EasyJet passengers told 'get off the plane or you will be arrested'

[crippen]

Does this fit in here??
EasyJet passengers told 'get off the plane or you will be arrested' after fuelling blunder makes flight too heavy
By DAILY MAIL REPORTER
Last updated at 6:31 PM on 10th January 2011

Dozens of Easyjet passengers were ordered off a plane and threatened with arrest if they refused - because the overloaded jet was too heavy to take off.
The flight from Birmingham to Geneva was over-filled with 10 tonnes too much fuel so the captain asked the last 37 customers to get off the plane.
When some passengers refused to budge they were informed that three police officers were waiting in the airport terminal and would arrest them if necessary.
http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2009/08/24/article-1208624-062A1F7D000005DC-54_468x301.jpg
Bungled: Easyjet's Birmingham-Geneva flght was over-filled with fuel so the last 37 customers were asked to get off
But unbeknown to the remaining passengers, their luggage was also removed from the flight to save weight.
They only discovered their bags had been left back in England when they arrived in Switzerland - and some did not received their baggage for another five days.


Bosses at Easyjet apologised to passengers affected by the bungled Boxing Day trip and promised to investigate.
Grandmother Jane Webb, 65, was on board flight EZY1496 with a nine-strong party including her two daughters and four grandchildren who were heading for a skiing holiday in Saint Gervais, France.
She told how the packed plane sat on the runway for half-an-hour before the captain announced he had some 'bad news' .
'He said they had over-fuelled the plane by 10 tonnes of fuel and that he was going to have to ask around 37 passengers to get off,' she said.
'He offered £100 and overnight accommodation to anyone who offered to get off - but when pressed they could not guarantee a next day flight to Geneva.
'About seven or eight people offered to give up their seats, but they then decided that the last 20 odd people to get off the plane would be those who checked in last.
'We were lucky because we had checked in early. But there was a couple of young girls in front of us and they were dreadfully upset.
'They asked the crew what would happen if they didn't get off - and were told there were three policeman waiting for them outside and they would be forced off.
'I felt awfully sorry for them. I've never experienced anything like it before.'
But Mrs Webb was horrified when she touched down in Geneva four hours late and discovered her baggage was back in Birmingham.
The biomedical scientist and her family had to wait five days before they eventually got their holiday bags - the day before they flew back to the UK.
Mrs Webb said: 'We had to buy all the essentials out in France - including thermal underwear and snow boots.
'Easyjet has said it will pay us £25 a day for every day we didn't have our baggage.
'But it was such an inconvenience. The whole thing was a farce.'


Read more: EasyJet passengers ordered off plane after fuelling blunder makes flight too heavy | Mail Online (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1345787/EasyJet-passengers-ordered-plane-fuelling-blunder-makes-flight-heavy.html#ixzz1AgZk1d34)

[sevenstrokeroll]

wow...I have seen planes ''defueled" here in the good old USA without too much problem. wondering why they didn't do that for easy jet.

the pilot did have the right to remove people from the flight and people , after a reasonable explanation, should comply. Once off the flight, legal remedies might then be pursued.

[rubik101]

Easyjet passengers ordered off plane under threat of arrest - Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/travelnews/8250912/Easyjet-passengers-ordered-off-plane-under-threat-of-arrest.html)

Is the A319 unable to be defuelled?
10 tonnes.....37 pax plus bags?
Someone needs a calculator.

What a cluster:mad:

You pay your money to fly on your winter skiiing holiday and get threatened with arrest by the police just because the pilot got his sums wrong?

If someone told me the police were outside waiting to arrest me I'd make sure they had a bloddy hard time of it inside the cabin. Lots of amateur video on Youtube etc.

For once it's not Ryanair!

[PAXboy]

Do we have REAL confirmation that they were threatened with arrest? I have my doubts. :hmm:

[Rwy in Sight]

I am afraid that calling the Police or at least threat to do so is the easy option out for some staff.

Rwy in Sight

[Mr @ Spotty M]

It is not easy to get a defuel at any airport, especially at short notice.
You need an empty or near empty bowser (fuel truck) and the fuel removed must be put back onto a/c from the originating company it was removed from.
It can sometimes be put on a second parties a/c if they give permission, but is uncommon.
If it is a small amount you are sometimes better off just burning it off prior to take-off.
Hope this helps in why Easyjet had to go down this road.

[Joao da Silva]

If this true, it was a very expensive mistake.

Let's assume that 10 people accepted the £100 offer (£1,000 = 1,200€) and the other 27 received the mandatory EU compensation (no extraordinary circumstances allowe in mitigation), 27 * 250€ = 6,750€.

Total so far 8,950€, then add on the cost of 'care' (hotac, meals etc.) and it becomes a big number, probably of roughly the same magnitude as the cos tof the extra 10k litres of fuel.

[etrang]

10 tonnes.....37 pax plus bags

Assuming the normal max baggage of 20kg per pax, that means 250kg per passenger. A bit of overeating at Christmas is not unusual, but 250kg?

[SloppyJoe]

They unloaded all pax bags not just the 37 that got off so about 6-7 tonnes including those that got off. Just because a plane is loaded with 10 tonnes extra fuel does not mean it is 10 tonnes over max take off weight. It would be if the planned flight was to depart at max take off weight but expect it was not or they would have had to remove more people.

[Agaricus bisporus]

Rubik. I take it you're no pilot, though you're pretty good at flying to conclusions.
Who told you it was the pilot that "got his sums wrong"? Not even the daily hate published that gem of misinformation. He probably wanted about 6T. He couldn't possibly have made an error on that scale. 16T is more than he'd ever have carried in his career. Almost certainly a dozy refueller (and no one monitoring the refuel on the flight drck, admittedly).
Sadly the idiots who behaved in the way you proposed were the ones who really precipitated this PR disaster.

I don't think defuelling is possible anywhere in the UK. Airports just don't have the equipment for it, and when it is done the fuel cannot be used as it is presumed contaminated and is effectively scrap.

Thus the aircraft has to be lightened another way. Hugely embarassing, but feel free to suggest a better way to do it, because your wisdom would be of great use to airlines hitherto constrained by Newtonian physics. You'd get a Nobel for it too.

The pilot was only the messenger, he didn't make the decision, the Operations manager did. The poor pilot had to communicate it, one of the worst situations imaginable.
How else do you decide who to offload apart from last ones to check in? Which is less contentious, offloading another 20 pax or the bags? And do you tell the frogs before, or after you've drained the swamp? Someone has to make all those decisions on the other end of a phone a hundred miles away. He can't please everyone. That bags decision is a very hard call.

Short of paying a decent overnight allowance and being very sympathetic in the face of no doubt endless furious abuse there's very little the airline can do but apologise. They can't achieve the impossible.

Its a pity though that the passengers haven't the wit to see that arguing and wailing that it's not fair can't change the situation. 37 had to get off eventually, and chosing to fight or argue just makes a difficult situation doubly unpleasant. If they refuse to walk off than maybe they have to be carried or everyone is delayed there all day. But why screw everyone else up just because something doesn't suit you? That is plain selfishness.

I have every sympathy with all the passengers except those who thought that confrontation would achieve anything but make a difficult situation far far worse.

[Safety Concerns]

How about just doing the honourable thing and defuel. Take the delay, lose the fuel as contaminated and then take all those who payed their fare to their destination. Much better outcome.

What we are seeing once again is that too many people have lost their moral bearings and chase only profit at the expense of all else.

[radeng]

I wonder how long it will take them to get their money.........Would those taken off be able to claim hotel accomadation, food, the €250 and clothing allowance for the period until they go their luggage? And telephone calls?

Plus the PR disaster, too.

[Safety Concerns]

watch out low flying easyjet pilot (rosco)

Just answer the following questions instead posting stupid abuse. My answers in brackets.

1) can aircraft be defuelled? (yes)
2) is it a quick process to defuel 10 tons? (no) (this includes locating equipment)
3) are pilots involved in the process of calculating and accepting fuel loads? (yes)
4) who has the final say on fuel loads? (crew)

Please spare us the pilot was only a messenger nonsense.

[SwissRef]

I wonder how long it will take them to get their money.........Would those taken off be able to claim hotel accomadation, food, the €250 and clothing allowance for the period until they go their luggage? And telephone calls?

The other issue is that the clothing allowance is unlikely to cover ski gear - so those going on a ski holiday had the choice to either pay out for appropriate kit and lose money, or lose out on skiing. Given that replacing ski clothing could easily run into £500 or more (jacket, ski pants, thermals etc). Far more expensive than a beach holiday. Is the airline obliged to cover this?

And if the allowance is at a set amount the passenger has a conundrum to solve. Replace the gear, but don't be fully reimbursed, but get to ski. Or don't replace it, don't get any money back (nothing to reimburse) and miss out on skiing.

[bughunta]

http://http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-birmingham-12157763 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-birmingham-12157763)

Easyjet fuel error leaves Birmingham plane too heavy

Thirty passengers were ordered off a plane which had been loaded with too much fuel to take off, it has emerged.

Easyjet has apologised and said it is compensating the passengers after the incident at Birmingham Airport on Boxing Day.

The passengers were unable to fly from the West Midlands city to Geneva because of the error.

Easyjet spokesman Andrew McConnell said the firm was investigating what had happened.

The firm asked for volunteers to leave the flight and offered them a payment and overnight accommodation, but only seven people took up the offer.

The last 30 passengers to board the flight were then told to get off the plane and catch a later flight.

Some baggage was also left behind when the plane eventually took off.

Easyjet is investigating claims that passengers were threatened with arrest after declining to leave the flight.

Mr McConnell said the firm wanted to sincerely apologise to the passengers affected.

"The cause of the weight restriction was due to a fuelling error, which resulted in the aircraft taking on too much fuel, and therefore being too heavy for take-off when fully loaded," he said.

"An investigation has been launched to understand how this happened."

[Admiral346]

Defueling is quite expensive...

But it can be done.

[SloppyJoe]

The flight plan that the crew had would have been computer generated with the route, it is all checked and the fuel on that would have been correct. Either the wrong number was written down and handed to the fuel guys or it was those pumping the fuel put in too much. The fuel figure written down and handed to the ground crew will be checked by both pilots. I expect they just put in too much fuel. Not the pilots fault, it does show on the display in the flight deck but you don't really pay attention to it that much as expect the number you give to be the amount loaded. If it was the wrong number written down then yes its the pilots fault but I think the case of just adding too much is more likely as fuel figures are very carefully cross checked by both pilots.

[cTcPilot]

Pilots at fault at this one. Poor airmanship.
Insted of off-loading pax skipper could have "Extended" his engine run up checks! And held of on Rotating until he could see no more runway haha
I know the russians would have done it :}

In all serious though, Must have been a paper work error. Sh!t happens as they say. We are all human

[squeaker]

Wouldn't have thought it was over MTOW, even with 10 tons extra gas, more likely over MLW. In which case, why not go and burn the extra until below MLW? Even if they had to lose all ten tonnes (unlikely), that would cost about $8000. Cheaper than compensation?

[Swedish Steve]

Fuel load for Birmingham-Geneva is in the region of 8 or 9 tons. The tanks on a standard A319 take 19 tons. Sounds like the plane was fuelled to full by mistake.
Refuelling today is done by the bowser drivers, not by engineers or pilots. They set the refuel panel, and then pump fuel until it stops. A power interrupt during refuelling can make the preselect figure to disappear and only an alert refueller will notice this.

At my airport, unloading 10 tons of fuel would mean finding an empty bowser. The bowsers are always kept full, so the fuel company would have to use one until it is empty. The bowsers hols 40000 litres, so unless you had a widebody waiting for fuel (not many in BHX) it would take 5 or 6 refuellings of an A320 to accomplish, before you could start the defuel. Takes awhile.

[cwatters]

They might have got 30 volunteers had the rest known they wouldn't have their bags.

[Jonty]

They should have de-fueled it, and taken the hit on time and money.

The last time I was involved in de-fueling in BHX it took about 30mins to find an empty bowser. And there are plenty of fuel hungry aircraft in BHX in which you can empty a full bowser.

This sounds like a time and cost issue, probably mostly time. Crew hours, knock on delays, airport opening hours that sort of thing.

It was a cock up and Easy Jet should have put their hands up and got it sorted.

[AlpineSkier]

@ Agaricus Bisporus

Short of paying a decent overnight allowance and being very sympathetic in the face of no doubt endless furious abuse there's very little the airline can do but apologise. They can't achieve the impossible.

What the cheapskates could have done, would have been to offer immediately to pay the E 250 that the law requires , instead of seeing if they could gat away with less ( initial offer of E 100). That action alone makes them looks like miserable creeps, which is further compounded by deliberately not telling hte remaining passengers that all their luggage is being off-loaded.
As already pointed out, this is hugely more problematical and expensive than beach-holiday luggage.

As for not protesting, well I have to say that companies ( in all industries) will sometimes make decisions that favour themselves but are not immutable. Under such circumsatnces loud protest can change matters : an example of this being the passengers in Marseille in December who protested at their non-stop flight to Morocco being routed via Bordeaux and extending flight-time by 5-6 hours. Their protest resulted in a delay of a couple of hours and a direct connection if I remember correctly.

In short , I think you're wrong about selfishness and just delaying others for longer.It may be possible to alter matters but you won't know until you try.

[Skipness One Echo]

It always saddens me that people have no courage in these situations. I include myself. Daring the crew to have Police filmed arresting passengers and dragging them off easyJet would have been a PR nightmare too far.

A filmed viral youtube clip can be a killer.
People nicked, kids screaming, mothers weeping etc. Stelios would have gone nuts about damage to the brand. People on here and skytrax are manageable, screaming children on film with Poicemen is calamatous and would have encouraged another approach. ie Take the delay and defuel, putting all your passengers first rather than keeping the aircraft on time for it's next mission.

Of course the next flight would be delayed as there is no slack in the business model. Hmmm

[wowzz]

Having had a similar experience in ALC, where the last 25 pax were denied boarding, due to a weight issue, I would just say that EZY paid all our costs, plus full compensation within 14 days.
Still not overly happy, but at least we did not have to fight 'tooth and nail' for our money.

[Parapunter]

ts a pity though that the passengers haven't the wit to see that arguing and wailing that it's not fair can't change the situation. 37 had to get off eventually, and chosing to fight or argue just makes a difficult situation doubly unpleasant. If they refuse to walk off than maybe they have to be carried or everyone is delayed there all day. But why screw everyone else up just because something doesn't suit you? That is plain selfishness.
Those pesky paying customers getting in the way of playing airyplanes again!

Another way of looking at the situation is that having paid in advance and formed a contract with Easy Jet, that they then sought to break, doubtless ruining many carefully laid holiday plans in the process, it was not beyond the 'wit' of some of those same passengers to allow which ever cretin who thought it was a good idea to invoke the Police to play that particular brinksmanship game and have their subsequent day in court. In for a penny, in for a pound.

What is of interest to me is that faced with a difficult operational situation, Easy once again didn't miss the opportunity to miss an opportunity and chose to inconvenience their paying customers rather than their balance sheet. You pay your money, you take your choice.

And Mushroom man, you have once again shown the misanthropy that makes you perfect for airline work. Every time AG, every single time.:rolleyes:

[dontflyeasy]

Not a pilot. Just one of the passengers on the flight. Very clear to me it was the person putting on the fuel who stuffed up. They put 10 tonnes too much fuel on, which left us 5 tonnes over our maximum take off weight. Pilot was very angry and you could see that. Actually easyjet told us fairly promptly that the compensation would not be £100 but 250 euros. The main delay was the pilot could not get through to easyjet to clarify this, and he was stood at the front of the plane on his mobile for all of us to see.

As soon as the 250 euros was clarified, we chose to get off and make our own way to resort. Our main delay was they would not allow us to get our luggage until all 36 passengers were off loaded - so having "volunteered" we had to wait over 2 hours to get the case. All this said we know we got the better deal and are very releived we chose to get off.

The one point I would say is that the flight was not going anywhere until 36 people got off, so the longer everyone sat there staring at each other the longer the delay was. We all also knew GVA closed at 2330, so if we did not take off then it would be cancelled.

We were told, Birmingham did not have the capabiilty to offload fuel - I saw no reason for the pilot to lie, as we were also told if we had the engines on for about 2 hours it would also burn off the fuel, but easyjet were not prepared to do this.

Look there was a stuff up, in my view the person/company putting on the fuel and it affected all of our holidays. The big point for me is I think the plane was always going to go with no luggage (I don't think 36 people (given 4 of the 36 were aged between 3 and 6) equates to a change in the calculated take off weight of 5 tonnes), but they could not tell everyone as there would have been a riot.
Am I happy with Easyjet no, but they have followed through with my compensation and my full refunds, so they have doen what they said they would - yes I did have to call and hold for a long time to ensure they did it adn that irked me

[WHBM]

Am I being too simplistic ....... ?

All pax off into lounge, take off empty, 30 minutes or less at low altitude with the speedbrakes deployed, back to pick them up again with it all burned nicely off.

Yes there's a cost. That's one of the costs of doing business in aviation when there's been a screwup.

[rodthesod]

WHBM Am I being too simplistic ....... ?

I don't think so. I'm not familiar with the type but it would be interesting to know how much they really were over MTOW at BHX on a cold day and, if they took off at MTOW, how much over MLW they would have been at destination. I would have thought that your idea plus, if necessary, a medium level flight to GVA with gear down and brakes out could have done the trick. An expensive exercise but well worth it for PR.

[John R]

AP: rubik101 is a Ryanair captain.

As for the "inconvenience" caused to the passengers, perhaps they would have preferred to experience an overweight take-off? I think the potential consequence might just have been more "inconvenient" than losing their bags. Someone has to explain to people why this stuff is important. :ugh:

Parapunter: my post applies to you too.

[Joao da Silva]

s for the "inconvenience" caused to the passengers, perhaps they would have preferred to experience an overweight take-off? I think the potential consequence might just have been more "inconvenient" than losing their bags. Someone has to explain to people why this stuff is important. :ugh:

They make their plans and pay their money in the expectation that the airline will do a competent job in getting them to destination.

If the refueller screwed up, they are easyJet's supplier, so it's easyJet's problem.

Why don't you grow up and empathise with a plane load of people who had their holidays screwed, one way or the other.

This incident is simply unacceptable.

[Parapunter]

This is the point. Time & again, in this forum for passengers do we see something really quite unpleasant take place at an airport and get commented upon, only for a pilot/engineer/atco, whoever wander along and tell us that we should sit up and listen to a technical explanation about why such and such happened and run along now.


As a passenger it's not my job to understand the technical details of airline operations. My job is to fund it.

The sooner some of you big watched aerial legends actually begin to understand this, that we pay for everything you get to do, everything, then we may at last begin to rehabilitate the reputation of certain companies and actually create an appeal for the service beyond price which is frankly what so many of them rely upon.

So, John R, your post actually does not apply to me at all does it?

[wesleyscott]

it seems to me to be a gaff of unrefound proportions....10 tons extra is not just a mistake its an immense error for which someone should get maulled for.
Apparantly it only takes 4 tons to fly from birmingham to geneva (i dont know but my pilot friend told me) so load an extra 10 tons above that seems a huge screw up.

[Agaricus bisporus]

Well, as demonstrated by dontflyeasy who was actually on that flight just about every prediction I made was correct, except that EJ fronted up with the full 250Eu right away. A bit different from the version peddled by the daily hate and some others here...

Parapunter, completely wrong once again. You really ought to wait until you're in posession of the facts before shooting your Big I Am line and once again demonstrate your extraordinary arrogance as a member of the public who always knows the Professionals' business better than the Professionals themselves. As shown by the subsequent posts, you don't, and quite contrary to your pavlovian assumptions of lousy customer care dontfly seems to tell a quite different story. Or do you know bettter than someone who was actually there?

Anyway, no need to let mere facts get in the way of a good rubbish-an-airline post, is there?

[Sunnyjohn]

Can someone explain why they couldn't have unloaded the equivalent of ten tonnes of Pax and luggage rather than 37 Pax and all the luggage?

[Dropline]

If (for example) they had chosen to offload 50 pax and just their bags rather than 37 pax and ALL the luggage, they would have had to offload all the bags, identify and remove each bag belonging to the 50 pax who weren't travelling, then reload the rest of the baggage. This would have taken a considerable amount of time. Much quicker just to take off all the bags. And offloading the minimum amount of pax means they have to pay less compensation.

[Bealzebub]

Am I being too simplistic ....... ?

All pax off into lounge, take off empty, 30 minutes or less at low altitude with the speedbrakes deployed, back to pick them up again with it all burned nicely off.

Yes, you are being too simplistic. It really isn't as simple as that. For one thing flying with prolonged use of the speedbrake (spoilers extended) in icing conditions can result in ice forming behind the spoilers such that they will not retract properly. This really isn't a good situation to get yourself into. On top of that, "flying around for 30 minutes" in reality will likely involve a couple of hours of pre-flight/ post-flight planning before the next service can commence. That will likely have implications on flight crew duty hours. Then there are the other operational constraints such as airport opening hours, ATC slots, Runway movement slots, etc. Nothing is ever as simple as it might seem.

As other people have already pointed out, de-fuelling an aircraft is a difficult procedure, in that it requires an available empty bowser. In the UK and many other countries, fuel companies will not permit delivered fuel to be returned to a bowser, due to quality control and potential contamination issues. The same holds true for empty bowsers, unless the bowser itself can be cleaned before it is then subsequently used. That may be possible, but it will never be a quick process. In effect the over-fuelled aircraft may (as in this case) become a technically compromised aircraft. That compromise being the payload it can transport.

There are very few experienced pilots who haven't at one time or another had a situation where their aircraft is over-fuelled. There are cross-checks that should be put in place to minimize this risk. For example the fueller should be given a specified quantity of fuel to upload. This should result in a manual stoppage should the automatic systems fail to cut out. In addition the pilot doing the pre-flight inspection should monitor the uplift at the bowser whenever practical. However it is likely that at many airports the monitoring function is contracted to another party. On the vast majority of occaissions the delivery is fine, rarely (as in this case) it isn't.

Clearly nobody would want the problems that this type of event would cause. From the "eyewitness" report here, the Captain was clearly annoyed. Naturally and quite understandably so were the passengers. I can't quite understand where the threat of "having people arrested" came from, since in the ordinary course of events, such a threat would be entirely improper and ill advised.

There are procedures that would have to be effected for this type of unfortunate event, and by the sound of it, they were put in place. For the passengers this sort of event is clearly unacceptable, and whatever compensation is offered or accepted, will do precious little to assuage the damage or inconvenience suffered. In any over-fuelling situation, be it a communication, technical, or monitoring failure, there will likely be procedural change or reinforcement in order to prevent similar occurances. Obviously that doesn't help the people involved in this particular event, and without doubt these events will continue to happen as long as any scope for error exists.

I think that the "professional" responses here are given to present technical explanations, rather than excuses or justification for error. Sometimes the artistry in the job lies in how you deal with these difficulties once they do arise. For a Captain, that artistry means balancing diplomacy and information dissemination with a dozen other variables all at the same time. It can sometimes be hindered by conflicting information from other sources, and sometimes with the best will in the world you simply don't have the ability to satisy as many people as you might wish to.

[spannersatcx]

Refuelling today is done by the bowser drivers, not by engineers or pilots. Not in our airline it's not, saves situations like this! (hopefully)

We've had it in the past where miss communication is the error, that's why it is always written down by the crew, or if done via headset we readback say 80.9 as 80 decimal 9, as many years ago we were told 89, when in fact they wanted 80.9.

Sunnyjohn I believe they were 5T overweight by the fact they had 10T too much fuel on rather than 10T needing to be offloaded.

Can't see that it would be that difficult to defuel a 320 by 5T, would take 40-60mins at the most, it was probably the cost of having to do it that was baulked at or maybe not even considered, far easier to offload a few pax. :=

[YorkshireTyke]

Please spare us the pilot was only a messenger nonsense.

So YOU know how it happened - right ?

please DO tell.

[flying lid]

Pay peanuts for tickets, Get monkey airlines.

Lid

[fincastle84]

As a passenger it's not my job to understand the technical details of airline operations. My job is to fund it.

Unfortunately some members of the 2 winged master race assume that they have a right to rule the world. Fortunately they are in a minority.

Getting back to the original post: Easy have handled this whole incident appallingly. Do they care?

NO!

[groundbum]

depends what else was going on, but I wonder whether Easyjet considered swapping the flight to another airframe? There might have been another flight that could have taken off with the extra fuel (going almnost empty someplace, or going further than Geneva) or a plane sitting idle to swap to and take the overfilled one to go burn circles for a few hours that evening, bus passengers to another airport, etc.

G

[rubik101]

No matter what happened, oversight, omission, lack of monitoring, FO's mistake, incorrect ordering, miscommunication to the bowser operator, the responsibility lies with the Captain; no-one else's.

Why any one of those occured is another story but it's still his responsibility.

[ma11achy]

Interesting article over at BBC News regarding an easyJet flight that took on too much fuel and then had to choose to disembark some passengers to equalise the W&B.

BBC News - Easyjet fuel error leaves Birmingham plane too heavy (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-birmingham-12157763)

[Octopussy2]

If we are prepared to accept that taking fuel off/attempting to burn off fuel in some way was impractical (and I happily accept the explanations from the professionals on this thread that it was), then it seems Easyjet was left with no alternative but to take passengers/luggage off.

HOWEVER, why did they not explain to the pax remaining on board that they would be flying without their luggage? I wonder how many people would have chosen to get off and make alternative arrangements? Failing to tell customers that you are leaving their luggage behind in these circumstances is just plain dishonest. The least I would expect in this situation is to be informed of ALL the facts so that I could react appropriately to minimise the inconvenience that Easyjet (or those for while they are responsible) were causing me.

[Hipennine]

I would think that anybody with a modicum of common sense would realise that a seasonal flight going to GVA in the Xmas period is going to have primarily ski trip pax aboard. This means that, the majority of them are going to leave GVA and travel to high altitude cold snowy places, where they then intend to go to the very top of the mountain in midwinter conditions. It is therefore a reasonable expectation that the majority of those pax will be very highly reliant on the content of their baggage to be able to have any purpose to their trip. Arguably failure to deliver the baggage coincident with the pax is potentailly a safety issue, given the purposes of the trip. Many ski destinations are lucky to have a minimarket, never mind outlets where you can purchase any form of replacement wardrobe. To read that it took five days for some luggage to get to their owners beggars belief, given the number daily flights from UK to GVA, or the fact that most courier companies could do it overnight.

And don't be too quick to make the pay peanuts sort of comments. By the time a typical skier/boarder has paid for luggage and skis on top of the already enhanced fares from non-london airports to ski destinations with the likes of Easy, they ain't cheap - in fact the legacies (Swiss and BA) usually work out less.

I'm a skier, and if I was told the choice is you get to GVA but your baggage won't, or we offload you, believe me, the offload is the much better option.

[alright_pal]

phone call to fuel farm tell them problem, refueller putting that much on a flight that normally takes 10 ton less should have known better and should have stopped fuelling when getting to a high fuel figure. Switching on APU and taking out GPU can upset fuel panel and remove preset figure so you can pump away all day, that said if no empty bowser fuel company can emty a full one or part full back into storage tanks, the rule is on bowsers and defuels : is the 10% rule and capacity of vehicle, with a defuel of 5000kg this is more than 10% capacity so it has to be an empty truck, this fuel then has to be sold back to the same airline, and yes you have to have fuel samples from every fuel tank sump drain to check for contamination. On small defuels if its less than 10% of contents you can check fuel and resell to anyone. It is a time consuming job but not impossible and it wouldn't have taken long to resell the fuel from that bowser back to EJ.

[robtheblade]

Ladies and gentlemen, this is your captain speaking.

It seems that we can’t find 30 passengers who will give up their seats for a safe departure. Therefore, unfortunately we will have to try an overweight take off. We will endeavour to get off the ground before we get to the car park at the end of the runway. There is a 50/50 chance of doing so and we may not make it. If anyone wants to make a donation of £100 to a charity of your choice to get off now, please make yourself known to our cabin crew.

No problem 30 pax off in the blink of an eye and £3000 to comic relief.

[YorkshireTyke]

Why any one of those occured is another story but it's still his responsibility.

No contest, The Buck Stops Here, but there are two threads running on this, here and Jet Blast, and I think it was someone on the other one that said that the pilot got his sums wrong.

It is this automatic assumption by the Great Unwashed that EVERY aviation incident must be caused by pilot error that gets my goat, although of course some are.

MAYBE the pilot did get his sums wrong, maybe not, maybe the bowser driver entered the wrong amount into his meter, many scenarios - does ANYONE know the true FACTS ?

PPRuNe does include RUMOUR in the title, seems that's all that people care about, never let the collection of truth before opening mouth interfere with a good story.

I bet the ONLY person who knows the truth is the Easyjet employee who made the decision to offload pax and baggage - and I also bet that we will never find out who that was. Yes, it might have been the Captain, but equally maybe not, which of course doesn't deny that he took the ultimate responsibility by going along with it, but then again, Captains can't be held responsible for every decision made by the Commercial division before they are presented with the loadsheet, but ..... does anyone know the facts ?

[Di_Vosh]

The crew/engineers may not have been on the aircraft when said aircraft was being fuelled.

In my airline in Oz, we calculate our fuel loads during our flight planning at the beginning of our shift. These figures are sent to our load control who forward them to the refuellers. Sometimes our aircraft are fuelled without anyone on board. On occasion (around once per year) our aircraft have been overfuelled.

(Disclaimer: I have no idea what Ezyjets procedures are for refuelling)

DIVOSH!

[WHBM]

Surely the ops team at HQ have a fully worked out SOP for how to handle overfuelling, rather than making it up as they are going along.

[crippen]

I have decided it would take the threat of arrest by the police to get me ON an Easy jet flight!! Will stick to Emirates .:D

[crewmeal]

The crew/engineers may not have been on the aircraft when said aircraft was being fuelled.

Do Easy Jet employ engineers at outstations or do they call on other type rated ones to help when there is a problem? BHX have some very good tractor drivers though!!

[AlpineSkier]

@ Yorkshire Tyke

PPRuNe does include RUMOUR in the title, seems that's all that people care about, never let the collection of truth before opening mouth interfere with a good story.

but ..... does anyone know the facts ?

So YT, are we to infer from your sneering message to us that no one should post on any subject until all direct participants have posted legalised affidavits of the real, true and complete facts ?

AS ( probably a member of the Great Unwashed as seen by YT )

[Skipness One Echo]

Will stick to Emirates .

Stop being such a snob! How on Earth is that any use in European short haul?

[John R]

The crew/engineers may not have been on the aircraft when said aircraft was being fuelled.

I think you'll find that the easyJet turnaround model means that the crew were almost certainly on the aircraft when it was being refuelled, with the possibility that one pilot was still doing the walk-around.

Parapunter, yes my post does refer to you. No one is saying that this was not a balls-up. It was. And if I had had to disembark / fly without bags, I too would have been annoyed. But the difference between us is I would have respected the decision, and understood the frustration, of the flight crew.

What riles me is that you do not seem to appreciate that: a) sometimes these things happen (obviously in your perfect logistics company, no mistake is ever made); b) on the very rare occasion that this happens, as here, there was no alternative way for the Captain to handle the situation.

Finally, re your ridiculous assertion about 'passengers getting in the way of flying planes', you should re-read the eyewitness report earlier in this read by a passenger on the flight who said he saw the captain clearly annoyed. Not really consistent with your argument, is it?

[wowzz]

Crippen - looking at the recent reviews for Emirates, I wouldn't be so cocky!

[crippen]

^ Will let you know!:ok:

[Safety Concerns]

this is how you do it

Pilot stops plane for grieving man | The Sun |News (http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/3350416/Pilot-stops-plane-for-grieving-man.html)

[YorkshireTyke]

...........that no one should post on any subject until ..........etc.

'twould sure save a lot of time and effort - on everyones' part, but then where would be the fun and mystery ?

[AlpineSkier]

'twould sure save a lot of time and effort - on everyones' part, but then where would be the fun and mystery

So you seem to agree that your previous post was a pointless waste of time then .

[TiiberiusKirk]

I suppose that disobeying any instruction from the pilot - including one to disembark - could be considered to constitute "endangering an aircraft"; On the ground or in the air. As such, it's defintely arrestable and often imprisonable offence. Almost certainly the police would act first, then ask questions.

[Joao da Silva]

I suppose that disobeying any instruction from the pilot - including one to disembark - could be considered to constitute "endangering an aircraft"; On the ground or in the air.I can't see how refusing to budge is endangering the aircraft, so long as done peacefully and without interfence, but no doubt plod would think of an alternative.

[Nicholas49]

Speaking from a legal standpoint, the police / prosecution (although somehow I doubt it would get that far) would have a lot more difficulty justifying the 'endangering the aircraft' argument when it's parked at the gate. I'm not saying it's impossible, just that it's a pretty murky situation to get into.

As said above, the police would surely respond to the captain's request to get the passengers off with force, but then the 'fun and games' (aka PR disaster / claims against the airline for 'false imprisonment' / complaints against the police for unjustified arrest) would begin. It really is a situation to avoid at all costs.

In any case, the title of this thread and the newspaper headlines about being 'threatened with arrest' are misleading (surprise surprise) because there is absolutely no indication that's what happened here.

[Piltdown Man]

Speaking from a legal standpoint, the police / prosecution (although somehow I doubt it would get that far) would have a lot more difficulty justifying the 'endangering the aircraft' argument when it's parked at the gate. I'm not saying it's impossible, just that it's a pretty murky situation to get into.

I totally agree. Passenger handling people will for too often try the "Call the Police" option before they have through what is really going on. The door is open, the plane hasn't started its take off roll, the Tokyo Convention doesn't apply. You would be very hard pushed to make a case saying that those on board are endangering anyone. I also reckon that as along as you remain calm and polite, Plod would stay well clear of you. Staying in your seat against the wishes of EasyJet is probably against their Conditions of Carriage and as such leaves you potentially open to civil legal action, but not a criminal one.

As for the Captain, he was faced with an aircraft that for whatever reason was over fuelled. In Britain, the elf'n'safety brigade and other such morons prevail which means you won't realistically be able to de-fuel. Also, in many companies defuelling is considered to be an "engineering function." (I have none of these problems in Europe.) So you have to reduce your payload or increase your burn. It appears that someone decided to remove the bags to carry the maximum amount of people (£25/per day for missing bags or €250 to offload a person? So with a Brummy accent "Eerrre Bryann, woi don't we offload deese bags instead of puntas cos we'll save a blinking fortune 'ere") early on. But more weight had to be shed than just bags. Not surprisingly, this rapidly turned into a "Cake and Arse party" which nobody took responsibility for, except that Captain who was given the ****ty end of a very ****ty stick.

What should have happened was that all bags should have been offloaded and the passengers bribed with cash to offload themselves. Match the offloaded bags with offloaded passengers, say sorry, reload and whizz off. But no, I reckon somebody tried to save a few quid and left EasyJet with some Mick-the-Gyp type publicity. That saved a few quid, didn't it!

PM

[easybusdriver1]

What an embarrassment! Insider knowledge really changes your thinking. We all know that Mc Donalds ingredients are sh1t but the guys who see the ingredients pressure hosed of the floor really know what the score is and as a result I bet there aren't roo many who'll go to a Mc Donalds and order a big mac. I wonder if easyJet employees feel the same about flying on easyJet? I sure as hell won't risk my holiday being ruined! The skipper probably did get the sh1tty end of the stick and I bet he was left to rot with this situation and zero useful support from the company.

[Joao da Silva]

£25/per day for missing bagsI can see the logic in that approach, but it may be false economy.

Having heard my parents experience of the small claims court in the UK, many, many years ago, over a ruined holiday, they tell me that the judge leant very much in their favour and penalised the tour operator heavily for 'loss of enjoyment' caused by deliberate actions.

In this instance, I think a small claims court judge might take a very dim view of offloading baggage without giving the people the option to go with it, thus destroying a lot of the value of their holiday.

And if the baggage did not arrive for a number of days, I reckon your would be able to claim for a whole set of ski clothes, several hundred euros.

[Parapunter]

completely wrong once again. You really ought to wait until you're in posession of the facts before shooting your Big I Am lineRight, this would be before you shot off to Tech Log to ask whether an aircraft can be defuelled having already denied it on this thread? And I don't have the facts??!!

there was no alternative way for the Captain to handle the situation.
It's this fatalistic attitude that brings Ezy in particular to these pages again & again.

Turning slightly blue in the face saying this, but here is where us passengers express our reaction to the twists and turns of the airline business as we experience it. That certain insiders repeatedly expound on technical matters in response is highly enlightening on the narrow thinking that some quarters of the airline business remain saddled with even after god only knows how many opportunities to learn from the past. I don't care particularly whther the captain was at fault, whether a vessel is available to defuel, whether you can fly around with gear down.

What I care about is the response from the business once the cock up takes place. That is what I'm interested in, the experience of the customer after an error is made. This is the point that gets missed again & again. It's depressing to witness I tell you.

[Piltdown Man]

What I care about is the response from the business once the cock up takes place.

Absolutely! This is what "Customer Service" should be all about. But unfortunately, too many companies employ inexperienced and very junior staff to work in this area. They fail to give them any authority or support to solve customer service problems and their managers hide in offices far away from the front line. The only solution is to "fight" noisily in the media and make the culprits spend a fortune in compensation and marketing.

My own company works reasonably well until it is overloaded. Then, those at the front of the queue get excellent service, those in the middle get appropriate service and then unfortunately, those at the rear are left to fume. When they do get to the front, they get handled by tired and tetchy staff, get the scraps from table and don't walk away satisfied. The spare capacity has already been used up looking after those who were in the front of the queue. My company are acutely aware that this is a problem and are working on a solution. I just hope they do it quickly.

[Bealzebub]

Not that I can see it had any relevance in this particular event, but for those that might hope or claim otherwise. Part 19 section 141 of the Air Navigation order states:
Authority of commander of an aircraft

141. Every person in an aircraft must obey all lawful commands which the commander of that aircraft may give for the purpose of securing the safety of the aircraft and of persons or property carried in the aircraft, or the safety, efficiency or regularity of air navigation.

It isn't restricted to "endangering" but also the efficiency, and regularity.

It doesn't matter whether an individual or group think something is fair or not. If the commander wants you off then you are required to get off. Refusal to comply would most certainly lay you open to the possibility of criminal prosecution and would provide the justification the police would need for ensuring removal.

[teddybear44]

All true, but I guess the Police would have to assess risk factors involved in boarding an aircraft and attempting to eject such a large number of people with limited resources. In my own mind, not a very pretty picture

[Ops_Room_Junkie]

Firstly, this was a screw up. Can't be denied. We don't know who or why and to be honest even if we did it would add nothing to this debate (Ezy need to find out and ensure they reduce the risk of it happening again: note I say reduce the risk...to say ensure it never happens again, is fantasy - hopefully it won't but it sadly could..). The main thing is it did happen.
I have been in aviation for over 25years working in most departments, many UK and overseas airfields and have seen this happen (sadly) many times to many airlines at many bases (although not common) - so lets not get complacent and blame Ezy, it 'can' happen to almost any airline at almost any airfield. Ezy could have handled it better, but this is one of the hardest ops -v-customer service issues, especially if your resources are tight (crew hours, aircraft availability, airport closing times and weather issues).
It makes me smile to see all the posts on here about 'de-fuelling'. Now when I started in aviation, yes this would happen. Nowadays I know of no major airport in the UK where you can get de-fuelled, and I do not mean in theory I mean for it to actually happen. Fuel contamination issues and control measurers are so strong that 'practically' on the day for you to find a fuel company that has time (they serve multiple airlines) and the resource - potentially an extra bowser (capital costs of £100k+) that will be treated as 'contaminated' for many days after the event. it just does not happen - yep, in theory we know it 'can' happen and you may find fuel companies that say they will do it..you find me one that will do it on the day when they have so many other paying customers and their requirements to balance off. In the last 15 years I do no know of any UK (major) airport where you can get de-fuelled in such a situation. Not great, but that's the way it is!
Flying around empty - nice idea, but it ain't gonna happen. Apart from environmental issues, what about crew hours? That adds more sectors to their duty day, so get another crew..from where (wasn't this boxing day!) and all the time the night closure and weather at GVA are getting worse.
Best idea would have been (if possible) to swap the aircraft around and/or position this to another base (LTN/LPL) and send their aircraft to BHX...this is IF you have the aircraft and the crew, the crew have the hours and again the clock is ticking all the time.
So you are generally faced with the dilemma - canx the flight, as your logistical solutions are not practicable within the timescales and legal limitations you are faced with, and upset all the pax. Or off-load enough to make the plane able to operate.
This is a horrible situation and one I have sadly faced many times myself (due over-fuelling, last minute notification of broken seats, emergency door u/s etc - where you have more pax checked in than you can carry!
First choice, volunteers. If you are lucky and 'intelligent' enough as an airline to match your compensation to the specific problem and ensure the financial reward outweighs (if possible) the disruption and disappointment the customers will face - you may be lucky! - In my opinion the offer should have been the minimum require x at least 50% - this was a skiing trip/destination at Christmas (for goodness sake) not a quick Edinburgh and back where there are 'other' options available to the customers.
Sadly though if you do not get enough volunteers, you have to look and involuntary off-loads - never, ever a nice situation and sadly one I have been in more than once. I have never had to call the police/security but have had it in the back of my mind that it may have to come to that if my persuasion and negotiating skills do not work. In this situation (GVA skiing trip) the brave decision should have been made to offload more pax and protect the baggage of those travelling - in these days of triple A baggage security it would not take that long to find their bags (lots less than the 2 hours taken to force the passengers off - that the passenger posting on here related). To travel to a ski destination without your bags is pointless, you may as well not go. The decision to take all the bags off and limit the face-2-face confrontation was cowardly and dishonest.
Forget endangering the aircraft, simply if you have to offload these passengers against their will, then they are offloaded - their 'boarding card/documents are therefore revoked and they have no reason to remain in the restricted zone of an airfield. It is against the law to be in the restricted zone without the required permissions - if you are not on the flight, you have no permission to be there. A nasty approach to take, but that is your legal angle if you want it.
Someone said that you have a contract with the airline to fly to to GVA (or wherever) so they can't make you get off. Yes they can, check your contract. You will find that it agrees to transport you, it does not tie the airline down to when or how (you may have booked and have a flight number and times but this is not part of the contract). So therefore they can elect to not carry you today, on this airplane etc. Not saying this is morally correct or great - but that's the way it is.

Finally it always amazes me that people seem to think that aviation is the only industry that screws up. I (sadly) experience terrible customer service almost daily (and yes I do complain, but nearly always in writing to those that are accountable, not the poor sod that is there to face things on the day) this is in banks, supermarkets, the doctors, the hospital, on the roads - almost everywhere. Yet people seem to put up with going to hospital for your operation and being told that it is delayed/cancelled, being stuck in traffic jams for hours as lanes are coned off and no-one is working in them, filling your trolley full of groceries to find few or nil check-outs open..yet with aviation, such a complex logistical operation that is so (thank goodness) governed by multiple safety laws that we should always have a quick and easy solution and be able to rectify any situation.

[wowzz]

ORJ - excellent post.
I feel that if EZY had been more open and honest from the start, and, as you suggest, had offered a serious financial inducement, the issue could have been resolved with the minimum of fuss.
And whoever decided to take the decision to off-load the baggage without telling the pax should have been made to tell them in person, not take the coward's way out and do it in secret.

[Safety Concerns]

another problem are those who probably mean well trying to paper over the cracks but spout nonsense in the process.

It may surprise many on here but engineering for example regularly have a need to defuel. If they couldn't quite a few aircraft would be grounded by now.

It may also surprise some that Captains have the final say on fuel loads and are responsible for the correct amount being on board.

There is no excuse here. The Airbus even has a pretty colour screen in the front showing where the fuel is going and how much. That is independent to whoever was actually refuelling. It is even possible on an airbus to refuel automatically from the cockpit. Somebody just needs to tap in the CORRECT figure. Depends on what extras have been bought by the airline of course.

Bowsers may cost a fortune to buy but then airlines don't generally buy bowsers. So 100k plus is trying to paper over the cracks. It has nothing to do with this and is a completely unrealistic value for a defuel which costs peanuts and possibly the loss of 5,000 kg's of fuel at some ridiculous low price. Yes there is no duty or vat on aviation fuel.

Defuelling costs a couple of hundred quid max and if you are lucky you even get the fuel back.

This is about poor management of a situation and not the error itself. If an airline messes up you don't go around threatening the people who ultimately supply the profits and pay wages if the reported threat was genuine. You do what you can to make your error as palatable as possible. Thats the bottom line here and nothing else.

Mistakes will happen no problem, but don't try and use the ignorance of the passenger to pull one over on them. Put your hands up, explain the situation in a professional manner and things will probably work out ok.

[Ops_Room_Junkie]

Safety.

nice too see more finger pointing.

I love those people who subscribe to the view that airline staff would rather p**s off 30-100 passengers (directly) and several more indirectly (such as their relatives, friends etc) and also have to have a face-2-face extreme conversation that is going to be stresfull for all concerned and (seemingly) get so heated that it takes over two hours and threats of police action....than the 10's of 'simple' suggestions all those contributors on here think can be done. Would anyone faced with the option of picking up the phone and saying 'hello Mr Fuel bowser man, would you kindly come back to our aircraft and take off the fuel you have just put on it for us' - not take that option IF IT WERE A REAL POSSIBILITY???:ugh:

Oh you say, but they won't do that as it costs too much, ..oh but then you said it costs peanuts didn't you?? So again, would you take the option of calling the nice bowser man and spending peanuts or the option of spending loads in pax compensation, short shipped baggage costs and the cost of delays and all the unpleasant dealing with unhappy customers IF IT WERE A REAL POSSIBILITY???:ugh:

Engineers may defuel aircraft for mtce, but this is rare that they need to do this. When they do it is usually into a much smaller company bowser at the mtce facility (don't think BHX is a mtce base for Ezy) and for smaller amounts it is hand-pumped.
I have no reason to lie about facts on here and as I work for a major competitor of Ezy it would be nice to lie and point the finger at them (especially on a passenger forum) but that would not be honest. I work for a major UK airline and have worked for several others over the years at major UK airports - I am not sure where you work of for what airline but what you claim just simply does not stack up.

OBTW, The figure of £100k+ (was for capex) read the post. It was not suggested to de-fuel would cost £100k, simply that for a fuel company to have a bowser 'free and available' to be loaded with fuel that would then be considered contaminated and not required for the next week or so, is unlikely due to the capital costs of purchasing and maitaining such a specialised piece of kit! The figure to de-fuel and aircraft at a major UK airport, who knows...a bit like asking how much it would cost to walk across the water to France..you may get a price but in practical terms it wont't happen!

[Joao da Silva]

Beazalbub

I am not a lawyer, but I do think that you could make an argument that the command is not lawful.

As the company has made a contract with the pax and accepted them on to the aircraft (so it is not a cancelation or denied boarding), one would then get into an argument about whether it was lawful to choose a number of people by virtue of the fact that they boarded last.

The clear fact would seem to me to be that easyJet is in breach of contract due to the negligence of its supplier, which is clearly under easyJet's control and is there the company's accountability.

Therefore, if easyJet is a seriously breaching contract with these people (itself an unlawful act), then (to my mind and I stand to be corrected by a lawyer), it is not clear to me (with the doors open and on stand) that the captain is issuing a lawful command.

[Joao da Silva]

Now when I started in aviation, yes this would happen. Nowadays I know of no major airport in the UK where you can get de-fuelled, and I do not mean in theory I mean for it to actually happen. Fuel contamination issues and control measurers are so strong that 'practically' on the day for you to find a fuel company that has time (they serve multiple airlines) and the resource - potentially an extra bowser (capital costs of £100k+) that will be treated as 'contaminated' for many days after the event. it just does not happen - yep, in theory we know it 'can' happen and you may find fuel companies that say they will do it..you find me one that will do it on the day when they have so many other paying customers and their requirements to balance off.

How about the airline saying "remove the unsolicited goods you placed on our aircraft, or else."

[Ops_Room_Junkie]

How about the airline saying "remove the unsolicited goods you placed on our aircraft, or else."

..and?

How about when you go to the supermarket and cannot get in to do your weekly shop as there has been a power-cut due to the supplier having a failure. The shop is closed, you have to go home with no shopping. The store staff are abused by customer who have been inconvenienced. Simple, how about saying the store saying to their power supplier 'restore the power to our store, to which you are contracted to do' Job done, simple!:ugh:

As I say, everyone thinks there is a simple solution, if there were would the airline and staff really endure the costs, bad PR and confrontation.
Next we will hear the line, 'apparently they overfulled on purpose as they hadn't sold all the seats and it wasn't worth them operating'!

[Joao da Silva]

How about when you go to the supermarket and cannot get in to do your weekly shop as there has been a power-cut due to the supplier having a failure.That is clearly force majeuere.

The easyJet incident is not.

And sorry, but your scenario is nothing like what occured at BHX.

As I say, everyone thinks there is a simple solution

There is

(a) cancel the flight (fair to all, no one travels without luggage)

(b) hold the fuel company accountable for removing the excess fuel, charge them for losses arising

(c) manage the pax situation under EU261/04

[Ops_Room_Junkie]

ah got it.

So in your scenario then.
All 130+ pax have their holidays ruined, rather than perhaps the sixty it would take with their bags to be offloaded and the flight operate.

Several other flights are potentially cancelled over the next few days as your plane is grounded as you argue point of principal and law with your supplier.

The passengers get compensated under EU law but that does not replace their holiday and plans.

You are right, so simple and so effective. I bow to your superior experience and knowledge (not sure the airline or the 60 pax who could have travelled would be so happy). I suggest you write this off to each airline so they can capture these three bullet points as their foolproof tested SOP for any such occasions. I think you may make £1000's in consultancy here as you have cured the age old problem.

Nice to know Ryanair handling agents post on this forum:E

As I said, I have no reason to lie. I have every reason to throw mud at Ezy, I was simpling giving the facts of 25 years experience and stating here how it is - same facts I would tell my familiy if they were on this flight. No lies, no paper over cracks but also no pretence that this is a simple situation.

I am not inclined to carry on debating with people who have no real experience and feel they have simple and pompus answers to a really difficult situation - for passengers, crew and ground staff.

Debate over for me. Enjoy yourselves with your finger pointing, hindsight and legal arguments.

You can take a monkey to a library but you cannot make it read and understand (sic).

[Safety Concerns]

we don't actually know that the fuel company was to blame do we???

The figure to de-fuel and aircraft at a major UK airport, who knows...a bit like asking how much it would cost to walk across the water to France..you may get a price but in practical terms it wont't happen!

So I dreamt up my defuel last week in Glasgow?

Defuel costs peanuts, you just need the experience and know who to ask.

Oh look a few other posts on this:

Yes it can/has been done, requires maintenance and bowser man.

Fuel removed can only go back in the same a/c or same companies other a/c. Or disposed of, the cost of which is picked up by the airline.

Done it several times,

I wouldn't imagine that it would take too long to get 5T off a 320.


Whether it was investigated in this case or not remains to be seen but quite often the problem is with experienced non engineers making decisions without talking to the right people.

What was that about monkeys and library's:ugh::ugh::ugh::ugh::ugh:

[Bealzebub]

Joao,

You can argue the merits of your case to your hearts content before a magistrate or police officer, however the ANO does provide the legal basis for the commander to have his instructions complied with.

A breach of contract does not infer that a commanders instruction is in anyway unlawful for the purpose of that order.

I would again make the point that there is nothing to suggest any particular relevance to this incident. The reply was in response to some erroneous statements being made during the course of the thread.

[Joao da Silva]

Beazelbub

You misunderstand me.

I am not questioning the captain's authority, but am saying I think a clever lawyer could argue that the command was unlawful under the circumstances and with authority comes accountability.

I notice that Piltdown Man, an airline capt I believe, said

I totally agree. Passenger handling people will for too often try the "Call the Police" option before they have through what is really going on. The door is open, the plane hasn't started its take off roll, the Tokyo Convention doesn't apply. You would be very hard pushed to make a case saying that those on board are endangering anyone. I also reckon that as along as you remain calm and polite, Plod would stay well clear of you. Staying in your seat against the wishes of EasyJet is probably against their Conditions of Carriage and as such leaves you potentially open to civil legal action, but not a criminal one.

Whether the conditions of carriage would still carry much weight under the circumstances, is another question, as the airline seems to have driven a horse and carriage through the contract.

[YorkshireTyke]

OpsRoomJunke

I am not inclined to carry on debating with people who have no real experience and feel they have simple and pompous answers .............

Debate over for me...................

You can take a monkey to a library but you cannot make it read and understand (sic).

I totally concur. Well said.

[Joao da Silva]

OpsRoomJunkie

I am not inclined to carry on debating with people who have no real experience and feel they have simple and pompous answers .............I guess that life is a learning free zone for you, devoid of external challenge and governed by internal reinforcement?

You should come to my company for a focus group day; we invite our customers to tell us what they think and then we use that feedback to innovate.

Sometimes the people without the experience ask the 'stupid' questions that give us a new perspective on how to solve problems or recognise opportunities.

We never forget where our revenues come from.

[Nicholas49]

Joao da Silva - hang on just a second.

I am a lawyer, although I do not practise aviation law. What I said earlier about the 'endangering' argument did not show the full picture. Apologies. Now that Bealzebub has kindly directed us to the relevant statute - the Air Navigation Order - I stand corrected and recognise that, on a straightforward reading, the Commander's authority would indeed enable him to disembark passengers against their will.

A breach of contract does not infer that a commander's instruction is in any way unlawful for the purpose of that order.

Exactly. Thanks again Bealzebub. JDS - you are muddling the issues here.

I am not questioning the captain's authority, but am saying I think a clever lawyer could argue that the command was unlawful under the circumstances and with authority comes accountability.

No, a lawyer would not be 'clever' if he argued that. Read the statute. As for your comment: 'with authority comes accountability'. Well, yes of course it does, but again that does not change the legal position!

So, to summarise:

a) the Captain can make the passengers get off if he wants to;

b) the passengers may have a claim for breach of contract against easyJet, depending on many factors, including the Terms of Carriage, which may or may not be applicable. That involves reading through them very carefully, which is not my idea of fun on a Saturday morning. So instead, I am off to make a coffee ;)

[Parapunter]

I totally concur. Well said.That is rather depressing.

[TightSlot]

It takes a Lawyer to provide such an effective summing-up

:ok:

[Joao da Silva]

Nicholas49

To be clear, I am not saying that the captain cannot disembark the passengers, the statute says that and the police could be summoned to assist. The pax would go. That is clear from a theoretical point of view.

However, post hoc, there may be a price to pay.

Regardless of the terms, what about the implied terms and conditions?

This appears not to have been a denied boarding, but rather that the carrier failed to manage the loading of fuel and as a result did not fulfil their obligation to transport the passengers who were subsequently offloaded.

So surely a passenger contract has an implied term and condition that the carrier will use reasonable efforts to ensure that the passenger will be carried? If the aircraft is loaded well in excess of the fuel load required, it would suggest to me that there was negligence, thus breach of contract.

In summary, I see how my posts may have read ambiguously, all I was saying is that it seems to me that offloading the flight using the ANO may be unlawful in the context of the contract.

It seems clear from the ANO that the passengers cannot refuse the captain's order to disembark, although as Piltdown Man (an airline pilot) says, how it would pan out in reality is another matter.

[Nicholas49]

OK, coffee in hand, so let's clear a few things up. I must say I think this is the first time I have ever been able to answer rather than ask a question here!

To be clear, I am not saying that the captain cannot disembark the passengers, the statute says that and the police could be summoned to assist. The pax would go. That is clear from a theoretical point of view.

Good. We agree on that then.

However, post hoc, there may be a price to pay.

This appears not to have been a denied boarding, but rather that the carrier failed to manage the loading of fuel and as a result did not fulfil their obligation to transport the passengers who were subsequently offloaded.

Yes, there may well be a price to pay if the passengers bring a successful claim for breach of contract against easyJet. I have found the Terms and Conditions of Carriage on their website. On a quick glance through, I think they would be unsuccessful in bringing such a claim. Why? Because they contain this provision:

Article 8
Refusal and Limitation of Carriage
8.1. Right to refuse carriage
We may refuse to carry you or your Baggage for reasons of safety...

The section in bold is the important bit. And it appears to be relevant to this situation. This plane is too heavy, so some of you and your bags must off-load for safety reasons. You agreed to this when you bought your ticket (even though none of you read that part). (Whether easyJet have a claim against their fuel supplier if it was the fuel-loader's balls-up is an entirely separate matter. I bet their legal department are looking into it, though!)

So surely a passenger contract has an implied term and condition that the carrier will use reasonable efforts to ensure that the passenger will be carried? If the aircraft is loaded well in excess of the fuel load required, it would suggest to me that there was negligence, thus breach of contract.

This is the most problematic comment.

1) Yes, all contracts have implied terms and conditions, but there is no such thing as a 'passenger contract' per se, nor are there implied terms that relate specifically to passenger transport. Yes, the 'reasonable' test is important, but I'm willing to bet the Commander here took all 'reasonable steps' to resolve this situation. He alone knows.

2) 'negligence, thus breach of contract'. Don't know where to begin with this, other than to say that negligence is from tort law and breach of contract is (somewhat predictably) from contract law. They have nothing to do with each other.

all I was saying is that it seems to me that offloading the flight using the ANO may be unlawful in the context of the contract.

No, as said in my earlier post, any contractual irregularities do not negate the authority under the ANO. In addition, you need to consider Article 8 above.

I mean this kindly, but I must say you are misunderstanding fundamental legal principles here to reach wildly erratic, and erroneous, conclusions. I am not an aviation lawyer so I am not an expert in the field, but I hope this helps clarify.

Nick

PS: Thanks, TightSlot.

[YorkshireTyke]

That is rather depressing.

Maybe.

As a pilot I guess I've no place on this thread anyway ! ( but I guess I'm not the only one, either )

To discuss the reason for the stuff up is pointless, if you KNOW that the tanker driver started to txt his girlfriend and overfuelled as a result, or that the Captain got his sums wrong, so what ? Are you going to ask Easyjet to ensure that their sub-contractors do their job properly next time, or ask if the Captain has a grasp of simple arithmetic ? That is a normal expectation, and check-in staff are going to regard you as some sort of nutter if you do.

This thread should only have been about how Easyjet handed the stuff up - which in itself was a given - with suggestions as to how the pax. might have been handled better from a customer point of view, the legal considerations are very interesting, thank you, and yes, sometime stupid questions in seminars can be very useful to work towards a solution .

What got ( gets ) my goat is the AUTOMATIC assumption that the pilot stuffed up everytime that there is an aviation incident ( as here, quote " the Captain got his sums wrong " Oh, yeah ? )

If the pilot makes a mistake, and yes, they sometimes do, even me (!) it is usually the last mistake in a chain, and he isn't around to defend his actions, maybe based on mistaken information given by someone else in the chain.

Sorry my paranoia is showing through. I can handle it.

[etrang]

canx the flight, ............., and upset all the pax. Or off-load enough to make the plane able to operate.

Or the captain makes a PA and informs the pax that due to being over-weight all baggage will have to be off loaded, and asks for volunteers to get off as well. Once they know that their luggage is not going a lot more pax will be willing to get off, and this way the pax can make an informed decision. They are they only ones who can decide whether arriving on time with no luggage or arriving day/s late with luggage is more important. Then offload all the baggage and if enough pax get off maybe re-load some of the baggage for those who are flying. This would minimise disruption and would be a better solution than cancelling the flight or offloading all baggage without telling the pax.

[Joao da Silva]

Etrang

I agree.

Also, I wonder if the people responsible for offloading the bags considered whether anyone was carrying medication?

The airport security advice is "Remember to take only what you need for your journey. Extra supplies and larger containers of medicine can go in your hold baggage" (source DirectGov.)

Given this flight was on Boxing day, finding an available doctor/dispensing pharmacy in a ski resort might have been something of a challenge and at the extreme may have required a trip to the nearest hospital for treatment.

The same applies to people travelling with babies, although food is probably easier to find, sterilising equipment for bottles may not be.

I would think that they should be at least aware their bags would not be waiting for them.

[Safety Concerns]

yorkshire tyke you don't get off the hook that easy. You as the responsible person, paid quite well to ensure flights get from A to B safely, have quite a major role to play.

Please correct any of these statements:

You are responsible for deciding final fuel load
You are responsible for flt plan calculations based upon weight

To make those calculations you need the weight of the fuel
To obtain the weight of the fuel you need to know how much is in the tanks
To know how much is in the tanks you need to look at the gauge and the fuel chit delivered by the fuel firm prior to flight.

With pax on board the error was detected very very late. If the aircraft had already been fuelled why wasn't the captain aware of the extra fuel load prior to boarding?

If the aircraft was fuelled immediately prior to boarding then he should have been paying attention anyway.

The bowser driver is way down the chain (if he was responsible) and its all too easy to blame an external supplier. External supplies need to checked anyway but fuel, fuel is critically important and yet nobody discovered until very very late that it was wrong.

Sorry, that comes back to the Captain in my book

[YorkshireTyke]

Of course, I know nothing about Easyjet procedures, so won’t blame the Captain until someone tells me the precise order of events – if they ever can, and if you can’t – shut up and stop talking bo*****s, it is precisely this automatic assumption that the pilot is always wrong to which I fiercely object.

Not prepared to answer anymore uninformed comment, so pls. go away

[Safety Concerns]

Not prepared to answer anymore uninformed comment, so pls. go away

I quote from the Air Navigation Order, should be informed enough and I am of course giving you the benefit of doubt that you are in fact a pilot.

Pre-flight action by commander of aircraft
52 The commander of an aircraft shall take all reasonable steps to satisfy himself before the aircraft takes off:

that the aircraft is in every way fit for the intended flight

in the case of a flying machine or airship, that sufficient fuel, oil and engine
coolant (if required) are carried for the intended flight, and that a safe margin has been allowed for contingencies, and, in the case of a flight for the purpose of public transport, that the instructions in the operations manual relating to fuel, oil and engine coolant have been complied with;

in the case of a flying machine, that having regard to the performance of the
flying machine in the conditions to be expected on the intended flight, and to any obstructions at the places of departure and intended destination and on the intended route, it is capable of safely taking off, reaching and maintaining a safe height thereafter and making a safe landing at the place of intended destination;

You could I suppose argue that the above has in fact been carried out hence the situation. However one would expect errors particularly with fuel to be detected earlier than boarding complete.

Its a very poor captain that shoves the blame for fuel error onto somebody else. If the schedule is tight then extra attention should be paid to the fuel load. There are 2 of you up front and the screen is in colour with pretty boxes highlighting the tanks. Even if you are chatting away or doing something else it is no action to check.

You are responsible and not the poor bowser driver.

[Nicholas49]

Safety Concerns: your argument is ridiculous.

So in your ideal world, every flight would see the Captain (obviously the First Officer could not be trusted to do this, it must be the Captain) loading the fuel himself?! You better be prepared to wait a long, long time at the gate in that case.

Should he load the bags into the hold himself to make sure the job has been done properly?

Should he pass through the cabin before landing to check everyone's seatbelt is fastened, just to make sure the cabin crew have done their job?

And if he doesn't, is he still a 'very poor Captain'? Don't be ridiculous.

No one is saying he is not ultimately responsible for everything. But he has to delegate.

[Safety Concerns]

nicholas, lawyer or no lawyer there are enough cases that have already taken place where responsibility has been decided. I will also remind you of your own words

I am a lawyer, although I do not practise aviation law.

Of course nobody expects the captain to do the job himself but there are company procedures in addition to the ano and they tend to be crystal clear.

In fact I will quote from one company:

The commander shall ensure that before each flight a weight and balance calculation is prepared using the correct procedure and that it complies with the aircraft weights and C.G. certified limitations.

The correct fuel loading of the aircraft is the legal responsibility of the commander.

We are not discussing street corner law, it is more complicated and there are a number of different layers that have to be complied with.

I would love to see you successfully challenge the above.

My comment still stands and is far from ridiculous. It is the every day norm and one of the reasons why pay is good.

[ROSCO328]

SC

You really are an angry wee man!

[cockney steve]

I am totally baffled by the jobsworth's paranoia that "defuelled" fuel is/could be contaminated.

They just loaded the bloody stuff....so are they admitting that their procedures/couplings/hoses/bunkers are so lax and poorly -maintained that they dump a half-pound of sand/dust/water/into ~10 tonnes of fuel?

Oh, sorry, I forgot....the aircraft arrived full of contaminated fuel that the last lot of lazy/incompetent suppliers shoved into the tanks.
(the fact that a load of crud floats around in there from build/maintenance, is a side-issue...BA 038 ? the heathrow glide-in...had all sorts in the fuel system but it had flown for a longtime with that "contamination" ! )

So, Yes, I concede that a lax system (or incompetent/lax/suicidal pilot) COULD see an A/C with almost empty (apart from miscible contaminants) could contaminate a load of freshly-boarded fuel, but it's about as likely as the Pope taking a mistress.
OMHO it's Ezy's ballsup, the knobber who decided to screw-up ALL the Pax's holidays,needs demoting back to his level of incompetence

[Safety Concerns]

thanks for the comment rosco which undoubtedly gets us a step nearer to the truth. your comment on easyjet ops on this thread may shine some relevant light onto this subject I don't know.

http://www.pprune.org/flight-ground-ops-crewing-dispatch/421838-ezy-ops-question.html#post5823602

Simple question, simple answer

Hi
I was wondering if someone that works for EZY ops could PM me for a question..

Rosco said:

You will be lucky!! They don't have the man power 2 lift the phone to their staff so i would not hold your breath!!!

So as an easyjet pilot rosco, who do you believe was at fault here and why wasn't this solved prior to boarding?

[KBPsen]

The commander shall ensure that before each flight a weight and balance calculation is prepared using the correct procedure and that it complies with the aircraft weights and C.G. certified limitations. The correct fuel loading of the aircraft is the legal responsibility of the commander. You are, intentionally or not, misrepresenting the meaning of the quote.

The commander is responsible for the flight departing with the correct fuel loading. Correct fuel loading refers to distribution and minimum legal requirements.

This was a weight issue. The commander fully lived up to his responsibility by ensuring it was within certified limits before departing.

[Safety Concerns]

with respect I did add this comment

You could I suppose argue that the above has in fact been carried out hence the situation. However one would expect errors particularly with fuel to be detected earlier than boarding complete.

[Nicholas49]

Safety Concerns:

Thanks very much for reminding me what I said yesterday morning. Funnily enough, I can remember that far back. I can also read what I wrote.

In any case, what exactly is your point? That the Commander is ultimately responsible for the correct fuel being loaded? NO ONE IS DISPUTING THAT!

As an aside, I am not sure of the reason for your swipe at 'street corner law'. For what it's worth, I said I do not practise aviation law. That does not mean I don't practise another equally specialist area of law. :ok:

You are irritating the professional pilots commenting on this thread and you are irritating me too. Maybe go back to the other thread where you are trying to "prove" that driving is safer than flying...

[42psi]

A few points to mention which may (or may not :suspect:) help clarify things.

Fuel these days is mostly provided from hydrant systems, not an actual "tanker". The fulling vehicle simply moves the fuel from the hydrant into the aircraft.

While fuelling companies may have some bowser/tankers around for remote/non hydrant stands etc there won't be many and they it will usually always take quite a while to provide one.


Why is the fuel "contaminated" once loaded onto an aircraft.


1. There may be contamination of the aircraft tanks themselves.

2. The existing fuel on board may already be contaminated.

3. Some airlines procedures for accepting fuel mean that they can't accept fuel that has been de-fuelled even from their own a/c (if they publish that to the CAA as their rule then they stick to it).

Once the "new" fuel enters the a/c it's status can no longer be certain.

Now that may seem a bit over the top to some but that's how aviation safety works .... previous problems/accidents lead to rules which reduce the chances of them happening again.


I would suggest that at smaller airfields without any (or extensive) hydrant systems for fuel delivery it's more likely you can find a spare bowser to de-fuel.



Folks can debate all they like about the ins & outs of regarding fuel as contaminated ... it matters not a jot ..... it's part of aviations safety approach.



As for the overfuelling itself .... well clearly an error was made :D



Who made it? ... does it really matter ?



But it you want a discussion on it consider this:


Could the impact of the low cost carriers have contributed?


In the old expensive days of air travel a line engineer would often attend each turnaround, resolve the small niggling non-serious defects and oversee fuelling.

These days for most carriers and certainly all low cost carriers no-one from engineering turns up unless it's a no-go defect.

The pilots oversee the fueling themselves .... they may need to do this while having their break .... so pilot tells fueller the required uplift and goes back to cabin to have break.


You might argue that in the old days there were many overpaid/overqualified folks who attended turnarounds and were wasted in this way.

Maybe that's true .... one things for sure .. once the low cost carriers dumped them so did many others to try and compete/save costs.

So one opinion might be ...... the drive for low cost air travel is to blame :rolleyes: (just to make clear - that bit really is a joke ... apoor one maybe .. but there you go)..

Anyway,

Fueller pumps away merrily and when completed takes uplift chitty to pilot for signing.

If he know he's made an error he does so sheepishly...

If he's not made an error (or unaware) he does so with a spring in his step and a merry whistle.


In the following few minutes as all becomes clear not a few worried frowns appear and someone gets that sinking feeling.



Right ... that's enough for one day and it should stop that irritating nag to contribute go away for a while when I next log in

:D

[Safety Concerns]

nicholas, it wasn't an intentional swipe but word choice could have been better. But I do have very little respect for your occupation it is true. Note occupation and not necessarily your good self.

Well the irritation bit would depend on a few things.

Are you irritated because the truth is frustrating or are you irritated because you reject my views?

I would agree though that perhaps what I am searching for here has got lost in amongst pointless legal chat.

What interests me is how this happened. If the error was ops based (this includes flight planning) then it should have been detected earlier and dealt with in the lounge area.

The fact that it happened on board after boarding concerns me and suggests a local error. If delays were involved and time was tight, even more reason for the captain to pay more attention to the fuel.

This then brings me to question the culture prevalent at the time in order to determine whether this was a one off or whether there is a darker underlying trend that needs correcting. Rosco's post is also concerning.

Now if I were a lawyer, which I ain't. I would be placing my efforts with the passengers who were disrupted and possibly even threatened. Because if the indicators are of a darker underlying trend then lives are at risk.

It may appear clever to always be smiling and ignore what may turn out to be nothing and avoid the uncomfortable questions but there could be more general safety issues here.

And it seems a like minded individual has posted similar thoughts between our posts.

Is the low cost model a safe business model?

[Nicholas49]

;) is all I have to say about your latest post, Safety Concerns.

[GrahamO]

Silly question I am sure, but only being SLF I really don't know. Is the gist of this thread, that the particular type of aircraft is unable to take off with a full load of passengers and a full load of fuel ? I'm confused ..... why does it have this amount of fuel capacity if it can only use it when it has practically no passengers ? Why design an aircraft with X passengers if it cannot take off unless its half empty ?

[Juud]

Nicholas49, by going into the user CP at the top of the page, you will come upon the Control Panel.

At the bottom of that you will find the Buddy / Ignore list.

http://i1178.photobucket.com/albums/x372/Juud81/Picture2-1.gif

Use of the Ignore list improves ppruning no end. :ok:

[redsnail]

unable to take off with a full load of passengers and a full load of fuel
It can take off, but it couldn't burn enough fuel to get to the max landing mass. (MLW).
It is less than the MTOM (max take off mass).

[GrahamO]

Thank you.

[YorkshireTyke]

Safety Concerns

I answered your earlier questions in detail, but my reply was moderated, removing all that was worthwhile, however I can send you a PM - don't bother to reply, I'm not wasting anymore time on this.

Yes, I am a pilot, 35 yrs and 20,000+ hrs of PRECISELY this kind of operation with two very Big Airlines, where even there this sort of incident occasionally happened, the World is not perfect but you obviously think that you are.

I have absolutely no issue with a Captains' ultimate responsibilities, which in this case he appears to have executed correctly so far as operational requirements are concerned, which I would argue is the extent of his authority, but I've already said that I have no idea of Easyjet policy with regard to responsibilities for passenger handling in this instant, and therefore won't comment on area about which I know nothing - unlike you.

You may just be trying to wind us up for fun, well, I've unwound. Goodbye.

My thanks to the majority who do understand, and support my viewpoint.

[Confirm Password]

Hi there Joao de Silva, Bealzebub and Nicholas49.

I have read discussions as to whether or not the Air Navigation Order's article 141 allows the Commander of an aircraft to order some of the passengers off the aircraft. It is a complex legal issue, at least until you can see through the smoke.

Unfortunately, the Navigation Order is poorly drafted in some places. Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II has not been well advised by the Privy Council. Perhaps the worst is the 'musical chairs' sub-article, which appeared first in the 2005 version of the order.

Then there is the 'air rage' protection section, Acting in a disruptive manner, which first appeared in the 2000 version of the order. "Please be polite to your cabin crew, etc." It was OK, as far as it went, but there was no balancing protection of passengers from misbehaviour or rudeness by cabin crew.

There are several issues about the Easyjet overfuelled crisis but one is overriding:

First, under article 141 a command needs to be lawful and there is no law which allows the Commander to pick out 30 or so passengers and discriminate against them and equally no law that allows the Police to arrest and arbitrarily off-load 30 well-behaved items of fully-paid self-loading freight, sitting with their properly issued boarding cards and their cross-border travel papers.

Second, a lawful command can only be enforced by a prosecution in a UK court if it was given for one or more of the reasons specified by the Air Navigation Order, for example, "for the purpose of securing the safety of the aircraft and of passengers or property carried". To be enforced by a UK court, first a command has to be lawful and second it has to have been given for one or more defined reason.

Here is the crunch but remember mainly the first point above. Ask an Aviation Law Barrister if you have any doubt:

Article 141 simply gives power to a court to prosecute an offender who disobeys a lawful command, provided it was given for one or more of several defined reasons. Article 141 gives no powers to the Commander of the aircraft. As to what may be the Commander's powers, article 141 is 'silent'. He needs some other legal authority or precedent for making the lawful command. The Chicago convention or Tokyo convention or similar international agreements might give him that legal authority. In this case they do not! In this case no UK laws give him legal authority either, as far as I am aware.

All the passengers have a Common Law right and an equal right to sit in their seats.

Do you remember the teenager from the Richmond area who went to the High Court a few years back, to assert his right to be out in the streets at night? He was concerned that Police were likely to take him home, without good reason. The High Court upheld his Common Law right and declared, at the end of a Judicial Review, that legislation about the powers of the Police did not extend to taking a well-behaved boy home, without his agreement.

Any command to disembark, given to just a few of the passengers would be unlawful here, not because there would be discrimination against the chosen few but simply because there is no relevant law for the commander to invoke. If he wanted all passengers to get off he would have to look for an appropriate law or procedure to invoke but article 141 would not be the source of any power to resolve the matter.

Third, the Air Navigation Order is an Order in Council, made by the Monarch, which owe's its existence and its status to the Civil Aviation Act of 1982, etc. That act defines the jurisdiction of UK courts in relation to criminal acts or omissions. See article 92. For jurisdiction, as defined by 92, the doors have to be closed and the engine(s) switched on.

International laws gives lots of powers to the commander after the external doors have been closed with the engine(s) on, but before that point he has quite limited power.

There are some extra circumstances to which the jurisdiction of UK Courts apply, according to the act, with the engines off but the doors closed. The commander is given limited powers and also some obligations by article 94. It is mainly about serious misbehaviour and restraining violent or dangerous people. If the doors are open 94 does not apply. If the doors are closed nobody can get off. Catch 22 for Easyjet. Not so easy...

So, in the current Easyjet case, UK Courts are not given jurisdiction by the Civil Aviation Act and the Air Navigation Order to enforce anything in the name of article 141.

My conclusion is that Easyjet's dilemma was not an issue of Criminal Law. Easyjet or somebody else seems to have made a muddle or had an incident with fuelling. The Law of Torts may catch Easyjet if off-loaded passengers decide to sue. I doubt that Easyjet should derive any protection from the Air Navigation Order.

[Bealzebub]

Excellent CP, and no doubt that would be the basis of your argument.......In court!

It wouldn't be on the aircraft, where the commanders instruction would be final.

To be lawful, the instruction need only be authorized, sanctioned, or not forbidden by law.

In this and similiar hypothosis, the instruction given to ensure the safety of the flight, or the efficiency or regularity of air navigation in accordance with the provisions of 141 would almost certainly result (where in extremis it might prove necessary,) in the compliance by police enforcement, and would most likely be used in part as the basis for any prosecution that resulted.

Should your argument prove founded after it has been tested through the appelant courts, no doubt another statute would be sought. However to date I am not aware of that being necessary.

[Rwy in Sight]

Just a question that might be irrelevant but I like to air it: How can a captain's order to break a (transport) contract can be legal and thus should be obeyed?

Rwy in Sight

[Safety Concerns]

In this and similiar hypothosis, the instruction given to ensure the safety of the flight, or the efficiency or regularity of air navigation in accordance with the provisions of 141 would almost certainly result (where in extremis it might prove necessary,) in the compliance by police enforcement, and would most likely be used in part as the basis for any prosecution that resulted

but the problem I see here aligns very much with confirm password. The ANO explains what it considers to be a justifiable reason for kicking off 30+ passengers and too much fuel ain't one of them.

The safety of this flight was not jeopardised by the passengers. In fact this flight could have safely departed.

[WHBM]

A further question, at what stage is "The Commander" of the aircraft actually effective. Is it not when they sign the documentation for the flight ? And if the load sheets are not complete because there is a gross error, and thus they have not been signed, do we even have a commander appointed at this stage ? Does normal law of the land not apply until that point ?

Genuine question because I don't know.

[Nicholas49]

Confirm Password: that is very interesting. You clearly know more about this than me.

I do not know how the ANO and the extent of the Commander's powers have been interpreted by the courts. I would be very interested to know whether airline captains are given guidance / training on precisely what they can and cannot do under the ANO.

I would, however, re-emphasise the following contractual term to which all passengers agreed when they bought their ticket:

Article 8
Refusal and Limitation of Carriage
8.1. Right to refuse carriage
We may refuse to carry you or your Baggage for reasons of safety...

I am willing to stick my neck out to say a Court would interpret this to mean that passengers can be off-loaded once they have boarded if the Captain decides this is necessary. As I understand it from this discussion, the aircraft could depart safely, but could not land safely as it would be over its Maximum Landing Weight. That is a 'reason of safety'! It is therefore highly unlikely that the passengers have a contractual claim against the airline.


Rwy in Sight: I hope you can see that this provision means the Captain is not breaching any contract by refusing to allow the passengers to travel.

As to when the captain becomes the captain, I think that is a bit academic. Think about it this way: is he 'the captain' of the flight when he orders the fuel in the dispatch room before he even reaches the aircraft? Or when he does the walk-around before doors are closed and ready to push? Of course he is. (I appreciate procedures vary etc., but you see my point).

The bigger picture here is that: he is the one who knows what's best in the interests of flight safety; he is the one delegated authority to ensure flight safety by the company; the passengers have agreed in their contract that they may not be able to travel if safety is compromised.

[Safety Concerns]

not sure if this helps determine when a commander becomes a commander but I would suggest as soon as he steps on board

Public transport – operator’s responsibilities
42 (1) The operator of an aircraft registered in the United Kingdom shall not permit the aircraft to fly for the purpose of public transport without first:
(a) designating from among the flight crew a pilot to be the commander of the
aircraft for the flight;

Authority of commander of an aircraft
77 Every person in an aircraft shall obey all lawful commands which the commander of that aircraft may give for the purpose of securing the safety of the aircraft and of persons or property carried therein, or the safety, efficiency or regularity of air navigation.

[Nicholas49]

It does not help at all.

Thanks for the tip, Juud!

[Joao da Silva]

Nicholas49

I do not see CP mentioning breach of contract anywhere, only torts and I now know that these are different, thanks to your kind advice on Saturday.

The point about when the captain becomes captain is not academic, from the perspective of issuing commands, for ANO 141 only applies to the commander.

It may not be germane to contract law, but it seems to be relevant to whether you can issue the command using Beazelbub's interpretation.

I do not know if you are an aviator, but if you are, you are probably aware that 'who is captain' has caused a few problems over the years ;-)

PS: If I was a betting man, I would place a few euros on the captain having assumed command authority before he made the announcement.

[Nicholas49]

Yes, I take your point. But at the risk of this becoming a (further) protracted legal debate, I am not sure under which tort said passengers would sue.

I have provided as much help as I can here and I am not going to comment further, not least because we do not have definitive answers to essential questions such as:

- how did the captain get the passengers off the aircraft? Persuasion or force?
- were the police actually called to remove them forcibly?
- what was the origin of the fuelling oversight? Error on the load sheet? Or did the fueller become distracted? Etc.

It really is pointless to debate the legal implications further without concrete answers to these questions.

[Hunter58]

Sine the captain is NOT allowed to start a flight knowingly being overweight for the planned landing he cannot take-off in such a situation and HAS MANDATORILY to change the load of the aircraft accordingly.

Your discussion is very academic since you assume that the flight could have taken off. No, it could not have since the overweight situation cannot be planned and therefore a flight in such a circumstance is not allowed to take-off.

[Joao da Silva]

Nicholas49

Which tort? Haven't a clue, I was only pointing out that CP mentioned torts, rather than breach, which may imply that he agrees with your view on breach.

Also, I would n't ask you to say anymore, you have been helpful already and your view that an action for breach would be likely to fail was made clearly in an earlier post. You have been very open that you are not an aviation lawyer.

Hunter58

Everything you say reflects my flying experience (which I am prepared to say is probably rather less extensive than yours, being limited to a couple of thousand hours in various things.)

All I would say is that you have to have a captain to make those decisions ;), so the point on which I disagreed with Nicholas was his view that the point of assuming command is academic.

I think it is quite important if you are going to rely on ANO141, as Beazelbub does.

Anyway, odds on the captain had assumed command, although I supopse (academically) we don't know that, but it must be a pretty safe assumption.

Summary, I don't think there is any argument between any of us. Am I incorrect/

[Bealzebub]

Just a question that might be irrelevant but I like to air it: How can a captain's order to break a (transport) contract can be legal and thus should be obeyed?


It doesn't have to be legal, it has to be lawful. They have different definitions.

Contracts of carriage, and many other contracts are breached in huge number every day. There are many reasons for the breaches, which may or may not in themselves be legal or lawful. However the remedies for redress do not include the "right" to refuse the lawful instruction of an aircraft commander in pusuit of his duties or obligations.

If you believe otherwise, then of course you can test that belief. I can assure you that in most jurisdictions including the UK, a Commanders request to enforce any non compliance would be positively actioned.

The question has arisen as to when does the captain become the commander. It is when he/she reports for the flight or series of flights for which they are the designated commander.

[Joao da Silva]

The question has arisen as to when does the captain become the commander. It is when he/she reports for the flight or series of flights for which they are the designated commander.

Well that seems clear.

[west lakes]

I enjoy reading these threads that are good at ignoring some facts stated earlier

From a passenger on the flight

They put 10 tonnes too much fuel on, which left us 5 tonnes over our maximum take off weight.

So, to me, irrespective of legal arguments if all the passengers stayed on the aircraft it was going nowhere!
The only other choice would have been to cancel the flight.

Folks were shouting defuel
At least 3 folk have stated that it is not possible to defuel at BHX, theorise as you will but a defuel was not an option!

http://www.pprune.org/6171877-post6.html

http://www.pprune.org/6171993-post10.html

http://www.pprune.org/6179182-post71.html
Of course as some have already decided the posters were just putting some spin out, but what if the above is factual and truthful.

Perhaps the posters on this thread would suggest what could have been done rather than spend their time criticising!!

[Joao da Silva]

Perhaps the posters on this thread would suggest what could have been done rather than spend their time criticising!!

Well, how about doing the job right, first time?

Prevention is better than the cure.

[west lakes]

No, the error occurred you suggest a course of action (with the benefit of hindsight)

[Joao da Silva]

Give me the parameters for who you wish to piss off/don't piss off and I will oblige.

[west lakes]

That's too easy (no pun)

You have an aircraft full of passengers & luggage

It is 5T over MTOW

You have limited time (slots and/or duty time)

You can't defuel

Who you upset is your choice

[Joao da Silva]

Not playing that game, in the real world commercial pressures would drive triage.

Your question is dumb without parameters.

[west lakes]

Is it?

Seems to me that was the situation at BHX on that flight, a decision was made that at the time probably was seen as the best possible.
Hindsight suggests that it may not have been.

All I'm trying to do is put folk in the position of giving an alternative.

If you can't/won't why criticise what was decided.

[TightSlot]

Your question is dumb without parameters

Charming!

It seems a reasonable question - How about answering it?

[Joao da Silva]

It seems a reasonable question - How about answering it?You are a rescue chief, you are trying to save 6 people from the top of a burning high building, where the only access/egress is by helicopter and your helicopter can take 3 people per trip, with each trip taking 5 minutes. You helicopter is ready to go, now.

The fire will kill whoever is on top of the building in 4 minutes.

The 6 people are

A senior member of the royal family
The prime minister
The nation's favourite actor/actress (delete as preferred)
The Dalai Lama
The Pope
A noted scientist who may be about to find a cure for cancer

Now, who do you save?

Who do you wish to annoy?

If someone gives me this info, for the A319, I'll suggest a course of action.

Is it the pax, the chief pilot, the ops people etc etc?

[Safety Concerns]

well first of all you need to decide the problem. It is very difficult to get an A320 to 5 ton over mtow. It is however relatively easy to get an A320 to 5 tons over its MLW.

To end up in a situation where you offload all baggage and 30+ pax is not just a pr disaster, its an enormous cock up.

[Joao da Silva]

Tightslot

You seem to have taken offence at my 'dumb question'statement, as I would not wish anyone to think I was accusing West Lakes of being stupid, I quote

There's no such thing as a dumb question, just dumb answers.

Like many old saws, it states a profound truth. And as with many old saws, there can be exceptions to it. It expresses an attitude worth striving for. The point of the quote is that people should not be afraid to ask dumb questions to further their knowledge and the people giving answers should continually strive to give intelligent and understandable answers to further the increase in wisdom.

Without the necessary parameters, it is impossible to give an intelligent and understandable answer, therefore ensuring that the question remains dumb.

My fire dilemma is also a dumb question, there is no reasonable answer to it, unless the fire chief is given clear parameters to make the triage decision.

Hope this clarifies.

At work, we use a lot of provocation techniques, including dumb questions, to challenge our thinking and ensure that we try to remain innovative.

[Bealzebub]

Shoulda, coulda, woulda. It hardly matters. A decision was made and executed. No doubt in hindsight, many things could have been done differently, and as has already been suggested, the constituent element of unhappy people might well have changed.

However, a decision was made that enabled the flight to depart, and while no doubt there will be analysis of the event, the result in this case is what it is.

If you need to offload 5000kg there are many variations that might enable the same result. If you are facing a night time airport closure and or rapidly expiring crew duty hours, or other similar time constraints, then you need to decide quickly how best to achieve the result. Matching baggage to offloaded passengers is inevitably going to take longer than offloading all the baggage, particularly where significant numbers are involved.

[west lakes]

My fire dilemma is also a dumb question, there is no reasonable answer to it,

Exactly, so why criticise the decision that was made?

It could be said that the fire dilemma would not arise if the fire had not started, so to fall back onto saying the aircraft dilemma would not have occured if it hadn't been overloaded is a get out.

Sorry, if you don't have an answer............

[Joao da Silva]

No doubt in hindsight, many things could have been done differently,

Machiavelli once said (words to the effect of) "Small problems are easy to solve , but difficult to detect, whereas large problems are easy to detect, but difficult to solve."

Let's hope that lessons are learned and any investigation does not descend into a witch hunt, meaning that the small problems leading to this large problem being swept under the carpet and knowledge not increasing.

[Joao da Silva]

Exactly, so why criticise the decision that was made?You unwittingly provide the best solution

It could be said that the fire dilemma would not arise if the fire had not startedThat is patently true, we learn the lessons and avoid repetition. Learning starts with criticism, either internal or external.

You should see the customer feedback that passes over my desk! If we were defensive about it, we would not have improved our products and processes to anything like the degree that we have; but it does sting sometimes.

[Joao da Silva]

West Lakes

Give me a list of stakeholders, where #1 is are the most important and the rest are listed in descending order.

Then I will be happy to answer your question.

If we can't avoid the overloading, then we need to understand which hands feed us and whom not to bite.

So please put up, or shut up.

[west lakes]

So please put up, or shut up.Until that point I may have responded!

[TightSlot]

I'm not offended - it just seemed a rather 'short' answer to use - as does "..put up or shut up"

JDS - With respect, I think you're smoke-screening, however. The fact remains that, once the error had been discovered, somebody had to do something, and they had to do it with some despatch. It may, or may not have been the optimum choice, but a decision was taken. Those who took the decision are accountable for it, to the airline management, who, you may be assured are less than pleased with the resultant publicity. A clever airline would ensure that customers were promptly and appropriately compensated - I gues we'll wait and see how it goes?

You've been understandably quick to criticise the decisions made - and the initial error. It does seem possible however, that it your strength may lie rather more in "Monday Morning Quarterbacking (http://www.yourdictionary.com/monday-morning-quarterback)" than being a player on the day?

:O

[Safety Concerns]

Isn't there a different aspect to all of this. As you say the situation happened and a decision was taken.

But don't such discussions play their part in the overall bigger picture and possibly just possibly stop it happening again or even better reinforce the original decision.

To achieve that all options must be discussed and not just those that look pretty or smell nice.

[west lakes]

But don't such discussions play their part in the overall bigger picture


Correct (not that I think Easyjet will pay any attention to what we post on here).

However there has been little discussion on alternate solutions apart from defuel, and fuel wasting flight modes where it appears the aircraft could not have taken off. Most of the rest of it surrounded passenger rights, interpretation of various laws etc.

As I suggested last night, it's happenned what would you have done?

[etrang]

it's happenned what would you have done?

Inform the passengers that all their luggage will be off-loaded and then ask for volunteers to get off. In that situation there would surely be a lot more pax willing to take the next available flight. And everyone would be able to make an informed decision rather than getting a nasty no-luggage surprise on arrival.

[Bealzebub]

As I suggested last night, it's happenned what would you have done?

Sorry, but you really are flogging a dead horse. This isn't a two dimensional problem where everyone can vote for their favourite solution. These situations nearly always involve a constantly changing dynamic.

For example, it might have transpired that there was an aircraft at East Midlands airport that could have been swapped for the one at Birmingham. That would have then meant looking at the availability of crew to enable the changeover. In turn might it have been quicker to arrange surface transport for the passengers to East Midlands. If so, could the operation have been completed before the airport at Geneva closes? Even if it were possible, what would have been the ramifications of using another crew on a positioning sector as it affected their subsequent duties? If this option meant there was no realistic chance of completing the operation within the time constraints, it would be a pointless consideration.

Should the flight have been cancelled for technical reasons (they were technical reasons!) At Christmas how difficult would it have been to transfer the passengers onto subsequent flights in a reasonable timescale?

Should the baggage have been offloaded (identified) and re-loaded for those passengers who would be travelling? How long would this process have taken? Would the same time constraints have resulted in the effective cancelletion of the flight?

On and on and on!

When any disruption to the schedule occurs, it involves a number of people dealing with the resources that are available to them at that particular moment in time. The same resources may have a range of effectiveness depending on the time of day. What is often important, is that somebody makes a decision. That decision will usually (but not always) be made after all available resources have been considered, and usually after discussion with numerous other departments and individuals.

That a decision was made enabling the flight to depart, has to be a good thing. That it failed to satisfy a great many people is understood. I have little doubt that the intended disruption was planned to be minimal, even if it transpired that was not the end result.

As an aircraft captain, I can completely understand the problem and the dynamic. However I also understand that it is not as simple as saying "this is what I would have done," because I have no idea what resources were available, or what options were being considered. Nor will I ever know. However I am certain that the Captain and most other people involved, would have been attempting to make the best of a bad situation.

So unless you are armed with the complete dynamic as it presented itself on that evening, the exercise is futile. Even ignoring this reality, three commanders might have come up with three different solutions, all of which would have likely involved significant compromise to everything except safety.

There is absolutely no suggestion that safety was compromised at any point. The only consequence was disruption and the consequent annoyance and loss of amenity.

[Safety Concerns]

Should the flight have been cancelled for technical reasons (they were technical reasons!)

Is that a statement based on inside knowledge of the incident?

[Bealzebub]

No it isn't.

An over-fuelled airplane has a technical problem if it cannot depart by virtue of that fact. Too much fuel, too little fuel or contaminated fuel, they would all be technical considerations, if that weren't already obvious.

[Safety Concerns]

an overfuelled aircraft is just that and the delay code would be NON TECHNICAL
probably a 36 depending on the situation. This may even end up a 65:eek::eek::eek:

An aircraft with refuelling problems, such as stuck valves may well be technical. It is not obvious.

Are clouds obviously just clouds?

[Joao da Silva]

Tightslot

Those who took the decision are accountable for it, to the airline managementThat is my point, unless one has a list of stakeholder priorities (who to please, who to displease) to make the decision, one cannot offer a theoretical answer to the question. Even then, to quote Beazelbub

"So unless you are armed with the complete dynamic as it presented itself on that evening, the exercise is futile."

As for criticism, anyone business operating in the public domain opens themselves up to that and it is part of the game, but please do note that I have never suggested that this incident was anything other than accidental. But I will criticise a company that causes such chaos by an operation under its control, which fueling clearly is.

I already suggested what I think would be the fairest answer to the pax at BHX, which is cancel the flight, return the bags to the pax and deal with it under EU261/04. easyJet did this once when I was travelling with them and managed it very professionally. Not a great solution, but equally fair (or unfair) to all passengers.

But then that would cause other stakeholders to be highly upset, e.g. the returning pax from GVA, the corporate accountants wouldn't like the cost, the ops people would have knock on effects, etc.etc.

So who do you wish to please and displease?

And as Beazelbub says, the flight did operate safely that night, so I would support that part of the decision.

[Nicholas49]

I really think this discussion has run its course, JDS.

Safety Concerns: you are either trolling, or you are plain stupid. Perhaps both.

Why are you asking if Bealzebub has 'insider knowledge' when he said in his post (and I'll quote to make it easier for you):

because I have no idea what resources were available, or what options were being considered. Nor will I ever know.

:ugh::ugh::ugh:

[Safety Concerns]

nicholas dear chap. This is one of the problems of considering yourself smarter than you are.

Some people are claiming to be captains yet posting very basic silly mistakes. A fuel overload is NOT technical. There are a number of factors that need to be known. Thats why I asked whether he had insider information. Without insider information the post you quoted could have been spared because it contained no information of any value other than the poster doesn't understand what a technical issue is.

So the flip side of your comment is why should an apparently intelligent person make statements that CANNOT hold up in a court of law because they themselves don't have the insider information.

The differences are significant particularly as regards cause.

There are also further potential consequences. If a captain is unsure whether his aircraft is technical or not, what is he sure of......his fuel load?

As I said before, your occupation is driven by false values. I am stunned that someone professing to know nothing about aviation, is all of a sudden an expert.

And I will add one final point, in my opinion, the only scenario that gets the captain off the hook on this sorry incident is a technical fault.

Anything other than that should have been detected by a professional much much earlier.

IATA delay code 65 "Flight deck crew special request or error" for those who may have been wondering.

IATA delay code 36 "Fuelling, Defuelling, fuel supplier" for those who may have been wondering

IATA delay code 41 "Aircraft defects" often used to hide stick to seat interface issues

[Bealzebub]

Thank you Nicholas but I fear you are wasting your breath.

In "claiming to be a captain" I am aware that the fuelling (be it accurate or deficient) is most certainly a technical issue. The offended poster is confusing the term technical with mechanical. This is possibly because he is alluding to a set of numbers that presumably relate to administrative delay codes of some sort? Such codes only have a meaning for administrative purposes within his company, and would differ in style and usage from one company to the next. In any event, they would be of no relevance in the wider general discussion of a topic such as this one unless he could be bothered to explain them.

Is the over-fuelling of an aircraft a technical issue ? yes of course it is.
Is the over-inflation of tyres a technical issue ? Yes of course it is.
Are clouds obviously just clouds?
I think I will go and help my seven year old with his homework.

[Safety Concerns]

nice try but over fuelling of an aircraft is not a technical issue if the the aircraft is perfectly serviceable.

There is a big difference which nicholas's friends will hang you on in certain circumstances if you get this fundamental difference wrong.

Oh dear, I have just seen the second part of your response and this is exactly why pilots should not be allowed to use the MEL without technical support.

Over inflation of tyres is of course technical, an authorised technician has made a technical mistake. The Easyjet aircraft was perfectly serviceable I am told and no engineer or technician in sight.

How exactly does that become technical? That why we have codes 36 and 65.

If the fuelling company overfilled, code 36 (non technical delay) is used. If the crew screwed up, 65 is used. If the crew want to hide their error 41 may be applied initially but on a perfectly serviceable aircraft this will be dismissed at a later stage.

If it goes to court the aircraft will be described as perfectly serviceable in the above circumstances. Perhaps nicholas can explain how the honourable legal profession will turn a perfectly serviceable aircraft into a technically unserviceable one?

And I thought we were driven by the truth and nothing but the truth.

[Nicholas49]

TightSlot - are you out there? Please, please help!

[Bealzebub]

IATA codes.

Thank you for editing your post to explain what you were alluding to.

I have never used these in 30+ years of airline flying. Possibly because they are codes normally used by ground handling agents as part of their SITA dispatch messages.

Your suggestion that the aircraft may not have had a mechanical issue may well be accurate. Your suggestion that over-fuelling is not a technical issue is erroneous. If it had been under-fuelled, the aircraft would also be perfectly serviceable, however it would be technically deficient for the intended flight.

Just to be clear, my advocacy and comment on this thread is based on the general understanding, reasoning, and methodology of many airline captains. I have no inside knowledge of this company or this event other than what has been posted here. The contribution is intended to do nothing more than add some qualified response and hopefully to dispel some broad misconceptions.

I am quite safe in the assumption that whatever argument, disagreement or semantic hair splitting may occur, neither Nicholas (or his friends) will be hanging me in any circumstances that I need concern myself with.

[ROSCO328]

This thread is great!! Please keep going!!!! lol :D:D:D:D:D

[Safety Concerns]

http://www.ansv.it/cgi-bin/eng/FINAL%20REPORT%20ATR%2072.pdf

you really should read more documents like this before commenting on what you perceive to be a legal or technical situation.

[Chuchinchow]

Is this a private thread, or can anyone add his two pennyworth?

[Parapunter]

I've crossed swords with a few in this discussion, but I have to say SC, that the ever decreasing circles you are running in have you at risk of disappearing up your own fundament!

[Bealzebub]

The document appears to be the translation of an Italian accident report. It is 366 pages long. Rather than suggesting that people read it "and similar documents" why don't you do the sensible thing, and direct people to the points that you feel are salient to your argument, and to the discussion in this thread concerning this particular event?

[YorkshireTyke]

Safety Concerns

Some people are claiming to be captains yet posting very basic silly mistakes........

I'm consulting my lawyers.

A fuel overload is NOT technical.

Who deals with it then - Cabin Crew, Office Secretaries ? or Engineers and Technical Crew in conjunction with Traffic Staff ?

!!!!! Clearly you come from another Planet

[Safety Concerns]

yorkshire tyke excellent question.

Who does deal with an overfuelled aircraft and who must legally deal with an overfuelled aircraft?

Many airlines request their engineers to deal with fuelling in general. Many don't. The reason many don't is because it is not maintenance and does not require qualified engineers to perform the job.

Tyre pressures however are technical and it is considered a maintenance task. The subtle difference is that an over pressurised tyre is not in accordance with the maintenance manual, does require an approved engineer and a release to service. All of which has legal implications.

Too much fuel is too much fuel yet the aircraft is still within the maintenance manual limits and does not legally require a release to service. This makes a huge legal difference.

An engineer may out of the goodness of his heart assist any apparently responsible person who allowed such a gross refuelling error take place but the problem remains non technical.

It is that simple and no, not even Nicholas can argue around it.

[Joao da Silva]

The subtle difference is that an over pressurised tyre is not in accordance with the maintenance manual, does require an approved engineer and a release to service.

You also break your toe when you boot it to check it :E

[TightSlot]

Guys

I've deleted a series of posts today that related to a 'handbags at dawn' exchange between some of you.

Moving on...

[cockney steve]

@ Chuchinchow...looks like the more, the merrier. :)

As a complete outsider to this "trade", I'd like to place the observation that irrespective of box-ticking, arse-covering jobsworth-ism,

An aeroplane sitting on an overloaded undercarriage, unsafe to take off, is "technically" unfit for it's intended purpose. given the legal framework within which it is supposed to be operated, an attempt to operate it in an overloaded condition (evacuation from Saigon excepted :} ) is probably illegal also.

The primary reason the aircraft was unfit to fly, is that the undercarriage/engines/wings/airframe safety-margins were deemed inadequate for the safe moving of the load.....doesn't matter a damn HOW it became overloaded, it was legally incapable of safe operation with the original load.


If that's not a technical cause , i'd love to know what IS, in your arcane, parallel universe.

[Joao da Silva]

Cockney Steve

I think you misunderstand the proponents arguments, so let me try to explain (but note I am not taking sides.)

An aircraft can depart legally if it is within its weight parameters, so long as it is not above the MTOW (maximum take off weight.) However, it must also plan to arrive within its maximum landing weight.

So the aircraft may be okay to take off, but not to land and the captain cannot depart under those circumstances (see Hunter 58's post.)

The other argument is whether the aircraft sitting with excess fuel is a technical or non technical matter.

Safety Concerns says it is non technical, as it does not require an engineer to deal with defueling and quotes IATA message codes to support his view.

Beazelbub says (as an airline captain) that an overfueled aircraft is a technical matter.

Hope this clarifies the argument for you ;)

[Nicholas49]

And I think it's clear who actually knows what they are talking about: Safety Concerns or Bealzebub? I wonder... :rolleyes:

[Safety Concerns]

As usual it would help if posters actually understood what they are talking about. I am not going to give you the answer on a plate just something to consider.

What is wrong with this scenario?

I am offloading 30+ passengers and ALL baggage from a commercial aircraft because it is too heavy for take off.

Once you have thought about it and realised your error then we can revisit comments about knowledge and understanding of commercial operations.

[Chuchinchow]

As usual it would help if posters actually understood what they are talking about. I am not going to give you the answer on a plate just something to consider.

What is wrong with this scenario?

I am offloading 30+ passengers and ALL baggage from a commercial aircraft because it is too heavy for take off.

Once you have thought about it and realised your error then we can revisit comments about knowledge and understanding of commercial operations.

Meanwhile - in the real world - beyond the fairy-tale ivory towers of PPRuNe:

** EasyJet has, by now offered its obsequious and arse-clenching apologies to the affected passengers

** Handsome compensation cheques have taken up residence in those passengers' bank accounts.

** Any still disaffected punters might even have been offered an unknown number of free flights on EasyJet to shut them up.

** The EasyJet flight crew and the fuelling company's personnel have been read their rights pending the outcome of their respective employers' detailed investigations of the incident.

But here on PPRuNe, grown men continue arguing and bickering like fractious school children!

It's truly incredible.

[YorkshireTyke]

Safety Concerns

You just don't give up, do you ?

Pilots, Radio Officers, Navigators, Flight Engineers, were known collectively as the TECHINCAL CREW ( Tech Crew for short ) as opposed to the CABIN CREW or TRAFFIC STAFF.

In the days when we had a Flt. Engineer, he was responsible to the Captain for ensuring that the correct fuel load - as decided by said Captain - was on board, and before signing the loadsheet and thereby taking legal command of the aircraft as Pilot-in-Charge, I would confirm with the Flt. Eng. that that was so, I didn't care who, or how, other parties responsible for ensuring that happened went about their allotted tasks, but if the figure was wrong, and sometimes it was, I would take responsibility for delaying the flight, and with the TRAFFIC and TECHNICAL CREW decide what action to take to rectify the situation.

The decision on how much fuel to carry, and ultimately ensuring that that happened was the responsibility of the TECHNICAL CREW, if a delay occurred as a result, then it was a TECHNICAL DELAY.

As the pilots have finally taken over the other TECHNICAL CREW jobs, including that of Flt. Eng. ( mistakenly in my opinion ) then the Captain or F/O now fulfils that role, and clearly all airlines set their own policy in that respect, but it obviously must rest with one of the TECHNICAL CREW to do that confirmatory job, and finally of course with the TECHNICAL CREW Captain to make the eventual decision to go or not to go.

QED, end of story, now looking for the "Ignore" button.

[Safety Concerns]

as an ex flt engineer we agree on something. Alas you are missing the point in your honourable rush to defend the Captain of this easyjet.

I will make it easy.

1) Since when have aircraft been designed that they are above mtow will all seats occupied regardless of fuel load? (this addresses the uneducated comments about the aircraft being unsafe due to exceeding mtow)

2) a nice chappie sent me an ops manual this week from a certain airline, it says:

Fuel figures based on performance limitations and / or journey requirements will be specified by the commander. Flight crew are responsible for supervising the refuelling of the aeroplane.

This deals with our laywer nicholas who stated that crew being responsible for fuelling was plainly ridiculous

3) The same manual also says and I quote:

All delays exceeding 3 Minutes shall be reported by a sector log entry. For determination of the delay code, IATA standard codes shall be used. The commander should involve ground agents for delay investigation.

This is to deal with Bealzebub who claimed that after 25+ years as a commander he wasn't aware of these codes.

and one cracker I found almost at the end

For punctuality reasons, no last minute fuelling is allowed as this could result in a delay.

The basis of IATA codes is to help airlines determine why a delay occurred and address any issues with the aim of prevention. The reason we have a delay code 36 (fuelling) is because it serves no useful purpose to call something technical when it isn't. An airline will find nothing in the technical departments to help them with an overfuelled aircraft because it is quite simply not a technical issue.

Investigations of these incidents will follow one of 3 paths:

delay code 36 (operational) for an aircraft overfuelled in error
delay code 40 something (technical) if an aircraft side component failed or
delay code 65 (operational) if it was flight crew error

I challenge any of you to post FACTS contradicting that position.

[Bealzebub]

I don't know why I am bothering as safety concerns logic is so tortured he could probably solicit Amnesty Internationals help in resolution.

Having gone from the suggestion that the vague submission of 366 pages of an Italian accident report (and similar documents,) would make his argument clear, to the selected extracts of an anonymous companies "operations manual" It may well be that the referred document related to the airline in question? Without the content surrounding the limited extract, it is impossible to agree or disagree with the assertion or place it into any valid context.
This is to deal with Bealzebub who claimed that after 25+ years as a commander he wasn't aware of these codes.
What I actually said was:
I have never used these in 30+ years of airline flying. Possibly because they are codes normally used by ground handling agents as part of their SITA dispatch messages.
Spot the difference? That in itself was only after Safety concerns had edited his original post in order to specify what he was alluding to. These are administrative codes used by ground handling agents. In the case of the operations manual (he is now quoting) they are also used as codes on one airlines operations returns. I haven't used them in the two airlines I have flown for. Delay codes are simply administrative, and can be anything the airline chooses. They are not authoritative, and they do not define the meaning of a word but simply give a reason or opinion for that delay having occurred.


As an ex-flight engineer he will be aware, because I remember from my own 707 days, and indeed every day since, that the commander must certify that the "quantities and distribution of fuel and oil (as shown) are acceptable for the intended flight.""Flight crew" may well be responsible for supervising the refuelling of the airplane. However other personnel can and often are designated as refuelling supervisors.

Looking at my current "operations return" I have a selection of 16 administrative delay codes. There is not one for "fuelling" but there is one for "technical." The 16th is "other" for anything that in my opinion (I am not required to agree a reason with ground staff or anybody else unless I deem fit,) constitutes the reason or opinion for that delay. The point being that it is administrative, varies from company to company, and defines nothing in itself.

I presently have in front of me a copy of the aircrafts Technical log. On the page that I am required to certify prior to dispatch, there are a number of additional certificates that either may or must be completed prior to my certification. These certificates can be completed by other persons charged with the completion of that task. Part 3 of the Technical log is the fuelling certificate. This can be signed by the flight crew or a ground engineer. It states: I hereby certify that the quantities and distribution of fuel and oil at completion of fuelling are as shown above. It doesn't certify that the fuel is either too much or too little. It simply certifies that the shown amount and distribution between tanks is as described . Of course it in itself doesn't need to because of the wording of the Captains certificate as shown above.

Now in trying to persuade you with the "facts" that you seek, and in accepting that as an ex-flight engineer you will be au fait with the legality of the Technical log, that document contains nothing to do with administrative matters (delays, crew hours, etc.) It only contains technical requirements and the certificates needed to ensure compliance with those technical requirements. (certificate of release to service, de-icing certificate, fuelling certificate, captains certificate etc.)

Could you perhaps explain to me (as if I were simple) why the Technical log contains two certificates that relate to fuelling, if as you assert fuelling is not a technical issue?

As fascinating and relevant as you clearly find it, could you do so without suggesting that the trade body IATA is in some way supreme to the point in question?

[Nicholas49]

And while you're at it, Safety Concerns, you can also acknowledge that I never said the flight crew were not responsible for fuelling. Au contraire. What I did say is that the Captain, although ultimately responsible, does not have time to fuel a large commercial aircraft himself.

Don't contort what others have said.

[YorkshireTyke]

Alas you are missing the point in your honourable rush to defend the Captain of this easyjet.

Despite my intention to consign you to the " Ignore List " I can't let this attack go unanswered.

I have never tried to " defend " this Captain. How can I without the FACTS - have YOU got them ? and in this instance he might well be justifiably to blame, although of course I doubt it, what I am trying to defend is that actions by the TECHNICAL CREW with regard to fuelling the aircraft are a TECHNICAL matter, which you stubbornly refuse to accept.

and ......... incidentally, try to dispel the automatic assumption that any aviation incident is caused by Pilot Error before the FACTS are known - as an example in this thread by a previous poster stating " this pilot stuffed up " ( or words that effect ) Did they KNOW ?

[Nicholas49]

Safety Concerns, you have gone ever, ever so quiet. The silence is deafening.

Does it mean you now accept that the comprehensive rebuttals above from two professional pilots have put paid to your argument that 'over-fuelling is not a technical issue'?

Off to Luton tomorrow for an easyJet ride. Fingers crossed they don't over-fuel the plane. :}

[TightSlot]

You're just prodding the Tiger Nicholas49 - I don't see this thread shedding any more light, so let's put it to bed