Legal background for handling disruptive passengers

[Pali]

Recently I entered a discussion on case when crew handcuffed passenger (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/travel/travel_news/article-3289856/Economy-Air-Berlin-passenger-handcuffed-led-plane-used-business-class-toilet-sick.html#ixzz3pl7Zx3TA).

I could find a link to FAA (https://www.faa.gov/data_research/passengers_cargo/unruly_passengers/) which says: Federal Aviation Regulations 91.11, 121.580 and 135.120 state that "no person may assault, threaten, intimidate, or interfere with a crewmember in the performance of the crewmember's duties aboard an aircraft being operated."

What would be the analogy for this legislation for EU or Germany? I've been trying to find out but not happy with the results so far.

Is there some international agreement covering this issues which is ratified by particular countries?

Thank you.

[ExXB]

Pali, there is a plethora of international agreements covering aviation. Beginning with the 1929 Warsaw Convention (The Convention for the Unification of certain rules relating to international carriage by air); the 1944 Chicago convention ( which established ICAO) and its further plethora of amending conventions up to the Montreal Convention 1999. There were many in between such as The Hague Convention on Hijacking (It has a fancier name).

Many of these conventions (and ICAO Recommended Practices) are incorporated into national law in signatory/member states. In this way the same procedures, etc. apply to both domestic and international air transport.

I suspect what you are looking for comes from the 1963 Tokyo Convention on offenses committed on aircraft or the 2014 Montreal Protocol that amended it. See: ICAO Diplomatic Conference Delivers New Protocol Addressing Disruptive Passengers (http://www.icao.int/Newsroom/Pages/ICAO-Diplomatic-Conference-delivers-new-Protocol-addressing-disruptive-passengers.aspx)

Good luck.

[Pali]

Thank you, that was the resource I've been looking for. :ok:

[Trinity 09L]

If any person commits an offence on board a British registered aircraft, (or vessel) wherever in the world,(outbound or inbound) then the offence occurs within the jurisdiction of the above Court, who will punish the offender(s).
For instance many years ago a passenger was assaulted on a Concorde on way to Bahrein, accused dealt with in UK.
Flying Lawyer may be along soon.

[PAXboy]

As with so many things, the carriers do not point out that you have to obey the commands of the cabin crew, under the overall instruction of the commander (Captain or First Office as circumstances dictate).

If I recall correctly, ANZ state in their (usually amusing) cabin videos that you must obey the crew. Although they stop short of saying, "It's the LAW". perhaps more should? But it wouldn't make any difference. By the time someone is going to misbehave, they are already well beyond reasoned instruction.

[Piltdown Man]

In "flight" we can do virtually whatever we want. Common sense says that our reactions have to be proportionate, however some passengers are quite prepared to push us until we have no choice other than to take extreme action. Given that an aggressive person can be kept under control with handcuffs then a diversion and offload appears proportionate. The simplest method might have been for this passenger to have said sorry and then shut up.

You will notice I put the word flight in quotation marks. This is because local laws and aviation conventions are unable to define the exact point that a flight commences. Is is when the doors are shut, brakes released, taxi commences, start of take-off roll or when actually airborne. Answer that and I'll be in your debt.

PM

[ExXB]

Piltdown Man:

https://treaties.un.org/doc/db/Terrorism/Conv1-english.pdf

Article 1 Paragraphs 2 and 3. (Sorry I can't copy/paste as it's scanned text)

For this Tokyo treaty it's between the application of power for take off through the end of the landing run ...

I don't believe that has been subsequently amended ...

[Basil]

The British CAA Air Navigation Order states:
An aircraft shall be deemed to be in flight:
(a) in the case of a piloted flying machine, from the moment when, after the embarkation of its crew for the purpose of taking off, it first moves under its own power until the moment when it next comes to rest after landing

ExXB,
That reference also states, in Article 5/2 with reference to powers of the aircraft commander:
. . . an aircraft shall for the purposes of this Chapter, be considered to be in flight at any time from the moment when all its external doors are closed . .

[ExXB]

Yes, we have various definitions of 'inflight'. However most of them make sense 'in context'.

Also, as I mentioned above, many of these international agreements have been incorporated into national law - making it moot at which stage of the flight the offence occurred.