at the company I retired from. Saying there is no risk associated w/ letting the Rockies employee sit in the pilot seat (or even letting any seemingly non-threatening/sane person in a cockpit) doesn't know the mathematics of risk, even with the limited data available on accidents associated with such events. One negative event automatically makes the risk non-zero. Even without a previous event the chance something bad happening has to be recognized.

SWCPHX

What's the difference between a Rockies coach and a 'shroomed up AS pilot? One is supposedly not a security risk and allowed to ride in the jumpseat.

elmira56925

but u can’t say that for 100% certainly with that coach in the cockpit in mid flight. We all seen stranger things happen. Which is why rules r there for everyone’s safety

elmira56925

bingo!

WineCountryUA

No security screening is perfect but is better than not none at all.
It is all about reducing the chance.
1 in a million is better than 1 in a thousand.
Both are relatively small but you have gone from will occasionally happen to will very rarely happen.
As said earlier there is not such thing as zero risk.

mfirst

"safety" and "security" are very broad terms - especially when it comes to airlines.... and maybe some Pilots can chime in as I am sure there are some other practical reasons why no one is allowed up front while a plan is in the air.... I just cant think of any off hand, but - I aint a Pilot. Much like how hospitals restrict access to operating rooms (beyond the safety concerns)?

mahzor

meh, hard to be outraged by this. just grown men having some fun!!!