The son of a company pilot was admitted to the flight deck during cruise and remained in the observe...

Attributes
ACN	340081
Time
Date	199606
Day	Sun
Local Time Of Day	1201 To 1800
Place
Locale Reference	atc facility : unv
State Reference	PA
Altitude	msl bound lower : 15000 msl bound upper : 15000
Environment
Flight Conditions	VMC
Light	Daylight
Aircraft 1
Controlling Facilities	artcc : zob
Operator	common carrier : air carrier
Make Model Name	Dash 8 Series Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operating Under FAR Part	Part 121
Navigation In Use	Other Other
Flight Phase	cruise other
Flight Plan	IFR
Person 1
Affiliation	company : air carrier
Function	flight crew : first officer
Qualification	pilot : cfi pilot : atp pilot : commercial
Experience	flight time last 90 days : 120 flight time total : 6500 flight time type : 4000
ASRS Report	340081
Person 2
Affiliation	company : air carrier
Function	flight attendant : on duty
Qualification	other other : other
ASRS Report	340437
Events
Anomaly	non adherence : far other anomaly other
Independent Detector	other flight crewa other other : unspecified
Resolutory Action	none taken : anomaly accepted
Consequence	Other
Supplementary
Primary Problem	Flight Crew Human Performance
Air Traffic Incident	Pilot Deviation

Narrative:

During a revenue flight the captain advised me that the family of a company pilot was onboard. When the flight attendant called the cockpit, he told her to send one of the family members to the cockpit. She (and I) questioned this several times, but he insisted. Since both the FARS and company policy are quite clear that the captain is the final authority/authorized during flight time, the flight attendant complied with his instruction. The passenger then remained in the jumpseat until landing. I don't feel safety was compromised, but this is just one more example where the crew can suggest or advocate their position, but ultimately the captain will do as he wishes and the FARS don't give the first officer any authority/authorized to counteract a questionable decision. The entire flight crew is always held responsible for everything that happens during flight, but the entire flight crew is not given appropriate authority/authorized to effect a change upon what happens during flight. It is my opinion that safety would be greatly enhanced if during CRM, this issue were given a great deal more attention, particularly among the older capts. Supplemental information from acn 340437: upon landing 2 passenger waited for everyone to deplane and then they approached me. The woman stated, 'isn't what just happened here against FARS?' I asked her what she meant. She motioned toward the cockpit and said 'letting that boy in the cockpit for landing?' I said that it was the captain's authority/authorized as to who was up there. She then said, 'no, it's your responsibility to uphold the regulations in the cabin.' I answered her with again, that the captain is the final authority/authorized and I was doing what I was told. Even when I knew it was against regulations I was following the captain's authority/authorized. It states this in our manual!

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: THE SON OF A COMPANY PLT WAS ADMITTED TO THE FLT DECK DURING CRUISE AND REMAINED IN THE OBSERVER'S SEAT THROUGHOUT THE LNDG. AFTER THE FLT LANDED, 2 PAX QUESTIONED THE FLT ATTENDANT AND POINTED OUT THAT IT WAS HER RESPONSIBILITY TO UPHOLD FARS IN THE CABIN. THE RPTING FLT ATTENDANT CITES CAPT'S AUTH DEFINITION IN THE FLT ATTENDANT'S MANUAL AS THE PRIORITY.

Narrative: DURING A REVENUE FLT THE CAPT ADVISED ME THAT THE FAMILY OF A COMPANY PLT WAS ONBOARD. WHEN THE FLT ATTENDANT CALLED THE COCKPIT, HE TOLD HER TO SEND ONE OF THE FAMILY MEMBERS TO THE COCKPIT. SHE (AND I) QUESTIONED THIS SEVERAL TIMES, BUT HE INSISTED. SINCE BOTH THE FARS AND COMPANY POLICY ARE QUITE CLR THAT THE CAPT IS THE FINAL AUTH DURING FLT TIME, THE FLT ATTENDANT COMPLIED WITH HIS INSTRUCTION. THE PAX THEN REMAINED IN THE JUMPSEAT UNTIL LNDG. I DON'T FEEL SAFETY WAS COMPROMISED, BUT THIS IS JUST ONE MORE EXAMPLE WHERE THE CREW CAN SUGGEST OR ADVOCATE THEIR POS, BUT ULTIMATELY THE CAPT WILL DO AS HE WISHES AND THE FARS DON'T GIVE THE FO ANY AUTH TO COUNTERACT A QUESTIONABLE DECISION. THE ENTIRE FLC IS ALWAYS HELD RESPONSIBLE FOR EVERYTHING THAT HAPPENS DURING FLT, BUT THE ENTIRE FLC IS NOT GIVEN APPROPRIATE AUTH TO EFFECT A CHANGE UPON WHAT HAPPENS DURING FLT. IT IS MY OPINION THAT SAFETY WOULD BE GREATLY ENHANCED IF DURING CRM, THIS ISSUE WERE GIVEN A GREAT DEAL MORE ATTN, PARTICULARLY AMONG THE OLDER CAPTS. SUPPLEMENTAL INFO FROM ACN 340437: UPON LNDG 2 PAX WAITED FOR EVERYONE TO DEPLANE AND THEN THEY APCHED ME. THE WOMAN STATED, 'ISN'T WHAT JUST HAPPENED HERE AGAINST FARS?' I ASKED HER WHAT SHE MEANT. SHE MOTIONED TOWARD THE COCKPIT AND SAID 'LETTING THAT BOY IN THE COCKPIT FOR LNDG?' I SAID THAT IT WAS THE CAPT'S AUTH AS TO WHO WAS UP THERE. SHE THEN SAID, 'NO, IT'S YOUR RESPONSIBILITY TO UPHOLD THE REGS IN THE CABIN.' I ANSWERED HER WITH AGAIN, THAT THE CAPT IS THE FINAL AUTH AND I WAS DOING WHAT I WAS TOLD. EVEN WHEN I KNEW IT WAS AGAINST REGS I WAS FOLLOWING THE CAPT'S AUTH. IT STATES THIS IN OUR MANUAL!

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.