Originally Posted by
Lead Balloon
(One of the fascinating aspects of the tasering of old mate is that the obligation of a passenger to comply with safety directions (CASR 91.575) is confined to directions given “during the flight”. Similarly, the obligation of a passenger to comply with safety instructions (CASR 91.580) is confined to instructions given “during a flight”. There is a definition of “flight” in the Civil Aviation Act. Can anyone point me to the bit of CASR that says that the word “flight” in CASRs 91.575 and 91.580 has a different meaning to the definition of “flight” in the Civil Aviation Act?
Had the aircraft started moving under its own power before the CC directed old mate to return to his allocated seat? It may turn very untidy for the airline and AFP if old mate was never subject to a lawful direction to return to his allocated seat.)
Only a sleazebag ambulance chasing lawyer reading this would seriously put forth such an argument. Sadly, the state of our judiciary is so soft, that some judge with no regards for setting dangerous precedent could well accept it.
In my day it was simple. The Captain was in command from the moment he boarded the aircraft until he handed it over at the end of the duty. It followed that Cabin Crew held certain authority because they were delegated by the Captain.
Whatever happened to CDF?