FDX Jumpseats
06-09-2013, 09:12 PM
#51
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Dec 2006
Posts: 2,093
When I wrote that I've never seen or heard of this happening (except for dispatchers traveling on THEIR company aircraft), I meant at FedEx, and three other airlines. But, you say that it has somehow worked for you numerous times. I am definitely curious and will ask around from friends who work at multiple pax carriers.
06-09-2013, 09:40 PM
#52
Organizational Learning
Joined APC: Nov 2005
Position: Directly behind the combiner
Posts: 4,948
You'd make a lousy 8th-grade English teacher.
Admission to the flightdeck must be necessary for safe operation, or admission to the flightdeck must be advantageous for safe operation.
In the event of an aircraft dispatcher, their presence is necessary to perform their duties. If they aren't performing their duties, their presence is not necessary.
I asked you if you performed observation rides on props. You said you occupied a cockpit jumpseat. You avoided answering my question.
You're hung up on "on-duty" for mechanics, but seem to miss that all the other persons listed have a job or function to perform.
Animal handlers -- handle animals on the flight, not necessary if there are no animals
hazardous cargo handlers -- handle hazardous material on the flight, not necessary if there is no hazardous material to handle
those responsible for cargo security -- secure the applicable cargo, not necessary if there is no cargo to secure
cargo handlers -- necessary for loading and unloading of cargo, or testing/evaluating cargo/cargo containers or loading equipment, not necessary if there's no cargo needing loading and unloading, or cargo/cargo containers or loading equipment to be tested/evaluated
flight deck presence is necessary to perform their duties -- if they aren't performing their duties, their presence on the flight deck is not necessary, so it's not permitted.
Applies to aircraft dispatchers, too.
By granting dispatchers inclusion into the CASS program, the FAA re-affirms that they are covered by the provisions of 121.547 (a)(3). So, if off-duty crewmembers are covered by 121.547(a)(3) and not 121.547 (a)(1) as indicated by table 3-0, is it not reasonable to say the certificated dispatchers are bound by the same rules; On or off duty as no distinction is made anywhere in the verbiage?
Reasonable? Does that really matter, or does it matter what the paragraph actually says? You're making an ASSumption ... you know what happens when you assume.
An off-duty OAL pilot does not occupy a flight deck jumpseat under § 121.547(a)(3) unless he's covered by CASS -- no on or off duty distinction needs to be made. Such is not the case for dispatchers, which were specifically covered by the paragraph before CASS was implemented.
.
Admission to the flightdeck must be necessary for safe operation, or admission to the flightdeck must be advantageous for safe operation.
In the event of an aircraft dispatcher, their presence is necessary to perform their duties. If they aren't performing their duties, their presence is not necessary.
I asked you if you performed observation rides on props. You said you occupied a cockpit jumpseat. You avoided answering my question.
You're hung up on "on-duty" for mechanics, but seem to miss that all the other persons listed have a job or function to perform.
Animal handlers -- handle animals on the flight, not necessary if there are no animals
hazardous cargo handlers -- handle hazardous material on the flight, not necessary if there is no hazardous material to handle
those responsible for cargo security -- secure the applicable cargo, not necessary if there is no cargo to secure
cargo handlers -- necessary for loading and unloading of cargo, or testing/evaluating cargo/cargo containers or loading equipment, not necessary if there's no cargo needing loading and unloading, or cargo/cargo containers or loading equipment to be tested/evaluated
flight deck presence is necessary to perform their duties -- if they aren't performing their duties, their presence on the flight deck is not necessary, so it's not permitted.
Applies to aircraft dispatchers, too.
By granting dispatchers inclusion into the CASS program, the FAA re-affirms that they are covered by the provisions of 121.547 (a)(3). So, if off-duty crewmembers are covered by 121.547(a)(3) and not 121.547 (a)(1) as indicated by table 3-0, is it not reasonable to say the certificated dispatchers are bound by the same rules; On or off duty as no distinction is made anywhere in the verbiage?
An off-duty OAL pilot does not occupy a flight deck jumpseat under § 121.547(a)(3) unless he's covered by CASS -- no on or off duty distinction needs to be made. Such is not the case for dispatchers, which were specifically covered by the paragraph before CASS was implemented.
.
06-10-2013, 12:11 PM
#53
Organizational Learning
Joined APC: Nov 2005
Position: Directly behind the combiner
Posts: 4,948
06-10-2013, 12:37 PM
#54
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jun 2007
Position: Couch Potato
Posts: 470
So Tony, if you could put yourself in the Company's position. How is it they can interpret the regs to allow dispatchers and maintenance folks to ride cockpit jumpseats on a personal travel basis??
MG2
MG2
06-10-2013, 03:45 PM
#55
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2010
Position: Bent Over
Posts: 230
You'd make a lousy 8th-grade English teacher.
Admission to the flightdeck must be necessary for safe operation, or admission to the flightdeck must be advantageous for safe operation.
In the event of an aircraft dispatcher, their presence is necessary to perform their duties. If they aren't performing their duties, their presence is not necessary.
I asked you if you performed observation rides on props. You said you occupied a cockpit jumpseat. You avoided answering my question.
You're hung up on "on-duty" for mechanics, but seem to miss that all the other persons listed have a job or function to perform.
Animal handlers -- handle animals on the flight, not necessary if there are no animals
hazardous cargo handlers -- handle hazardous material on the flight, not necessary if there is no hazardous material to handle
those responsible for cargo security -- secure the applicable cargo, not necessary if there is no cargo to secure
cargo handlers -- necessary for loading and unloading of cargo, or testing/evaluating cargo/cargo containers or loading equipment, not necessary if there's no cargo needing loading and unloading, or cargo/cargo containers or loading equipment to be tested/evaluated
flight deck presence is necessary to perform their duties -- if they aren't performing their duties, their presence on the flight deck is not necessary, so it's not permitted.
Applies to aircraft dispatchers, too.
Reasonable? Does that really matter, or does it matter what the paragraph actually says? You're making an ASSumption ... you know what happens when you assume.
An off-duty OAL pilot does not occupy a flight deck jumpseat under § 121.547(a)(3) unless he's covered by CASS -- no on or off duty distinction needs to be made. Such is not the case for dispatchers, which were specifically covered by the paragraph before CASS was implemented.
.
Admission to the flightdeck must be necessary for safe operation, or admission to the flightdeck must be advantageous for safe operation.
In the event of an aircraft dispatcher, their presence is necessary to perform their duties. If they aren't performing their duties, their presence is not necessary.
I asked you if you performed observation rides on props. You said you occupied a cockpit jumpseat. You avoided answering my question.
You're hung up on "on-duty" for mechanics, but seem to miss that all the other persons listed have a job or function to perform.
Animal handlers -- handle animals on the flight, not necessary if there are no animals
hazardous cargo handlers -- handle hazardous material on the flight, not necessary if there is no hazardous material to handle
those responsible for cargo security -- secure the applicable cargo, not necessary if there is no cargo to secure
cargo handlers -- necessary for loading and unloading of cargo, or testing/evaluating cargo/cargo containers or loading equipment, not necessary if there's no cargo needing loading and unloading, or cargo/cargo containers or loading equipment to be tested/evaluated
flight deck presence is necessary to perform their duties -- if they aren't performing their duties, their presence on the flight deck is not necessary, so it's not permitted.
Applies to aircraft dispatchers, too.
Reasonable? Does that really matter, or does it matter what the paragraph actually says? You're making an ASSumption ... you know what happens when you assume.
An off-duty OAL pilot does not occupy a flight deck jumpseat under § 121.547(a)(3) unless he's covered by CASS -- no on or off duty distinction needs to be made. Such is not the case for dispatchers, which were specifically covered by the paragraph before CASS was implemented.
.
06-10-2013, 09:43 PM
#57
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2005
Position: 757 Capt
Posts: 2,419
IMO-
The table you are referencing is not intended to be the exclusive sole-source answer as to who can/cannot be admitted to the cockpit.
The preamble verbiage indicates that the table is examples of people who may be admitted to the cockpit, while other directives may further restrict access.
It is quite specific about the table not considering 121.583, yet the very last section of .583 allows you, The Capt, the authority to grant cockpit access to any one you want.
That verbiage should be a sufficient answer for any hypothetical ramp check. Assuming of course, that the FCIF outlining POI approval wasn't sufficient for your would be inspector.
As always, The decision is yours, as the PIC- and I will support your right to deny anyone access to the cockpit
The table you are referencing is not intended to be the exclusive sole-source answer as to who can/cannot be admitted to the cockpit.
The preamble verbiage indicates that the table is examples of people who may be admitted to the cockpit, while other directives may further restrict access.
It is quite specific about the table not considering 121.583, yet the very last section of .583 allows you, The Capt, the authority to grant cockpit access to any one you want.
That verbiage should be a sufficient answer for any hypothetical ramp check. Assuming of course, that the FCIF outlining POI approval wasn't sufficient for your would be inspector.
As always, The decision is yours, as the PIC- and I will support your right to deny anyone access to the cockpit
06-11-2013, 02:53 PM
#58
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2010
Position: Bent Over
Posts: 230
Well this seems to be a smart ass answer but hey I was just trying to explain it best I know how from what I know..Do I know everything no so if you know more please post it. Look I am a maintenance person who also flies airplanes on the side. If I knew what I know now I would have never got an A@P but that is besides the point. a 5 week dispatcher course yields a lot more benefits than a 2 year A@P does. But again the PIC can accept or deny anyone into the cockpit..It is a benefit I do not use. FX in its wisdom still wants a 3 day vetting period for mechanics before they can book a jumpseat anyway so I do not use it. But a lot of guys do that commute so thats cool. If you don't want mechanics in your jumpseat than that is your choice. It's your cockpit I personally just would like a ride no matter where it is but again I don't use it I buy my tickets now.
06-11-2013, 03:52 PM
#59
Organizational Learning
Joined APC: Nov 2005
Position: Directly behind the combiner
Posts: 4,948
That would involve a discussion of the relationship between The Company and The FAA, and it would require conjecture.
I ain't goin' there.
.
06-11-2013, 04:01 PM
#60
Organizational Learning
Joined APC: Nov 2005
Position: Directly behind the combiner
Posts: 4,948
It is ... reasonable?
So, is that the test now? Reasonable?
Please ... tell me you're not using reasonable and FAA in the same breath.
It's reasonable that the same rest rules that apply to Delta pilots apply to FedEx pilots. Tell me how well that's working out.
That's nice.
Let me know when the FAA changes their rule.
.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
