Thank you, I was going back more than 25 years in the memory bank.
There are exceptions. No known or forecasted icing conditions and aircraft operated iaw AFM limitations. That is possibly why it was a "no go" at the airline I worked for, we had a schedule to keep and couldn't afford the limitations.

So, what you're saying is, a little knowledge can be a dangerous thing!:rolleyes:

My input pertaining to the aircraft was ok per the preflight briefing.

No. What I said was; my company's MEL was more stringent than the MMEL.

Smart alec! I quite possibly save lives every day.

By doing your job? Wow, you really are legend in your own mind aren't you?

Yep, by doing my job. It's a great feeling and what keeps me loving my line of work. You must think the same of firemen, policemen, military etc.

Mod Note:

Well, I gave y'all a chance to redeem yourselves. I thought odious comparisons happen only in Regional threads! Guess I was wrong.

Update 6/21/2013:

I was once again persuaded to reopen this thread because of the importance of the topic. Anybody who posts something/anything that is even remotely similar to the posts ahead of this one WILL BE BANNED.

Ooohh, oooh, ban me, ban me....I'm immature. (But it keeps me young)

Tough thing about having your chain of thought broken is recovering.

For me, my take is it's totally valid for the PIC to deny cockpit access any time he/she deems it appropriate. (Could be as simple as "I" don't need the distraction of another body in the cockpit)

And, I've previously posted that IMO cockpit access is permitted due to the Administrator, Mgt, and PIC verbiage. Tony has pointed out the examples table and thinks AMTs should be limited to On-duty status, a decision I support even though I disagree. To me, examples are just that, a limited set-not an all inclusive Venn diagram of who is permitted in the cockpit. After all, the verbiage in the FARs could have changed, but didn't.

Tony C is concerned with how do I answer a ramp inspectors question regarding cockpit access. And, if the FPR is sufficient to prove that the PIC is legal to operate, the CE yes answer next to ourhypotheticals AMT should be sufficient as well. At least until we receive the final answer from The Administrator versus our POI. Would be great if they'd answer promptly in this electronic age, but there's no slower form of life than a bureacrat "researching" an answer

On to the 76, IMO-configuration was built to maximize the space available for cargo. And, i think it's going to suck for any commuter. No space to rack out, lights on, likely having to move to allow access to the loo. Definitely not much line swine input into our dream design. Up to me, would have killed the first cargo slot and put in 3 or 4 rows of sleep bunks....or a row of the lay flat chairs commercial folks are touting on their intl flights.

And to our fly on the wall, power being advanced is not an appropriate time for a non-critical switch. Flaps not extended, yes. But, why wait for the entire taxi-knowing somethings not quite right---or, if noticed right at the last second--why not wait for a minute or two until safely airborne to point it out? That lack of judgement is one of the main reasons some PICs don't want any non-pilots in the cockpit, which is their call-under the CFRs

I don't think flyonthewall gets it.

Of course the crew said "thank you". They were trying to be pleasant. We appreciate your help but only at the appropriate time. They know you don't know to keep quiet about non-essential items during T/O.

This is not something pilots make up, it is mandated by the FAA.