The seatbelt light is there for a reason!

[medhead]

I agree. Braking does sometimes seem to be excessive....

 

[dajop]

They'll usually be told what to do by someone with more authority.

Depends on the airline. I've seen both QF and SQ cabin crew bark orders - to sit down - to passengers who stand up whilst the plane is still moving and taxiing to gate. On the other hand, on several occassions on EK such actions by passengers in full view of cabin crew have been met with complete indifference by the crew (this in itself, coupled with lack of rigour in prelanding cabin checks does give me some degree of concern about the safety culture in EK - but that's a conversation for a different thread).

 

[MEL_Traveller]

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

The Tokyo Convention in itself applies to international travel. And a lot of it is trying to work out who has jurisdiction an in what circumstances. The Crimes (Aviation) Act gives effect to the Tokyo Convention where it would apply.

The Crimes (Aviation) Act only applies, as its name implies, to the commission of crimes. Which essentially focus on the safety and safe operation of the aircraft. These include such things as hijacking, assaults on crew, destruction of the aircraft, and the incorporation of crimes found in certain other commonwealth legislation.

So the question is then whether, for something not covered under one of the above, to what extent does the crew have power to issue instructions and expect compliance? I think it is limted to the issuing of lawful instructions. Passengers are not required to comly with any instruction. And what is lawful will be deterined by the different acts and regulations we have been discussing here. In general, those lawful instructions seem to revolve around safety, and the safe opration of the aircraft.

So what we need to find then is something which requires passengers to comply with any 'reasonable' instruction by a member of crew. This would cover the circumstances I have been talking about such as not moving seats to allow another passenger more comfort (rather than weight and balance issues). Or refusing to lower a window shade (for movie viewing).

Is there such a 'reasonableness' requirement anywhere?

 

[JohnK]

I can never understand why some people believe that rules do not apply to them. Coming back ADL-BNE on Sunday and landed in BNE and taxiing to the gate and plane still moving and 3-4 people in business class got up and started retrieving their belongings from overhead bins. I was patiently waiting in 4C and seatbelt sign came off much later. Crew did not say a word to them. No point in having rules if the crew do not enforce them.

As for turning on mobile phones on landing the CSM usually makes an announcement that the mobiles can be switched on while taxiing. I am not normally in hurry but if I want to get home quickly then I will call home as soon as we have landed so dad can make the ~15 minute trip to the airport and not have to wait to pick me up.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

Crew did not say a word to them. No point in having rules if the crew do not enforce them.

Just on this I was flying last week in the USA on a small ERJ145 (I was in 1A with the FA directly in front of me). As you all know US ailines can be paranoid about safety related issues.

Anyways - we had just landed and pulled off the runway and were taxi-ing at speed. All of a sudden the FA yells 'ma'am - please sit down'.

Lady goes into toilet.

Plane comes to a complete stop - no sudden jolting - just smooth stop (from going very fast).

Pilot rings FA and they have a brief discussion. FA says 'well I guess she needed to go'.

So we sit on an active taxi-way and wait - other planes building up behind us.

Pilot rings again and FA says - 'well, it's been a few minutes - I'll give her 5 then go investigate'

So we all sit - and just as the FA says to me 'I'll go have a look' the lady comes out and goes back to her seat.

We then power up and off we go.

And that was the extent of the situation. There was no mad panic by the crew. No threats of restraint or reading the riot act. Just an understanding that whatever it was, this lady must have needed to go.

As we disembarked and waited for our hand luggage the lady disembarked with the rest of us and nothing was said.

It's only one example, but shows some crew really aren't going to get all exercised and rely on whatever powers they have in matters when there is nothing fundamentally life-threatening. Sure the situation was inconenient, but there was nothing fundamentally unsafe.

 

[Lots of Baggage]

I have always found that people that worry about others breaking the rules are the ones most likely to break rules themselves. They see behavior in others that unconciously they see in themselves and it creates a level of anxiety. The ones the make the biggest fuss are the ones who cant control that anxiety within themselves the most and therefore must project it onto the perpetrator (usually by telling them off), thus elevating them of any unconscious stress. Its called acting in the paranoid schizoid mindset. Most mature minds that work from a depressive mindset (different from depressed) will rationalize that we all have the capacity to operate within the rules as well as outside the rules and therefore unless directly effected by the others behavior will ignore the irrational anxiety that some acts bring up within ourselves and move on.

 

[medhead]

Or we want to ignore the rules ourselves but see that as the first step to anarchy. There is also that any number of seemingly innocent things could effect us and our safety.

 

[samh004]

When I was younger I would’ve unfastened my seatbelt as soon as we were off the runway, these days I care less so don’t, but if someone called me on it for taking it off prior to getting to the gate they wouldn’t find me complying. I don’t take kindly to people that take offence at my errors in their eyes. An FA sure. Another pax, I’d give them a piece of my mind, after all, it’s me that will be hurt, not them. :evil: < First time I’ve used that!

 

[medhead]

When I was younger I would’ve unfastened my seatbelt as soon as we were off the runway, these days I care less so don’t, but if someone called me on it for taking it off prior to getting to the gate they wouldn’t find me complying. I don’t take kindly to people that take offence at my errors in their eyes. An FA sure. Another pax, I’d give them a piece of my mind, after all, it’s me that will be hurt, not them. :evil: < First time I’ve used that!

Umm, seat belt after landing but still sitting down isn't the type of thing I was thinking about really. But if you were in the aisle seat and dragged your bag out from under the seat and I was in the window then expect me to crack it; that bag becomes a major hazard to my safety in a smoke filled cabin.

 

[samh004]

But if you were in the aisle seat and dragged your bag out from under the seat and I was in the window then expect me to crack it; that bag becomes a major hazard to my safety in a smoke filled cabin.

I always use the overhead locker and don’t move for my bag until I can stand up.

I think we could sit next to each other

 

[harvyk]

Lots of Baggage, in this case the reason why we are worried about people "breaking the rules" is purely selfish reasons. Not because we are worried we might do it ourselves.

If you take your seatbelt off whilst the seatbelt sign is on, then there is a very real risk that you could turn into a human missile. I personally don't care if someone injures themselves due to their own stupidity, but I really care if someone injures an innocent 3rd party who was doing the right thing, especially if that 3rd party is me.

 

[pauly7]

, thus elevating them of any unconscious stress.

Thanks Dr Freud, I remember this from psych in my HSC! Memories...

I think you mean alleviate though? Otherwise it doesn't make sense.

 

[Lots of Baggage]

Thanks Pauly, grammer and speeling was never me strong sute.

 

[nlagalle]

I have always found that people that worry about others breaking the rules are the ones most likely to break rules themselves. They see behavior in others that unconciously they see in themselves and it creates a level of anxiety. The ones the make the biggest fuss are the ones who cant control that anxiety within themselves the most and therefore must project it onto the perpetrator (usually by telling them off), thus elevating them of any unconscious stress. Its called acting in the paranoid schizoid mindset. Most mature minds that work from a depressive mindset (different from depressed) will rationalize that we all have the capacity to operate within the rules as well as outside the rules and therefore unless directly effected by the others behavior will ignore the irrational anxiety that some acts bring up within ourselves and move on.

Sorry but i totally disagree with you on this one. People not wearing seatbelts, thnking they are better than the rules etc, is my pet hate, because as pointed out already, we don't care if they get hurt, but are more concerned that they will hurt someone else. And FYI I always have my seatbelt on unless instructed not to (re-fuelling is one). Also having my pilots licence I know of the risk of turbulance in flight.

Nick

 

[jb747]

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.

No. The Captain has complete control of the disposition of the aircraft, and all of its contents. No defined limits on that. He may also deviate from any law or regulation, in the case of an emergency.

Yes, that doesn't mean he can legally go postal. But, a direction does not need to be listed as legal for it to be something that can be enforced. Any instruction you are likely to be given on an aircraft is simply so unlikely to be unlawful as to be not worth the argument.

The Captains' control is not limited to 'flight time'. Basically once you are inside the cabin door, you are under his control. In practical terms it's normally easier to leave things on the ground to the ground staff, but don't make a monkey of yourself at that stage. I never negotiate a position, so if you don't think the rules apply to you, or the colour of the person next to you, then don't bring it to my attention.

Whilst I'll admit it's hard to have someone shot at the end of the flight, it's amazing how often problematic people bring the spotlight to themselves at the start of the journey.

With regard to the seat belts...yes, I see people standing up all the time before the aircraft reaches the gate. Most also go for the overhead lockers. I'll accept that many simply don't know, but it's very obvious that many do. Whilst most will never see it, braking, right up to flooring the pedals, will be the response to any infringement of the aircraft obstruction zones. So, if a loader crosses the line as the aircraft approaches the gate, the response may be anything but gentle. Same thing applies whilst taxiing.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

No. The Captain has complete control of the disposition of the aircraft, and all of its contents. No defined limits on that. He may also deviate from any law or regulation, in the case of an emergency.

Yes, that doesn't mean he can legally go postal. But, a direction does not need to be listed as legal for it to be something that can be enforced. Any instruction you are likely to be given on an aircraft is simply so unlikely to be unlawful as to be not worth the argument.

...

With regard to the seat belts...yes, I see people standing up all the time before the aircraft reaches the gate. Most also go for the overhead lockers. I'll accept that many simply don't know, but it's very obvious that many do. Whilst most will never see it, braking, right up to flooring the pedals, will be the response to any infringement of the aircraft obstruction zones. So, if a loader crosses the line as the aircraft approaches the gate, the response may be anything but gentle. Same thing applies whilst taxiing.

thanks jb747 - I agree in principle with what you are saying and in the circumstances you outline you have valid points.

What i was interested to explore goes beyond the examples you list, and covers things such as:

- some low cost carriers prohibit passengers bringing their own food and drink on board. A diabetic (unaware of the restriction which is listed in the fine print) brings two cracker biscuits with them to take with their medication. Can cabin crew lawfully prevent that passenger consuming those cracker biscuits?

- in preparation for an emergency landing a member of the cabin crew instructs a passenger to take responsibility for a minor / disabled passenger sitting next to them during the evacuation. Lawful? (moral issue aside)

- mother wants to breastfeed baby while remaining in her assigned seat. Cabin crew decide this is inappropriate and ask the mother to stop. Lawful instruction?

- member of cabin crew askes a male passenger to change seats so they are not sitting next to a minor. Lawful instruction?

- passengers being asked to lower a window shade during a day flight so other passengers can sleep. what happens if the passenger fails to comply? Reason to have the flight met by police?

I raise these examples in response to those who say you must follow all instructions uttered by crew without having the ability to consider whether those instructions are correct or fair. These are often the same passengers that get most exercised by minor breaches of those instructions, even when those minor breaches have no impact on their safety on board.

(Clearly most instructions such as remaining seated until the seatbelt sign has been switched off are lawful and covered by regulations... the issue of whether there is a valid safety argument is another matter entirely and is a bit of a moot point given the law is as it stands.)

 

[jb747]

- some low cost carriers prohibit passengers bringing their own food and drink on board. A diabetic (unaware of the restriction which is listed in the fine print) brings two cracker biscuits with them to take with their medication. Can cabin crew lawfully prevent that passenger consuming those cracker biscuits?

No, but because of the medical implications. It would be a breach of 'duty of care'. Otherwise, you entered a contract when you bought the ticket. That's not to say that the fine print is itself always legal and legit. Not an airline I'd want to fly on anyway, irrespective of how cheap....

- in preparation for an emergency landing a member of the cabin crew instructs a passenger to take responsibility for a minor / disabled passenger sitting next to them during the evacuation. Lawful?

You would find people who are willing to help and use them...which of course may mean mr helpful has to move seats. Generally those who don't offer to help are the least useful anyway. I can't imagine a need for it to become an instruction.

- mother wants to breastfeed baby while remaining in her assigned seat. Cabin crew decide this is inappropriate and ask the mother to stop. Lawful instruction?

No...well and truly tested by the courts. Of course, that's in an Australian aircraft. Other countries will have differing outcomes.

- member of cabin crew askes a male passenger to change seats so they are not sitting next to a minor. Lawful instruction?

Yes...anyway, you said asks, not instructed. We can move people as required, for a myriad of reasons. You would be amazed at how often people fail to keep their hands to themselves...and that's with adults.

- passengers being asked to lower a window shade during a day flight so other passengers can sleep. what happens if the passenger fails to comply? Reason to have the flight met by police?

In itself no. But if the 'discussion' progresses as I expect you're thinking, then it could elevate to a quick walk of the plank. Quite a legit instruction though. Behaviour like this, whilst in itself not a big issue, always has the potential to escalate, especially if other passengers become involved. The sun blasting in a sole window is a pretty aggravating behaviour.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

thanks Jb for the reply.

The purpose of most of the examples was not to test per se whether each scenario was lawful or not, but to point out that passengers are NOT required to follow every instruction issued by a member of the crew as some posters on this board believe. Passengers are only required to follow LAWFUL instructions.

So if a member of the cabin crew asked a mother to stop breastfeeding, the passenger is NOT required to do so, even though it is an instruction issued by a member of the crew.

Same applies for my other exampes. (And there is plenty of debate about blinds up vs blinds down... many people want to leave their blinds UP on a day flight. I'm not included in that set, but if a passenger politely says 'no' and does not escalate that discussion into something that is either threatening, or interferes with crew duties, then I can't see a case where a passenger has violated any laws?)

I'll admit I worded the 'seating next to a minor' issue a bit badly but this is in fact what happened on BA - a male passenger was instructed (not even asked) to move away from sitting next to a minor. The passenger complied (and I understand has been compensated by BA for the distress this caused). I know this was BA policy at the time (might still be), but I actually would be interested to know if this was a LAWFUL instruction which required the passenger to comply, and if in fact it would be considered a lawful instruction if given by a member of crew in Australia. (The policy was only aimed at male passengers and prevented them sitting next to unaccompanied minors.)

 

[christinam]

The seatbelt thing only annoys me, because these people open the overhead lockers and there's a very real possibility hand luggage will fall on passengers' heads.

Who cares about the phone thing? I don't believe it's dangerous. If it was, all a terrorist would need to do would be to board a plane with 100 mobile phones and leave them on. I'm sure we'll soon be able to talk or at least text from the air. I was on a Qantas flight it was trialled on some time ago, but I couldn't get a signal with my provider.

Christina

 

[jb747]

It's a bit of a game of how you want to ask/tell, and whatever reasons you want to give.

The BA policy with regard to unaccompanied minors made the news, and obviously I have no idea just what was said to the passenger, but if the crew want to move somebody, then they don't really need to supply a reason. The passenger may want to follow it up later, and would be fully entitled to do so, but at the time, it is a perfectly legal request, and so I would expect it to be followed.

This protocol is more widespread than just BA. Whilst some people might take it as an insult to all men, I must admit that I'd rather be seated anywhere else. Not just because I don't want to sit near kids, but because I don't even want the chance of some silly accusation being made. As I said in the earlier post, problems come up with people misbehaving more often than you might imagine, and I've had the police meet the aircraft a couple of times for just this sort of thing.

Bear in mind though, there is a different mindset between the cabin crew and me. I'm extremely unlikely to be wanting a passenger moved, but if I did, then I wouldn't be making a request. I might say it nicely, but it isn't a request. Cabin crew, on the other hand, may need passengers to move on a pretty regular basis, but it's generally to accommodate other passengers (i.e. the newlyweds who have been split up), so they are generally pretty good at making those requests, and in picking the right person to ask.

The light shade is a trivia item, but unfortunately it does come up every now and then. Basically, there is nothing 'illegal' about the cabin crew telling a passenger to close it, and if he doesn't then he is in breach of the rules. Of course, how you handle it from that point shows the difference between good cabin management, and otherwise. Most people are quite reasonable, and something can be sorted out. I guess I'm not cabin crew, 'cos I'd go straight for the military option..firing squad.

I'll toss a couple back at you....business class passenger refuses to put laptop away when asked (on the ground, just prior to doors close); very lightly loaded jet, passenger moves from allocated seat to take an empty trio...once prior to pushback, and again on taxi.