No sir, you can't get off...

[PENKO]

Simple question, after hours of debate with my colleagues.

Say you are the captain if a flight from London to Amsterdam, on a UK airline. The doors are closed and just before you push the cabin crew informs you that the gentleman in seat 2A has changed his mind and wants to get off. And by the way he has checked in luggage. What authority, if any, do you as captain have to say 'sorry, doors are closed, we go to Amsterdam'? Or are you obliged to let the gentleman disembark?

What if the same thing happens when you have already taxied out, waiting at the holding point?

What if you are in the air and a passenger wants to go back?


I think it's clear that I'm looking for an exact legal answer with references :ok:

[Piltdown Man]

I can answer the last one:

No, you can't get off:

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.

Reference: CAP 393 AIR NAVIGATION: THE ORDER AND THE REGULATIONS
AMENDMENT 1/2010

Now the answer to the first two questions depends on whose definition you use to determine when a flight actually starts. The Tokyo convention considers an aircraft to be in flight from the moment when power is applied for the purpose of takeoff until the moment when the landing run ends. A flight starts in your logbook from when you start taxying. Accidents and incidents related to flight start when the first person boards with the intention of flight. Other legislation is dependent on the status of the doors. Then you have common sense. If some idiot is screaming blue murder in the back, A) Do you really want them on board? and B) Does everybody else want to put up the numptie? For me, I'll draw my line in the sand with the status of the doors, purely on grounds of convenience.

[ElitePilot]

For the purpose of discussion i'll throw it out there aren't there any any human rights issues with forcing someone to be in a place they don't want to be?

No civilian can detain a person against their will without due cause so if you're taxiing along and you know they don't want to go could they not later sue on grounds of that if it can be proved they haven't jeopordised the safety of the aircraft?

Definition of false imprisonment: The illegal confinement of one individual against his or her will by another individual in such a manner as to violate the confined individual's right to be free from restraint of movement.

Definition of kidnapping:The crime of unlawfully seizing and carrying away a person by force or fraud or seizing and detaining a person against his or her will with an intent to carry that person away at a later time.

[PENKO]

Piltdown man, thanks for your valuable input. So if I understand your reasoning correctly I can retain a passenger on board against his will in the name of effieciency and regularity of air travel. And rightly so, why disturb the journey of 155 passengers just because 1 can't make up his mind. But..

If this gentleman subsequently takes me and my airline to court on account of kidnapping and unlawful detention, can I simply justify my acts by saying: it was more efficient once the doors were closed to depart rather than offload said gentleman.
Is this watertight?

I'm sure I can argue the case in-flight, no one in his right mind would divert just because of one passenger's polite request, but on the ground? During taxi I might have a stronger case, but at the gate with doors closed but the airbridge still within reach? Keep the ideas coming!

[Piltdown Man]

Yes, on the ground, airstairs/steps attached I'd get them off. But moving...

...could they not later sue on grounds of that if it can be proved they haven't jeopordised the safety of the aircraft?

We aren't talking about safety, we are talking about who has the greater right - a person who has boarded of their own free will, changes their mind a short time later and inconveniences everyone else. Or the 'rights' of the crew who are trying to get their flight to the destination on schedule or are are talking about a person, who when they can't have their own way decides to cry "human rights"? But they would have to argue that after the flight, because once I'm moving anybody who doesn't "obey a lawful command of the captain" is interfering with 'my' flight. They would be offload for sure and I'd do my utmost to make sure they were arrested and appropriately charged. I reckon (but can't guarantee) I'd win.

Lastly, as long as the bugger who changes their mind doesn't have legal aid and/or isn't is incredibly rich, you'll be free from litigation. But if litigation was started, the only thing I know for sure is that the only winners would be lawyers and in the long run, certainly no justice would be done. It is an unpleasant fact that Human Rights law always appears to go against common sense often favouring the thieves, muggers, rapists, illegal immigrants and maybe those who would endanger flights.

[MCDU2]

I think this came up not so long ago. Pretty sure the answer was firstly what does your OPS manual say and secondly that there are country specific laws governing such instances. I seem to remember Oz had a specific law which would mean the captain could be prosecuted for holding someone against their will.

[Superpilot]

Fact is this remains an awkward one to answer with plenty of potential gotchas for the commander. In this highly litigious world, I know which side I'd caution on and my position would remain the same until the ticket terms and conditions explicity stated the passenger's rights. On that subject, anyone know if THEIR airline tackles this issue in the terms and conditions?

[Bealzebub]

No, it is not that difficult. The passenger has entered into a contract of carriage. If they change their mind, then they either don't get on, or they get off at the other end and arrange their return passage. Not only may they not disobey the commanders lawful instructions with regards to ensuring the safety and security of the aircraft, but they must also comply with those lawful instructions given for ensuring the efficiency and regularity of air navigation.

Should anybody want to test the premise in a court they would no doubt obtain solid legal advice before doing so. If they want to make allegations of "kidnap", Rape or murder! They would no doubt contact the police and make their allegation accordingly.

Commanders are appointed in significant part, for their application of common sense and good decision making skills, so there will inevitably be any number of scenarios where different courses of action are taken. An aircraft that has embarked on its journey, is no more at the whim of that passengers willful disruption, than a train would be if the passenger decided to pull the emergency cord, (or whatever they use these days).

[usualguy]

captain has final authority, even flight attendants don't want understand that...
very irritating when u have 200 souls on board, and u have immature people trying to tell you what u have to do and they are totally clueless.

how can you come back to parking and lose your slot just for 1 guy, and what about the other connections and your passengers?

if they guy want leave the plane, why did he embark?

like in the army, always one fail and the whole legion will die.

[foxmoth]

Personally I would let this gentleman off - but only after pointing out that he is liable for the costs of not only this delay but the knock on delays that follow!

[777fly]

Any commanders response to this situation has to depend upon the circumstances on any particular flight. I have experienced many situations where pax have demanded to be returned to the terminal after doors closed. Usually some level of personal intervention has resolved the situation, but this cannot be relied upon.
I was advised a long time ago that passengers embarking on any form of public transport are obliged, by contract implied in the ticket purchase, that they will embark upon the contracted journey and do nothing to affect or impede it's scheduled operation. This form of contract derives from the 'Railway Act' of sometime in the 1800's in the UK, which was implemented by the UK Parliament in response to the continual disruption of the new railway services by passengers who were petrified by the dizzying speeds of 30 mph or more, and demanded to be allowed off. The disruption of schedule regularity forced Parliament to act.
I believe that the same tenents still apply to all forms of contracted travel and that your insistence that passenger 'belt up and shut up, or else' would be defensible in court.
That is my recollection of advice given by an aviation lawyer, but I stand to be corrected.

[ElitePilot]

Despite the legal aspects if you have a pax on board unstable enough to want off on the taxi out would you feel comfortable with their stability in the air?
Turn back or enroute diversion will end up a lot more costly than turning back before takeoff and I think the company may question the decisions if you had alarm bells with a pax before takeoff.

[40&80]

Companies have a duty exec on call to deal with problems and the pilot simply needs to boot the decision into the duty exec or dispatchers court whilst on the ground and make them do their job........pilots are often told they make decisions airborne and the airline staff make the decisions on the ground...so make them...you can always call them in for a bollocking next day if they get it wrong in yho.
If the duty exec tells the captain to get airborne and get this bloody aircraft to its destination...and the captain feels there is a safety aspect and disagrees he simply returns to the ramp and lets the ground staff unload all the passengers and all their baggage and a full bomb and threat search carried out..the pilot and crew go off duty when their duty time runs out...its a management problem and I recall being told.."Pilot inputs are neither desirable or required". So learn to play the game but make sure you are fireproof and be ready to walk if necessary...it is your life..your licence..and you are a long time dead..

[ElitePilot]

Thats all very well in an ideal world.
Duty exec? I'm not so sure all companies has one of those. Logistics/dispatcher/ops manager? Sure, if you can get hold of them when youre sitting number 2 in the holding point. Are they qualified to make such a decision? Doubtful. Company frequency? downroute, impossible.
Meanwhile you're burning fuel and blocking a taxiway waiting to try and speak to someone...
40&80: Spoilt by a full service legacy perchance? ;)

[wiggy]

Thankfully even in my full service outfit our equivalent of a duty exec would say "it's your decision captain", even before the doors are closed.

I've had advice similar to 777fly...if the doors are still open you're on shaky ground trying to insist they travel (unlawful imprisonment) so he/she can walk, even if it means a delay for a baggage offload. After that point they should stay on (contract law, inconvenience to the majority on board). If they continue to "kick off" then it's a return to stand and they're delivered into the hands of the appropriate authorities.....