Air NZ pilot refuses to take off

[Wirraway]

TVNZ

Air NZ pilot refuses to take off
By OSKAR ALLEY
01 September 2004

More than 100 Air New Zealand passengers were delayed on the tarmac for almost an hour when a pilot refused to take off - because two children were not wearing shoes.

Some passengers complained to cabin staff about the delay on a flight from Christchurch to Wellington on Monday afternoon. The airline has defended the decision not to fly, maintaining that its customers expect a "reasonable standard of dress" and that children without shoes risk possible injury.

The children were believed to be aged about 2 and 4.

Passenger Terry Bach was furious at the delay on flight 454, which was supposed to land at Wellington at 5pm but arrived just before 6pm.

Mr Bach was giving a lecture at Tawa College that evening and arrived more than 30 minutes late.

The 104 passengers could not believe their ears when the pilot used the intercom to tell them the reason for the delay was that the children were not wearing shoes, he said.

"There were a number of people who were incensed and went up and talked to cabin staff. I was sitting right behind the poor family.

"Others were sitting there quietly fuming . . ."

The plane sat on the tarmac as staff unsuccessfully looked in luggage compartments for the family's bags, Mr Bach said.

The children's parents were mortified at causing the delay.

"They looked quite harassed.

"It wasn't their fault. They had nothing on paper to say, `Your child shall have shoes when they board this aircraft'."

The captain eventually agreed to take off when the children put on the socks they had with them, he said.

"I think it's pathetic. They're saying kids should be wearing shoes, when there's other people virtually in bare feet, wearing jandals."

Air New Zealand spokesman Mike Tod confirmed last night that the plane was scheduled to depart at 4.15pm but took off at 4.53pm. He was unable to contact the pilot yesterday to find out what caused the delay, but confirmed an informal dress code and passenger safety were relevant issues.

"In our view, customers expect a reasonable standard of dress, which extends to footwear, when they are travelling on board our aircraft."

Young children had to wear shoes to protect them from "potential injuries", including from the drinks trolley and other passengers' bags.

==========================================

[EPIRB]

Not to mention protection in the event of an aircraft accident.

[Plas Teek]

Yes.

Could you imagine the press if their darling little toes got hurt....

[MoFo]

Mr Bach arrived at 6pm instead of 5 pm and was 30 minutes late for his lecture.

What sort of tosser would catch an international flight and allow 30 minutes from scheduled arrival time to being wherever he had to be to give a lecture. This guy must be the original Nutty Professor.

As for shoes, they protect the passenger in the event of an evacuation.

Everyone's a critic. Who cares?

[Capt Claret]

MoFo

Christchurch to Wellington would be a domestic flight wouldn't it? Or is it a leg of an international service?

Agree with EPIRB & Plas Teek, the captain/airline would be crucified if the little toseys were hurt scrambling over twisted aluminium.

[FlexibleResponse]

Hmmm…that Captain does seem to be a little bit tough picking on toddlers.

If he is concerned about standards of dress and wants to join the fashion-police, he would seem to be ideally suited for management.

If he is concerned about safety, then I wonder how he handles passengers wearing mini-skirts, nylons, stiletto heels or G-string underwear!

[schweinhund]

Been cold over there in the land of the long white cloud lately, hasn't it?

Gotta feel for the toddlers. Don't think I'd be letting my kids get around like that at the moment. Good on yer, Captain. If only to get the kids feet warm again.

[Lurk R]

I actually reckon the action was way over the top. Aren't women with high heel shoes told to take them off if they have to go down a slide? So whats the difference then?

[air-hag]

I don't see the problem... all that hair on their little Hobbit feet would protect them. They're used to running around barefoot in the mountains with the Orcs (who are easily confused with their horror PM :yuk: ).

Jandals..... Is that like a sandal in the rest of the world??? Jandals...... :p :rolleyes:

The point is, yeah some professionals around here think the shoes are SUCH a safety necessity... So the guy's feet are saved while he gets 60% burns to the rest of his body due to wearing shorts and a t-shirt. :rolleyes: No, not in winter but in summer.

You're right clod-cutter, "My god people are stupid".....
This is a non-event except for the outrage it sparked right here... (http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=143162)




:ok:



.

[Romeo Tango Alpha]

Haggy,
Jandals are thongs (no, the FOOTWARE variety, not the up ya arse undies).

OK, I don't get it. The kids had no shoes, and the bags couldn't be found in the hold, yet the kids had socks?

[126.9]

What a load of bullsh|t! When a 2 year old and a 4 year old not wearing shoes becomes reason enough to delay a revenue flight, then you must be suffering from good old Kiwi Severe Lack of Perspective Syndrome!

All the talk about injuring their feet is an even bigger dog's bollocks. On a flight from Christchurch to Wellington they've hardly got time to sh|t in their pants let alone get up and run around. And if the bloody thing crashes they're supposed to take off their shoes anyway.

Lastly, why the hell did the captain finally compromise his position by taking off with those two kids without shoes on? After he'd p|ssed everyone off, it would appear that he finally lowered his standards? Any way you look at it: That man should be fired! :yuk:

[PickyPerkins]

Does anyone else recall that long, long, ago, the safety blurb to passengers for preparing for a crash included the instruction to "remove shoes". I often wondered how that was supposed to help survival. http://home.infionline.net/~pickyperkins/pi.gif

[Capn Bloggs]

Flex and 126.9,

In my company, wearing of shoes by passengers is mandatory. Perhaps this was the case with Air NZ...

[air-hag]

12.69 you one hell of an angry man.... chill brother. :ok: what's ya problem? Do you hate Hobbits or something?

well i guess i can understand that.

Don't know how much perspective it is possible to have when you're only about 3ft tall.

[PickyPerkins]

Of course you need to have shoes on to obey the instructions to take them off when about to crash. http://home.infionline.net/~pickyperkins/pi.gif

[schweinhund]

Wearing shoes is mandatory at QF too, 126.9. And there are no instructions to take them off in an emergency, other than high heels. Normal shoes will not damage the canvas on a slide or raft, whereas high heels may.

Your argument holds no water, as it were. The skipper did the right thing. I stull full sirry fur thu kuds.

[Far Canard]

This is what you get when you hire university type pilots - no common sense. Wearing shoes is a dress code issue not a safety issue. With lower airfares you should expect the lower classes to turn up looking like a dogs breakfast.

Safety - Think of all those passengers speeding across town late for their meetings.

[Romeo Tango Alpha]

Hag,
WOULD YOU STOP THAT PLEASE!!!

You just made me spit bloody coffee on my keyboard and monitor(HONESTLY!) laughing.

Now, if I was like a lot of people these days, I'd sue you for not issueing a warning of impending laughter...

:ok: :p :} :D ;)

[slamer]

I would suggest the PIC has supported a reasonable request from the Purser/ISD/Cabin Manager to deal with this....in Air NZ this is normal practice in such circumstances. Interesting how the advent of LCC's has now made this sort of decision/request seem unreasonable.

Maybe the Pilots & Crew should also fly Bare-foot, applying some of the Logic in these post's, one would assume it's safer!!

PS... Isnt a Thong something the Girls wear to the beach? (much like a G-string!) I didnt realise in Oz you wear them on your feet? or do they mean, around the ankles!!!!!

[MOR]

You mean Helen isn't an Orc...???

[FarQ2]

I but the pilots kup their gumboots on in an emerjuncy. :}

[TopTup]

So why was it inevitably left to the Captain to act? Why wasn't the situation resolved when checking in, at the departure gate prior to boarding, or at least prior to entering the aircraft???

Seems like a whole range of people failed in their job and left it to the common believe that "someone else will say something". If anything I feel sorry for the Captain having to be forced to act as he had to.

As for law suites and hurting the hobbits's precious feet in the event of any mishap, check out The Steller Awards (or try Stella??) in a search engine for a good laugh at actual pathetic law suites that have been successful....

[schweinhund]

Actually, it's a hygiene issue, Far. Not that it will mean much with the ferals on board these days.

[Howard Hughes]

Now I may be a bit past all this, but when I was taught to fly it was continually stressed that when flying, you should be wearing sturdy lace up shoes/boots, a long sleeve shirt and long pants both made of natural fibres.

Nothing to do with a dress code, simply a tiny pice of insurance should the unthinkable happen. Even if this were to aid a little in survival it would be worth it!!

Cheers, HH.

:ok:

PS: Now I wonder why military, medivac, coastwatch and a whole plethora of organisations wear full length overalls and boots?

[Far Canard]

Suitable clothing was an issue with the Wright Flyer as it was most likely to crash. Modern jet aircraft have reliability and safety records that make this requirement silly.

You mention hygiene - is it their feet or the aircraft that stink.

Looking at this issue from a wider perspective - it is nothing but ridiculous.

Plenty of people have been in support of the pilot. If the story was reversed - pilot takes off with passengers with no shoes to avoid delay - they would still be in support of him (those Air NZ guys can do no wrong).

If I had been a passenger on that flight I would have called the pilot a tosser!

[Buster Hyman]

I was involved in a similar incident some years back. There were some pax travelling to AKL (strangely enough) on CO & all they had on their feet was thongs. CO Duty Manager at the counter refused to uplift them until they went & got shoes. I think we learned that there was an International standard on this, but I can't be certain. It basically meant we were checking all pax from then on.

On a similar note to the poor little toddlers chances of injury, a teenager over here has been awarded a little over AUD5 million in damages because he became a paraplegic after jumping into a river. He sued the local council for negligence. Therefore, no company or employee can ever be too cautious because there are ambulance chasers out there just dying to meet you!:suspect:

[Wirraway]

NZPA

Airline backs pilot over shoes
02 September 2004
By ANNA CLARIDGE and NZPA

Air New Zealand is standing by a pilot who refused to take off because two children on the flight did not have shoes on.

The flight, from Christchurch to Wellington on Monday afternoon, was delayed 45 minutes while cabin staff fumbled through luggage to find the children's shoes. More than 100 passengers were left fuming, some complaining to cabin staff about the delay.

The airline apologised yesterday but defended the pilot's decision saying children who flew without shoes risked possible injury.

The children were believed to be aged about two and four.

The captain eventually agreed to take off when the children put on the socks they had with them.

Passenger Terry Bach was furious at the delay, which meant he arrived late for a lecture at Tawa College that evening.

"There were a number of people who were incensed and went up and talked to cabin staff, I was sitting right behind the poor family ... it's very annoying when you're told the delay is for finding shoes."

Other airlines also have strict dress standards based on safety, with Qantas policy insisting all children over two years wear shoes in an aircraft.

Air New Zealand spokesman Glen Sowry said yesterday he was not aware of any complaints over the incident. Ultimately, the pilot was responsible for safety, he said.

"On this occasion, he made sure shoes would be worn."

========================================

[TopTup]

I think the point, or mine anyway, with all this is the pathetic "ambulance chasing," and "blame someone else for my idiocracy" world that we live in.

The captain did the right thing, not because pilots want to support pilots on any issue..... In this case he was damned if he did and damned if he didn't. That is; company policy dictates one thing yet common sense dictates another. Does anyone honestly believe that the Captain wanted to delay the flight and getting home to his / her family, etc?

At the end of the day, go by the SOPs and your backside is safe (most of the time...!!).

[TIMMEEEE]

Forgive me if I'm wrong but isnt the Pilot in Command responsible for exercising Operational Control of their flight?

By definition this is "Control over the initiation, continuation, diversion or termination of a flight".
The Captain IMHO acted quite responsibly and correctly in ensuring these passengers had an acceptable form of footwear.

And yes, if the kids did stub a toe or cut themselves, burn themselves in an emergency or any other one-in-a-million possibilities, guess who would be running to the courts with their lawyers in tow?
Not to mention the afforementioned Occupational Health problems involved in going barefoot.

Seems to be an international problem and should be addressed by ICAO as a ticketing condition that appropriate footwear be adorned.

[ZK-NSN]

We get alot of tree-huggers and um's show up expecting to travel barefoot, they all get told to put shoe's on and in the past have been offloaded if they refuse. Airline have a right to set minimum standards for both safety and customer service if the pax dont like it take the bus. Who travel's without shoes anyway??
So the Aussies are dropping sheep jokes in favour of hobbit jokes eh? From the country that bought us: Rolph Harris, Steve Urwin (not to forget his little dog souy.), Yahoo serious, hats with corks attatched, XXXX, fosters and those ugly ass Airvan's. I would'nt be attracting attention to myself chaps?

[Howard Hughes]

Touche' ZK-NSN.

Cheers, HH.

:ok:

[schweinhund]

Geez. The rugby result really got to you this year ZK?:ok:

BTW, you forgot to mention meat pies!:}

[SydGirl]

It's not just about safety in case of an emergency.. what about safety IN the cabin?

If that child would have injured itself in the cabin, on the aerobridge or tarmac the parents would have been suing Air New Zealand faster than you could say "Where's my lawyer?".

It's called Duty of Care.

SG
:D

[Far Canard]

When you talk toddler safety and airliners you need to look at the loop belt issue. If the plane crashed most of them would be dead like in the Sioux City DC-10. There is not much room when the adult torso flies forward on impact.

A least they would have their shoes on!

[126.9]

Come on guys, do you have to be barefoot to sue Air New Zealand? Or any one else? Having said that, how many barefoot kids are on board after takeoff? How are SHOES defined in the NZ air regulations (Jandals, sandals, flip-flops, thongs (even if I thought that was a thong up my missus's butt) slops, beachwear)? Or any others? Is a sock a shoe and if not, should the captain be in court for taking off with two passengers without shoes that he was well aware of? Because, clearly he did! In my opinion, it's a storm in a teacup. And it's the captain who made the tea in the first place. :ugh:

[Orville]

I know of an occassion when a Qantas pilot refused to take his shoes off when doing training drill in school mock-up. He went down the slide with nylon soled shoes on, when he slid down the slide the friction had melted his soles, when he struck the bump at the bottom his shoes stuck and he flipped over and broke both his ankles. That is why pax are asked to remove there shoes before evacuating, ask the girls how hot it can get with nylon undies on.

[Buster Hyman]

ask the girls how hot it can get with nylon undies on
Orville...I do, all the time...but that's something for Jet Blast, not Dunnunda!:E :E :E :ouch:

[ZK-NSN]

schweinhund
1:1 was the standings and the cup stayed in its rightful home.:ok:

[halas]

I don't think the idea of sueing is an issue here.

If a K1W1 can clarify for me that would be good.....

In uNZid they have some sort of accident compensation scheme whereby if you get injured through someone elses fault, the tax payer will pay up after a review of what is entitled to you.

Therefore you can't sue.

Is this correct?

Still think it's funny that uNZed only ever makes the UK news over things like this!

halas

[TerryB]

This is just insanity! I have no problem with airlines requiring customers to wear shoes BUT it should be enforced at the check-in or at worst the gate. Delaying a flight (no doubt costing thousands of dollars as well as resulting in a lot of upset customers) is just stupid.

To claim there is a safety issue in case of evacuation in this case is also ridiculous. A 2 and 4 year old are not going to be evacuating themselves - they will be carried off the plane (I have a 7yo and I can assure you I would carry her out of a plane if there was an evacuation).

As for safety in the cabin - what exactly is the problem? A lot of adults take their shoes off during flight (on long-haul anyway) and I can't think of anything dangerous that would hurt their feet. Getting on and off is a bit different but THEY HAD ALREADY DONE THIS! Again it should be enforced at check-in, not on the plane.

[Eurocap]

This is just another case of ANZ's invisible policy.

How can the airline expect passengers to realise that they should wear shoes on board when there are no visible instructions to do so.

A bit like allowing passengers to use cell phones in the vicinity and on board aircraft when boarding via an airbridge but not allowing pax to use them when boarding via the tarmac.

Of course the pax is going to be pi**ed off when told to turn them off on one occasion when on others the pax is allowed to use them.

Consistency should be the order of the day.

:mad: :mad: :mad:

[mcdude]

So "the pilot" obviously made his decision after the SOP shoe inspection performed by the PF prior to pushback?

Please get real. He was made aware of a problem, probably not covered by SOP, and asked to respond. He did so by defining a minimum standard and enforcing it. A compromise was reached.

These type of seemingly minor define what being in command is all about....

If ALL pax then took off their shoes during the takeoff roll, so be it. But we are all pilots aren't we? Lets back him/her up unless we know otherwise.

mcdude

[ZK-NSN]

Eurocap
I personally think it would be fair assumption by airnz that people would wear shoes anyway, this is'nt Somalia. But we all Know about assumption. If it's a baby or toddler that has to be carried then theres not real need but otherwise they should have shoe's.

[Eurocap]

NSN

As I understand it in this case the children were an infant and a toddler.

My argument is not how the Capt handled the situation, but how much inconsistency occurs at various ports depending who has been given the task of control.

The passenger may have travelled previously in the same state of undress.

How many border controls has the passenger passed through to arrive at the seat in the aircraft? At CHC probably the check-in and then the stub-puller at the airbridge and then been welcomed at the aircraft door and directed to their seat.

If the policy was visible any one of those airline personel should have pointed out the state of undress which would have hopefully prevented the delay.

The Capt is usually the last line of defence in these sort of cases.

Another example is accepting passengers who are under the influence of alcohol because its easier than causing a fuss only to have them act disruptively on board and have the cabin crew have to deal with them.

[ZK-NSN]

Fair call.:cool:

[BCF Breath]

An interview I saw recently re the most recent KAL crash.

The Kiwi survivor (there were others) said that the only reason he got out alive was because he was wearing shoes...

And with the warehouse with its cheap products, I'm sure they could've had something on their tootsies. Just think of the toilet floors, YYuucckk!:yuk:

Eurocap Good point.

[Not Nightowl]

Don't know if the Warehouse is too worried about cheap shoes for one's feet before going to an aircraft dunny. The owner of the Warehouse himself, in the past, has been advised by a F/A not to go into the toilet in bare tootsies, unheeded I believe.

[slamer]

Yeh ...... he was (KAL crash) bending forward to put them on (shoes), therefore more or less in the "brace position" when they hit!