On Sat, 19 Jul 2003 07:54:57 GMT, "Capt. Doug"
wrote:

The FO is certainly capable of flying the plane. However, radar services are
NOT available for much of their route and there is a lot of traffic crossing
that route. An extra set of eyes scanning for traffic is a valuable safety
asset.

And I, in the light singles I'm allowed to fly? Were I to fly that
route under part 91, would I therefore be a detrimental safety
liability, if my pax don't scan for traffic?

(And yes, I've had conversations with pilots who reported waking up in
their light single in an unusual attitude. Not fun, I'm told...)

I didn't argue that the man didn't need to be awake. I argue that it
was much worse on the company flying that leg to have a pilot get
caught doing what pilots do on occasion, and have that hit the news
("OMG! a pilot was asleep! That's worse than Palestinian Suicide
Bombers! Run the video again, Bob!") than the actual detriment to
safety warranted.

IOW, pax overreacted. Media (as usual) overreacted.

One thing's for sure, though, IMO. The age-60 rule just got itself
another point in the "pro" column, don't you think?

So while falling asleep wasn't bad for flight safety so much, it was
*very* bad for business. Wasn't he sacked?

Wrong, wrong, and wrong again. He resigned.

Nixon style, beating them to the pink slip? Or would he have kept his
job after making the national news anyway? eh?

Rob