A teenage boy was allowed to situation in the cockpit jumpseat.

Attributes
ACN	318963
Time
Date	199510
Day	Sun
Local Time Of Day	1201 To 1800
Place
Locale Reference	airport : cvg
State Reference	OH
Altitude	agl bound lower : 0 agl bound upper : 0
Aircraft 1
Controlling Facilities	tower : sfo
Operator	common carrier : air carrier
Make Model Name	Commercial Fixed Wing
Operating Under FAR Part	Part 121
Navigation In Use	Other Other
Flight Phase	ground : preflight other
Flight Plan	IFR
Person 1
Affiliation	company : air carrier
Function	flight crew : first officer
Qualification	pilot : instrument pilot : atp pilot : cfi
Experience	flight time last 90 days : 200 flight time total : 2500 flight time type : 200
ASRS Report	318963
Person 2
Affiliation	company : air carrier
Function	flight crew : captain oversight : pic
Qualification	pilot : atp
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:

We were scheduled to fly from cvg to phl. The flight attendant brought her 14 yr old son with her as a non revenue passenger from phl to cvg because she didn't have anyone to watch him. When we got to cvg, it turned out that the flight from cvg to phl would be full. Without my knowledge, the captain told the gate agent that her son could ride in the jumpseat. The boy came aboard and passenger were also boarding allowing me little time to assess the situation. I did not speak up that I thought this was a bad idea because I had little time to think about it and I did not want to create a conflict between myself and the captain and flight attendant. (While this would have been legal under 135, under 121 it was not.) while this was not directly a safety hazard, it definitely presented a communications breakdown and thus a breakdown in CRM. It poses some difficult questions to answer concerning CRM. The captain's judgement was poor, but mine was particularly poor because I did not communicate my concern, which is the only purpose I serve as the second pilot. It was my human nature which led to my allowing this to take place. Unfortunately, human nature continues to be a weak link in CRM and probably will be until cockpits are completely automated.

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: A TEENAGE BOY WAS ALLOWED TO SIT IN THE COCKPIT JUMPSEAT.

Narrative: WE WERE SCHEDULED TO FLY FROM CVG TO PHL. THE FLT ATTENDANT BROUGHT HER 14 YR OLD SON WITH HER AS A NON REVENUE PAX FROM PHL TO CVG BECAUSE SHE DIDN'T HAVE ANYONE TO WATCH HIM. WHEN WE GOT TO CVG, IT TURNED OUT THAT THE FLT FROM CVG TO PHL WOULD BE FULL. WITHOUT MY KNOWLEDGE, THE CAPT TOLD THE GATE AGENT THAT HER SON COULD RIDE IN THE JUMPSEAT. THE BOY CAME ABOARD AND PAX WERE ALSO BOARDING ALLOWING ME LITTLE TIME TO ASSESS THE SIT. I DID NOT SPEAK UP THAT I THOUGHT THIS WAS A BAD IDEA BECAUSE I HAD LITTLE TIME TO THINK ABOUT IT AND I DID NOT WANT TO CREATE A CONFLICT BTWN MYSELF AND THE CAPT AND FLT ATTENDANT. (WHILE THIS WOULD HAVE BEEN LEGAL UNDER 135, UNDER 121 IT WAS NOT.) WHILE THIS WAS NOT DIRECTLY A SAFETY HAZARD, IT DEFINITELY PRESENTED A COMS BREAKDOWN AND THUS A BREAKDOWN IN CRM. IT POSES SOME DIFFICULT QUESTIONS TO ANSWER CONCERNING CRM. THE CAPT'S JUDGEMENT WAS POOR, BUT MINE WAS PARTICULARLY POOR BECAUSE I DID NOT COMMUNICATE MY CONCERN, WHICH IS THE ONLY PURPOSE I SERVE AS THE SECOND PLT. IT WAS MY HUMAN NATURE WHICH LED TO MY ALLOWING THIS TO TAKE PLACE. UNFORTUNATELY, HUMAN NATURE CONTINUES TO BE A WEAK LINK IN CRM AND PROBABLY WILL BE UNTIL COCKPITS ARE COMPLETELY AUTOMATED.

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.