The seatbelt light is there for a reason!

[MEL_Traveller]

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'

agree - remaining seated is clearly a safety related issue.

the rest of the debate has been generated by a blanket statement from some posters that ALL crew instructions have to be followed, no matter what. my response was 'only lawful instructions' need to be followed.

Clearly being seated with belts fastened until the plane stops at the terminal is an example of safety but consider these two scenarios:

a) captain forgets to turn off seatbelt sign on arrival at the terminal - in that case I would argue that as soon as the plane comes to a stop, his authoriy ends in that sence under the act - regardless of whether the sign remains iluminated

b) the plane is being refuelled. In CONTRAVENTION of regulations, the pilot leaves the seatbelt sign illuminated. Now - under the regulations, you are potentially disobeying an instruction (not under REG224, as the aircraft clearly hasn't started to move under its own power, but you might be contravening the requirement to comply with all lighted signs and placards). However - you as the passenger a are in the right (not fastening your belt), the pilot is in the wrong. What do you do? Blindly follow the instruction of the pilot despite your own safety being compromised???

 

[nlagalle]

agree - remaining seated is clearly a safety related issue.

the rest of the debate has been generated by a blanket statement from some posters that ALL crew instructions have to be followed, no matter what. my response was 'only lawful instructions' need to be followed.

Clearly being seated with belts fastened until the plane stops at the terminal is an example of safety but consider these two scenarios:

a) captain forgets to turn off seatbelt sign on arrival at the terminal - in that case I would argue that as soon as the plane comes to a stop, his authoriy ends in that sence under the act - regardless of whether the sign remains iluminated

b) the plane is being refuelled. In CONTRAVENTION of regulations, the pilot leaves the seatbelt sign illuminated. Now - under the regulations, you are potentially disobeying an instruction (not under REG224, as the aircraft clearly hasn't started to move under its own power, but you might be contravening the requirement to comply with all lighted signs and placards). However - you as the passenger a are in the right (not fastening your belt), the pilot is in the wrong. What do you do? Blindly follow the instruction of the pilot despite your own safety being compromised???

MEL_Traveller, I suggest that rather than reading 2 parts of the CAR's and continually referring to them, read all the regs including the CAO's and AIP's. You will find that the pilot still has authority even though the plane is stationary. And as pointed out there regs where seatbelts can be fastened while the place is re-fuelling.

I've pointed out already Aviation law isn't that simple to read and make an assumption as you have. Ask any pilot, they'll tell you it can be a minefield!

 

[medhead]

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.

While a spark on buckling the belt is physically possible it is another prime example (if this is the reason for not buckling while refuelling) where the rules could be considered to be totally disproportionate to the actual risk.

Firstly, to effectively buckle up I find it necessary to hold/touch both pieces of metal with each hand. That simple act immediately removes any possibility of a spark.

The other thing is that the spark has to occur in a volatile atmosphere. I've been in only a couple of aircraft being refuelled and there was no hint of fuel fumes in the cabin. Apply the fire triangle, an ignition source without fuel does not equal a fire.

Still the rules are the rules

 

[markis10]

I think its called erring in the side of safety even when the odds of an event happening are astronomical.

There is quite a long list of accidents where people did things because they thought they knew better than what was specified, BA5390 (wrong screws), JAL123 (incorrect repair), etc etc.

I once saw a picture in Aviation Safety Digest of AA191 moments before impact upside down just above the terrain( its not the one that appears on the wikipedia page but the effect is the same), people died mostly because engineers thought they knew better than the aircraft designers! I have also been involved in Aviation search and rescue action as a result of more people not following guidelines and rules, with unhappy and mostly necessary results/outcomes.

Rules are rules, they may not make sense or seem to follow common sense, but usually they are there for a reason! Having previously been employed in a job where not following the rules could kill hundreds of people in a few seconds, I have a healthy respect for such rules!

 

[NM]

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.

The aircraft does not need to run into anything for an unrestrained passenger to be injured. Sudden breaking or even turning at taxi speeds will knock someone off their feet, especially if unbalanced while reaching up for an over-weight cabin bag from the over-head locker.

 

[medhead]

I think its called erring in the side of safety even when the odds of an event happening are astronomical.

There is quite a long list of accidents where people did things because they thought they knew better than what was specified, BA5390 (wrong screws), JAL123 (incorrect repair), etc etc.
d mostly necessary results/outcomes.

If you are referring to my post, I think you may have missed my last sentence. I agree entirely that the rules are there for a reason and need to be followed.

I don't think the accidents you've listed are about someone ignoring the rules. The only BA wrong screw event I know about was due to incorrect procedure and not checking for the correct screw rather than deciding to use the wrong screw despite knowing what was correct.

A seat belt spark is also in a different league altogether. Using the wrong screw or wrong repair is clearly dangerous. A seat belt that can't spark and isn't in an explosive atmosphere is clearly not dangerous - there is no hidden unknown facts in such situation.

But, to reiterate, the rules are still the rules.

 

[markis10]

If you are referring to my post, I think you may have missed my last sentence. I agree entirely that the rules are there for a reason and need to be followed.

I don't think the accidents you've listed are about someone ignoring the rules. The only BA wrong screw event I know about was due to incorrect procedure and not checking for the correct screw rather than deciding to use the wrong screw despite knowing what was correct.

A seat belt spark is also in a different league altogether. Using the wrong screw or wrong repair is clearly dangerous. A seat belt that can't spark and isn't in an explosive atmosphere is clearly not dangerous - there is no hidden unknown facts in such situation.

But, to reiterate, the rules are still the rules.

Medhead,

I was referring to your posts and simply wanted to point out that rules often err on the side of caution and exist to prevent extremely likely events occurring. Those cases I listed were all because someone ignored rules and or procedures, in aviation you are always required to check your work and have your work checked against the published procedure by a supervisor (in the case of the BA accident, the work was signed off because the parts used were the same as those replaced, in effect a double ignorance of the rules) which is part of the maintenance release, this rule was ignored, end result, fatalities.

I am not a seat belt expert, so I wont comment on its ability to generate a spark, in fact despite considerable aviation experience I have no idea about the world of seatbelts used in ALL aircraft, so I am hardly in a position to rule them out as a source of a spark, making a statement that they wont is dangerous in that context.
Rules are Rules

 

[medhead]

Medhead,

I was referring to your posts and simply wanted to point out that rules often err on the side of caution and exist to prevent extremely likely events occurring.

I just don't understand why you felt the need to point that out to me as that was also what I was saying. Thanks for confirming what my point?

I am not a seat belt expert, so I wont comment on its ability to generate a spark, in fact despite considerable aviation experience I have no idea about the world of seatbelts used in ALL aircraft, so I am hardly in a position to rule them out as a source of a spark, making a statement that they wont is dangerous in that context.
Rules are Rules

I'm no seatblet expert either. However, I do know that a spark between 2 bits of metal is created with they have opposite static charges and they're moved close enough together for the static potential to discharge between the metals in order to neutrals the charges. Thing is that that a person is a conduct and if they touch both bits of metal then the charges are neutralised and therefore won't form a spark.

 

[markis10]

Regardless of the reasons I will be leaving my seatbelt off while we refuel in MKY on the way to TSV and making sure its on at all other times.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

medhead... I am assuming the seat-belt generating a spark was a joke!! :mrgreen:

The actual reason seatbelts need to be unfastened during refuelling, as was pointed out correctly by another poster, is to assist in the rapid evacutation in the event there is a fire.

The safest policies around refulling with passengers on board include not only seat belts being unfastened, but also that a jetbridge must be attached to the aircraft, OR, if that is not possible, slides should be armed with crew in position to activate in the event something goes wrong.

nlagalle - air law is no more complicated than other law. It is always open to interpretation until a court makes a ruling, and even then, there are differences in every circumstance. The fact that a pilot doesn't understand it compley is not surprising, they are not the experts! lawyers, regulators and aviation experts are!

You correctly point out that there are lots of other rules and reglations, and I agree, they may well alter my views on some issues. however, from the pieces of the law that have been quoted here by other AFFers, the advice stands that unless there is an event which involves the direct safety of the aircraft, the law (as opposed to an airline's company policy), only provides that passengers need to follow lawful instructions issued by the crew, and those instructions are likely to be issued in respect of safety. For example, the law (as opposed to company policy) a pilot couldn't say - I don't want person x to fly because they are a muslim. (Company policy may give the pilot that ability, but then the lawsuit is something the airline is willing to accept if the pilot gets it wrong).

Pilot powers under REG309 can only be exercised in relation to a matter of safety for the flight and the aircraft. Again, this excludes the pilot restraining a passenger if they failed to comply with a cabin crfew request to lower the window shade. If you failed to close your window shade the airline may refuse to carry you ever again (deeming you an unruly passenger)! That is their right, but they are not taking that action under the law as it has been quoted here (eg REG224).

We have been talking about lots of intertwining issues. But this whole branch of the discussion started when someone made the statement that you need to follow all crew member istructions... no matter what. My counter was... no, you only need to follow lawful instructions. Now, if I chose to NOT follow an unlawful instruction, then i can take my consequences with the airline management after flying - but I have no fear of prosecution under the Act or any regulation. Big difference.

When i am on board I will usually obey instructions, but that doesn't extend to me getting upset about other passengers not following instructions... unless they directly impact my safety. I am not the police! (Which is in fact where this and the other thread on noise cancelling headphones came together!)

 

[straitman]

MEL_Traveller,

I have been away for a few days and have just come back and read all of this. I do have a little back ground in the subject having just retired (yesterday) from flying for the last 40+ years and having held various positions of Aviation management, Aviation project management and Chief pilot. Too many courses to mention but inclusive of Fliying safety courses, Aviation accident investigation courses, Threat and error management courses etc.

I am not going to rattle on like you and a few others here have because you have largely been going around in circle talking on subjects of which you have very limited knowledge.

As markis10 and nlagalle have said you need to read everything, as the Civil Aviation Act refers to the Civil Aviation Regulations and on to the Civil Aviation Orders to the AIPs etc. I'm sure you get my drift :!: Many of these are independent yet are carefully, or otherwise, woven together and simply picking a couple out to quote does not work.

Anyway to address your comment about the PIC and orders and/or directions and whether they be lawful or otherwise. It is really simple because the PIC has a lot more basis to know what is lawful or otherwise than you ever will. He also has a clause in his contract that indemnifies him in the event there is a challenge such as you are talking about. As long as he believes he is correct in his actions and attempts to be lawful he is individually covered. You do not have that coverage as he will be right in 99.999999% of the situations that occur and his authority then also transfers to the rest of the crew.

Are you willing to take that risk :?:

 

[MEL_Traveller]

MEL_Traveller,


As markis10 and nlagalle have said you need to read everything, as the Civil Aviation Act refers to the Civil Aviation Regulations and on to the Civil Aviation Orders to the AIPs etc. I'm sure you get my drift :!: Many of these are independent yet are carefully, or otherwise, woven together and simply picking a couple out to quote does not work.

It is really simple because the PIC has a lot more basis to know what is lawful or otherwise than you ever will. He also has a clause in his contract that indemnifies him in the event there is a challenge such as you are talking about. As long as he believes he is correct in his actions and attempts to be lawful he is individually covered. You do not have that coverage as he will be right in 99.999999% of the situations that occur and his authority then also transfers to the rest of the crew.

Are you willing to take that risk :?:

Thanks straightman. Whether I would take the risk or not is probably a moot point, because unless it was a great inconvenience I probably would comply (I'm not out to make a point!). And in any event, a pilot is not going to get involved in a situation where a passenger does not close the window shade in order to assist movie viewing! Or where a passenger does not move in order to simply provide a passenger of size with more comfort.

I have direct qualifications in this field (including air and international law), plus many years working in the formulation and interpretation of legislation at national and international level.

Given the quotes directly supplied to me by other posters, my interpretation remains the same - but as I did say earlier - my opionion is always subject to any additional points that people wished to supply.

But as yet I haven't been presented with anything that doesn't restrict a pilot and/or crew authority only to situations in which they are acting lawfully (as indeed you pointed out in your post). And to be lawful, said instructions from the pilot or crew must be related to the safety (and safe operation) of the aircraft.

As for the indemnity in an employment contract - that does not confer, in itself, authority to act (although it may well make the pilot feel more comfortable taking a certain action). The idemnity is only a tool to cover the pilot from subsequent civil action. If a pilot acted outside authority and, for example, restrained a passenger (and that retraint was later proven to be unlawful) then they cannot be indemnified, by virtue of their contract, from any potential criminal action.

 

[Keith009]

When i am on board I will usually obey instructions, but that doesn't extend to me getting upset about other passengers not following instructions... unless they directly impact my safety. I am not the police! (Which is in fact where this and the other thread on noise cancelling headphones came together!)

I think there are perfectly valid reasons to be upset at other pax not following instructions, when so often the consequences of this failure to comply impact upon the safety of others around them. To take the example which is the subject of this thread, pax standing up and opening the overhead lockers to retrieve luggage whilst the aircraft is still moving could result in injuries to not just themselves but also others should the aircraft come to an abrupt stop.

 

[markis10]

I have direct qualifications in this field (including air and international law), plus many years working in the formulation and interpretation of legislation at national and international level.

Given the quotes directly supplied to me by other posters, my interpretation remains the same - but as I did say earlier - my opionion is always subject to any additional points that people wished to supply.

Perhaps you might be able to quote to us some precedents and references based on your qualifications and experience, as the provision of source material has only been one sided so far, from people who are not conversant in law on an everyday basis, I am referring to myself in that context and wish to be educated

I am something of a cynic when it comes to the net, especially when a topic comes up such when a flight starts and finishes and people with self stated experience are unable to add to the conversation with an appropriate references and choose to comment on what has been provided, sect 5 & 6 of CRIMES (AVIATION) ACT 1991 is a good start in that context

I am also surprised that the Tokyo convention is yet to get a mention in this conversation given its relevance to the above mentioned act and discussion.

Article 6 is of interest :

The aircraft commander may, when he has reasonable grounds to believe that a person has committed, or is about to commit, on board the aircraft, an offence or act contemplated in Article 1, paragraph 1, impose upon such person reasonable measures including restraint which are necessary:
(a) to protect the safety of the aircraft, or of persons or
property therein; or
(b) to maintain good order and discipline on board; or
(c) to enable him to deliver such person to competent
authorities or to disembark him in accordance with the provisions
of this Chapter.

2. The aircraft commander may require or authorize the assistance of other crew members and may request or authorize, but not require, the assistance of passengers to restrain any person whom he is entitled to restrain. Any crew member or passenger may also take reasonable preventive measures without such authorization when he has reasonable grounds to believe that such action is immediately necessary to protect the safety of the aircraft, or of persons or property therein.


Of note is what is in article 1 in terms of scope:

1. This Convention shall apply in respect of:
(a) offences against penal law;
(b) acts which, whether or not they are offences, may or
do jeopardize the safety of the aircraft or of persons or property
therein or which jeopardize good order and discipline on board.

 

[medhead]

Perhaps you might be able to quote to us some precedents and references based on your qualifications and experience, as the provision of source material has only been one sided so far, from people who are not conversant in law on an everyday basis, I am referring to myself in that context and wish to be educated

I am something of a cynic when it comes to the net, especially when a topic comes up such when a flight starts and finishes and people with self stated experience are unable to add to the conversation with an appropriate references and choose to comment on what has been provided, sect 5 & 6 of CRIMES (AVIATION) ACT 1991 is a good start in that context

I am also surprised that the Tokyo convention is yet to get a mention in this conversation given its relevance to the above mentioned act and discussion.

Article 6 is of interest :

The aircraft commander may, when he has reasonable grounds to believe that a person has committed, or is about to commit, on board the aircraft, an offence or act contemplated in Article 1, paragraph 1, impose upon such person reasonable measures including restraint which are necessary:
(a) to protect the safety of the aircraft, or of persons or
property therein; or
(b) to maintain good order and discipline on board; or
(c) to enable him to deliver such person to competent
authorities or to disembark him in accordance with the provisions
of this Chapter.

2. The aircraft commander may require or authorize the assistance of other crew members and may request or authorize, but not require, the assistance of passengers to restrain any person whom he is entitled to restrain. Any crew member or passenger may also take reasonable preventive measures without such authorization when he has reasonable grounds to believe that such action is immediately necessary to protect the safety of the aircraft, or of persons or property therein.


Of note is what is in article 1 in terms of scope:

1. This Convention shall apply in respect of:
(a) offences against penal law;
(b) acts which, whether or not they are offences, may or
do jeopardize the safety of the aircraft or of persons or property
therein or which jeopardize good order and discipline on board.

You make a fair point about people not bringing in other references to different bits of legislation etc. For myself and my contribution to only comment on what has been quoted in the thread; it seemed pretty clear that (in hindsight I may have been wrong) there was some failure to correctly interpret what was already quoted. Based on my time as a regulator I know full well that there is no point bring in other sections or clauses when there isn't agreement on the interpretation of what is already presented. To do so create confusion.

As for mentioning the Tokyo convention. The australian legislation quoted pick up the bits of the convention you mention. I'm not sure how referring to the convention helps when we are already discussing the legislation that adopts those bits of the convention.

 

[markis10]

As for mentioning the Tokyo convention. The australian legislation quoted pick up the bits of the convention you mention. I'm not sure how referring to the convention helps when we are already discussing the legislation that adopts those bits of the convention.

The convention is applicable in other countries, it was worth mentioning because of the 185 signatories to it that would have similar rules across the world, fortunately the powers of the aircraft commander are pretty much the same across the world thanks to this. I have always understood the powers of a commander or PIC as someone who holds a licence, thanks to this thread I now have a better idea of the background to those laws.

Makes me wonder though, can a commander restrain you for the offence of importing chewing gum into Singapore for instance, as its import is in the penal code of the country???

 

[medhead]

The convention is applicable in other countries, it was worth mentioning because of the 185 signatories to it that would have similar rules across the world,

Maybe the convention is applicable but in the interests of at least remaining vaguely on topic the OP was about a situation in Australia. For that reason I still say the convention is only of passing interest.

As for chewy into Singapore, is it a criminal offence? I know it does say penal code, but I would expect it would have to be a criminal offence. But then knowing the singaporeans it probably is....

 

[Fantic125]

Ok, I don't rant often but here it is..

Just got home from BNE-MEL on QF639. sitting in 6C

Plane land and before the pilots have even had a chance to idle the engines after applying the reverse thrust, people are already turning their phones on... Seriously people, do you really think turning your phone on so soon will make people ring sooner? are you that important????

Then..

We taxiing back to the gate, and the plane turns in and is moving s-l-o-w-l-y anyway Mr Clown in 5D decides it's ok to get up and start unloading his bag from the overhead bin. Then Ms Clown in 5C does the same thing. This is while the plane is still moving.

I was in one of those moods tonight and I piped up, "Are you right people? The seatbelt sign is still on"

Mr. Clown looks over to me and says, "it's ok" and laughs. I was just about to say something to him when the FA got on the PA and said "The seatbelt light is still illuminated, please sit down!" The look on his face was priceless! I just shook my head at him.

Why do some people think the rules don't apply to them? It really gets up my goat!

So Mr. Clown in 5D, i hope if one day you read this, you aren't above the rules!

ok end rant..

Just getting back to the original post........

It doesn't matter how quickly you stand up and remove your luggage; as one of the earlier posts (paraphrase) said, "I haven't seen a passenger arrive at the terminal before the plane."

Next time you land and are taxiing to the gate and see someone near you stand up;
just think "d**khead", and leave them to it. They'll usually be told what to do by someone with more authority.

 

[medhead]

Just getting back to the original post........

It doesn't matter how quickly you stand up and remove your luggage; as one of the earlier posts (paraphrase) said, "I haven't seen a passenger arrive at the terminal before the plane."

Is arriving at the terminal before the plane the problem? Or is it getting smeared on the inside of the nose of the plane? I've certainly seen dudes fall over as the brakes are suddenly applied at the last minute right at the gate.

 

[straitman]

I've certainly seen dudes fall over as the brakes are suddenly applied at the last minute right at the gate.

The cynic in me thinks that just occasionally the braking might be just a little harder than would otherwise be considered normal :!: