Originally Posted by
Lead Balloon
It would depend on the safety implications of the circumstances. If there’s been a swapping of seats by agreement between passengers, there’s no W&B risk and we know that being in the allocated seat for post-accident identification purposes is a furphy. Did old mate make it clear that he wasn’t going to comply with any directions of any crew in any circumstances? Lots of responsible people refuse to do patently stupid things but otherwise comply.
But I get it: With all the strict liability offences in the rules, the hapless minions called crew aren’t allowed to assess the safety implications and de-escalation options. As soon as there was a refusal to comply, it had to be escalated and the only option was to insist on compliance and to call in the police when there was a failure to comply. Otherwise, the hapless minions called crew commit their own strict liability offence for failure to comply with the ops manual. It’s ‘safety’ through imposition of strict liability on everyone for failure to strictly comply with the rules. No room for any application of any wisdom, here.
(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. And a bit embarrassing for those who keep saying that old mate committed a strict liability offence as soon as he failed to do what he was told by CC...)
For the last few decades at least, it certainly was an offence of strict liability, so you can stow the attitude. Yes, a whole 15 or so months ago that was repealed and moved with what appears to be a distinction for 'flight', so if you want to argue in court that you're under no obligation to follow CC instructions during the pushback, by all means undo the seatbelt, hop up and run around. I'm sure only success awaits.
What shouldn't be in debate is whether or not the CC are able to invent their own rules in contravention with their ops manual. No. Oddly enough, you seem to recognise this fact, so the actual point of your post is lost on me, beyond an 'aaakkcctthhhuaallly' moment that is of course, Pure Professional Pilot.
Originally Posted by Lead Balloon
It would depend on the safety implications of the circumstances.
Except it wouldn't. I asked you in the previous post, is it your position that operating personal are not required to comply with policy and procedures laid out in their operations manual? You dodged the question so I put it to you again. Because if no, then the entire argument is moot. CC did what they were required to do, the end. It seems more like you have an issue with strict liability, which will incur no objection from me. But it has nothing to do with JQ.