The seatbelt light is there for a reason!

[NM]

Why should seatbelts be undone when refuelling? I often wondered about this when I hear the PA message.

Just in case there is a fire or other reason that required an emergency evacuation of the aircraft. The seatbelt is not going to offer any protection when the aircraft is stationary and tests and evaluation of real emergency situations have shown that in emergency evacuation conditions some passengers struggle to undo their seatbelts.

 

[Stealth]

Common sense is not a valid reason for ignoring or denying to comply with requests from cabin crew or airline staff.

As the nanny approach to all matters increasingly prohibits the application of common sense and dare I say, intelligence, the closer we come to the 1984 scenario, albeit delayed by 20+ years.

There is some debate as to who said the following. Its often attrributed to Douglas Bader, probably the most cantakerous sod I ever met and never one to accept control from the establishment :

"Rules are for the guidance of wise men and the obedience of fools."

However, these days some clown will always be there to say "you can't do that".

 

[MEL_Traveller]

...just like its mandated by federal law that all passengers must do as told by crew, regardless of the reasons behind such airline requests and whether they are valid or not reasons, common sense plays a part in the making of rules and removing them. Common sense is not a valid reason for ignoring or denying to comply with requests from cabin crew or airline staff.

sorry to be pedantic but you are only required to follow lawful instructions. That is implied. And I would even go as far to say that you would not be required to follow an unreasonable instruction either.

What constitutes a lawful and/or valid reason would be a matter to be determined by the courts. Clearly come things would easily fall into thatt category (of being reasonable), but others may not - for example, should you move seats back to economy (lets say you are in business class domestic) to allow a passenger of size more comfort?

 

[markis10]

sorry to be pedantic but you are only required to follow lawful instructions. That is implied. And I would even go as far to say that you would not be required to follow an unreasonable instruction either.

Laws of the sky follow the laws of the sea, and in that the captain has absolute authority, as delegated to cabin crew, sure you have a right of appeal later on, but the crew have absolute authority, which is why they can restrain people who do not follow their directions without fear of being charged with false arrest. The only lawful instructions are those given by the crew. End of story.

The pilot-in-command of an aircraft shall have final authority as to the disposition of the aircraft while in command. Both FAR 91.3(b) and ICAO Annex 2, par. 2.3.1, specifically empower the PIC to override any other regulation in an emergency, and to take the safest course of action at his/her sole discretion. This provision mirrors the authority given to the captains of ships at sea, with similar justifications. It essentially gives the PIC the final authority in any situation involving the safety of a flight, irrespective of any other law or regulation.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

Laws of the sky follow the laws of the sea, and in that the captain has absolute authority, as delegated to cabin crew, sure you have a right of appeal later on, but the crew have absolute authority, which is why they can restrain people who do not follow their directions without fear of being charged with false arrest. The only lawful instructions are those given by the crew. End of story.

The pilot-in-command of an aircraft shall have final authority as to the disposition of the aircraft while in command. Both FAR 91.3(b) and ICAO Annex 2, par. 2.3.1, specifically empower the PIC to override any other regulation in an emergency, and to take the safest course of action at his/her sole discretion. This provision mirrors the authority given to the captains of ships at sea, with similar justifications. It essentially gives the PIC the final authority in any situation involving the safety of a flight, irrespective of any other law or regulation.

Exactly - ONLY in matters relating to the SAFETY of the flight. And you can only deviate from any other rule in the event of an emergency.

If the crew asks you to do any other request not directly in relation to safety, you may not need to comply.

For example, asking you to vacate your seat for a passenger of size is unlikely to be related to the safety of the aircraft. Or if a cabin crew member asked you to stop picking your nose because it was distasteful, and you failed to comply, they couldn't restrain you under any valid law.

Or taking the BA example of not allowing men to sit next to unaccompanied children. If they asked you to move, but you refused (saying 'move the child instead') I'm not sure they have a valid lawful instruction. There is no 'law' preventing men (in general) sitting next to children in such circumstances.

 

[ejb]

Exactly - ONLY in matters relating to the SAFETY of the flight. And you can only deviate from any other rule in the event of an emergency.

If the crew asks you to do any other request not directly in relation to safety, you may not need to comply.

For example, asking you to vacate your seat for a passenger of size is unlikely to be related to the safety of the aircraft. Or if a cabin crew member asked you to stop picking your nose because it was distasteful, and you failed to comply, they couldn't restrain you under any valid law.

Or taking the BA example of not allowing men to sit next to unaccompanied children. If they asked you to move, but you refused (saying 'move the child instead') I'm not sure they have a valid lawful instruction. There is no 'law' preventing men (in general) sitting next to children in such circumstances.

However the law is very clear....you must follow instructions of the crew regardless.

So if asked to move you must, asked to stop picking your nose, you must.

You may complain later but whilst onboard you are under their instructions.

It may not be ideal but it's the law.

ejb

 

[MEL_Traveller]

However the law is very clear....you must follow instructions of the crew regardless.

So if asked to move you must, asked to stop picking your nose, you must.

You may complain later but whilst onboard you are under their instructions.

It may not be ideal but it's the law.

ejb

that's not what the section of the law posted by markis10 shows. It related, quite specifically, only to safety matters.

the moving seats is not a safety matter!

 

[ejb]

that's not what the section of the law posted by markis10 shows. It related, quite specifically, only to safety matters.

the moving seats is not a safety matter!

But it is held that ALL matters on a plane involve safety.

Pax refuses to change seats before take off, maybe he will become trouble after take off = safety issue and pax offloaded.

I may not agree with the scope of the law but it is clear that any "request" from crew should be followed.

I think the safest route for all is to follow instructions. I would argue if asked to change seats but in the end I would give in and move and then complain constantly until I was satisfied with the outcome. A plane is not the place for arguements.

ejb

 

[MEL_Traveller]

But it is held that ALL matters on a plane involve safety.

Pax refuses to change seats before take off, maybe he will become trouble after take off = safety issue and pax offloaded.



ejb

Yes - I agree with that point. But it is a sad state when crew now rely on anything as being 'safety related'.

As I said earlier - this is something which has scope to be tested by a court. It will be interesting to see where they come down. On the one hand they may agree everything is safety related to avoid any confusion. On the otherhand they could well limit powers.

Although that being said - nothing is a given. Even police can (and have been) charged with false imprisonment and wrongful arrest. So a court could consider some matters as being outside the scope of the safety umbrella.

 

[Slats7]

Sounds as though they have learned their lesson!!

 

[ejb]

Yes - I agree with that point. But it is a sad state when crew now rely on anything as being 'safety related'.

As I said earlier - this is something which has scope to be tested by a court. It will be interesting to see where they come down. On the one hand they may agree everything is safety related to avoid any confusion. On the otherhand they could well limit powers.

Although that being said - nothing is a given. Even police can (and have been) charged with false imprisonment and wrongful arrest. So a court could consider some matters as being outside the scope of the safety umbrella.

In this climate I do not see courts allowing pax many rights onboard an aircraft. Any relaxing of rules by the courts would be swiftly followed by new laws to strengthen the rules.

The recent past has taught us that the moment the smallest thing happens the heavy hand of the law is imposed on the travelling public. LAG rules are one silly example.

However I would rather be safe in the air as you don't always get a second chance.

ejb

 

[markis10]

that's not what the section of the law posted by markis10 shows. It related, quite specifically, only to safety matters.

the moving seats is not a safety matter!

Moving seats may well be a safety matter, it could well affect the weight and balance of the aircraft for instance, as a layperson you dont have the knowledge to know what does affect safety, regardless it goes beyond safety, to put it into local perspective here is the Australian Law:

1988 NO. 158 CIVIL AVIATION REGULATIONS - REG 224

Pilot in command
224. (1) For each flight the operator shall designate one pilot to act as
pilot in command.

(2) In addition to being responsible for the operation and safety of the
aircraft during flight time, the pilot in command shall be responsible for the
safety of persons and cargo carried and for the conduct and safety of the
members of the crew.

(3) The pilot in command shall have final authority as to the disposition of
the aircraft while he or she is in command and for the maintenance of
discipline by all persons on board.

In short, do as your told regardless of whether you think you know better

 

[MEL_Traveller]

Moving seats may well be a safety matter, it could well affect the weight and balance of the aircraft for instance,
(3) The pilot in command shall have final authority as to the disposition of
the aircraft while he or she is in command and for the maintenance of
discipline by all persons on board.

In short, do as your told regardless of whether you think you know better

Yeah - I appreciate anyone can find an exception to the rule - but my example was more of the type of 'mr/mrs skinny person sitting in row 5F with a spare seat beside you, could you please move to 23E to allow obese person to have some more room'. Nothing to do with 'weight and balance'. In that circumstance I don't know if the crew does have authority to detain you, subdue you or anything else.

Just the same as if a pilot refused to allow you to leave an aircraft once it had landed (as happened in Perth a few years ago). He detained all passengers on board while waiting for the police to come and detain a couple of trouble makers. I don't actually believe the pilot has lawful authority to do that. (Although if anyone does know what happened in the case please refer me the link! I know some passengers were considering possible charges of false imprisonment.)

I'll need to go and do some reading now with the link provided above to the pilot in command and authority!

 

[markis10]

YI don't actually believe the pilot has lawful authority to do that. (Although if anyone does know what happened in the case please refer me the link! I know some passengers were considering possible charges of false imprisonment.)

As I said in an earlier post, pilots are entrusted with mostly the same powers as ships captains ( I am pretty sure as PIC I cannot marry someone), on the basis that there needs to be a clear chain of command when help from the normal powers is not at hand.

CAR309 goes further with these powers:


1988 NO. 158 CIVIL AVIATION REGULATIONS - REG 309

Powers of pilot in command

309. (1) The pilot in command of an aircraft, with such assistance as is
necessary and reasonable, may:

(a) take such action, including the removal of a person from the aircraft
or the placing of a person under restraint or in custody, by force, as
the pilot considers reasonably necessary to ensure compliance with the
Act or these Regulations in or in relation to the aircraft; and

(b) detain the passengers, crew and cargo for such period as the pilot
considers reasonably necessary to ensure compliance with the Act or
these Regulations in or in relation to the aircraft.

(2) A person who, on an aircraft in flight, whether within or outside
Australian territory, is found committing, or is reasonably suspected of
having committed, or having attempted to commit, or of being about to commit,
an offence against the Act or these Regulations may be arrested without
warrant by a member of the crew of the aircraft in the same manner as a person
who is found committing a felony may, at common law, be arrested by a
constable and shall be dealt with in the same manner as a person so arrested
by a constable.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

As I said in an earlier post, pilots are entrusted with the same powers as ships captains, on the basis that there needs to be a clear chain of command when help from the normal powers is not at hand.

CAR309 goes further with these powers:


1988 NO. 158 CIVIL AVIATION REGULATIONS - REG 309

Powers of pilot in command

309. (1) The pilot in command of an aircraft, with such assistance as is
necessary and reasonable, may:

(a) take such action, including the removal of a person from the aircraft
or the placing of a person under restraint or in custody, by force, as
the pilot considers reasonably necessary to ensure compliance with the
Act or these Regulations in or in relation to the aircraft; and

(b) detain the passengers, crew and cargo for such period as the pilot
considers reasonably necessary to ensure compliance with the Act or
these Regulations in or in relation to the aircraft.

(2) A person who, on an aircraft in flight, whether within or outside
Australian territory, is found committing, or is reasonably suspected of
having committed, or having attempted to commit, or of being about to commit,
an offence against the Act or these Regulations may be arrested without
warrant by a member of the crew of the aircraft in the same manner as a person
who is found committing a felony may, at common law, be arrested by a
constable and shall be dealt with in the same manner as a person so arrested
by a constable.

My feeling is that REG 309 is wholly dependent on REG224. So unless there is a matter directly affecting the safety of the aircraft then REG 309 carries no independent power.

But as i said - I'll need to look into that more closely.

REG224 (2) is limited to 'flight time' - not suref that same linitation extends to REG224 (3)?

 

[markis10]

All the different regulations are mutually exclusive, that is 309 and 224 act independently of each other, as do the other regulations under the act (some 300+) :

CIVIL AVIATION REGULATIONS 1988

Where the regs are related, they fall under the same regulation, as evidenced by 224 for instance. I have had training in the application and use of the CARs in a professional context as both a Pilot and an Air Traffic Controller (I am not an aviation law specialist), in short the PIC has extensive powers and passengers need to follow all directions regardless of how valid they think they are.

The powers granted to a PIC are a reflection of the environment they are placed in and an acknowledgement of their professional attributes, such rules often come into being after someone does something thats kills many people because they thought they knew better than the powers that be!

To the best of my knowledge a ships captain or a PIC has never been charged with unlawful detention, but i wonder if any passengers have been charged with Mutiny ?

 

[drron]

After having watched the Pam Ann show on QF TV and seeing the finale I really couldn't take everything a captain says seriously.:shock:

 

[MEL_Traveller]

All the different regulations are mutually exclusive, that is 309 and 224 act independently of each other, as do the other regulations under the act (some 300+) :

The regulations giving the pilot unfettered discretion are based on the ICAO regulations which concern the safety of flight in an emergency - and give the pilot in command the ability to deviate from any laws and regulations as are necessary in order to maintain safe flight in the event of an emergency.

A pilot can, and would be charged with false imprisonment if they incorrectly, and without good cause subdued and restrained someone. Their actions need to be based on safety.

REG309 is clearly NOT independent. It says that the pilot may do x, y, z only to ensure compliance with the Act or these regulations.

The powers conferred under REG309 only apply if they are to carry out something else in the act - such as, for example, REG224. Which only applies in events such as an emergency

You could not apply reg 224 for example, to a passenger refusing to close a window shade (as requested by a member of the cabin crew) during movie time. That would be absurd.

 

[Jeffrey O'Neill]

It never fails to amaze me on asian flights that the touchdown of wheels seems to mean seat belts off. the clacking as belts are unbuckled is scary.

On a ValuAir flight from SIN - HKG the main FA had a good sense of humour.

During the safety drill she said "Smoking alarms are fitted in the toilets so please don't smoke in them, or the alarm will go off and we will think you're on fire and have to extinguish you"

On the way back a couple of passengers started to get out of their seats while the plan is prob still going along at a good 50-100km/h and she gets on the PA - 'Please remain seated till the plan comes to a full stop and the seat belt sign goes off. In all my years as a flight attendant I have never seen a passenger arrive at the terminal before the plane"

It was classic. The startled look of the idiotic passengers as they slowly sat back downs, looking like olypic 100M finalists ready to spring out of their seats.

I'd love to see the lawsuit on 1 of them for opening up the over head bins and a bag falls on an unhappy american.

 

[nlagalle]

The regulations giving the pilot unfettered discretion are based on the ICAO regulations which concern the safety of flight in an emergency - and give the pilot in command the ability to deviate from any laws and regulations as are necessary in order to maintain safe flight in the event of an emergency.

A pilot can, and would be charged with false imprisonment if they incorrectly, and without good cause subdued and restrained someone. Their actions need to be based on safety.

REG309 is clearly NOT independent. It says that the pilot may do x, y, z only to ensure compliance with the Act or these regulations.

The powers conferred under REG309 only apply if they are to carry out something else in the act - such as, for example, REG224. Which only applies in events such as an emergency

You could not apply reg 224 for example, to a passenger refusing to close a window shade (as requested by a member of the cabin crew) during movie time. That would be absurd.

MEL_Traveller, as someone who has had to study the Regs for my licence I can tell you now it isn't as simple as you put it, or think it.

And I don't think you will find a court testing the PIC's powers on board the aircraft. I think you will also find that power exists the minute you step on board, not when the aircraft is in the air.