The seatbelt light is there for a reason!

[munitalP]

Going back to the phone debate...

This video (turn the sound down - annoying music!) is a good example of the refuelling vs phones off argument. The small use of fuel in this situation would create the 1-3% (approx) ratio to create an explosive atmosphere.

It's so simple... follow the rules set upon us by the airlines - regardless of how stupid they seem, or that we feel the need to show our intellectual prowess, (or intellectual hard-on - your choice) and argue the point, the simple matter remains, if you cant abide by the rules, bugger of and drive to where you are going (or swim or sail....etc).

[video=youtube;ZTI_RT9VyYU]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZTI_RT9VyYU&NR=1[/video]

munitalP

 

[samh004]

Going back to the phone debate...

This video (turn the sound down - annoying music!) is a good example

Wow, you’ve opened my eyes, I didn’t realise they refueled with frying pans :-|

You’d have thought they’d have a better system by now to get the fuel into the plane

 

[simongr]

I have no issue with the phones being on just after landing - most airlines say to do that but some do not (JL for instance say no phones until inside the building). It doesn't harm/obstruct anyone and frankly its none of my business if they do turn them on and none of theirs if I turn on mine.

seatbelt lights are getting me increasingly frustrated. I am not sure if it is just the flights I have been on most recently but I have seen more pax than ever both unbelting and standing. It might be cultural as I have been on non-western airlines for the past six flights (JL, CX and RJ)...

 

[markis10]

Going back to the phone debate...

This video (turn the sound down - annoying music!) is a good example of the refuelling vs phones off argument. The small use of fuel in this situation would create the 1-3% (approx) ratio to create an explosive atmosphere.

That video is a very poor example of the refuelling vs phones off argument, its not AVTUR or Jet A1 used in most aircraft with anti static additives, its mogas, not one accident has been reported from the use of mobiles at petrol stations, in fact to quote Shell "“portable cellphones properly used do not represent a meaningful hazard on the retail forecourt. Without doubt, apart from the human acts of smoking and striking a match, the thing that represents the greatest hazard on the retail forecourt is the motorcar!”

While we may disagree with the reasons for the instructions, what we agree on is the need to follow those instructions, if they are in error then eventually they will change.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

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.

Powers under REG224 would appear to pertain to 'flight time' - which is defined as:


flight time

means:

(a) in the case of a heavier-than-air aircraft — the total time
from the moment at which the aircraft first moves under
its own power for the purpose of taking-off until the​

moment at which it comes to rest after landing;

The airline may grant additional 'powers' to a pilot before departure - for example we see on Airways all the time how a pilot 'refuses' to accept late passengers. But this would derive from the company rather than any sort of regulation.

This is potentially a complex area. Not sure what commentary is out there on it.

Courts would have to test powers of a PIC if such an action was to be brought. That's why we have courts



​

 

[medhead]

Great thread. Just wanted to mention the seatbelt incident I got flying SYD-BNE. Leaving SYD it was a long taxi out the the end of the runway out towards botany bay (sorry I don't the know the name or anything). Anyway, just as we're pulling onto the runway and the engines are ramping up, I here the FA up the front yelling "ma'am sit down" Look around and there is this lady walking up the aisle. So I made stop signs at her (english was a second language) so she squats down in the aisle. So here she looking confused, squating down. The aircraft is accelerating up to speed. Then just as we're lifting off, the lady tries to stand up again. :shock: Bit more yelling and she's squats back down. Then yells back at the FA, and makes motioning with accompanying sounds to indicate an urgent need to use the toilet. Obviously, this went on for a few minutes more, with attempts to get up all during the steepest part of the climb.

I was totally amazed at the apparent total lack of feel of what the aircraft was doing. Must have been really needing to go.

India, any queue or potential queue is too funny. What I like to see is the guy in row 15 or so, getting up as soon as the seatbelt light changes, thinking its a drag race and the green has just been lit, running down the aisle to get closer to the door. I'm sitting on the aisle in front, slowly get out of my seat, but in the nick of time so my big frame makes it impossible for him to move forward, then turn around and just kind of look at him, and let everyone deplane in front of me, as they should do. Priceless to see the frustration, I dont get it, he is just running to an immigration queue in Mumbai that is never fast...

I had one of these guys on a ADL-SYD flight 2 weeks ago. He comes rushing up the aisle (just after the sign went off), I was being a bit slow getting up. Luckily the guy in the D seat was up pretty quick. So this guy is blocked right in the space I'd usually stand up in, I just stood up and slung my bag over my shoulder into him. I think he got the message

As for the refueling - it also seems to be an urban myth that mobile phones can set off any sort of explosion... even mythbusters found it almost impossible. Most of the emails with graphic warnings and anecdotes have never been proven to have actually taken place.

Experts based on scientific research have put in place rules for my safety while travelling. You give me mythbusters and commonsense. (commonsense aren't that common). Sorry but I'm not putting my life in the hands of 2 movie special effects guys.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

Experts based on scientific research have put in place rules for my safety while travelling. You give me mythbusters and commonsense. (commonsense aren't that common). Sorry but I'm not putting my life in the hands of 2 movie special effects guys.

That's the whole point... there doesn't seem to be ANY scientific research to prove the link between cell phones and fires!! That's one of the reasons mythbusters took it on in the first place.

There's lots of 'anecdodal' stuff going around the net about the link - but no-one seems to be able to find anything scientific!

 

[medhead]

That video is a very poor example of the refuelling vs phones off argument, its not AVTUR or Jet A1 used in most aircraft with anti static additives, its mogas, not one accident has been reported from the use of mobiles at petrol stations, in fact to quote Shell "“portable cellphones properly used do not represent a meaningful hazard on the retail forecourt. Without doubt, apart from the human acts of smoking and striking a match, the thing that represents the greatest hazard on the retail forecourt is the motorcar!”

While we may disagree with the reasons for the instructions, what we agree on is the need to follow those instructions, if they are in error then eventually they will change.

Not only that, but also the use of foil in refuelling. Basically this is just about the perfect set up to create a spark, large foil conductor to store a charge on, that is insulated from the metal frying pan by bits of cardboard. Then how many calls did it take to build up a big enough charge on the foil that was sufficient to discharge to the frying pan, and ignite the petrol.

A situation that is nothing like refuelling, that creates almost perfect conditions to make a spark and it still takes forever.

That's the whole point... there doesn't seem to be ANY scientific research to prove the link between cell phones and fires!! That's one of the reasons mythbusters took it on in the first place.

There's lots of 'anecdodal' stuff going around the net about the link - but no-one seems to be able to find anything scientific!

I was responding to you comments on the NC headphones thread, with the link to mythbusters about some other totally separate issue, to imply that those of us who expect the rules on using electronic goods to be followed are somehow mistake. As I said I'm not putting my life in the hands of mythbusters. There is plenty of research on the interference caused in electrical systems.

 

[nlagalle]

The airline may grant additional 'powers' to a pilot before departure - for example we see on Airways all the time how a pilot 'refuses' to accept late passengers. But this would derive from the company rather than any sort of regulation.

This is potentially a complex area. Not sure what commentary is out there on it.

Courts would have to test powers of a PIC if such an action was to be brought. That's why we have courts ​

MEL_Traveller, Aviation law is a very complex beast. What it seems in one reg is spelt out in another. I beat my head on it for months doing my licence and i am still no better at it.

And hopefully no action would be brought into the courts as CASA would end up writing more regs to cover it afterwards.​

 

[medhead]

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.

The only dependence of reg 309 on reg 224 is the appointment of the PIC. Otherwise 309 is complete independent, nothing in 224 is required (besides appointing a PIC) to use the powers under 309. What 309 does is empower the PIC to enforce the regulations, regardless of what those regulations are, it is not dependent on those other regs.

I would also say that you interpretation of the regulations quoted are strange. The PIC cannot ignore any rule they wish to ignore for safety reasons. The powers conferred by 309 are there to allow them to enforce the Act and Regulations. It doesn't say anything about safety. Presumably there are regulations about safety, but the use of the 309 powers can only go as far as enforcing those other regulations. The PIC can't just decide it is a safety issue.

224 gives the PIC final authority to maintain discipline. Sure maintaining discipline is a foundation of safety, but it is not a safety issue.

I would also say that putting the blind down is actually entirely in the power of the PIC, in certain circumstances. I can easily see that a blind up during movie time might create tension and disruption among pax, which is exactly a situation that could require actions to maintain discipline. Reg 309 outlines (some of) the powers that the PIC can use to maintain discipline as required.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

The only dependence of reg 309 on reg 224 is the appointment of the PIC. Otherwise 309 is complete independent, nothing in 224 is required (besides appointing a PIC) to use the powers under 309. What 309 does is empower the PIC to enforce the regulations, regardless of what those regulations are, it is not dependent on those other regs.

I would also say that you interpretation of the regulations quoted are strange. The PIC cannot ignore any rule they wish to ignore for safety reasons. The powers conferred by 309 are there to allow them to enforce the Act and Regulations. It doesn't say anything about safety. Presumably there are regulations about safety, but the use of the 309 powers can only go as far as enforcing those other regulations. The PIC can't just decide it is a safety issue.

224 gives the PIC final authority to maintain discipline. Sure maintaining discipline is a foundation of safety, but it is not a safety issue.

I would also say that putting the blind down is actually entirely in the power of the PIC, in certain circumstances. I can easily see that a blind up during movie time might create tension and disruption among pax, which is exactly a situation that could require actions to maintain discipline. Reg 309 outlines (some of) the powers that the PIC can use to maintain discipline as required.

Medhead - I think we are agreeing! (and understand now you were addressing the noise cancelling headphones!)

My point was that REG309 only allows the pilot to take such actions when s/he is doing so to ensure compliance with matters covered by the act and regulations.

Other posters were pointing to REG309 saying this confers all sorts of unfettered power on the pilot.

This is however not true. 309 clearly says the pilot can only do x, y, and z in order to ensure compliance with the act. Therefore, far from being an 'independent' source of power, it is limited to be used ONLY for what is contained in the Act and regulations elsewhere. Therefore, it is 'dependent' (for want of a better word) and can only be actioned when based on enforcing other sections.

Just as an aside for people who think a pilot has unfettered power over theaircraft. Do you think they could refuse a person to fly based purely on their race? Or gender? Or sexual preference? Of course not, so they can only act within the scope of the law!

Of course any pilot can do anything they want - they could go 'postal' on the plane -
but the issue is whether or not those actions are then exempt from prosecution because of the operation of the regulations. Going 'postal' is clearly not - so the pilot would be liable for prosecution. Just the same as a flight attendant asking you to stop picking your nose. They have no lawful authority on which to ask you to do that (unless you are creating a disturbance of such a magnitude as to threaten the safety of the aircraft).

Just going back to the noise cancelling headphones issue. It seems there is indeed some confusion between crews. Some are still saying 'turn off' - others are allowing. Now that we all know they are fine (not to turn off) - would we get so upset if someone didn't do as ordered?

 

[medhead]

Medhead - I think we are agreeing! (and understand now you were addressing the noise cancelling headphones!)

This is however not true. 309 clearly says the pilot can only do x, y, and z in order to ensure compliance with the act. Therefore, far from being an 'independent' source of power, it is limited to be used ONLY for what is contained in the Act and regulations elsewhere. Therefore, it is 'dependent' (for want of a better word) and can only be actioned when based on enforcing other sections.

Ohh, I think I understand. It took me a long time to work out what I thought your were saying in the other post. I must have got a bit confused.

In terms of 309, your right 'dependent' is not a good word. The powers exist regardless of the other parts of the legislation. Sure the PIC would need something to enforce, but if there was nothing else in the Act except 309 those powers would still exist. To me that means they are 'indepedent'. I guess this is the difference between having powers and exercising powers.

Just going back to the noise cancelling headphones issue. It seems there is indeed some confusion between crews. Some are still saying 'turn off' - others are allowing. Now that we all know they are fine (not to turn off) - would we get so upset if someone didn't do as ordered?

I must admit one of my faults. I haven't followed the NC thread for a while, as I was finding myself to be repeative. Hence I banned myself, because if I was boring me, then I didn't want to further inflict that on others.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

Ohh, I think I understand. It took me a long time to work out what I thought your were saying in the other post. I must have got a bit confused.

In terms of 309, your right 'dependent' is not a good word. The powers exist regardless of the other parts of the legislation. Sure the PIC would need something to enforce, but if there was nothing else in the Act except 309 those powers would still exist. To me that means they are 'indepedent'. I guess this is the difference between having powers and exercising powers.

I must admit one of my faults. I haven't followed the NC thread for a while, as I was finding myself to be repeative. Hence I banned myself, because if I was boring me, then I didn't want to further inflict that on others.

yes - spot on. 'Exercising' was the word I was perhaps looking for. In that sense, having the power under 309 is irrelevant unless there is something else in the act to exercise them on (ie, you can't exercise or rely on your powers under 309 for any other reason that set out in the Act and regulations).

In this sense myargument on 'lawful' instructions are then hang on other things in the act - which seemm to pertain to the safety (and in particuular in an emergency) of the aircraft. Not - for example - asking for a window shade to be closed, or for someone to stop picking their nose etc!

 

[markis10]

Its important to remember that the CARs are not the only instrument of law providing powers to the Pilot in Charge, their scope is specifically about ensuring safety and are a starting point for the discussion, not an absolute reference.

For instance you need to remember that CAOs and AIPs all are a reference for a pilots powers, in addition to the CARs, as are other acts, the Customs Act of 1901 provides additional powers, and often a countries criminal code will appoint a PIC as a law enforcement officer.

As an example look at the Canadian criminal code:

(R.S., c. C-34, s. 2.) defines a peace officer as:

(f) the pilot in command of an aircraft

​

(i) registered in Canada under regulations made under the Aeronautics Act, or

​

(ii) leased without crew and operated by a person who is qualified under regulations made under the Aeronautics Act to be registered as owner of an aircraft registered in Canada under those regulations, while the aircraft is in flight


I doubt a pilot has any more power to stop you picking your nose than your mum has, but I would stop if so directed and worry about the authority behind that direction later, if I could be bothered :shock:.

 

[Alanslegal]

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

and if a plane is taxi'ing ableit at a verryy s-l-o-w speed, that is still related to safety matters to the person standing (as well as any object / person he or she may hit into). the PIC would be the authority based on the definition of 'flight time' and that's why the announcements are '...............until the captain turns off the seat belt lights'

 

[UP4014]

Because clicking them together could generate a spark, a remote risk but real enough!

And here I was thinking it was so the passengers could make a quick escape.

 

[UP4014]

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

A good point on the speed, a plane moving from the runway to the gate could be moving 60km/h or maybe 80km/h if it's a bit of a distance they need to cover. It doesn't seem that fast when you look out the window but if you collided with another plane or a truck you'd want your seat belt fastened.

 

[samh004]

And here I was thinking it was so the passengers could make a quick escape.

They don’t need to make an escape if there’s no spark… plus you’d want to choose your exit carefully if there was a fire outside the a/c.

 

[UP4014]

They don’t need to make an escape if there’s no spark… plus you’d want to choose your exit carefully if there was a fire outside the a/c.

I was replying the comment about a seat belt buckle making a spark - re keeping them unbuckled. If the seat belt buckle spark reason is why they should be undone then that reason doesn't stuck up.

Undone or done up, as long as you just leave it then they can remain as they are.

But, if you need to clear a plane in the mandated 90 seconds (or what ever it is) with general passengers, you're never going to achieve that if people have their belts buckled.

Matt
(who always has his belt unbuckled when the plane is stopped, ready for the quick escape if needed)

 

[markis10]

I was replying the comment about a seat belt buckle making a spark - re keeping them unbuckled. If the seat belt buckle spark reason is why they should be undone then that reason doesn't stuck up.

Undone or done up, as long as you just leave it then they can remain as they are.

But, if you need to clear a plane in the mandated 90 seconds (or what ever it is) with general passengers, you're never going to achieve that if people have their belts buckled.

Matt
(who always has his belt unbuckled when the plane is stopped, ready for the quick escape if needed)

I was told it was because of the risk of a spark when attempting to do the buckle up, which is what most people will be doing at the time, however I agree that the need for a rapid egress is more likely the reason.