The Baron has hit on the point I was trying to make.
If the law reflects the presence of Sky Marshall, and it is sensibly framed, then you're better protected. But I'm not aware of any changes - has someone seen the amendment? Might be a while, given it's a regulation stemming from an Act of Parliament.
So if a situation does turn out dry, and the Captain is available (alive) for accountability afterward, if there is ANY way some slimeball regulator/laywer can twist it, then they're going to stand on the law and try to blame the easiest, legal, scapegoat.
And spare me this idea that it won't happen because it's not reasonable. The law isn't about reason, or justice, it's simply the most convenient way for the State to deal with disputes. In many cases, that amounts to finding someone with a legal ant trail running up his leg, and following that, sacrificing the individual to save the institutions.
I heard the Captain of the Phillipines Airlines A300 (A310?) that was hijacked a couple of years ago, speak at a conference last year. A fruit loop with pistol and hand grenade had threatened them for an hour or two, including holding a gun at the Cabin Crew to gain access to a locked flight deck, and firing a shot into the flight deck wardrobe. He finally jumped out with his home made parachute from an aft door, and was killed instantly by impacting on the hinge mechanism. Unfortunately, his body hung up, with the hand holding the grenade still inside. So the Cabin Manager/Purser went into the airblast in the doorway to push his body free, and let the grenade fall away. In the days following authorities were considering, probably goaded on by some bleeding hearts, charging this guy with murder, on the basis he had pushed the hijacker out.... <img src="eek.gif" border="0">
No, the Captain of an aircraft doesn't really receive
any worthwhile training for this sort of thing. The odds of him/her being in an unlawful interference, and the situation developing to where he can infuence the outcome, are miniscule. But if those odds do come up, as far as I can tell, you're still responsible, lack of training or not. I guess that's what the money is about, a sort of insurance policy that maybe, somewhere in your career, you're going to be faced with an awful situation for which there can be no preparation. Sadly, we know that just happened to four unfortunate crews, God Rest Their Souls.
So if the Sky Marshall is handling it like 007, then it's a pretty reasonable command decision to say "Carry on, and buzz when you're finished." But what if you are absolutely convinced that the actions of the Sky Marshall are placing the aircraft in greater danger? Are you allowed, by the law or your own integrity, to do nothing? That's the point, what can you do, when he's got the frazzin' gun? Of course, if they change the law so that from the start of the unlawful interference you are subordinated to the Sky Marshall, then that takes care of that part.....
That's why I posted my concern. When they put something in the Act, or the Regs, I take it seriously, and if I have to make command decisions that are contrary, prefer to at least have the intent on my side. Conflicts of law have a habit of sitting dormant for a
long time, then reaching out and biting some poor bastard on the arse. Maybe we should sort it out now. It doesn't keep me awake at night, as I think my odds of having to face the problem are the same as winning Lotto, but then, who would have believed what we have to face, if you'd tried to tell them on September 10?
Sometimes, you know, the job entails a little bit more than just flying the aircraft.
Merry Christmas to all.
[ 22 December 2001: Message edited by: Zone 5 ]</p>