Narrative:

Prior to this particular flight leg, I was introduced by my flight engineer to a flight attendant who was his personal and close friend. She was wearing her uniform and had her identify badge in plain sight. During the course of the conversation, permission was requested of me for her admittance to the cockpit during the flight after the sterile period. I granted permission basing my judgement not on FARS, but on the familiarity of having flight attendants visit the cockpit during flight. She did indeed visit the cockpit on this particular leg to tell the flight engineer she was accommodated as a non revenue standby passenger, and to service the cockpit with refreshments. This, which was just yesterday revealed to me, was a violation of far 121.547, which states that, unless a crew member is an active crew member working the flight, admission to the cockpit is prohibited except in emergency sits. Had I been aware of the distinction given on-duty and off-duty flight attendant status for qualification for cockpit admittance, I would not have granted permission. I never judged that cockpit procedures or attention were compromised nor threatened. I believe the regulation is inconsistent or perhaps presumptive in its attempt or effort to provide a safe and secure cockpit environment. Even with duly authority/authorized visitors in the cockpit, it is incumbent upon and the responsibility of the captain to provide an atmosphere and working conditions for the safe conduct of flight. I take that responsibility seriously, and therefore, would never knowingly violate or jeopardize that principle.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: NON ESSENTIAL COCKPIT OCCUPANT IN FLT. PIC HAS RETROACTIVE MISGIVINGS.

Narrative: PRIOR TO THIS PARTICULAR FLT LEG, I WAS INTRODUCED BY MY FE TO A FLT ATTENDANT WHO WAS HIS PERSONAL AND CLOSE FRIEND. SHE WAS WEARING HER UNIFORM AND HAD HER IDENT BADGE IN PLAIN SIGHT. DURING THE COURSE OF THE CONVERSATION, PERMISSION WAS REQUESTED OF ME FOR HER ADMITTANCE TO THE COCKPIT DURING THE FLT AFTER THE STERILE PERIOD. I GRANTED PERMISSION BASING MY JUDGEMENT NOT ON FARS, BUT ON THE FAMILIARITY OF HAVING FLT ATTENDANTS VISIT THE COCKPIT DURING FLT. SHE DID INDEED VISIT THE COCKPIT ON THIS PARTICULAR LEG TO TELL THE FE SHE WAS ACCOMMODATED AS A NON REVENUE STANDBY PAX, AND TO SVC THE COCKPIT WITH REFRESHMENTS. THIS, WHICH WAS JUST YESTERDAY REVEALED TO ME, WAS A VIOLATION OF FAR 121.547, WHICH STATES THAT, UNLESS A CREW MEMBER IS AN ACTIVE CREW MEMBER WORKING THE FLT, ADMISSION TO THE COCKPIT IS PROHIBITED EXCEPT IN EMER SITS. HAD I BEEN AWARE OF THE DISTINCTION GIVEN ON-DUTY AND OFF-DUTY FLT ATTENDANT STATUS FOR QUALIFICATION FOR COCKPIT ADMITTANCE, I WOULD NOT HAVE GRANTED PERMISSION. I NEVER JUDGED THAT COCKPIT PROCS OR ATTN WERE COMPROMISED NOR THREATENED. I BELIEVE THE REG IS INCONSISTENT OR PERHAPS PRESUMPTIVE IN ITS ATTEMPT OR EFFORT TO PROVIDE A SAFE AND SECURE COCKPIT ENVIRONMENT. EVEN WITH DULY AUTH VISITORS IN THE COCKPIT, IT IS INCUMBENT UPON AND THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE CAPT TO PROVIDE AN ATMOSPHERE AND WORKING CONDITIONS FOR THE SAFE CONDUCT OF FLT. I TAKE THAT RESPONSIBILITY SERIOUSLY, AND THEREFORE, WOULD NEVER KNOWINGLY VIOLATE OR JEOPARDIZE THAT PRINCIPLE.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of July 2007 and automatically converted to unabbreviated mixed upper/lowercase text. This report is for informational purposes with no guarantee of accuracy. See NASA's ASRS site for official report.