Crew travel priority over paying pax?

[ranmar850]

I mean, crew must travel, but I think this it taking it a bit far?? This is going to cost United a lot of money, I can smell the lawyers from here.

Video surfaces of man being dragged from overbooked United flight (http://www.cnbc.com/2017/04/10/video-surfaces-of-man-being-dragged-from-overbooked-united-flight.html)

[andmiz]

It was the Chicago Airport Police which dragged him off using force, not the airline.

United is not at fault for how he was removed, however their handling of the situation prior to requesting police assistance should be examined.

[logansi]

To explain why it is cost effective (even to offer each person $800).

These crew were being moved in order to cover a timed out crew due to delays. It is better for the airline to pay off a few passengers out than cancel multiple flights due to a crew timeout.

[Boe787]

United must have asked the Police to remove the passenger.

Agree though the Airlines handling of the situation was bad, they should have just kept increasing the denied boarding compensation amount, till someone took it and got off voluntarily!
Far cheaper option than what eventuated!

[IsDon]

United must have asked the Police to remove the passenger.

Agree though the Airlines handling of the situation was bad, they should have just kept increasing the denied boarding compensation amount, till someone took it and got off voluntarily!
Far cheaper option than what eventuated!

I would imagine the person at United responsible for removing pax from an overboooked flight doesn't have a compensation budget. If he/she did then this wouldn't have happened.

Look through the headline. This is another example of some back office bean counter leaving front line staff with no option but to use force to off load extra pax. I'll bet said bean counter won't be blamed for the bad PR though.

[Boe787]

I read they offered up to 800 dollars but no takers, staff should have then referred it to the Duty Manager to deal with it, and authorise higher payment.

[ampclamp]

United are being absolutely smashed on social media and general reporting of the incident.

It does not matter who did the removal, United's name is all over it and it must be costing them millions in bad publicity.

They literally could have offered someone a hundred thousand bucks or even multiples of that for the seat and got off cheaply looking at the PR disaster this has become.

It's costing them now and will continue to.

Unbelievable it came to that.

[TBM-Legend]

Charter a King Air to move the crew. The distance wasn't that far 4 x $800+ would cover most of the costs. [charter in USA cheaper than Oz generally]

Now lots of publicity to cope with. By the way the carrier was actually REpublic Airways on a code share with UA...bit like Chobham here and QF..

[Icarus2001]

It's costing them now and will continue to.

It must be great that you have access to their on line booking system and can see the drop in bookings that you clearly know are as a result of this.

Dreaming. It will be forgotten in a week.

[ferris]

They were not offering $800. They were offering 800 points. Big difference. $800 would've seen a stampede to get off.

[Berealgetreal]

United asked the passenger to get off. The vast majority do and deal with the problem at the gate. Some don't then the police get involved.

[Planemike]

United asked the passenger to get off. The vast majority do and deal with the problem at the gate. Some don't then the police get involved.

No need to for anyone to leave the aircraft if they have a valid ticket. The problem is United's. Did not deal with it well.

[ElZilcho]

Offloads happen for a variety of reasons, day in day out. I would hope those contributing to the discussion are well familiar with the concept.

United's real problem is the execution, and raises a lot of questions. If we assume it was a last minute requirement (rather than a stuff up at the gate), how do you proceed with the offload when an adult refuses to budge like a grumpy toddler?

The outcome would suggest, random selection doesn't work. Perhaps they should they should have sweetened the deal until volunteers emerged.

[Berealgetreal]

United and for that matter other Airlines don't tell the police how to do their job.

If you get asked to move on by a police officer then you just move on. Particularly at an airport in the US!

[DJ737]

Agreed, being asked to do something by Airline, Security or the Police and refusing to comply isn't going to end well for the person concerned and not just in the US, The person concerned obviously failed the "attitude test" applied by the airline and/or the police.

[Derfred]

Fascinating that it happened to be a white doctor. Would it have played out differently if it was a pregnant female? Or a Muslim? Or a Mexican without papers? Fascinating.

Do the police get told how to do their job by the airlines? Interesting question. If the airport police are asked by the airline (or the Captain) to remove a passenger, then they will. Normally it will be because the passenger is drunk and disorderly, or has assaulted someone. On this occasion were the police advised that the passenger to be removed was a random selection? Or were they just asked to remove a passenger who refused to deboard.

Don't be too quick to judge the police. United has some serious explaining to do.

[Berealgetreal]

Someone who isn't going to follow the order of gate staff, cabin crew and police don't really fit the criteria for flying anway.

The police had no option, he had to come off peacefully or forcibly. He chose the harder of the two. The scene and injuries were indeed very unfortunate. If he wasn't in a confined space surrounded by people he might have been tasered or sprayed.

None of us like being "told", but sometimes you have to just cop it on the chin. Obviously lack of sleep/long day etc can make it harder.

United did what probably every airline in the world have had to do at some stage.

It never ceases to amaze me what Police, Fire, Ambos put up with in their day to day duties.

[27/09]

Charter a King Air to move the crew. The distance wasn't that far 4 x $800+ would cover most of the costs. [charter in USA cheaper than Oz generally]

I know some flight crew contracts have stipulations on who can and cannot be used to ferry paxing crew. Whistling up a charter may not be that simple.

[TBM-Legend]

We are only talking about UA here...

Right ideas but poor execution. Smashing a guys face into an armrest is assault. Anyway we will see what the lawyers say.

The UA CEO needs a few lessons in communication too..

[Berealgetreal]

Field day for the lawyers in the States!

Might get rich!

[Planemike]

The police had no option, he had to come off peacefully or forcibly. He chose the harder of the two. The scene and injuries were indeed very unfortunate. If he wasn't in a confined space surrounded by people he might have been tasered or sprayed.


Are you kidding?? He was a law abiding passenger sat in his seat minding his own business. So it is acceptable to assault him because United have made a mess?? Let them (United) stew in their own juice.... A situation entirely of their own making...

[ranmar850]

I accept pax should be forced to offload for security/behavioural reasons, but violent force just because someone has f*cked up at the gate, applied to someone picked at random for offloading? No, not on. Who made the decision as to who was to be the victim? Random selection? This guy will be paid out millions.
I've been on a flight where we had to offload, to do with hot'n high at WAN. Took so long to pick the first ten, and offload ( no arguments, everyone did as asked) , that the pilot then came on and said, as the temp had just gone up another 3 degrees in the interim, (summer morning)we had to offload another ten . Just about the whole flight stood up to volunteer :-) :-)

[framer]

I wouldn't be tootling around in the back seat of a King Air, too scared that there had been a party in the trailer park last night or that the food stamps were a day late.

[PDR1]

Agreed, being asked to do something by Airline, Security or the Police and refusing to comply isn't going to end well for the person concerned and not just in the US, The person concerned obviously failed the "attitude test" applied by the airline and/or the police.

Oh balderdash!

The policeman (or whatever he was) should first have established that the captain had a lawful reason to have the passenger removed. You can't just say to a passing policeman "these people in front of me in the queue won't let me pass - please forcefully remove them!".

United had no legal basis for removing the passenger, either under title 14-250 or under their own CoC. They claimed the flight was "Oversold", but it wasn't - it was just fully booked. Positioning flights by company aircrew don't qualify as confirmed, reserved seats so they weren't "Oversold" within the meaning of the regulation.

I do get it that they had a problem needing to deploy aircrew, but there were lots of ways to solve that and gratuitously throwing already-boarded passengers off an aeroplane (in violation of the title 14 regs and their own conditions of carriage) is frankly not a solution that any rational company should be considering.

[Ken Borough]

Positioning flights by company aircrew don't qualify as confirmed, reserved seat

Really? In a couple of airlines with which I am very familiar, positioning crew (to operate a flight or who are returning to base after an operation) are booked as "must go" status. The space is confirmed and pity help any ground staff who offload crew in those circumstances. The required number of seats are blocked with the saleable inventory reduced accordingly. It is therefore possible to still overbook a flight based on the reduced inventory.

[Evanelpus]

They literally could have offered someone a hundred thousand bucks or even multiples of that for the seat and got off cheaply looking at the PR disaster this has become.

Hindsight is such a wonderful thing and I'm sure United are going to regret this for a long time to come, what with litigation and people voting with their feet choosing other carriers.

But, I have a simple question. They must have known at the gate about the numbers, why didn't they sort this out before the passengers boarded?

[PDR1]

Really? In a couple of airlines with which I am very familiar, positioning crew (to operate a flight or who are returning to base after an operation) are booked as "must go" status. The space is confirmed and pity help any ground staff who offload crew in those circumstances. The required number of seats are blocked with the saleable inventory reduced accordingly. It is therefore possible to still overbook a flight based on the reduced inventory.

I should have been clearer in what I was saying - what I meant was:

Unbooked and late-arriving company aircrew needing positioning flights don't qualify as confirmed, reserved seats

If the positioning flights are booked at a time when there are seats available then I have no problem with them being given the highest priority. But that's not what happened here.

PDR

[PDR1]

But, I have a simple question. They must have known at the gate about the numbers, why didn't they sort this out before the passengers boarded?

Some parts of the press are suggesting that these four just arrived unannounced at the gate, after most of the Pax had boarded, showed some paperwork and demanded seats.

I really, really hope this isn't true!

PDR

[Evanelpus]

Some parts of the press are suggesting that these four just arrived unannounced at the gate, after most of the Pax had boarded, showed some paperwork and demanded seats.

Oh dear, oh dear.

Were they United crew? the reason I ask is that I'm sure I've seen elsewhere they were from DH. Is that an airline or does that stand for dead heading?

I hear the compensation numbers rising as I type!

[PDR1]

Oh dear, oh dear.

Were they United crew? the reason I ask is that I'm sure I've seen elsewhere they were from DH. Is that an airline or does that stand for dead heading?

I hear the compensation numbers rising as I type!

I believe the abbreviation DH is being used to mean "dead heading".

PDR

[CCGE29]

DH is dead heading. The flight was however operated by Republic who also operate flights for AA and DL.

[AerialPerspective]

I have no issue with UA offloading someone due to needing to get a crew member to another location and presumably avoid inconveniencing hundreds of pax as opposed to 1 or 2... that is logical. The execution/escalation was poor however but not a big surprise considering the way U.S. law enforcement conduct themselves generally (I'm sure there are good police in the U.S. but many need re-training). I'm just surprised the police didn't shoot him, that would have been less surprising for the U.S. Just watching Sunrise and damn commentators on there talking about overbooking, etc. which it wasn't... stupid presenters should shut up and not make things up if they don't know what they're talking about. This will not play well for UA however, despite the inaccuracies sprouted by TV presenters.

[On eyre]

DH=dickheads - United that is !

[framer]

I imagine United has the equivalent of an 'Airline Duty Manager' for that port. If so, they have not managed the on load of the crew and offload of the pax well.
If the paxing crew presenting at the gate was a surprise to the gate staff / duty manager then that is poor communication within the Airline. Either way staffing levels and poor training will be at the root of it. A calm, well trained, experienced person in authority at the gate would have prevented this escalating to the point where security was required.
Ensuring that staff are calm, well trained and experienced requires mature executive management decisions that value those traits.
Does executive management recognise and value these unquantifiable traits? If not, there is the root cause of the problem and the cost is now slightly more 'quantifiable '.

[hotnhigh]

And airlines will continue to overbook and undercater because some mathematician or accountant thinks its a great idea. And it will ensure bloated executive bonuses can and will continue.
NPS anyone.

[601]

What about the other pax who, upon hearing that the bloke was a doctor with patients booked at his destination, just sat there, albeit "expressing" horror at what was happening.

It is all about "me"

[Icarus2001]

If a police officer issues you a lawful (to them) instruction you have to comply. Three other people did, no issue. He chose not to. His decision.

I would be pretty confident that the terms of carriage for his booking allow him to be offloaded.

The policeman (or whatever he was) should first have established that the captain had a lawful reason to have the passenger removed. You can't just say to a passing policeman "these people in front of me in the queue won't let me pass - please forcefully remove them!".Do you know they did not do that?

And airlines will continue to overbook and undercater because some mathematician or accountant thinks its a great ideaBecause passengers want low fares, remove overbooking and the price goes up.

If PDR is right then it was not "overbooking" in a usual sense, only that crew could not be accommodated. Three pax got off, this guy chose not to. Perhaps another pax should have been asked.

[AerialPerspective]

Oh balderdash!

The policeman (or whatever he was) should first have established that the captain had a lawful reason to have the passenger removed. You can't just say to a passing policeman "these people in front of me in the queue won't let me pass - please forcefully remove them!".

United had no legal basis for removing the passenger, either under title 14-250 or under their own CoC. They claimed the flight was "Oversold", but it wasn't - it was just fully booked. Positioning flights by company aircrew don't qualify as confirmed, reserved seats so they weren't "Oversold" within the meaning of the regulation.

I do get it that they had a problem needing to deploy aircrew, but there were lots of ways to solve that and gratuitously throwing already-boarded passengers off an aeroplane (in violation of the title 14 regs and their own conditions of carriage) is frankly not a solution that any rational company should be considering.
Actually, the carrier has a right like anyone else under common law to ask someone to get off their property. Working for a major carrier and having a discussion with a security department type one day I asked what our obligation was or the likelihood of being in trouble if we later, for example, found a person was not intoxicated (we never used to say that, just 'unfit for travel'). He and a Police Officer told me that an aeroplane is property like any other property and the owner of a property has the right to ask anyone to leave their property. If the person refuses to leave, it becomes a case of trespass. Common Law operates almost identically in the United States as it does in Australia. Further, if this goes to court, I don't believe the Doctor's 'standing' to sue will come from the injuries so much as loss from not being provided with something he had purchased. I don't agree with what they did but my legal understanding is that the removal of person(s) from an aircraft comes from common law rights of the airline perhaps supplemented by rules governing specific instances like entering an aircraft while intoxicated.

[AerialPerspective]

I imagine United has the equivalent of an 'Airline Duty Manager' for that port. If so, they have not managed the on load of the crew and offload of the pax well.
If the paxing crew presenting at the gate was a surprise to the gate staff / duty manager then that is poor communication within the Airline. Either way staffing levels and poor training will be at the root of it. A calm, well trained, experienced person in authority at the gate would have prevented this escalating to the point where security was required.
Ensuring that staff are calm, well trained and experienced requires mature executive management decisions that value those traits.
Does executive management recognise and value these unquantifiable traits? If not, there is the root cause of the problem and the cost is now slightly more 'quantifiable '.
Not true. An Airport Duty Manager may well have been told of the urgent need to offload a passenger and put a crew member on at the last minute when boarding is completed. At several airline's I've worked at aircraft have been held to wait for a crew member having just been advised that someone has gone unexpectedly sick at another port and other crew might be out of hours if the replacement doesn't fly on that flight. I'm sure we've offloaded commercial passengers more than once to accommodate... very, very rarely but it has happened. Usually it's just been a case of holding the aircraft past departure time until the crew member came running up the concourse to get on board. We don't know all the circumstances and suggesting that the Airport Duty Manager had not planned well is probably not the case. At one airline I worked at, we had a crew member open a bottle of champagne on board and a piece of the metal surround broke off and shot up and struck him in the eye, the aircraft diverted and was delayed while a crew member getting to a flight about to depart for that destination was accommodated. Crew DO trump commercial pax because not having the crew member travel may inconvenience hundreds instead of one person who is offloaded. Conditions of carriage state clearly and always have that the carrier undertakes to provide the carriage but reserves the right at its absolute discretion to delay, divert, re-route the flight or flights or change the equipment or the carrier(s) involved. None of this excuses the behavior and the manner in which the removal was conducted... have to say though, if I was in the same situation I may ask why and if they insisted I would get off the aeroplane as they requested and argue it out with the manager, I wouldn't refuse to get off the aircraft. However, I would also not condone that sort of force being used which was obviously completely over the top

[gordonfvckingramsay]

So if it was so important to have these particular crew at that particular destination, I wonder if they may be a bit too reliant on deadheading to keep the operation running. 1 billion wiped off the share price over this little incident. One slightly used false economy going cheap on eBay anyone?

[megan]

While the airline may have compelling reasons to have crew travel, the passenger may have reason to travel for equally compelling reasons. If the airline wants to offload someone, hold an auction, someone will fold if the price is right.

[AerialPerspective]

While the airline may have compelling reasons to have crew travel, the passenger may have reason to travel for equally compelling reasons. If the airline wants to offload someone, hold an auction, someone will fold if the price is right.
Sure, let's sit around for half an hour burning fuel in the APU and holding hands to until someone 'folds' - after all, crew hours don't matter, neither does the aeroplane sitting there not being flown or the passengers missing connections and the other flight that is waiting for the crew being cancelled.
The fact is, sometimes this is essential. It's a minute by minute operation where minutes count and cost thousands, they don't have time to dilly dally around making sure everyone's happy. It is a profit making enterprise, not a democracy. Next time you fly have a read of the conditions of carriage, the carrier has conditions that get it out of jail for just about anything. The carrier can also remove anyone it damn-well pleases from it's property in a legal sense. I don't agree with the method or the amount of force that was used but the offloading of commercial pax to accommodate crew in the case where they are 'positioning to effect the operation of an aircraft' is justifiable on pure logic grounds if nothing else. It happens very rarely and while as I said, I take issue with the amount of force, the actual offloading I have no issue with... it doesn't make sense to delay, disrupt and expend thousands inconveniencing 200-300 pax on a flight awaiting crew when the alternative is to inconvenience 1, 2, 3 or 4. I think United needs to look at it's compensation, although it's not obliged to offer any as this was not a case of overbooking which is governed by specific legislation - the law makers only getting involved in the 70s when airlines were selling a product twice - I can't remember the exact wording but the standard IATA Recommended CoC state something like "the carrier reserves the right to alter the method of carriage, the carrier(s) involved, the equipment, route and timing of the carriage for any reason as it sees fit".

[AerialPerspective]

Are you kidding?? He was a law abiding passenger sat in his seat minding his own business. So it is acceptable to assault him because United have made a mess?? Let them (United) stew in their own juice.... A situation entirely of their own making...
If someone comes on to your property, even if you invited them originally and you then decide actually, you want them to leave then they don't leave or they are committing trespass. From a purely legal standpoint, United had every right to offload the passenger. The passenger is purchasing passage on a transport service using equipment owned by the operator... as such, it is property and they may remove anyone for any reason they see fit. I vehemently disagree with they way it was done but have had in the past word from both security type people and police that the aircraft is property and even when you offload someone from a flight for intoxication ('unfit for travel') although that's different because it's specifically forbidden under the regulations, you don't have to give any reason from a legal standpoint as it is the companies property and the company has the same legal rights as any property owner. Having been asked to disembark and given the reason(s), then advising them that he needed to travel, they having refused to budge and asking him to disembark, he should have just disembarked. It's not like a house, he doesn't have a right to 'squat' just because he's paid the fare as crappy as it sounds that is how it's treated under common law. While I think the Doctor's past is irrelevant as it likely wasn't known to the officers at the time, from what I'm reading now - and what the video doesn't show which is the initial request, we don't actually know how he reacted at first, he may have been abusive and/or threatening... the video didn't start until he was being dragged. So there may, like many things, be much more to this than meets the eye. WIth journalism being reduced to the level of any moron with a smart phone and the time to type 'epic fail' it is not always possible to navigate through the overuse of exaggerated and sensationalist words to know what the actual truth was/is.

[HappyJack260]

Sure, let's sit around for half an hour burning fuel in the APU and holding hands to until someone 'folds' - after all, crew hours don't matter, neither does the aeroplane sitting there not being flown or the passengers missing connections and the other flight that is waiting for the crew being cancelled.
The fact is, sometimes this is essential. It's a minute by minute operation where minutes count and cost thousands, they don't have time to dilly dally around making sure everyone's happy. It is a profit making enterprise, not a democracy. Next time you fly have a read of the conditions of carriage, the carrier has conditions that get it out of jail for just about anything. The carrier can also remove anyone it damn-well pleases from it's property in a legal sense. I don't agree with the method or the amount of force that was used but the offloading of commercial pax to accommodate crew in the case where they are 'positioning to effect the operation of an aircraft' is justifiable on pure logic grounds if nothing else. It happens very rarely and while as I said, I take issue with the amount of force, the actual offloading I have no issue with... it doesn't make sense to delay, disrupt and expend thousands inconveniencing 200-300 pax on a flight awaiting crew when the alternative is to inconvenience 1, 2, 3 or 4. I think United needs to look at it's compensation, although it's not obliged to offer any as this was not a case of overbooking which is governed by specific legislation - the law makers only getting involved in the 70s when airlines were selling a product twice - I can't remember the exact wording but the standard IATA Recommended CoC state something like "the carrier reserves the right to alter the method of carriage, the carrier(s) involved, the equipment, route and timing of the carriage for any reason as it sees fit".

Not sure that "greatest good for the greatest number" as a legal principle is superior to contract law.

[parabellum]

It was the Chicago Airport Police which dragged him off using force, not the airline.
The person who did the physical removal was not dressed as a policeman, he was wearing jeans and what looked like a security guards uniform, could have been employed by UA or a subcontractor to UA, there are several possibilities.

Regarding the 'property' aspect, you haven't invited this person on, they have entered into a business agreement with you and you have sold them the use of a seat for a specific flight, that comes with contractual responsibilities and liabilities and unless that passenger contravenes specified regulations then you, the owner, don't have just cause to throw him off, literally. What you, the owner of the seat, can do is offer to buy back the seat you sold him, for an agreed price.

[MickG0105]

If someone comes on to your property, even if you invited them originally and you then decide actually, you want them to leave then they don't leave or they are committing trespass. From a purely legal standpoint, United had every right to offload the passenger.

Not when the relationship between the airline and the passenger is bound by a Contract of Carriage, they don't. Passengers have rights under the Contract of Carriage and those rights typically increase as certain threshold events - booking, payment, ticketing, check-in and boarding - are met. After check-in but before boarding United Airlines, by virtue of Rule 25 of the Contract of Carriage, have the right to deny boarding on an involuntary basis to passengers in cases of Overbooked Flights. However, once United accept boarding passes and allow passengers to board the flight their right to deny boarding on an involuntary basis is extinguished.

So, when United realised that they needed to deplane four passengers in order to get four of their own staff on board, they had no right under their own Contract of Carriage to do so on a involuntary basis. Rule 21 of the Contract of Carriage deals with Refusal of Transport and lists 8 very specific criteria by which United can refuse to carry a passenger; none of those criteria applied in this instance.

When the United Airlines ground staff member decided he was going to arbitrarily deplane four passengers on an involuntary basis he had no legal right to do so; he was breaching the Contract of Carriage. His direction to the passenger to get off the plane was both unreasonable and unlawful and the passenger was entirely within his rights to ignore the direction.

[Ida down]

If a stand by crew were called out, then Ground should have known that a couple of hours before flight, and with a full A/C, picked out four FF/last on, told them they were off loaded, but standby for no shows.No boarding passes issued. If still no seats, offer an alternate flight, with an upgrade. Not board them, then drag one down the isle, like a drunken footballer, and chuck him off the bus. Most flight crew would be appalled by the behaviour, and the Skipper had every right to intervene, had he/she witnessed the disgraceful behaviour of police, man handling this innocent bloke. I would have chucked them off, and let ground have it, bigtime, before I departed anywhere.

[LHLisa]

I left the airline a while ago and now work for an Australian government department that 'HELPS CHILDREN"....... Last year there was a child in the office who is well known to staff and has several disabilities. He didn't want to leave the office as he doesn't particularly like where he resides. He was not a danger to himself or to others. He just didn't want to leave the office, he wanted to keep chatting to all the pretty ladies who were being nice to him. BUT it was 6pm, and someone in charge wanted to get home and have dinner, didn't want to stuff around and cajole him into do what they wanted him to do - which was leave. That person threatened him, telling the boy they would call the police if he didn't go where they wanted him to go immediately. He ignored the threat, being 10 so not unusual. The police were called. They held him by his legs and shoulders in a downwards facing plank position. The boy screamed and begged to be saved and helped. He was not released for several minutes and was carted through the office and down an elevator into a basement in this position. It was very ironic and disturbing watching this happen in an office which is tasked with "helping children". Anyway, obviously a sidetrack from the thread. Sometimes police get made to do **** they probably don't want to do.

[bazza stub]

Good point Ida, where was the captain in all this? Don't care who they are, I wouldn't allow someone to come aboard my aeroplane and assault my passengers unless it was jeopardizing the safety of all the other pax not to. So when you boil it down, a passenger was injured aboard an airliner at the airlines convenience which was presumably based on an economic decision.

[AerialPerspective]

If a stand by crew were called out, then Ground should have known that a couple of hours before flight, and with a full A/C, picked out four FF/last on, told them they were off loaded, but standby for no shows.No boarding passes issued. If still no seats, offer an alternate flight, with an upgrade. Not board them, then drag one down the isle, like a drunken footballer, and chuck him off the bus. Most flight crew would be appalled by the behaviour, and the Skipper had every right to intervene, had he/she witnessed the disgraceful behaviour of police, man handling this innocent bloke. I would have chucked them off, and let ground have it, bigtime, before I departed anywhere.
Because it takes two hours to walk from the standby lounge to a gate??? There is such a thing as 'Airport Standby'.

[LHLisa]

I guess its an example of massive systems failure. Lack of training, time pressures, budget cuts..... I am sure everyone involved looks back at the events of the day and thinks wow I could have handled that better. Hopefully the company (and others watching) make sure it never happens again. And hopefully the poor passenger is OK going forward

[AerialPerspective]

Not when the relationship between the airline and the passenger is bound by a Contract of Carriage, they don't. Passengers have rights under the Contract of Carriage and those rights typically increase as certain threshold events - booking, payment, ticketing, check-in and boarding - are met. After check-in but before boarding United Airlines, by virtue of Rule 25 of the Contract of Carriage, have the right to deny boarding on an involuntary basis to passengers in cases of Overbooked Flights. However, once United accept boarding passes and allow passengers to board the flight their right to deny boarding on an involuntary basis is extinguished.

So, when United realised that they needed to deplane four passengers in order to get four of their own staff on board, they had no right under their own Contract of Carriage to do so on a involuntary basis. Rule 21 of the Contract of Carriage deals with Refusal of Transport and lists 8 very specific criteria by which United can refuse to carry a passenger; none of those criteria applied in this instance.

When the United Airlines ground staff member decided he was going to arbitrarily deplane four passengers on an involuntary basis he had no legal right to do so; he was breaching the Contract of Carriage. His direction to the passenger to get off the plane was both unreasonable and unlawful and the passenger was entirely within his rights to ignore the direction.
News to me. I was always told that the airline ticket was an 'invitation to travel' and that operational requirements could sometimes override that. Look, I have no truck with what they did and certainly no defense of the way it was done. In my experience many so-called 'law enforcement' personnel are far too trigger happy and officious in that country. They talk about freedom and all that but if any of our police in Australia acted the way their police are reported to every day there would be monumental outcry.
I agree there probably has to be a 'meeting of minds' and that boarding consummates the 'contract' but thought there were ample ways the airline can get out of this with compensation. If that's different, then it's news to me. I don't think airlines should 'assume' seats of passengers unless every other option has been explored first with reasonable regard for the timeframes but saying that you simply cannot remove someone... the conditions of carriage do not identify any circumstance when a pax boards an aircraft and their assigned seat is found to be unserviceable and they are therefore offloaded - but this does happen. I just think there are some grey areas here... but we'll wait and see what happens because the pax is going to file suit against the airline I understand.

[AerialPerspective]

If a stand by crew were called out, then Ground should have known that a couple of hours before flight, and with a full A/C, picked out four FF/last on, told them they were off loaded, but standby for no shows.No boarding passes issued. If still no seats, offer an alternate flight, with an upgrade. Not board them, then drag one down the isle, like a drunken footballer, and chuck him off the bus. Most flight crew would be appalled by the behaviour, and the Skipper had every right to intervene, had he/she witnessed the disgraceful behaviour of police, man handling this innocent bloke. I would have chucked them off, and let ground have it, bigtime, before I departed anywhere.
But would you actually have a legal right to do so - perhaps a moral right but my understanding is that the Captain's responsibility is very defined in terms of commencement and conclusion and doesn't include telling the ground staff how to do their jobs. While working for an airline some time back, a passenger had attempted to hide a way oversized cabin bag at check in. We had informed the passenger clearly she had to check it in or it would not be carried. She was again told at the gate so she disappeared and re-appeared at the end of boarding. We removed the bag and tagged it to be carried but determined it would delay the flight to put it on this flight. The Captain refused to depart until we loaded the bag and wasn't the slightest bit interested in the background situation. We ended up having to comply because we didn't want to have the aeroplane sit there all day but I made it quite clear and gave the Captain 'what for' before departure because he had absolutely no right to instruct my staff and myself how to do our jobs. Because of his uninformed and interfering, that passenger will likely always take an oversized bag to the gate because she did it this time, was properly advised the bag would now not be carried but in her experience all she has to do is kick up a fuss and the Captain will override everyone else. This is no different to the Captain 'hearing' that Cargo have offloaded a shipment that arrived late and demanding it be carried. None of the Crew's business. Sorry, but had I been the ADM, I would not have allowed the removal to take place in such a manner in the first place but I certainly never allowed crew to dictate to ground personnel when they were reasonably performing their jobs within the rules of the company. There were certainly situations where, making it clear I didn't 'report' to the Captain, I may well have gone and initiated a discussion on a matter that I was not entirely comfortable with and that may have been outside the 'rules' (not safety or security) and sought his/her advice but as a general rule, when crew start dictating 'if you don't do this I'll do that' such as the circumstance above, then that crosses a line in my view. Not being belligerent either on at least one occasion I was personally questioned for providing a piece of information to a PIC that I felt he was entitled to have and to seek his advice. The manager at the time asked me why I did that - it could have caused a delay to which I replied "I don't care, the Captain had the right to know that information". I think it all works best when everyone respects each others role and acts accordingly. I don't know any ground staff, let alone technical crew that would have stood for the way that passenger was treated in any airline I've worked for...

[AerialPerspective]

I guess its an example of massive systems failure. Lack of training, time pressures, budget cuts..... I am sure everyone involved looks back at the events of the day and thinks wow I could have handled that better. Hopefully the company (and others watching) make sure it never happens again. And hopefully the poor passenger is OK going forward
I agree... but I don't think the passenger is going forward... I think he's sitting still. Sorry, just a tongue in cheek comment... I hate 'going forward' as an expression LOL

[Band a Lot]

Trespass! got to be a pilot comment.

Your house owned by your bank wants you out, you are up to date on your mortgage payments.

Your BMW your car dealer sold you, now wants his secretary to have it instead.


Your Rolex you need to give back to Rolex now.

Yes there will be ways in the contract (ticket) to allow the airline not to fly you, but they will need to be acceptable as per the contract - if it does not specify that offload under these conditions is 800 points, I think the airline will be in breach of contract and individuals of the airline and removing persons somewhat exposed to criminal charges and lawsuits

[megan]

Sure, let's sit around for half an hour burning fuel in the APU and holding hands to until someone 'folds' - after all, crew hours don't matter, neither does the aeroplane sitting there not being flown or the passengers missing connections and the other flight that is waiting for the crew being cancelled.
The fact is, sometimes this is essential. It's a minute by minute operation where minutes count and cost thousands, they don't have time to dilly dally around making sure everyone's happy. It is a profit making enterprise, not a democracyAerialPerspective, I sure hope to hell you don't work in the industry. From the United contract of carriage. Please tell us which clause applies in this case.Rule 21 Refusal of Transport

UA shall have the right to refuse to transport or shall have the right to remove from the aircraft at any point, any Passenger for the following reasons:

Breach of Contract of Carriage – Failure by Passenger to comply with the Rules of the Contract of Carriage.
Government Request, Regulations or Security Directives – Whenever such action is necessary to comply with any government regulation, Customs and Border Protection, government or airport security directive of any sort, or any governmental request for emergency transportation in connection with the national defense.
Force Majeure and Other Unforeseeable Conditions – Whenever such action is necessary or advisable by reason of weather or other conditions beyond UA’s control including, but not limited to, acts of God, force majeure, strikes, civil commotions, embargoes, wars, hostilities, terrorist activities, or disturbances, whether actual, threatened, or reported.
Search of Passenger or Property – Whenever a Passenger refuses to submit to electronic surveillance or to permit search of his/her person or property.
Proof of Identity – Whenever a Passenger refuses on request to produce identification satisfactory to UA or who presents a Ticket to board and whose identification does not match the name on the Ticket. UA shall have the right, but shall not be obligated, to require identification of persons purchasing tickets and/or presenting a ticket(s) for the purpose of boarding the aircraft.
Failure to Pay – Whenever a Passenger has not paid the appropriate fare for a Ticket, Baggage, or applicable service charges for services required for travel, has not paid an outstanding debt or Court judgment, or has not produced satisfactory proof to UA that the Passenger is an authorized non-revenue Passenger or has engaged in a prohibited practice as specified in Rule 6.
Across International Boundaries – Whenever a Passenger is traveling across any international boundary if:
The government required travel documents of such Passenger appear not to be in order according to UA's reasonable belief; or
Such Passenger’s embarkation from, transit through, or entry into any country from, through, or to which such Passenger desires transportation would be unlawful or denied for any reason.
Safety – Whenever refusal or removal of a Passenger may be necessary for the safety of such Passenger or other Passengers or members of the crew including, but not limited to:
Passengers whose conduct is disorderly, offensive, abusive, or violent;
Passengers who fail to comply with or interfere with the duties of the members of the flight crew, federal regulations, or security directives;
Passengers who assault any employee of UA, including the gate agents and flight crew, or any UA Passenger;
Passengers who, through and as a result of their conduct, cause a disturbance such that the captain or member of the cockpit crew must leave the cockpit in order to attend to the disturbance;
Passengers who are barefoot or not properly clothed;
Passengers who appear to be intoxicated or under the influence of drugs to a degree that the Passenger may endanger the Passenger or another Passenger or members of the crew (other than a qualified individual whose appearance or involuntary behavior may make them appear to be intoxicated or under the influence of drugs);
Passengers wearing or possessing on or about their person concealed or unconcealed deadly or dangerous weapons; provided, however, that UA will carry law enforcement personnel who meet the qualifications and conditions established in 49 C.F.R. §1544.219;
Passengers who are unwilling or unable to follow UA’s policy on smoking or use of other smokeless materials;
Unless they comply with Rule 6 I), Passengers who are unable to sit in a single seat with the seat belt properly secured, and/or are unable to put the seat’s armrests down when seated and remain seated with the armrest down for the entirety of the flight, and/or passengers who significantly encroach upon the adjoining passenger’s seat;
Passengers who are manacled or in the custody of law enforcement personnel;
Passengers who have resisted or may reasonably be believed to be capable of resisting custodial supervision;
Pregnant Passengers in their ninth month, unless such Passenger provides a doctor’s certificate dated no more than 72 hours prior to departure stating that the doctor has examined and found the Passenger to be physically fit for air travel to and from the destination requested on the date of the flight, and that the estimated date of delivery is after the date of the last flight;
Passengers who are incapable of completing a flight safely, without requiring extraordinary medical assistance during the flight, as well as Passengers who appear to have symptoms of or have a communicable disease or condition that could pose a direct threat to the health or safety of others on the flight, or who refuse a screening for such disease or condition. (NOTE: UA requires a medical certificate for Passengers who wish to travel under such circumstances. Visit UA’s website, united.com, for more information regarding UA’s requirements for medical certificates);
Passengers who fail to travel with the required safety assistant(s), advance notice and/or other safety requirements pursuant to Rules 14 and 15;
Passengers who do not qualify as acceptable Non-Ambulatory Passengers (see Rule 14);
Passengers who have or cause a malodorous condition (other than individuals qualifying as disabled);
Passengers whose physical or mental condition is such that, in United’s sole opinion, they are rendered or likely to be rendered incapable of comprehending or complying with safety instructions without the assistance of an escort. The escort must accompany the escorted passenger at all times; and
Unaccompanied passengers who are both blind and deaf, unless such passenger is able to communicate with representatives of UA by either physical, mechanical, electronic, or other means. Such passenger must inform UA of the method of communication to be used; and
Passengers who are unwilling to follow UA’s policy that prohibits voice calls after the aircraft doors have closed, while taxiing in preparation for takeoff, or while airborne.
Any Passenger who, by reason of engaging in the above activities in this Rule 21, causes UA any loss, damage or expense of any kind, consents and acknowledges that he or she shall reimburse UA for any such loss, damage or expense. UA has the right to refuse transport, on a permanent basis, to any passenger who, by reason of engaging in the above activities in this Rule 21, causes UA any loss, damage or expense of any kind, or who has been disorderly, offensive, abusive, or violent. In addition, the activities enumerated in H) 1) through 8) shall constitute a material breach of contract, for which UA shall be excused from performing its obligations under this contract.
UA is not liable for its refusal to transport any passenger or for its removal of any passenger in accordance with this Rule. A Passenger who is removed or refused transportation in accordance with this Rule may be eligible for a refund upon request. See Rule 27 A). As an express precondition to issuance of any refund, UA shall not be responsible for damages of any kind whatsoever. The passenger’s sole and exclusive remedy shall be Rule 27 A).


https://www.united.com/web/en-US/content/contract-of-carriage.aspx

[Ida down]

While the airline may have compelling reasons to have crew travel, the passenger may have reason to travel for equally compelling reasons. If the airline wants to offload someone, hold an auction, someone will fold if the price is right.
Then Megan, the cargo hold has to be searched for the PAX bag, who didn't win the auction. Just adding to the circus.

[gooneydog]

Interested how many jumpseats were avail for cockpit and F/A' to travel on a 30 min flight

[Preemo]

I can't believe there are people who can look at this incident and defend the airline. An incident which is probably the airline breaching it's contract, the police overstepping their authority, for which all 3 police have now been suspended and for which the CEO has unreservedly now apologised and stated the passenger was not wrong in any way.

[Sleeper88]

Jayzuz, $1.3 Billion wiped off their share price....

United Airlines loses $1 billion in market value after passenger is dragged off plane (http://www.news.com.au/travel/travel-updates/united-airlines-loses-13-billion-in-market-value-after-passenger-is-dragged-off-plane/news-story/ae121d39a770b85cfcb70eea3a9c5b8b)

[AerialPerspective]

Trespass! got to be a pilot comment.

Your house owned by your bank wants you out, you are up to date on your mortgage payments.

Your BMW your car dealer sold you, now wants his secretary to have it instead.


Your Rolex you need to give back to Rolex now.

Yes there will be ways in the contract (ticket) to allow the airline not to fly you, but they will need to be acceptable as per the contract - if it does not specify that offload under these conditions is 800 points, I think the airline will be in breach of contract and individuals of the airline and removing persons somewhat exposed to criminal charges and lawsuits
Don't drive a BMW but the dealer demands the car back because it has a serious fault that could cause problems for people other than you and the dealer/manufacturer has been instructed to make the modification.

The government compulsorily acquires your house as part of it's SkyRail level crossing removal project... presumably for the greater good.

It does not state in a contract that the airline will provide food, toilet facilities and/or other amenities on board that it is legally not required to provide and when it doesn't because of incompetence or any other reason (running out of meals), while most airlines may compensate, they are not required to.

None of these things are in the contract either. What it will come down to is how the law interprets it - if I were a religious person I could kiss my rosary beads and loudly proclaim "Mary Mother of God protect me" as the aircraft lifted off the runway and nothing would happen, but if I said "Allah Akbar" I would likely be offloaded. Where's that in the contract??? No contract can cover everything and where it doesn't, usually the common law comes into play if there is no applicable statute. I've said repeatedly I don't agree with what they did but non one on here knows if the requirement for the crew to travel was a last minute thing after boarding was completed yet there are people criticizing airport staff for 'lack of planning' and such.
The CEO admitting they were wrong is more to do with containing 'potential' liability for the passenger's injuries.
As for the comment about Trespass... it didn't come from a pilot, it came from a Police Officer and an Airline Security Manager who I spoke to personally. But of course, what would they know???

[AerialPerspective]

AerialPerspective, I sure hope to hell you don't work in the industry. From the United contract of carriage. Please tell us which clause applies in this case.

https://www.united.com/web/en-US/content/contract-of-carriage.aspx
Please show me where it talks about provision of meals, toilets, a seat, a seat belt, cabin baggage storage or entertainment on the flight... all of which passengers will not receive from time to time and may necessitate their offload in the case of seat u/s or when an equipment change is made purely for the airline's operational convenience and some passengers are accommodated and others denied at random after they've boarded. It doesn't but it doesn't mean it can't be done. I am in no way defending the airline, I think their action was abhorrent, I am simply posing questions about the legality or lack of just as other people are going off half-cocked and saying things like "obviously, it's a stuff up by the airport staff who should have known at least 2 hours prior" when they have absolutely no idea when this information was provided or came to light.
Yes. 31 years in the industry and on many occasions including where a slide has been found to be inoperative we have had to randomly select people to remove from the aircraft and offer alternative transport to, also when an aircraft has been subject to an equipment downgrade en-route. The difference is, in all those instances, the passengers accepted it because we presented it in a professional and completely respectful manner. In some countries, the airline is able to do this and if the passenger refuses, they are required to increase the compensation until they get a 'volunteer' or acceptance by the randomly selected person.

[Dupre]

Having had a look at United's contract of carriage (https://www.united.com/web/en-US/content/contract-of-carriage.aspx?Mobile=1)

Section 25 clearly talks about denial of boarding, but this is irrelevant as the pax was already boarded.

Section 21 deals with refusal of transportation (offloading) but the pax does not meet any of the criteria.

Looks to me like the airline was not following it's own contact of carriage.

How does this affect those saying "it's United's private property and if he refuses to leave he is trespassing"?

[AerialPerspective]

Having had a look at United's contract of carriage (https://www.united.com/web/en-US/content/contract-of-carriage.aspx?Mobile=1)

Section 25 clearly talks about denial of boarding, but this is irrelevant as the pax was already boarded.

Section 21 deals with refusal of transportation (offloading) but the pax does not meet any of the criteria.

Looks to me like the airline was not following it's own contact of carriage.

How does this affect those saying "it's United's private property and if he refuses to leave he is trespassing"?
A contract is subject to the law, if a Statute or perhaps even common law is inconsistent, the contract is null and void on the point involved. Many here are relying on this Conditions of Carriage as though it's the only legal document or constitutes the entire extent of juris prudence within the United States. I'll say it again for those who haven't noticed it the first 10 times, I think what UA did was deplorable and unforgiveable. Multiple situations in my career I've seen a similar circumstance and never has this sort of treatment been metered out, even when people were intoxicated and potentially violent. But, no one on here is a lawyer and neither am I but I have friends who are lawyers and just because something is in a contract or not in a contract, especially when it's not, it defaults to statute or common law... I'm not saying the airline was right, I'm not saying the pax was wrong, I'm just saying a contract, even conditions of carriage are not set in stone or read legally in isolation, they are subject to scrutiny just like any other legal matter. I've had several contracts that strictly laid down that if I left the employ of the organisation for any reason I was barred from working in a similar capacity or in one case, for another airline altogether. I signed those contracts but legal advice was to ignore the clause because if I got offered another job at higher pay, the provision in that contract is totally unenforceable by law. It is restraint of trade and illegal. The only time it is enforceable is if the employer pays the employee for the time period specified. That's not a CoC but the principle is the same, things written in CoC cannot conceivably cover every single circumstance. It may well turn out that the suit filed against UA is successful and the pax is awarded damages based on the injuries and method of removal being judged as excessive but the court may find the removal was within the rights of the carrier... I am not a lawyer but I do know that a contract isn't always worth the paper it's written on and just because you can all search the web and find the conditions of carriage doesn't make it a fait acompli. Comparing this to cars and mortgages and buying tvs is just twaddle as they are quite distinct and different things.
I am not entirely sure on this point but I don't think the contract is completed when the pax is boarded. I think the legal term would be that the contract is 'on foot' and is not completed until the services paid for have been delivered - i.e. an airline flight is not something that is delivered like other goods, it's delivered over stages and may be interrupted. Whether this interruption was justified I'll leave to the lawyers to determine but knowing the US, where for example, people have sued department stores for injury from falling over in cases even where they have tripped over their own child and still got compensation I'm not confident the ruling will be in anyway in accord with reality. Let's not forget, this is a country that didn't have the technical ability to determine between two people with similar names on a no fly list so hundreds or thousands of Americans were denied travel when it was someone else with the same name on the list and the government after 9/11 couldn't fix it for years.

[Icarus2001]

Also the country that gave us this...

http://www.ediblegeography.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/Solo-Traveler.jpg

[AerialPerspective]

Also the country that gave us this...

http://www.ediblegeography.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/Solo-Traveler.jpg
Not to mention a packet of salted peanuts carrying the warning "May contain nuts".

Perhaps they should put that warning over the ICE Primary lines in their most gun toting cities so travelers are aware LOL

[Band a Lot]

Don't drive a BMW but the dealer demands the car back because it has a serious fault that could cause problems for people other than you and the dealer/manufacturer has been instructed to make the modification.


* They can not "demand" and there is no plan to that law in the pipeline!

The government recently informed that it has no proposition to ask vehicle manufacturers to conduct mandatory recalls in case defects are discovered in a model. Currently companies issue voluntary recalls if defects are found; applicable for all manufacturers, if a company believes that there is a manufacturing defect that compromises safety of vehicles, it will voluntarily rectify the problem free of cost to the customer. However, there is no directive for mandatory recalls in such cases.



http://auto.ndtv.com/news/vehicle-recalls-not-mandatory-yet-government-757151 (http://auto.ndtv.com/news/vehicle-recalls-not-mandatory-yet-government-757151)

The government compulsorily acquires your house as part of it's SkyRail level crossing removal project... presumably for the greater good.


* Yes but governments air not airlines! and there are restrictions. I know in one state said development must be started within 2 years of acquisition.

The law of eminent domain derives from the so-called "Takings Clause" of the Fifth Amendment, which states, "[N]or shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation." The men who created the Constitution were, for the most part, landholders with a certain mistrust of government power. To protect private landholders from abuses by government, the Founders limited the government's power to take property.

Eminent domain is the power of government to take private land for public use. This power is limited by the federal Constitution and by state constitutions -- when the government does take private property for public use, it must fairly compensate the owner for the deprivation.

It does not state in a contract that the airline will provide food, toilet facilities and/or other amenities on board that it is legally not required to provide and when it doesn't because of incompetence or any other reason (running out of meals), while most airlines may compensate, they are not required to.


* The Doctor was not requesting a roast dinner, simply what he had paid for - his flight on said day.

None of these things are in the contract either. What it will come down to is how the law interprets it - if I were a religious person I could kiss my rosary beads and loudly proclaim "Mary Mother of God protect me" as the aircraft lifted off the runway and nothing would happen, but if I said "Allah Akbar" I would likely be offloaded.


* I agree I can see United offloading a passenger during "lift off" on the runway. I assume that this is done by the order of the Captain who is at this stage responsible for all soles and craft.


Where's that in the contract??? No contract can cover everything and where it doesn't, usually the common law comes into play if there is no applicable statute. I've said repeatedly I don't agree with what they did but non one on here knows if the requirement for the crew to travel was a last minute thing after boarding was completed yet there are people criticizing airport staff for 'lack of planning' and such.

If boarding was not complete then there was no reason to off load a boarded passenger. It is also clear that the DH crew seats were not pre-blocked and the flight was not "overbooked". The fact is United needed its crew to get to the destination of that flight, and they believed they had the right to offload passengers to achieve that.

But it appears that from what I have seen, if the passengers have boarded the aircraft they can only be removed if the are "not fit to fly". Once boarded it seems they need to be motivated to leave the aircraft - United seemed to have used the wrong form of motivation in this case.

The CEO admitting they were wrong is more to do with containing 'potential' liability for the passenger's injuries.
As for the comment about Trespass... it didn't come from a pilot, it came from a Police Officer and an Airline Security Manager who I spoke to personally.

* I maybe wrong but was posted by a few on Pprune that seem to be pilots.

But of course, what would they know???

I was banned from the Rumours and News section of this forum as I stated that the Pilot (PIC) is not ultimately responsible until the aircraft moves under its own power (slightly different in countries) - Several Pilots inc a mod disputed that and said they were "In Command" essentially from start of shift or entry in aircraft.

So if they are correct then this order and the following brutality was carried out with the consent of the Captain - I bet those Captains will have some different take on that and blame someone else and not stand up and say sorry I made that call to forcibly remove people on my flight.

[AerialPerspective]

I was banned from the Rumours and News section of this forum as I stated that the Pilot (PIC) is not ultimately responsible until the aircraft moves under its own power (slightly different in countries) - Several Pilots inc a mod disputed that and said they were "In Command" essentially from start of shift or entry in aircraft.

So if they are correct then this order and the following brutality was carried out with the consent of the Captain - I bet those Captains will have some different take on that and blame someone else and not stand up and say sorry I made that call to forcibly remove people on my flight.
OK, firstly. You don't need to explain the United States Constitution to me as I have been studying U.S. history for 40 years, I have several copies of the Constitution including annotated versions and many, many books on the subject including writings by Jefferson and other person(s) intimately involved in the writing of the document. I not only have studied it's content, viewed the original documents but also can recite just about every major item and the relationship between our Constitution (heavily based on the US).

Re the comment that the government is not an airline... with respect, I think you're completely missing my point in that words in a contract go only so far and everyone on here who is saying "Ah, but it says in the CoC..." are similarly ignoring the fact that a court may pay no attention to this at all.

So who cares??? The court will determine the validity of UA's action and the CoC may in fact be irrelevant.

As I write this I see a statement from Dr Dao's Attorney stating that he is filing "...a lawsuit against United for using “unreasonable force and violence” against the passenger."

Lawyers will usually file on every count they think they can get a result on and this lawyer appears to have totally ignored any irregularity v.v. the CoC and the removal and has totally focused his attention on the violent removal. This tells me he considers the CoC and the fact of the removal being required as moot.

No mention of the ticket, the Conditions of Carriage or anything contractual. As I said in my initial post, the case will likely focus on the manner in which the passenger was removed and lo and behold that's what his lawyer is doing.

You were banned for stating something that is law in many jurisdictions??? I find that pathetic... I'm assuming those that complained felt it challenged their 'Jesus' status??? How can they be responsible from sign on when they don't know the registration of the aircraft - how ludicrous and if you were banned for that I find that quite thin-skinned by a mod.

One of the reasons ground personnel are instructed to remain and ensure stairs and other GSE are manned is in case the aircraft encounters an issue on pushback and I was always taught precisely what you stated that once the aeroplane moves under its own power that's when it starts. My question would have been "when does the CVR start operating then, while the Captain is still in the crew room???"

[parabellum]

It has always been my understanding that total command, from a legal point of view, commences when engineers and traffic staff have completed their tasks, the load sheet is signed and the doors are closed. Obviously the captain will have important decisions to make from the time he signs on until the doors close regarding the operation of the aircraft and crew but it is unlikely he will become involved in seating disputes, other than if jump seats are requested. The dispute here is entirely the responsibility of the ground staff and does not come within the captain's remit.

[itsnotthatbloodyhard]

One of the reasons ground personnel are instructed to remain and ensure stairs and other GSE are manned is in case the aircraft encounters an issue on pushback and I was always taught precisely what you stated that once the aeroplane moves under its own power that's when it starts. My question would have been "when does the CVR start operating then, while the Captain is still in the crew room???"

I'm not sure how that ties in with the reality (starting a few years ago) at a certain well-known local airline, where domestic ground staff would disappear as soon as the bridge was off the aircraft, and have to go scurrying off to another gate.

[crewmeal]

It seems Qantas is not the only one to offload pax in favour of CE's travelling at Christmas.

United tried to bump passengers to make way for its CEO | Daily Mail Online (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4409118/United-tried-bump-passengers-make-way-CEO.html)

[AerialPerspective]

It has always been my understanding that total command, from a legal point of view, commences when engineers and traffic staff have completed their tasks, the load sheet is signed and the doors are closed. Obviously the captain will have important decisions to make from the time he signs on until the doors close regarding the operation of the aircraft and crew but it is unlikely he will become involved in seating disputes, other than if jump seats are requested. The dispute here is entirely the responsibility of the ground staff and does not come within the captain's remit.
Yep, I take istontthatbloodyhard's comment that the reality is probably something different with ground staff not hanging around and I think you're on the money, that when the doors are closed if something happens on board I've always thought despite the GSE standby, etc. that surely it's going to be the PIC who is the person on board in authority to deal with it... thinking about this a bit more, I may have been getting confused with what I think is a CASA definition that the 'flight' commences when the aircraft starts moving under its own power but the PIC authority, somewhere between doors closed and that point.

[AerialPerspective]

It seems Qantas is not the only one to offload pax in favour of CE's travelling at Christmas.

United tried to bump passengers to make way for its CEO | Daily Mail Online (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4409118/United-tried-bump-passengers-make-way-CEO.html)
My understanding has always been (and were not talking about offloading pax already boarded here) that the reason the CEO even going back to the days when the Commonwealth owned all the shares, had a category that bumped everyone else was because although unlikely, there might be a circumstance where say, traffic rights or the impounding of an aircraft or something like that is sufficiently serious that his/her travel supersedes everything else. I may be wrong but I think in those days there was a special category for the CEO for that purpose but it was not the normal category used by him/her for regular duty travel.

[AerialPerspective]

I'm not sure how that ties in with the reality (starting a few years ago) at a certain well-known local airline, where domestic ground staff would disappear as soon as the bridge was off the aircraft, and have to go scurrying off to another gate.
One mitigating item I believe as CASA usually inspect this when doing AOC issue, is that the rule is ameliorated if the aircraft is on an aerobridge. Staff do remain on the 'bridge unitl pushback.

[itsnotthatbloodyhard]

Staff do remain on the 'bridge unitl pushback.

Right now that seems to be the case, but not so long ago (within the last 5 years or so) it often wasn't, particularly at YMML. You'd be all closed up, bridge off, waiting for the final l/s - and the aerobridge would be deserted. If you needed it back on in a hurry, tough. No fault of the ground staff - an Amazing Tranfsormation was underway, and they usually had to be two or three places at once.

[JamieMaree]

I love the way you folks are arguing/pontificating/ discussing an occurrence in the US based on your understanding/observation/ experience of what happens/ should happen/ is the law in Oz. Very parochial!

[itsnotthatbloodyhard]

I love the way you folks are arguing/pontificating/ discussing an occurrence in the US based on your understanding/observation/ experience of what happens/ should happen/ is the law in Oz. Very parochial!

You come to PPrune expecting a discussion based on objective, relevant factual knowledge? :)

[On eyre]

It's not too hard really. Despite all the speculation on here United just f**ked up in a big way and will now suffer the consequences.

[mikewil]

It's not too hard really. Despite all the speculation on here United just f**ked up in a big way and will now suffer the consequences.

Agreed.

Regardless of the legalities of the incident (which everyone here seems to be fighting over), the airline f**ked up big time in terms of ethics and deserve everything they got when the outrage and negative publicity spread around the world.

[Troo believer]

Some of the drivel from ****** lawyer types is perplexing.
Whilst passengers are on board, who accepts the responsibility for their safety if a fire is detected on or near the aircraft. The crew does that's who, not ground staff or the airport manager or some other tosser. Once a passenger walks on or is helped on board the crew are responsible. If a pilot is on board then via the chain of command they are responsible but unlikely to usurp the normal procedural conduct if something risking the passengers safety is detected. Whether the aircraft is pushed back and taxiing is a moot point. The only people qualified to order an evacuation, fight fire, or God knows what else are the crew. The crew can be Flight Attendants and or Pilots. If you're at the gate, boarding and an APU fire warning for example occurs or some other threat to safety, whom is responsible? The crew that's who.

[AerialPerspective]

Some of the drivel from ****** lawyer types is perplexing.
Whilst passengers are on board, who accepts the responsibility for their safety if a fire is detected on or near the aircraft. The crew does that's who, not ground staff or the airport manager or some other tosser. Once a passenger walks on or is helped on board the crew are responsible. If a pilot is on board then via the chain of command they are responsible but unlikely to usurp the normal procedural conduct if something risking the passengers safety is detected. Whether the aircraft is pushed back and taxiing is a moot point. The only people qualified to order an evacuation, fight fire, or God knows what else are the crew. The crew can be Flight Attendants and or Pilots. If you're at the gate, boarding and an APU fire warning for example occurs or some other threat to safety, whom is responsible? The crew that's who.
Spot on as I alluded to above... if there's a fire or something like that even in the middle of boarding, no one on the ground or in the terminal is going to know, only the crew are going to know and the PIC will order the evacuation. Like I said, the legal definition of when the flight begins is aircraft moving under own power. However, those who contend the PIC is responsible from sign on are in their own little world. I see the lawyer is also saying he may target the PIC but I don't see how that's relevant since he/she was likely behind a closed door and didn't know what was going on and wouldn't unless alerted to it by the CC or ground staff.

[Band a Lot]

"Accepts" and "has" responsibility can be 2 very different things.

Can you put forward the legal document as to when the PIC has legal responsibility, as my understanding in the United case it is not the PIC but the Dispatcher that has responsibility as per the laws and regulations.

Now there is no point studying constitutions and talking common law or anything else if the starting point is someone accepting responsibility when that responsibility is legally someone else's.

I honestly find it astonishing that many pilots claim responsibility as being the responsible one well before they legally are - and get offended when they are directed to the actual documents the prove they are not the responsible one.


Fire or no fire - behind a locked door or not, there is an exact time the PIC has responsibility for persons and craft. If that moment in time is a good or bad point is not relevant as it is a legal one. That should be respected by persons that are tasked with responsibilities.

When things go wrong I bark orders and make decisions, I assume a responsibility but I don't legally have it.

[AerialPerspective]

"Accepts" and "has" responsibility can be 2 very different things.

Can you put forward the legal document as to when the PIC has legal responsibility, as my understanding in the United case it is not the PIC but the Dispatcher that has responsibility as per the laws and regulations.

Now there is no point studying constitutions and talking common law or anything else if the starting point is someone accepting responsibility when that responsibility is legally someone else's.

I honestly find it astonishing that many pilots claim responsibility as being the responsible one well before they legally are - and get offended when they are directed to the actual documents the prove they are not the responsible one.


Fire or no fire - behind a locked door or not, there is an exact time the PIC has responsibility for persons and craft. If that moment in time is a good or bad point is not relevant as it is a legal one. That should be respected by persons that are tasked with responsibilities.

When things go wrong I bark orders and make decisions, I assume a responsibility but I don't legally have it.
Very well said.

[neville_nobody]

Sounds like alot of misinformation going around. Here's what the United Pilots Union had to say. Interesting to note this wasn't even a United Flight.

United Airlines pilots are “infuriated” by the bumped passenger event, which should not have escalated into a violent encounter, the union representing them says in a statement. But it also stresses that injuries caused to the passenger were not inflicted by United personnel.

The United Executive Council (MEC) says it intentionally withheld judgment as the story of United Express flight 3411, operated by US regional affiliate Republic Airline, went viral this week because of the rapid pace at which information “both accurate and inaccurate, has been released and manipulated.”

“The safety and well-being of our passengers is the highest priority for United pilots, and this should not have escalated into a violent encounter. United pilots are infuriated by this event,” MEC says in its statement.

Ultimately, MEC points out, the violence was caused “by the grossly inappropriate response by the Chicago Department of Aviation,” whose law enforcement officers were called to remove a passenger who refused to give up his seat. Their brutal handling of the passenger led to him being hospitalized with broken teeth, a broken nose and concussion. The lawyer representing David Dao said yesterday he was preparing a lawsuit against United.

The MEC statement also stresses that no United employees were involved in the physical altercation and says, “social media ire should properly be directed at the Chicago Aviation Department.”

“Republic Airline made the decision to assign four of their crewmembers to deadhead on flight 3411 within minutes of the scheduled departure. Although four passengers would have to be removed from this flight to accommodate the Republic crew, the goal was to get the other 70 passengers on their way to SDF [Louisville International Airport] and ensure a flight crew needed the next day would also be in place. By all reports, the Republic flight crew was courteous and calm throughout the event, and three passengers left the flight voluntarily for compensation. After repeatedly asking the fourth passenger to give up his seat to no avail, the gate agent requested the assistance of law enforcement,” the MEC says.


“For reasons unknown to us, instead of trained Chicago Police Department officers being dispatched to the scene, Chicago Department of Aviation personnel responded. At this point, without direction and outside the control of United Airlines or the Republic crew, the Chicago Department of Aviation forcibly removed the passenger.

“Members of local airport law enforcement are normally important security partners who assist aircrews in ensuring the safety of everyone on the airplane. This event was an anomaly and is not how United or the police are expected to treat passengers when there is no security threat.”

The law enforcement officers involved have been suspended pending a review of the event.

“Ultimately, United must be measured by more than this one incident on a single United Express flight,” the MEC adds. “The United Airlines MEC is confident that the steps we are taking as a company will ensure this type of inexcusable event never happens again.”

[AerialPerspective]

Sounds like alot of misinformation going around. Here's what the United Pilots Union had to say. Interesting to note this wasn't even a United Flight.
Too true, I have a friend who has family in the US and is visiting now and he tells me it has all been blown out of proportion and United are copping the blame unfairly and he is involved in aviation or has been in the past.

What makes me laugh is "the Chicago Dept. of Aviation"... jeez... how many bloody police forces and jumped up 'officials' and carriers of guns do they have in that country??? Some places are content with one Police force, or in our case, a Federal and State Police Force(s) but they have one for every conceivable segment... no wonder the the training is so bad. This lot sound like they must've previously worked at Crown Casino in Melbourne.

[Matt48]

Some of the drivel from ****** lawyer types is perplexing.
Whilst passengers are on board, who accepts the responsibility for their safety if a fire is detected on or near the aircraft. The crew does that's who, not ground staff or the airport manager or some other tosser. Once a passenger walks on or is helped on board the crew are responsible. If a pilot is on board then via the chain of command they are responsible but unlikely to usurp the normal procedural conduct if something risking the passengers safety is detected. Whether the aircraft is pushed back and taxiing is a moot point. The only people qualified to order an evacuation, fight fire, or God knows what else are the crew. The crew can be Flight Attendants and or Pilots. If you're at the gate, boarding and an APU fire warning for example occurs or some other threat to safety, whom is responsible? The crew that's who.
O/T, when does a ships Captain become responsible for his ship, I'd wager it's well before ' last line', more likely when he either steps on board or takes the handover from the relieved Captain, not applicable to an airplane.

[Matt48]

United must have asked the Police to remove the passenger.

Agree though the Airlines handling of the situation was bad, they should have just kept increasing the denied boarding compensation amount, till someone took it and got off voluntarily!
Far cheaper option than what eventuated!
That's where it all started to go wrong, calling the security/police most likely the 'police' would not have known what the passenger Dau had done, just that he had to come off the aircraft, and that's what they did, it shouldn't have got to that point.

[Matt48]

Really? In a couple of airlines with which I am very familiar, positioning crew (to operate a flight or who are returning to base after an operation) are booked as "must go" status. The space is confirmed and pity help any ground staff who offload crew in those circumstances. The required number of seats are blocked with the saleable inventory reduced accordingly. It is therefore possible to still overbook a flight based on the reduced inventory.
The " must go" status is just a company requirement, with the onus on the crew and terminal counter jumpers to sort out, nothing to do with a pax sitting in his paid for seat.

[Matt48]

The person who did the physical removal was not dressed as a policeman, he was wearing jeans and what looked like a security guards uniform, could have been employed by UA or a subcontractor to UA, there are several possibilities.

Regarding the 'property' aspect, you haven't invited this person on, they have entered into a business agreement with you and you have sold them the use of a seat for a specific flight, that comes with contractual responsibilities and liabilities and unless that passenger contravenes specified regulations then you, the owner, don't have just cause to throw him off, literally. What you, the owner of the seat, can do is offer to buy back the seat you sold him, for an agreed price.
Well said.

[Matt48]

Because it takes two hours to walk from the standby lounge to a gate??? There is such a thing as 'Airport Standby'.
Company man, are we AP. ?

[Band a Lot]

If you employ sub-contractors to do a job under your company who is to blame?

* I say the company I paid my money to.


Now the real question is who made the decision to call Dad's Army - was that Republic Airlines staff or United Airlines staff such as the Dispatcher?

Did Republic Airlines have authority to offload United Airlines paid up passengers for Republic Airlines benefit?

Anyone want to buy shares in Republic Airlines?

[Matt48]

Then Megan, the cargo hold has to be searched for the PAX bag, who didn't win the auction. Just adding to the circus.
If u are 'deplaned' against your will, are you able to demand your baggage be 'deplaned' as well, so you can fly with a more reasonable company.

[AerialPerspective]

If u are 'deplaned' against your will, are you able to demand your baggage be 'deplaned' as well, so you can fly with a more reasonable company.
I think you'll find it's illegal to depart with baggage on under any circumstances... not always adhered to in the US, especially with staff pax.

[Matt48]

Not to mention a packet of salted peanuts carrying the warning "May contain nuts".

Perhaps they should put that warning over the ICE Primary lines in their most gun toting cities so travelers are aware LOL
Or a frozen pizza, " best when thawed"

[Matt48]

I think you'll find it's illegal to depart with baggage on under any circumstances... not always adhered to in the US, especially with staff pax.
Pretty sure it is illegal on international flights, how much more delay would that cause, they have no idea where in the hold your bag is.

[AerialPerspective]

Company man, are we AP. ?
And why would making a comment that the notification could have been after boarding was completed (as it on occasion is) make me a 'company man'??? You must have a vivid imagination. The FACT is that these things DO sometimes happen or become apparent after a flight has boarded, crew going sick or whatever don't call around the network first to see if there's any aircraft boarding that might make it difficult to fly in a replacement.

[AerialPerspective]

The " must go" status is just a company requirement, with the onus on the crew and terminal counter jumpers to sort out, nothing to do with a pax sitting in his paid for seat.
Rubbish. The definition in one airline I'm familiar with is 'positioning to effect the operation of the aircraft' making it what is called 'operational duty travel'. KB is correct. At that airline if a crew member is booked (it's not called mustgo, it's a specific staff category) they WILL displace a commercial passenger and the reason is simple - denying boarding to that passenger and transferring them to another airline is preferable to inconveniencing the other 400 pax on the flight the crew member is flying over to operate.

[AerialPerspective]

Pretty sure it is illegal on international flights, how much more delay would that cause, they have no idea where in the hold your bag is.
It is certainly illegal in Australia on domestic flights too.

[QF5]

Side note just to clear it up regarding leaving with the pax bag still in the hold (in Aus at least). If the pax voluntarily leaves a flight or no shows their bag must be removed as it could have been checked in for sinister purposes.

However, If the passenger is involuntarily removed (and therefore had no way of knowing they would be removed and would have travelled on the aircraft with the bag in hold) The bag can actually fly, as they had no way of knowing that they would not be on the flight. This is going back to DJ policy a few years ago, but I'm not aware of it being changed.

[Band a Lot]

Side note just to clear it up regarding leaving with the pax bag still in the hold (in Aus at least). If the pax voluntarily leaves a flight or no shows their bag must be removed as it could have been checked in for sinister purposes.

However, If the passenger is involuntarily removed (and therefore had no way of knowing they would be removed and would have travelled on the aircraft with the bag in hold) The bag can actually fly, as they had no way of knowing that they would not be on the flight. This is going back to DJ policy a few years ago, but I'm not aware of it being changed.



So check a bag of C4 go to the Airline lounge drink some free booze for an hour, leave the lounge and board the plane early.

Part way through boarding ask the hostie if she will join you in the mile high club a bit later on!

I expect that gets a involuntary de-boarding and a result the passenger wanted! but not enough to be arrested if he offloads with no fuss. A good policy!

[AerialPerspective]

Side note just to clear it up regarding leaving with the pax bag still in the hold (in Aus at least). If the pax voluntarily leaves a flight or no shows their bag must be removed as it could have been checked in for sinister purposes.

However, If the passenger is involuntarily removed (and therefore had no way of knowing they would be removed and would have travelled on the aircraft with the bag in hold) The bag can actually fly, as they had no way of knowing that they would not be on the flight. This is going back to DJ policy a few years ago, but I'm not aware of it being changed.
As far as I'm aware it is the law, as per the ATSR and ATSA, where even diversions require a special approval from OTS. This was the case at Ansett as well even before the OTS existed.

If VA are doing something different then they would appear to be in breach. I'm not sure that's the case. There was for some time, in the Ansett days certainly, a misunderstanding that the Captain could elect to proceed but that went years before, in the late 80s or early 90s.

If an aircraft is in Australia even if it's home country law is different it is obliged to conform to Australian Law, the same as in NZ when years ago, it was not a requirement to offload if the passenger died and it was able to be verified that it was not sinister the bags could remain on under Australian Law but not NZ, so QF for example had to offload in those circumstances as well when operating through NZ.

[AerialPerspective]

(6) The operator of a prescribed air service commits an offence if, before an aircraft (the departing aircraft) that is operating the prescribed air service departs, every item of checked baggage that is carried on board the departing aircraft is not matched to:


(a) a passenger who is on board the departing aircraft; or
(b) a passenger who was properly checked in for a flight of an aircraft that has departed; or
(c) a passenger who does not re-board, or remain on board, the departing aircraft following diversion of the flight of the aircraft from its scheduled destination to an alternative destination in a circumstance specified in regulation 4.21A; or

(d) a passenger who is not on board the departing aircraft in the circumstances specified in regulation 4.21B.
Penalty: 50 penalty units.
(7) The operator of a prescribed air service commits an offence if, before an aircraft that is operating the prescribed air service departs, every item of checked baggage that cannot be matched to a passenger in accordance with subregulation (6) is not removed from the aircraft.
Penalty: 50 penalty units.

[AerialPerspective]

(6) The operator of a prescribed air service commits an offence if, before an aircraft (the departing aircraft) that is operating the prescribed air service departs, every item of checked baggage that is carried on board the departing aircraft is not matched to:


(a) a passenger who is on board the departing aircraft; or
(b) a passenger who was properly checked in for a flight of an aircraft that has departed; or
(c) a passenger who does not re-board, or remain on board, the departing aircraft following diversion of the flight of the aircraft from its scheduled destination to an alternative destination in a circumstance specified in regulation 4.21A; or

(d) a passenger who is not on board the departing aircraft in the circumstances specified in regulation 4.21B.
Penalty: 50 penalty units.
(7) The operator of a prescribed air service commits an offence if, before an aircraft that is operating the prescribed air service departs, every item of checked baggage that cannot be matched to a passenger in accordance with subregulation (6) is not removed from the aircraft.
Penalty: 50 penalty units.






Incidentally, QF do AAA domestic and International, VA only do it Internationally (where they are required to). VA apparently use different systems for check in and weight and balance so there is no 'hard link' between the two whereas QF use ALTEA CM/FM which are hard linked and thus a pax cannot be checked in in CM without their bag showing in FM and know precisely where a bag is loaded including the ULD number if ULDs are used.

[Cloudee]

Rubbish. The definition in one airline I'm familiar with is 'positioning to effect the operation of the aircraft' making it what is called 'operational duty travel'. KB is correct. At that airline if a crew member is booked (it's not called mustgo, it's a specific staff category) they WILL displace a commercial passenger and the reason is simple - denying boarding to that passenger and transferring them to another airline is preferable to inconveniencing the other 400 pax on the flight the crew member is flying over to operate.
You rubbish the post which says the company travel requirement has nothing to do with the pax who has boarded and happily seated and then say the procedure to get company staff on board is to deny boarding. Quite different to kicking someone out of their seat. Why don't the company staff travel with the other airline if it's so easy?

[AerialPerspective]

You rubbish the post which says the company travel requirement has nothing to do with the pax who has boarded and happily seated and then say the procedure to get company staff on board is to deny boarding. Quite different to kicking someone out of their seat. Why don't the company staff travel with the other airline if it's so easy?
Because the other airline's flight may be too late if it's time sensitive that the crew member travel. I was not talking about pulling someone out of a seat who's boarded, I was referring to a situation where it becomes necessary to transport at crew member to another location and they will be booked on the flight even if it causes an over sale and when it comes down to the wire the crew member will go and a pax will be left behind. The way I thought the post read was that there were circumstances where the mustgo status wasn't really mustgo but it actually is.

[Berealgetreal]

Dear Jesus, 105 posts on this and hundreds on QF uniform and the Gay Flag.

About time I spent more time in the FCOM.

Pprune should stand for Professional Passenger Rumour Network.

[Troo believer]

Matt48,
Generally the flight crew will be either on board or in close proximity to the aircraft at around 40 minutes before departure. From this point on and especially once passengers are boarding the tech and cabin crew by the very nature of being present have assumed responsibility for the safety of the aircraft, passengers and cargo. Boeing and Airbus publish many checklists for problems that may arise prior to closing the doors and starting engines. Various systems that are running could malfunction. Fire or smoke in or around the aircraft. Imagine if the refuelling hose fractured. What then. A major fuel spilll under the aircraft with passengers on board. Who is responsible? Certainly not the engineers since they maybe else where attending to other aircraft. Traffic staff? No training for this scenario. Airport manager. No training and not licenced to operate the systems. So tell me at ETD-30 who is responsible? The responsibility starts preflight. If as you seem to allude that tech and cabin crew are not responsible prior to doors closed then why is there a myriad of procedures for both crew to attend to prior to the first passenger setting foot on board. Why is the first check list called the preflight checklist? Yes that's right we just walk on and start up. Just like a car. Are you a pilot Matt48?

[Band a Lot]

[QUOTE=Troo believer;9741080] Imagine if the refuelling hose fractured. What then. A major fuel spilll under the aircraft with passengers on board. Who is responsible? Certainly not the engineers since they maybe else where attending to other aircraft. Traffic staff? No training for this scenario. Airport manager. No training and not licenced to operate the systems. So tell me at ETD-30 who is responsible? QUOTE]

NOT the pilot that is behind a locked door that has no idea of the fuel below the aircraft.

It is beyond belief that you think you have responsibility at this point - you must be a pilot.


The person at this point in charge is the person that the refuller calls depending on the airport/country that the aircraft is located - should they tell (demand) the persons stay on the aircraft (via captain) I expect you will obey their "command" you are not in charge (in most countries) like that or not.

[Chesty Morgan]

Well the door won't be locked at that point! When we refuel whilst boarding we are generally in contact with the ground crew either via the headset or visually.

The emergency responders may recommend that passengers and crew stay on board but if the captain chooses to evacuate then that's what will happen.

[Band a Lot]

Yes if the captain does choose to evacuate and it leads to a high death toll and the emergency responders actually had legal responsibility and control - what happens to the pilot?

[Chesty Morgan]

The emergency responders do not have legal responsibility and control of the aircraft, passengers or crew.

What happens to the pilot would depend on the outcome of any investigation, the reaction of his management and wether he acted in good faith having gathered as much information as possible before he made his informed decision.

What would happen to the emergency responders if they recommended to not evacuate despite being unaware of any situation in the cabin and that lead to a high death toll? What would then happen to the captain?

[framer]

It's pretty disturbing to read posts like Bandalot above.
It's interesting to see what others think, but disturbing non the less.
Just keep the people safe and don't worry too much about how much authority you have or have not in your job description.

[Band a Lot]

Disturbing is the fact the pilots are assuming control and responsibility at points in time they do not have it.

Legally speaking- another person has this responsibility but numerous pilots refuse to accept this - now that is scary.

Chains of command and rules must be followed by all - by all means start a plan but know who has legal responsibility at any point and respect that and then follow their commands.

Any PIC that can not understand that should not be a PIC.

They can make requests but not make orders farmer, they must follow them.

[Chesty Morgan]

Band a lot, can you tell me who are the people that may order an evacuation from an aircraft whilst it is on the ground?

[Band a Lot]

If I were a PIC and had a refuel hose rupture I would ask for a disembarked, not an evacuate.

The latter could be out of the fire and into the frying pan (not being able to see a thing from cockpit) armed slides into Jet fuel.

But smartest thing would probably be to close the aircraft doors and wait for the clean up or fire prevention to be carried out.

[Chesty Morgan]

Of course, which is why we would communicate with the outside world first.

But that doesn't answer the question.

[AerialPerspective]

The emergency responders do not have legal responsibility and control of the aircraft, passengers or crew.

What happens to the pilot would depend on the outcome of any investigation, the reaction of his management and wether he acted in good faith having gathered as much information as possible before he made his informed decision.

What would happen to the emergency responders if they recommended to not evacuate despite being unaware of any situation in the cabin and that lead to a high death toll? What would then happen to the captain?
he, he, he... what if the Captain is a she???

[Chesty Morgan]

AP, I'm sure you can work it out.

[AerialPerspective]

Disturbing is the fact the pilots are assuming control and responsibility at points in time they do not have it.

Legally speaking- another person has this responsibility but numerous pilots refuse to accept this - now that is scary.

Chains of command and rules must be followed by all - by all means start a plan but know who has legal responsibility at any point and respect that and then follow their commands.

Any PIC that can not understand that should not be a PIC.

They can make requests but not make orders farmer, they must follow them.
Unfortunately this is the problem with pprune these days, a simple comment cannot be made without 50 pages of corrections and argument.

The thing is there are good and bad in every group and the Pilot community is no different. Many are bloody nice people and good managers but there are some who by the very nature of the job and their inability to think outside a checklist mentality act as though they are JC incarnate. On occasions this includes, as I've imparted before, stepping in to the ground area of responsibility and ordering in my example a bag that was rejected by ground staff at the gate to be loaded when the PIC had zero idea of the background to why and yet, arrogantly insisted on it being loaded or the aeroplane would not move and caused a delay in the process. Absolutely NOTHING to do with safety, nothing to do with anything within the PIC's responsibility whatsoever and completely overstepping the mark.

Another example, in an Asian port and an employee of the Australian carrier I was working for at the time and I heard some raised voices from the Ops office as the local carrier had asked us to transport some empty pallets (within IATA rules) to LHR. The Captain in a dismissive tone, consistent with the rest of his demeanour said "Send them on Thai" as a snide remark to the person who was obivously Thai national.

He then asked for a phone to be made available so his Second Officer could call Sydney and when the employee said "I'll check with the manager" the Capt rudely said "Why, there's a Satellite phone here for Flight Ops use" at this point I stepped in and said "Yes Captain and that's exactly what it's bloodywell for, not personal calls" (of course if the SO had asked nicely himself we would have let him use a phone in the office which we did in the end). I then imparted a few choice words about what I thought of his attitude which was bordering on racist. This is a bad example... very rare, but it demonstrates in every industry and in every workgroup there are people that don't get the norms of society and think they are a little bit above everyone else. Unfortunately, the airlines have fostered this in years gone past by pandering to certain groups. A PIC has a lot of responsibility, granted, but at the end of the day they are an employee like everyone else, nothing more, nothing less and their responsibility does have boundaries whether they choose to believe so or not. After 30+ years in the industry I find it astounding that there are people who think their responsibility for passengers starts at sign on. So, if there's a fire in the gate lounge an hour before departure, the gate staff should call the Captain is that right???

[AerialPerspective]

AP, I'm sure you can work it out.
It was a tongue in cheek comment in case you missed the intent.

[Chesty Morgan]

Strawman.....

[Troo believer]

Read the regulation and pay particular attention to the last sentence.



CIVIL AVIATION REGULATIONS 1988 - REG 224

Pilot in command
(1) For each flight the operator shall designate one pilot to act as pilot in command.

Penalty: 5 penalty units.

(1A) An offence against subregulation (1) is an offence of strict liability.

Note: For strict liability , see section 6.1 of the Criminal Code .

(2) A pilot in command of an aircraft is responsible for:

(a) the start, continuation, diversion and end of a flight by the aircraft; and

(b) the operation and safety of the aircraft during flight time; and

(c) the safety of persons and cargo carried on the aircraft; and

(d) the conduct and safety of members of the crew on the aircraft.

(2A) A pilot in command must discharge his or her responsibility under paragraph (2)(a) in accordance with:

(a) any information, instructions or directions, relating to the start, continuation, diversion or end of a flight, that are made available, or issued, under the Act or these Regulations; and

(b) if applicable, the operations manual provided by the operator of the aircraft.

(3) The pilot in command shall have final authority as to the disposition of the aircraft while he or she is in command and for the maintenance of discipline by all persons on board.

[AerialPerspective]

Read the regulation and pay particular attention to the last sentence.



CIVIL AVIATION REGULATIONS 1988 - REG 224

Pilot in command
(1) For each flight the operator shall designate one pilot to act as pilot in command.

Penalty: 5 penalty units.

(1A) An offence against subregulation (1) is an offence of strict liability.

Note: For strict liability , see section 6.1 of the Criminal Code .

(2) A pilot in command of an aircraft is responsible for:

(a) the start, continuation, diversion and end of a flight by the aircraft; and

(b) the operation and safety of the aircraft during flight time; and

(c) the safety of persons and cargo carried on the aircraft; and

(d) the conduct and safety of members of the crew on the aircraft.

(2A) A pilot in command must discharge his or her responsibility under paragraph (2)(a) in accordance with:

(a) any information, instructions or directions, relating to the start, continuation, diversion or end of a flight, that are made available, or issued, under the Act or these Regulations; and

(b) if applicable, the operations manual provided by the operator of the aircraft.

(3) The pilot in command shall have final authority as to the disposition of the aircraft while he or she is in command and for the maintenance of discipline by all persons on board.
Very familiar with CAR224 but it doesn't apply when the PIC is in the briefing room doing pre-flight. That much is evident by the part of the sentence that states "... for the maintenance of discipline by all persons on board."

Obviously there is some cross-over if something happens at the gate such as the fuel problem and a PIC would liaise with ground authorities.

Someone further up said the 'airport manager' in relation to responsibilities. We do know the airport manager sits in an office away from the action do we not and their primary responsibility is adminstrative. The Airport Duty Manager or similar is the ground operational person.

[Troo believer]

The post was for Band a Lot and others. Probably enjoys Paleo banana and pear bread!

[itsnotthatbloodyhard]

After 30+ years in the industry I find it astounding that there are people who think their responsibility for passengers starts at sign on. So, if there's a fire in the gate lounge an hour before departure, the gate staff should call the Captain is that right???

AP, not too many posts back, you seemed convinced that ground staff retain control and responsibility up to the point where the aircraft moves under its own power. ("So, if there's an engine fire during pushback and the cabin fills with smoke, the Captain should call the gate staff is that right???"). I found that a bit astounding as well. Otherwise I broadly agree with you. I can't say I've ever met a pilot who wants to assume responsibility for the pax at sign-on, and why one would want to is beyond me. Maybe we should all just quit with the willy-waving and just use a bit of common sense.

[AerialPerspective]

AP, not too many posts back, you seemed convinced that ground staff retain control and responsibility up to the point where the aircraft moves under its own power. ("So, if there's an engine fire during pushback and the cabin fills with smoke, the Captain should call the gate staff is that right???"). I found that a bit astounding as well. Otherwise I broadly agree with you. I can't say I've ever met a pilot who wants to assume responsibility for the pax at sign-on, and why one would want to is beyond me. Maybe we should all just quit with the willy-waving and just use a bit of common sense.
Point taken i-n-t-b-h... I didn't mention it earlier but it was in my mind that one would hope in any of the scenarios common sense would prevail... the PIC would check with emergency services before ordering an evacuation. I don't doubt an earlier post might have seemed to suggest something different because it seems on this forum to go on and on and every time one answers one post something is nit-picked about the next one and it does get to the point where the will to live starts to be lost...

[framer]

I'll nit-pick this one the PIC would check with emergency services before ordering an evacuation most circumstances a prudent Captain will liaise with emergency services, but there are many circumstances where, still at the gate, with the aerobridge still attached, a prudent captain will call the evacuation and inform the emergency services that the Evac is underway.
This slightly weird conversation about who has the legal responsibility for the pax safety while on the gate is quite interesting / important though. In the United case my guess would be that the captain had the legal responsibility and the security guard then acted illegally in using excessive force. Like I said on another thread I think that in the future I will be having a 2minute chat with the 'police/ security ' prior to them removing someone in case they happen to be the 1/1000000 nut job like in the United case.
My long held assumption is that prior to the captain arriving at the aircraft and boarding the ground engineer would be responsible for the safety of anyone onboard should a fire or other emergency occur, in a perfect world the engineer would 'hand over' to the captain and the responsibility would transfer. Now days with the engineer off on another gate it is less clear what the situation is. Hopefully through this conversation we might nail down something :)

[AerialPerspective]

I'll nit-pick this one most circumstances a prudent Captain will liaise with emergency services, but there are many circumstances where, still at the gate, with the aerobridge still attached, a prudent captain will call the evacuation and inform the emergency services that the Evac is underway.
This slightly weird conversation about who has the legal responsibility for the pax safety while on the gate is quite interesting / important though. In the United case my guess would be that the captain had the legal responsibility and the security guard then acted illegally in using excessive force. Like I said on another thread I think that in the future I will be having a 2minute chat with the 'police/ security ' prior to them removing someone in case they happen to be the 1/1000000 nut job like in the United case.
My long held assumption is that prior to the captain arriving at the aircraft and boarding the ground engineer would be responsible for the safety of anyone onboard should a fire or other emergency occur, in a perfect world the engineer would 'hand over' to the captain and the responsibility would transfer. Now days with the engineer off on another gate it is less clear what the situation is. Hopefully through this conversation we might nail down something :)
Sounds good and reasonable to me framer.

[Ovation]

I coud be completely wrong, but I'd suggest the PIC on UA3411 would bear responsibility for this debacle because of Vicarious liability (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vicarious_liability) which states:

Vicarious liability is a form of a strict, secondary liability that arises under the common law doctrine of agency, respondeat superior, the responsibility of the superior for the acts of their subordinate or, in a broader sense, the responsibility of any third party that had the "right, ability or duty to control" the activities of a violator.

The PIC is responsible for the actions of his Crew and Dispatchers irrespective of whether he knew what was going on or not. I would suspect that the assault on Dr Dao (should he chose to make a formal complaint to the police) could result in criminal charges against the thugs that manhandled him off the flight. This could then extend to the crew who instigated the removal of Dr Dao on the basis there wasn't a valid and lawful reason for his disembarkation. In US law a getaway car driver (an accomplice) is just as guilty of murder as a bank robber who kills someone during a robbery, so using this analogy, the crew could be deemed as accomplices to the assault.

[parabellum]

The PIC is responsible for the actions of his Crew and Dispatchers

Don't think so. The Captain is responsible for his crew and the senior traffic person present is responsible for the traffic(ground) staff. Two entirely separate branches of the same tree.

[Ida down]

Because it takes two hours to walk from the standby lounge to a gate??? There is such a thing as 'Airport Standby'.
And? So where is the cordination between crew scheduling, and booking/ check in.?

[Band a Lot]

(2) A pilot in command of an aircraft is responsible for:

(a) the start, continuation, diversion and end of a flight by the aircraft;


(not that we should be using Australian regulations BUT CASA defines "flight" as



flight means:
(a) in the case of a heavier‑than‑air aircraft, the operation of the aircraft from the moment at which the aircraft first moves under its own power for the purpose of taking‑off until the moment at which it comes to rest after being airborne; and



No to me this is quite clear and not in anyway grey or hard to interpret.


The operator (company) shall designate a Pilot in command for each "flight".

(1) For each flight the operator shall designate one pilot to act as pilot in command.

[framer]

Let's assume you are correct Bandalot, if, prior to " the moment at which the aircraft first moves under its own power for the purpose of taking off", but after both engines are running and the ground staff have disconnected and walked back to the terminal, the right engine throws a turbine blade through the fuse.........who is responsible at that point? Everyone knows it is the PinC but by your definition........who is it?

[Wunwing]

From a real life example.

I was the FE on a flight ex Bali. The Captain and other pilots had not boarded but the pax and cabin crew were on board and fuelling was in progress.

As I did my preflight a local Fokker stopped right behind us and virtually under our tail with a brake fire.

I stopped the fuelling and initiated a pax evacuation via stairs.

Since my authority was a delegation via the Captain are you saying that I had no authority until the doors closed?

If I didn't, who had authority?

Wunwing

[Band a Lot]

framer, I keep saying it depends on the country.

Here in Australia as per the CASA definition and the regs posted it may not be a pilot - but it could be if ops manual states it is.

** In Australia as per the regulations and laws this United Flight the Pilot (to be in command) would not be responsible for the mess that happened - in some countries he is (if he knew or not).

That is why there needs to be a known point a pilot is responsible/ in command.

[Band a Lot]

* not real life*


Sadly a captain got news his wife had terminal cancer, thiswas devastating news for the family their 5 adult kids with partners and 12grand children.

The wife had always wanted to do a big cruise on the Queen Mary in fact it wason her bucket list, as a loving husband he decided to secretly take a mortgageof $250,000 on the family house and have all the family (24) go on a 90 day cruiseon the Queen Mary the last cruise before it was going for a 12 month refurbish.

The Captain was rostered for a flight to London that landed 7 hours before thecruise ship departed and managed to get the rest of his family on the sameflight as he was going to be in command of that day.

On the day the captain (2 hours before departure) checked the weather and itwas pretty good with just a few storms around but getting bigger, the aircraftwas almost fully booked and had 2,400 kg of freight and was going to be veryclose to max takeoff.

As this flight was important to the captain he told the dispatcher that hewanted 2,000 kg more fuel. The dispatcher explained that the fuel load was wellwithin legal limits, but the captain said "I want 2,000 more fuel". Thedispatcher said ok I will arrange that for you, there may be a 5-10 minutedelay but I will keep you informed.
The captain now happy having plenty of fuel for holding ifrequired got ready with pre flight checks.

The dispatcher firstly calls the refulers to put 2,000 kg of extra fuel on theplane, checks the manifests and sees the 2,400 kg freight is in fact mail freightand part of a new $3 billion contract the company just won.

Thinking quickly the dispatcher calls for the flight to be delayed as noboarding has taken place and an almost empty aircraft can take all 200 paxs andbaggage on the next flight in 8 hours time. It will inconvenient for some paxbut they will get to their location, all be it a little late - but the mailcontract will be on time.

The dispatcher calls the captain and says there will not be any delay and hewill bring up the new load sheet shortly.

The dispatcher gives the captain his new load sheet that has zero pax and only2,400 of freight and fully compliant with regulations and captains request forfuel load.

I don't think a captain has the power/responsibility or command to demand (legal)freight be off loaded and pax be loaded - but I do wonder if he boarded thecruise ship alone or blew the entire $250,000.

[Band a Lot]

The claim of the PIC being responsible from sign on was in regard to crew only and I think was in relation to a dispute on check out at an overnight hotel.

[Band a Lot]

Here is a real life example!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_VHXRYXzEVU

[AerialPerspective]

And? So where is the cordination between crew scheduling, and booking/ check in.?
Oh for goodness sake, would you like it translated to Swahili or something for you to get it... FLIGHT CLOSED, PAX BOARDED, THEN OPS CALL AND SAY WE'VE JUST GOT WORD WE NEED FOUR CREW IN XYZ AND YOUR FLIGHT IS THE NEXT ONE TO DEPART... that's HOW, there's not much chance of coordination if the need becomes evident right at the last minute. How can you not understand that... it's no different to a Pilot taxiing to a runway and then being advised of a runway change because of facts that have just come to light... you can't accuse the tower of 'lack of coordination' if the wind just changed right then. Jeeeez, my daughters kitten would have grasped it by now.

[Troo believer]

So here I am at a stand off bay at YGAFA where there is no engineer, period, and only a few contract ground handlers when during start we have a tail pipe fire. Hmmmm? We haven't moved yet Band a Lot, so what pray tell do I do next to manage the situation and mitigate against the threat becoming uncontrollable which would obviously endanger all on board? Who is in command in this scenario? I'm now dying to know. Who has legal responsibility at this point?

[framer]

I think Bandalot would want you to contact the emergency services and ask them for a clearance to evacuate. If they aren't available Terry from dispatch usually answers his phone promptly, failing that Cheryl from the refuellers hut can always be relied upon for a straight answer to any question. Whatever you do, don't go using common sense or someone will think you have a big ego and have usurped their almighty powers and authority.

[framer]

On a more serious note,
Even though a pilot is deemed to be responsible as pilot in command or second in command, there are still defenses that are recognized by regulation and NTSB case law. Most of these defenses can be characterized as “reasonable reliance” defenses. The question that often needs to be answered in this context is whether the pilot reasonably relied on other crewmembers, air traffic controllers, maintenance personnel, or his or her own observations regarding aircraft performance and airworthiness either preflight or during flight. In other cases, the pilot might be able to establish an emergency authority defense. In these cases it is important to determine if the emergency was created by the pilot’s own actions. If not, was the pilot’s action in response to the emergency prudent and reasonable? In the end, the general rule usually prevails. The buck stops with the pilot in command—almost always.
The above is from a US law review document so may be relevant to the United case. Note the use of the word "preflight".

[framer]

I think AP who would have you check with emergency services before ordering an evacuation. and Bandalot who thinks the legal responsibility for the disposition of the aircraft and its occupants lies with someone other than the PIC ( someone yet to be named) until the aircraft moves under its own steam are doing the pilots amongst us a favour here by getting us to think about how we consider each delegation of authority while still on the ground....ie if something unusual is happening while at the gate do we need to get out of our seat and actively control the pace and tone of the operation before going back to the nuts and bolts of pre flight procedures ( performance, briefing, flight deck set up etc) because these things will wait.

[Band a Lot]

So here I am at a stand off bay at YGAFA where there is no engineer, period, and only a few contract ground handlers when during start we have a tail pipe fire. Hmmmm? We haven't moved yet Band a Lot, so what pray tell do I do next to manage the situation and mitigate against the threat becoming uncontrollable which would obviously endanger all on board? Who is in command in this scenario? I'm now dying to know. Who has legal responsibility at this point?

Well as I posted the regs and the CASA definition TB and I assume you can read - that is not clear.

It can be contained in airport procedures or company manuals and infact it may well be you!

You simply need to know - and you clearly do not as you have not posed any official part of a document - only willy waving statements.

Sorry but the onus is on you to know and to be able to prove it if required, maybe ask the Chief Pilot what or responsibilities prior to aircraft moving under its own power or just guess!

Again please not the only information posted here clearly states what you refuse to believe in relation to PIC. So please correct me with a link or something as I have done for you.

(If you decided to call an evacuation I doubt that would go against you - but that is not the point)

[Tankengine]

Firstly, Band a lot is a dick.
I have been in the situation at a SE Asian port where we had a fire warning on engine start.
As it happens it was just a starter failure but I called ATC for immediate fire crew assistance.
After the problem was sorted and we were towed to a remote gate we asked about the fire crew - they never turned up at all!
The Captain has responsiblity once on board but works with others to do what appears correct at the time.

Non pilots on this forum so often get it arse about. ;)
Aerialperspective, in your rude Captain: " let them send the containers on Thai", what was the FOD at the other end? ;) Perhaps they needed the extra fuel more than dead weight "standby cargo".

[Troo believer]

It's in the non normal Boeing checklist Band a Little. Remember we haven't moved yet. There are no fire services. There is one bloke with a fire extinguisher which would be like pissing into the wind.

(Step 8)
C is for Captain and that would be me and my trusty offsider is the First Officer F/O and his willy is no doubt bigger!
1 PARKING BRAKE. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Set C
2 Speedbrake lever . . . . . . . . . . . . DOWN C
3 FLAP lever . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 F/O
4 Pressurization mode selector . . . . . MAN F/O
5 Outflow VALVE
switch . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Hold in OPEN
until the outflow VALVE
indication shows fully open
to depressurize the airplane F/O
6 If time allows, verify that the flaps are 40
before the engine start levers are moved
to CUTOFF. C
7 Engine start levers (both) . . . . . CUTOFF C
8 Advise the cabin to evacuate. C
9 Advise the tower. F/O
10 Engine and APU
fire switches (all) . . . . Override and pull F/O
11 If an engine or APU fire warning occurs:
Illuminated fire
switch . . . . . . . . . . Rotate to the stop
and hold for 1 second F/O

[Band a Lot]

Framer yes and I have posted the legal proof of that - the un named person should be listed by local airport rules or company procedures manuals and may well be the PIC.

But for this reason it is not possible for me to say who has authority or I would.

Now the regs cut and pated say a point in time that the PIC has authority, you simply need to know who that it is prior to that time.

Some company's may state it is the base manager or another title, and I very much doubt they will not give support for an emergency evac that you carried out without asking them.

But back more to the point of the offload and other normal routine things that pop up prior to pushback I.A.W the regulator the PIC may not be responsible or have authority.

It is up to the pilot to know who is the responsible person during this time not determined by the regulator.

Simply mate just produce the document as proof the PIC is in authority, it should not be that hard.

P.S Common sense, seniority and ability (the basis of your argument) are not regulations, rules or laws.

[itsnotthatbloodyhard]

the un named person should be listed by local airport rules

Could someone please post an example of some local airport rules listing such a thing? Jeppesen seems to have dropped the ball somewhat on that front. In fact I don't think I've ever encountered it in the last few decades, but I'm always keen to learn.

[AerialPerspective]

Firstly, Band a lot is a dick.
I have been in the situation at a SE Asian port where we had a fire warning on engine start.
As it happens it was just a starter failure but I called ATC for immediate fire crew assistance.
After the problem was sorted and we were towed to a remote gate we asked about the fire crew - they never turned up at all!
The Captain has responsiblity once on board but works with others to do what appears correct at the time.

Non pilots on this forum so often get it arse about. ;)
Aerialperspective, in your rude Captain: " let them send the containers on Thai", what was the FOD at the other end? ;) Perhaps they needed the extra fuel more than dead weight "standby cargo".
If the Captain had said "Sorry, we can't take any empty ULDs because we need to maximize our fuel useage or whatever, I wouldn't have had a problem.

What was unacceptable was his arrogant and condescending attitude toward a local, in who's country he was standing. It was not just that but the general bullying he displayed. I don't care about the story behind it, I was not going to stand for this arrogant prick speaking to staff like that. He likely wouldn't have behaved the same way in Sydney because he probably would have been told to watch his mouth. No excuse for his behavior.

[Chesty Morgan]

Band a lot, do you know how quickly a cabin fire (for example) can spread and become catastrophic? Do you really think we have time to be dicking around waiting for "someone" to decide if the captain can order an evacuation?

[Troo believer]

The un named person is of course..........
You guessed it!



"Band a Lot"
Next time there is a situation requiring the eminent legal and operational input before taxi call on 121.5
"Band a Lot operations"
Only then can you relax in full knowledge that the superior intellect will keep us all safe.
Thank fcuk for that.
I'm so releived, thirty years what an epiphany.

[Band a Lot]

So we get a lot of abuse and a Boeing check list, but no legal document of the gap prior to moving under own power as in Australia.

Yes I know a thing or 2 about fire, but as I said away from emergencies can you identify to a Judge that a decision prior to "moving under own power" that you made as a pilot in command that you had/have that legal responsibility?

I am simply asking the question - a judge will demand an answer.

Lets get back to the removed passenger type of example and lets say he actually died from injuries and you have to defend yourself as having the responsibility/authority - can you?

[Troo believer]

Yes I can and I'm certainly not answerable to you.
You're obviously not a pilot so I don't care how or what you think but you had better hope next time you're on board that the PIC has your back.

[Band a Lot]

Funny I get him in the air Troo Believer, so I make sure his butt is safe.

I also know when an aircraft is under my authority and when it is not.

You simply are not answerable to me, as you can not produce the documents to support your position - or you would have!!!! loud and clear like a big watch.

[Traffic_Is_Er_Was]

I reckon Band a Lot has a point. If there ever comes a situation where the person "In Command" of a situation is going to jail or losing their job, would you not like to know on which side of the fence you legally sit? Or would you rather wait til someone taps you on the shoulder and says the music has stopped and you don't have a chair. Trust me, everyone else will be ducking and pointing fingers. Does the point at which you assume you are in command, and your company considers you in command differ? Just because you think you are does not mean you are, and just because you think you aren't doesn't mean you aren't.

You're obviously not a pilot so I don't care how or what you think

Which is exactly why United is facing the situation they do now.

[Chesty Morgan]

Yes I know a thing or 2 about fire, but as I said away from emergencies can you identify to a Judge that a decision prior to "moving under own power" that you made as a pilot in command that you had/have that legal responsibility?


Simply put, who else is going make that decision? You?

[framer]

but no legal document of the gap prior to moving under own power as in Australia.
I am simply asking the question - a judge will demand an answer.

Lets get back to the removed passenger type of example and lets say he actually died from injuries and you have to defend yourself as having the responsibility/authority - can you?
These are valid questions. I have always assumed responsibility from when I step onboard (unless an Engineer is still working the aircraft) often cabin crew are already onboard and there is not an Engineer in sight.........who is legally responsible for the safety of the cleaners/ cabin crew etc prior to my arrival if no Engineer is about and when do the cleaners/ caterers etc become my legal responsibility?
I've looked up the regs and company manuals and there appears to be no reference to answer the question.
I wonder if the proliferation of 'lean operations' requiring Engineers to be working in two places at once has opened up a gap over the last two decades whereby cleaners and caterers have been left to toil away in an aircraft with APU running and nobody 'minding the shop'.
I'm pretty sure that only a licence holder (AME/ATPL) can hold the responsibility so who fills the gap?

[Band a Lot]

I honestly do not know Chesty Morgan. The more I look it seems a number of people can including Cabin Crew and it seems of the Cabin Crew the PIC is at the top of the food chain and can override all other Cabin Crew.


BUT if a drug and alcohol tester walks on board and wants to test the PIC can he refuse or remove the tester? as he has ultimate authority prior moving under own power.

No he must comply with the request or order to the test, but not once moving under own power (if this tester is on a flight to another port and thinks the captain is pissed). The dispute then can only be followed up after the flight is complete as the captain does indeed have ultimate control.

If there were certain dramas on an aircraft and it required immediate response - yes I would act in the best interests of safety as I have certain knowledge of aircraft and systems. That does not imply I have the legal right to do so.

[Band a Lot]

I reckon Band a Lot has a point. If there ever comes a situation where the person "In Command" of a situation is going to jail or losing their job, would you not like to know on which side of the fence you legally sit? Or would you rather wait til someone taps you on the shoulder and says the music has stopped and you don't have a chair. Trust me, everyone else will be ducking and pointing fingers. Does the point at which you assume you are in command, and your company considers you in command differ? Just because you think you are does not mean you are, and just because you think you aren't doesn't mean you aren't.



Which is exactly why United is facing the situation they do now.

I think this now may well be tested and it is not a United Pilot.

[Band a Lot]

These are valid questions. I have always assumed responsibility from when I step onboard (unless an Engineer is still working the aircraft) often cabin crew are already onboard and there is not an Engineer in sight.........who is legally responsible for the safety of the cleaners/ cabin crew etc prior to my arrival if no Engineer is about and when do the cleaners/ caterers etc become my legal responsibility?
I've looked up the regs and company manuals and there appears to be no reference to answer the question.
I wonder if the proliferation of 'lean operations' requiring Engineers to be working in two places at once has opened up a gap over the last two decades whereby cleaners and caterers have been left to toil away in an aircraft with APU running and nobody 'minding the shop'.
I'm pretty sure that only a licence holder (AME/ATPL) can hold the responsibility so who fills the gap?

As a LAME don't pick me to be responsible please!

A pilot or a LAME if a APU is running from what I can pick out is simply responsible for the safe aircraft operation. Like only running at required distances and limits not the cargo or pax aspect.

[Chesty Morgan]

You're getting confused. The commander has the ultimate authority to ensure the safety of the aircraft and anyone or anything carried on it. In my OPS manual it states that I have this responsibility from the moment I arrive on board to the time I get off (it's a company confidential document so no, I won't show you but I'm sure a judge would be able to sneak a peek). Not, as you state, ultimate authority.

The cabin crew have no legal authority but may only initiate an evacuation if the situation in the cabin is clearly catastrophic.

If I consider your drug and alcohol tester to be detrimental to flight safety then I can have him removed.

[Band a Lot]

"In my OPS manual it states that I have this responsibility from the moment I arrive on board to the time I get off "

WOW that took a very long time to get said and we need to believe you it is true.

LOL "I" consider I hope that's in your company ops to or you are probably off to jail or certainly wont be flying for a while!

No one can be forced to undergo CASA testing. However, refusing or failing to give a body sample may constitute a prosecutable offence. Further, anyone failing or refusing to give a body sample must stop performing or being available to perform an applicable SSAA. Failure to do so may result in a criminal charge.

[Chesty Morgan]

It doesn't matter if you believe it or not.

[Band a Lot]

So you still kicking off the tester?

[coaldemon]

Will an Ops Manual override the base legislation in this matter? That is the actual question as that is what the Judge assigned will review. In regards to the Random CASA testing that will happen in the sign on area and if you refuse your career is at a turning point.

[Chesty Morgan]

So you still kicking off the tester?

If, as I said, his actions are detrimental to safety then of course I am.

[Band a Lot]

Captain Morgan has stated his Operations Manual (a legal document) puts him responsible at the moment he/she "arrive on board" and this indeed will then be a legal position in a court as it does not override any government agency regulation and is in fact approved by one ore more.

But Captain Morgan does not have free rein and must still follow instructions/ orders of other personal like the D & A tester, Airport instructions such as push back and start clearance even a local cop that wants to make a last minute arrest on the aircraft.

He/she can not deny any of their requirements while at the gate.

[Troo believer]

The Ops Manual is approved by CASA under its authority to administer the legislation promulgated by the government. FFS stop feeding the troll.

[*Lancer*]

Surely this about who has a duty-of-care as the senior supervisor on site, not when the regs indicate the PIC's responsibility for a flight starts and stops?

While the PIC may not be legally responsible under CASA regs, company policy and Common Law would require they take control of a situation in the absence of another authority.

On the ground with the door open, that higher authority could be the airport duty manager, police, border force, ARFF etc - if in attendance.

[Band a Lot]

Will an Ops Manual override the base legislation in this matter? That is the actual question as that is what the Judge assigned will review. In regards to the Random CASA testing that will happen in the sign on area and if you refuse your career is at a turning point.



The point in question is the time between sign on for duty or actual being on board the aircraft until movement under own power.

There seems no legislation for these periods so if a approved Ops Manual states it during this period/s and the regulators point in time, yes it will be a legal document.


It can not override a CASA or other Regulator without a exemption.


A CASA "random drug test is not confined to any area and is possible in any SSAA including a cockpit before or after a flight on duty or not in the cockpit.

[Band a Lot]

A troll feeding facts ? or a ego who wants control by not posting factual documents and or regulations.

Every post of mine is valid even the captain that expected freight to be off loaded but got a big shock his family did instead.

[Troo believer]

The facts are in my company manuals as approved by CASA, but they're not for public viewing. You'll have to troll some where else or call CASA on Tuesday and ask them. Thanks for the entertainment.

[Band a Lot]

Read the regulation and pay particular attention to the last sentence.



CIVIL AVIATION REGULATIONS 1988 - REG 224

Pilot in command
(1) For each flight the operator shall designate one pilot to act as pilot in command.

Penalty: 5 penalty units.

(1A) An offence against subregulation (1) is an offence of strict liability.

Note: For strict liability , see section 6.1 of the Criminal Code .

(2) A pilot in command of an aircraft is responsible for:

(a) the start, continuation, diversion and end of a flight by the aircraft; and

(b) the operation and safety of the aircraft during flight time; and

(c) the safety of persons and cargo carried on the aircraft; and

(d) the conduct and safety of members of the crew on the aircraft.

(2A) A pilot in command must discharge his or her responsibility under paragraph (2)(a) in accordance with:

(a) any information, instructions or directions, relating to the start, continuation, diversion or end of a flight, that are made available, or issued, under the Act or these Regulations; and

(b) if applicable, the operations manual provided by the operator of the aircraft.

(3) The pilot in command shall have final authority as to the disposition of the aircraft while he or she is in command and for the maintenance of discipline by all persons on board.


Yesterday we needed to pay attention to last sentence, today it is secret company ops that give such authority.

If you stated yesterday and before I said it can be in company ops manuals , I may just trust you a bit more than I currently do.

So sorry I am not a True Believer due that fact - your subsequent research may in fact be true and company policy to keep private but I doubt you knew that at the time and can easily now be a lie to cover face as no other documents/s can support a similar ops manual (current trading company or not).

[Traffic_Is_Er_Was]

In my OPS manual it states that I have this responsibility from the moment I arrive on board to the time I get off

I bet the Republic Captain is hoping his Ops manual doesn't say this.

[AerialPerspective]

I think AP who would have you and Bandalot who thinks the legal responsibility for the disposition of the aircraft and its occupants lies with someone other than the PIC ( someone yet to be named) until the aircraft moves under its own steam are doing the pilots amongst us a favour here by getting us to think about how we consider each delegation of authority while still on the ground....ie if something unusual is happening while at the gate do we need to get out of our seat and actively control the pace and tone of the operation before going back to the nuts and bolts of pre flight procedures ( performance, briefing, flight deck set up etc) because these things will wait.
My point with that was simply that if there was fire around the aircraft and the PIC could not see precisely where it was, he/she would communicate with someone on the ground before ordering an evacuation. That comes under the 'common sense' that everyone is talking about.

Beyond that, after an event, if there are fatalities I think you'll find that the determination as to whether the PIC is responsible or not will come from what he/she knew and whether they acted on the best information they had at the time, whether due diligence was exercised or not.

[Troo believer]

All pilots if licenced by CASA must comply with the Australian regulations and in particular in this example Reg 233. The Ops manual must comply with the regs. They are the law. It doesn't matter where you are in the World if operating a VH reg aircraft with an Australian licence, the PIC is required by laws to adhere to the regs unless for an absolute safety reason endangering life.
Does any pilot disagree with this?

[AerialPerspective]

All pilots if licenced by CASA must comply with the Australian regulations and in particular in this example Reg 233. The Ops manual must comply with the regs. They are the law. It doesn't matter where you are in the World if operating a VH reg aircraft with an Australian licence, the PIC is required by laws to adhere to the regs unless for an absolute safety reason endangering life.
Does any pilot disagree with this?
That's how I see it too. Many Ops Manuals I've been familiar with include a subheading along the lines of 'Duty to Comply with the Law' and identify that the Ops Manual, if inconsistent with the Regulations is to be considered invalid to the extent of the inconsistency.

[Tankengine]

If the Captain had said "Sorry, we can't take any empty ULDs because we need to maximize our fuel useage or whatever, I wouldn't have had a problem.

What was unacceptable was his arrogant and condescending attitude toward a local, in who's country he was standing. It was not just that but the general bullying he displayed. I don't care about the story behind it, I was not going to stand for this arrogant prick speaking to staff like that. He likely wouldn't have behaved the same way in Sydney because he probably would have been told to watch his mouth. No excuse for his behavior.

Fair enough! I have had the misfortune to fly with tossers over the years. ;)

[Tankengine]

My point with that was simply that if there was fire around the aircraft and the PIC could not see precisely where it was, he/she would communicate with someone on the ground before ordering an evacuation. That comes under the 'common sense' that everyone is talking about.

Beyond that, after an event, if there are fatalities I think you'll find that the determination as to whether the PIC is responsible or not will come from what he/she knew and whether they acted on the best information they had at the time, whether due diligence was exercised or not.

OK, I am in the cockpit pre-flighting and there is a cargo or APU fire warning.
I try to contact the engineer through the headset, no joy.
I call ATC, they cannot see us as we are behind the terminal - they can see some smoke.
Smoke appears in cockpit, cabin crew yell there is smoke in the cabin.

Do I ? : 1. keep trying to call anyone for assistance.?
2. Packup my navbag and go for a coffee in the terminal.?
3. Call for an evacuation, or at very least a rapid disembarkation. ?

In (1 and 2) and there are fatalities I would suggest I would be screwed.
In (3) and something went wrong and there were fatalities I reckon I did what I could.

Fair thread drift from crew priority over pax though!

[AerialPerspective]

OK, I am in the cockpit pre-flighting and there is a cargo or APU fire warning.
I try to contact the engineer through the headset, no joy.
I call ATC, they cannot see us as we are behind the terminal - they can see some smoke.
Smoke appears in cockpit, cabin crew yell there is smoke in the cabin.

Do I ? : 1. keep trying to call anyone for assistance.?
2. Packup my navbag and go for a coffee in the terminal.?
3. Call for an evacuation, or at very least a rapid disembarkation. ?

In (1 and 2) and there are fatalities I would suggest I would be screwed.
In (3) and something went wrong and there were fatalities I reckon I did what I could.

Fair thread drift from crew priority over pax though!
3 of course and yes, that's what I was getting at I reckon you'd be fine after electing option 3.

And yes, how we got to this after someone was bashed and dragged out the door of a UA aircraft is quite entertaining.

[framer]

So to bring it back to United, if the station manager says to you ( the captain) tomorrow , " I know your Purser wants to offload passenger Smith because he spat at her when he was taking his seat but in light of the recent event with Dr Dao I am not prepared to authorise bringing security onto the aircraft" .... are you ( the Captain ) legally resoonsible at that point in time to override the station manager ? Or, as has been suggested, does you legal authority not kick in until the aircraft moves under it's own power?
My position is that even if the exact point in time that the Captains authority kicks in is unclear ( as we are finding out) , the Captain does have the legal authority to grant or withhold operational clearance to initiate, terminate or divert the flight, so the Captain does have the authority to not initiate the flight regardless of what we find out about when his or her authority comes alive.
Ie , no skipper worth their salt will go flying if they think it is unsafe reagardless of which section of law says what.

[megan]

Re the question when does the nominated PIC assume command of an aircraft, I would think is spelled out in the Ops Manual. One SOP I'm familiar with says upon the closing of doors.

[Wunwing]

Megan.
I think the answer is that no one knows. We can look at rules and SOPS but practically as they stand it doesn't work.

If its when the doors close, then for example if there is an APU fire during the transit,who makes the decision to carry out the procedure? In my old company that actually became a major argument after the FE who was on board when the fire alarm went of fired the bottle only to have the LAME complain as the engineering handover wasn't complete. The argument was that until the M/R is signed engineering still has authority. Yet in that situation Engineering had no training in evacuating passengers.

In another case after engineering calling a brake fire after parking, an overzealous Policemen detained the Captain before he handed over to the Fire Commander. Who was then in charge of the operation at that time?

To a degree this is a bit like the Gimli episode where the FE-SO was replaced without anyone looking at who would carry out the abnormal fuelling ops. It seems to me that we have moved well away from the old model of Legacy Airlines with their own well qualified staff and replaced them with poorly trained contractors, without adequately examining everything that this now replaced staff did.?

Hopefully this whole shameful episode will at least start such an examination throughout the Industry. But since it will if properly done throw up numerous costs I somehow doubt anything will happen.

Wunwing

[On eyre]

Maybe there is some precedent from maritime experience - when the captain steps aboard he accepts responsibility. Just saying that would make sense but what would I know.

[parabellum]

Framer - if a passenger spits at anyone, be they crew or passenger, then a criminal offence has been committed, whole different ball game. The offence is reported to police and it is now their problem. Chances are the pax will be arrested, cautioned and told he has to leave the aircraft, the police are within their remit to physically remove him if he doesn't obey a lawful order.

On Eyre - Not sure about this but I think the Harbour Master has considerable authority when the ship is still tied up.

[DraggieDriver]

Framer, it would be pointless of the station manager not to comply with the wishes of the captain, regardless of who has the current legal authority before the aircraft has moved under own power - the captain is the one who chooses if the aircraft moves under own power after all.

[AerialPerspective]

Fair enough! I have had the misfortune to fly with tossers over the years. ;)
Yeah, the sad thing is, like every workgroup, the overwhelming majority are nice, polite and professional people who are a pleasure to work with and tossers like this guy give the rest a bad name if that was some of the local's only experience with that particular workgroup.

[AerialPerspective]

Yeah, the sad thing is, like every workgroup, the overwhelming majority are nice, polite and professional people who are a pleasure to work with and tossers like this guy give the rest a bad name if that was some of the local's only experience with that particular workgroup.
To balance that out, a Cabin Crew member (I won't say the position because it'll give away the airline) was yelling at a staff member one day and before anyone could intervene, the Captain - a veteran of 30+ years told him to sit down, shut up and stop and added that if he stopped and thought for a nanosecond he would realise it was not the fault of a ground person (something to do with crew accommodation). Still in contact with that colleague even since his retirement. Great guy to this day.

[Band a Lot]

I had a look at Maritime and steps aboard may not be correct - reference is made to a handover including maintenance required and other thing but also a sign off and on. I assume this to be on the bridge and in the log.

But it seems the signature is required to be the "Captain".

Should the Captain of an aircraft not be happy with a passenger or a legal fuel load given to him to begin a flight, the Captain can simply start and begin to "taxi under own power" assume ultimate authority request a return to gate and have a passenger remover or more fuel added.

So any input from a Captain would be considered and discussed and hopefully agreed prior to pushback by any and all responsible persons.

It is comforting to see some have noticed that there is a legal void in who maybe responsible and that may be a big issue if things go real bad one day.

Is it not best to clear the legal mud that we currently have?

[framer]

On the point of 'clearing the legal mud' I agree with you Bandalot. We need to know who is holding the can and from when.

[AerialPerspective]

Are we perhaps getting a bit confused here... I would suggest that there are many things that the Captain is responsible for prior to departure and once on board but once the aircraft is moving under it's own power, the Captain is completely responsible... just a thought.

[parabellum]

It is comforting to see some have noticed that there is a legal void in who maybe responsible and that may be a big issue if things go real bad one day.
Just to be clear Band a Lot, in the case in question, UAL and the Doctor in Chicago, this was entirely a seating matter for the ground staff to resolve and the captain was not and should not have been involved. Had the ground staff chosen to do so they had several layers of management they could have referred to and the upper layers of that management stream have significantly more authority than the captain. My personal view is that only one layer above the person who approached the doctor would have said, "up the offer and ask some other passengers". Quite why one crew member of the DH crew could not accept a jump seat for a 45 minute journey I'll never understand.

[framer]

That's understood AP but......is the Captain completely responsible, not at all responsible, or partially responsible in the United case.
Prior to this event and assuming I was in his/her shoes, I would have thought legally I was completely responsible for Dr Dao's situation but with a strong defence of 'Reasonable Reliance'. Now I am not so sure.
Even though a pilot is deemed to be responsible as pilot in command or second in command, there are still defenses that are recognized by regulation and NTSB case law. Most of these defenses can be characterized as “reasonable reliance” defenses. The question that often needs to be answered in this context is whether the pilot reasonably relied on other crewmembers, air traffic controllers, maintenance personnel,
The above is from a document called "The Pilot In Command and the FAR's"
Written by Associate Professor of Law and Accounting, Mount St. Mary’s University, Emmitsburg, MD.; B.B.A, Iona College, 1981; J.D. Pace University School of Law, 1984. Professor Speciale is a commercial pilot and certified flight instructor.
††Associate Professor of Aeronautical Science, Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University, Daytona Beach, FL.; B.S. University of South Dakota, 1997; J.D. University of South Dakota School of Law 2000. Professor Venhuizen has been an active pilot and certified flight instructor since 1990.

[Band a Lot]

Are we perhaps getting a bit confused here... I would suggest that there are many things that the Captain is responsible for prior to departure and once on board but once the aircraft is moving under it's own power, the Captain is completely responsible... just a thought.




AP that is absolutely clear and regardless of country or airline.

[Band a Lot]

parabellum, if you go back through these posts you will see that several Captains have stated that as PIC they are in command and have responsibility.

Now I don't know if in this United case that is true or not but if the PIC is in charge from say time of aircraft entry then your comment of layers of management are not correct.

As many of the posters on this thread now see, there seems to be a void in when responsibility or as said "the can" is handed over.

I personally don't think this Republic Airlines Captain had a clue on what was about to happen or what did happen till well after the event.

From what I have read from FAA I also don't think he can be responsible for being PIC.

But he maybe accountable for the end result if he made or approved the call to bring on board the offending thugs.(That is a maybe).


I will state I have no idea of the procedures or ops manuals for United or Republic Airlines or contracts they have between each other, and in fact this may well be where the final responsibility is known - but I doubt it.

[parabellum]

parabellum, if you go back through these posts you will see that several Captains have stated that as PIC they are in command and have responsibility.

Yes I have seen them Band a Lot, first I doubt some are actually captains with major carriers and secondly I can assure you that airlines such as UAL and other major carriers do have a complete organisational structure and there is absolutely no way a captain would intervene on what is strictly a ground services problem, please, believe me!

[Tankengine]

Does anyone here really believe the good Dr was just sitting there when he as dragged off the flight?
The videos only show the aftermath. Usually more than one side to a story.. ;)

[Band a Lot]

Does anyone here really believe the good Dr was just sitting there when he as dragged off the flight?
The videos only show the aftermath. Usually more than one side to a story.. ;)



Actually yes, he was just sitting as both videos seem to suggest!

Nor do United claim he was ever a issue!

He simply said he was not de -boarding (getting off) and I believe he had that right as per T's & C's as he was just "sitting"

The side that seems hidden is who called Dad's Army to resolve a seating issue for the contract carrier of United Airlines and there lies the story I think.

[Tankengine]

Seen a different video than me then.
I wonder why they started videoing? ;)

[Ida down]

Oh for goodness sake, would you like it translated to Swahili or something for you to get it... FLIGHT CLOSED, PAX BOARDED, THEN OPS CALL AND SAY WE'VE JUST GOT WORD WE NEED FOUR CREW IN XYZ AND YOUR FLIGHT IS THE NEXT ONE TO DEPART... that's HOW, there's not much chance of coordination if the need becomes evident right at the last minute. How can you not understand that... it's no different to a Pilot taxiing to a runway and then being advised of a runway change because of facts that have just come to light... you can't accuse the tower of 'lack of coordination' if the wind just changed right then. Jeeeez, my daughters kitten would have grasped it by now.

Crap. Ops should have known at least an hour/half a hour before flight. Crew just don't materialize out of nowhere, unless they have standby crews at the airport. If they do, ok, but failing that crew have to come from HOME, giving Ops ample time to notify check in, and bump four PAX before boarding. If they are based at the airport, ok then, otherwise its crap.

[AerialPerspective]

Crap. Ops should have known at least an hour/half a hour before flight. Crew just don't materialize out of nowhere, unless they have standby crews at the airport. If they do, ok, but failing that crew have to come from HOME, giving Ops ample time to notify check in, and bump four PAX before boarding. If they are based at the airport, ok then, otherwise its crap.
As I observed some pages back, it could have been standby crew... otherwise you are saying that in the entire approximately 95 year history of the airline industry nothing has ever happened at the last minute when all pax were on board... I never said that is what happened here I just said it's a possibility which none of us know to be the case or not and I have certainly seen aircraft stopped from departing for a paxing crew member at the last minute. It does happen.

[AerialPerspective]

http://www.news.com.au/travel/travel-updates/incidents/a-queensland-man-has-been-charged-with-assaulting-a-qantas-flight-attendant/news-story/c7803d4c127dff2394ef80427b9322ef
An arrest was made by police at the request of the Captain of this flight under the Aviation Crimes Act. So tell me once again whom is responsible preflight for the safety of passengers and crew on board the aircraft?
Plenty of examples where the Duty Manager has called the Police and asked for removal of someone from an aircraft in my experience, not always the Captain. It's the "Crimes Act (Aviation)" btw.

[Troo believer]

Well it seems a few protagonists here are incorrect on the definition of when an aircraft is "in flight" regarding the legal powers of the Aircraft Commander wrt upholding the discipline and conduct of passengers, crew and property on board an aircraft under their command.
From the Tokyo Convention which is the legal document determining the powers of Aircraft Commander and when they apply.
Article 5 paragraph 2 refers
In flight is from when all external doors are closed after embarkation to an external door being opened for disembarkation.
In the United case with Dr Dao, the Aircraft Commander wasn't at all responsible for the discipline and or safety of the aircraft, persons or property which would jeopardise good order and discipline whilst at the gate with doors open as you would expect was the case.
Montreal Convention also refers.

[framer]

I think most people are across that TB, the question then becomes who is responsible before the door closes?

[Band a Lot]

I am with you on that framer - I also think it should be public knowledge! given the charges that can be laid on such a passenger in this case that "I" think had his right to travel bashed against a few hard objects.

Where is this higher than other person now? why are they not accountable and will they personally say "sorry" to the passenger ? I doubt it as they have shown their true colours.

[Troo believer]

I am with you on that framer - I also think it should be public knowledge! given the charges that can be laid on such a passenger in this case that "I" think had his right to travel bashed against a few hard objects.

Where is this higher than other person now? why are they not accountable and will they personally say "sorry" to the passenger ? I doubt it as they have shown their true colours.

Band a Lot's AvatarBand a Lot , 16th Apr 2017 10:35
So we get a lot of abuse and a Boeing check list, but no legal document of the gap prior to moving under own power as in Australia.

Yes I know a thing or 2 about fire, but as I said away from emergencies can you identify to a Judge that a decision prior to "moving under own power" that you made as a pilot in command that you had/have that legal responsibility?

I am simply asking the question - a judge will demand an answer.

Lets get back to the removed passenger type of example and lets say he actually died from injuries and you have to defend yourself as having the responsibility/authority - can you?

So Band a Lot,
Changing your tune to suit your flawed argument.
You ever heard of Strict Liability?
If there is a fire or other event detrimental to the safety of passengers and crew prior to doors closing and the Captain doesn't comply with the relevant checklist and diligently carry out all duties including an evacuation if required, and a passenger dies in the ensuing fire, whom do you think will be liable?
If you think as Aircraft Commander you can pass the buck or transfer responsibility because you don't think you're really in command at this point, good luck.

[Band a Lot]

Band a Lot's AvatarBand a Lot , 16th Apr 2017 10:35
So we get a lot of abuse and a Boeing check list, but no legal document of the gap prior to moving under own power as in Australia.

Yes I know a thing or 2 about fire, but as I said away from emergencies can you identify to a Judge that a decision prior to "moving under own power" that you made as a pilot in command that you had/have that legal responsibility?

I am simply asking the question - a judge will demand an answer.

Lets get back to the removed passenger type of example and lets say he actually died from injuries and you have to defend yourself as having the responsibility/authority - can you?

So Band a Lot,
Changing your tune to suit your flawed argument.
You ever heard of Strict Liability?
If there is a fire or other event detrimental to the safety of passengers and crew prior to doors closing and the Captain doesn't comply with the relevant checklist and diligently carry out all duties including an evacuation if required, and a passenger dies in the ensuing fire, whom do you think will be liable?
If you think as Aircraft Commander you can pass the buck or transfer responsibility because you don't think you're really in command at this point, good luck.


I don't see how you think I am changing my tune TB.

The ground staff have the control of the pax until the door is closed as per framer's post! you even posted that.

Now in case of a fire that is actually an emergency you have control of the aircraft - read its checklist and do what ever the hell it TELLS you to do.

Now if this ground staff person has already off loaded his paxs by the time you get to evacuate section - that I think is perfectly legal and his duty.

Don't worry the ground staff person will not push your fire bottle button, simply because its not his job.


AGAIN if you stop using an emergency situation and simply a problem (such as the need to off load pax or upload more fuel that requires some weight to be removed from aircraft) you might just get the jest of it.


In an emergency you will have a responsibility in "flight" or at gate and as you correctly state is to read and carry out the check list procedure and my guess would be the same check list as a freighter uses with no pax.

[Troo believer]

Read all your posts then it will become obvious. Quote "You must be a Pilot".
What does that make you.

[Band a Lot]

Post #160


Currently page 8


I will quote myself.

"As a LAME don't pick me to be responsible please!"

(post 154 "Funny I get him in the air Troo Believer, so I make sure his butt is safe.")

So that would make me, I guess a L.A.M.E.

[framer]

With the situation of offloading a passenger at the gate and before doors closed it is important to know who is responsible for the 'safe running' of the task.
As much as Bandalot has been rather antagonistic with comments such as " you must be a pilot" and the like, he has helped highlight the fact that some captains ( myself included) thought that they were responsible for the well being of the pax that had boarded the aircraft, and some thought that it was not their responsibility at all at that stage of the operation. So, we were/are left with a grey area as to WHO is responsible in this scenario. We all know that if a fire breaks out it is incumbent on the pilots to do certain things, but in the offload scenario, if it is not the P in C .....then who?
This should be a simple matter of looking to the regs for your own Airlines country, but it's not. That's the point of contention in my mind.

[Band a Lot]

Correct framer.

Sorry but that comment comes because the ban from the exact same thing on Rumours and News that I got a "take time out" - during pointing out to likes of TB as the mob insisted they had responsibility (It seems wrongly) but rather than listen or let me explain in words this obvious pilot could understand, he banned me from that part of this site.

Arrogance rings a bell and that has zero place in a cockpit, but does seem common more so on this topic.

[framer]

The comment came because that's how you feel about pilots, it shows in many of your posts. As an ex Lame and a current ATPL it confuses me a bit because the guys and girls in both fields are the same.....ie a cross section of the community.
Why are you so worried about pilots being arrogant and how much perceived power pilots have? If a pilot is arrogant or thinks they have more authority than they do don't worry about it. You've got your gig sorted and all your Engineering colleagues ( who presumably are less arrogant) to interact with. Life's good. Just relax :)

[Band a Lot]

Framer, I guess Ice Man said it the best!?

But I do not like often having to pussy foot around many (not all) pilot egos in my normal day ops that they think they have seniority or higher position than I do - even when the ship is mine.


This is often evident when a Chief Pilot will bring in a new pilot or one getting a new endorsement, grab the flight manual and then sit in both front seats during maintenance. With not a prior word or warning to myself or others.

This has happened in most places I have worked both in Australia and overseas, but never had a Engineering colleague jump in an active cockpit and say put on a park brake.

Is they did I would sack them. Yes sack them - no right or reason to be there!

[framer]

Framer, I guess Ice Man said it the best!?
Sorry but I don't know what that means.
But I do not like often having to pussy foot around many (not all) pilot egos in my normal day ops that they think they have seniority or higher position than I do - even when the ship is mine.
I never felt like that in either of the roles so I guess it's a bit hard for me to understand.
You're on the same team, both trying to get an airworthy jet in the air in good time.
Do all your colleagues feel the same way?
Personally I need the Engineer on my side if I'm about to go flying, most of them communicate their needs clearly and in a friendly way so it's easy because I know what they need, it also gives me an opportunity to say what I need and suggest when we'll touch base again to ensure it all goes smoothly. In the past I have experimented with phrases and greetings and ways of communicating with all different types of staff I rely on and you really do get different results by bringing different attitudes to the many relationships we have to develop during a work day.
Worth a play around?
This is often evident when a Chief Pilot will bring in a new pilot or one getting a new endorsement, grab the flight manual and then sit in both front seats during maintenance. With not a prior word or warning to myself or others.
Yep that is rubbish. Like I said though, my experience is that both groups ( pilots and engineers) are an even mix of the personalities you'll come across in broader society, dicks in both roles are in the minority.

[Band a Lot]

Ice man quote.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z_BEJmY911s

[Band a Lot]

[QUOTE=framer;9749762]Sorry but I don't know what that means.


Do all your colleagues feel the same way?


**Some have in some companies, others don't say.

Personally I need the Engineer on my side if I'm about to go flying, most of them communicate their needs clearly and in a friendly way so it's easy because I know what they need, it also gives me an opportunity to say what I need and suggest when we'll touch base again to ensure it all goes smoothly. In the past I have experimented with phrases and greetings and ways of communicating with all different types of staff I rely on and you really do get different results by bringing different attitudes to the many relationships we have to develop during a work day.
Worth a play around?

**Yes I have and yes at times things will change and work more like they should - but every time it has been my initiation and effort for it to be that way.

QUOTE]

[framer]

Oh well, you can't do any more than that then.

[megan]

So, we were/are left with a grey area as to WHO is responsible in this scenarioAs SLF I would have thought it would be spelled out in SOP's ie Duty managers job description and responsibilities, ditto gate personnel, cabin crew, front seaters. Certainly seems strange that such large organisations with possibly multiple hundreds of pax involved responsibilities of their staff are not spelled out. Can end up with too many chiefs thinking it's their responsibility to take charge of a situation, issuing orders, and no one left to carry out the necessary action.

[Band a Lot]

Megan, most of us if not all would expect in the captain is on-board (his intended PIC flight) he would have the ultimate say/control.

That said the only reference we can find of when a captain assumes "legal" command is from regulators and the Chicago Convention listed above (doors closed till opened).

Some or all company's may contain this in their SOPs, but none have been produced to see or known 100% by staff concerned.

1 poster said he as pilot was listed as responsible "but" it was confidential company document so could not post it.

As this is safety sensitive it should be commonly known, but is not and still to date no proof of even an old leaked SOP from an ex employee been posted.

That all leads to me to think it has been missed in SOP's and by regulators. It happens.

[parabellum]

There is no doubt that when it comes to seating issues etc. the responsibility lies with the ground staff whose job it is to ensure all pax are boarded, seated, baggage on board, inappropriate items produced as cabin baggage are tagged and place in the hold. Catering is also a ground staff responsibility. Engineers will carry out refuelling and ensures the aircraft is serviceable, any snags still carried are within the Minimum Equipment List for dispatch etc. The ground staff will sign their section of the load sheet, which is passed to the captain for counter signature, same for the engineers, they will sign the technical log confirming the aircraft is fit to fly and it is then countersigned by the captain. Now the captain has accepted the aircraft as his/her responsibility on the basis that all known, or acceptable as 'fit to fly' issues, have been resolved, there is nothing outstanding except to close the doors, both these documents are legal documents when properly signed by all parties..
There really are no ifs or buts about this with airlines of any size. Airline operations manuals, traffic manuals and engineering policy manuals will state the duties and responsibilities of the staff in their respective departments and it is the regulators job to make sure they are adhered to by the airline.

[framer]

The ground staff will sign their section of the load sheet,
Not at my Airline. They don't see it or get a copy of it.
they will sign the technical log confirming the aircraft is fit to fly and it is then countersigned by the captain.
Not at my Airline. The Captain just reads, no writing/signing.
There really are no ifs or buts about this with airlines of any size
Incorrect as per examples above. ( moderately sized Airline operating both Airbus and Boeing.

[Tankengine]

Not my airline either.

[megan]

most of us if not all would expect in the captain is on-board (his intended PIC flight) he would have the ultimate say/controlBand a Lot, thanks, during the boarding and prior to door closure, I don't see why the pilots should be involved in what it is happening in the cabin. They have their own responsibilities preparing the aircraft for flight, data entry, performance calcs etc, etc. If it is deemed necessary to call upon the pilots, with stripes to reinforce a message at this stage of a trip, I think it points to an organisational failure. Surely the the senior cabin crew member would have the authority to deal with any issue in the cabin, without resorting to calling upon the services of pilots. Airborne a different matter.

[Band a Lot]

megan, the senior cabin crew can deal with any matter that they have listed as their responsibility (legally) as per say SOP's.

If a matter is not covered by SOP's - lets say "de boarding" a passenger involuntarily.


The senior cabin crew is not legally allowed to de board as per a SOP and can then be personally responsible for what ever may happen.

So to have a person who can be legally responsible and have authority at all times is important.

In this case it seems we did not have an overlap in legal responsibility but had a gap.

The gap is easy to fill or may already be filled - A simple entry in the SOP's

" At any time on the ground or during flight the elected pilot in command can assume responsibility that is not covered by a SOP or regulation".

[DraggieDriver]

The senior cabin crew is not legally allowed to de board as per a SOP and can then be personally responsible for what ever may happen.
Any time my cabin crew come to me with a concern about a passenger I will back their judgement on best course of action. If ground staff seem hesitant to comply with my request to offload a pax I will be more insistent. The aircraft won't move under own power if my crew are unhappy about who they have to look after in the cabin.

[Band a Lot]

DD, the point is this has no legal authority at this point in time. You and the cabin crew can now be held personally accountable.

Hypo now 70 lawyer going to a convention decide to sue you for damages over the missed connecting flights they had.

You can lose your house and everything - you did the thing we would all normally expect, but you need to prove you could and did have the authority at that point.

(without a doubt - if you got pushed back taxied then returned to the gate, you would have legal authority. Its stupid but it would make you legally allowed to be as insistent as you need to be. Then the problem of being personally liable is not there).

Common sense and practical play no part in court rooms.

[framer]

DD we all agree with the common sense approach you suggest. Bandalot has nailed the gist of the discussion at the moment.
I'll use an example that is very close to what someone else used earlier in the thread;
If your Purser comes to you and says that pax in 4D shouldn't travel and you back them ( as I would) and then the security guy from Dr Dao's flight ( he has recently relocated for personal reasons) comes onboard and smacks 4D's head against the chairs, killing him as he removes him, who is responsible for the operation going wrong? Who goes to jail? ( apart from the security guy who has committed a crime )
You for authorising it and not supervising the operation? The cabin crew member for not adequately supervising? The station manager for not overseeing the removal in a way that prevented the whole thing going wrong?
The United Captain has been named in a law suit yet it is not clear in the regs who is responsible ( legally) for the safety and well being of the people onboard prior to the doors closing.
If it is ground staff who should be named in the law suit as responsible for overseeing the removal of pax then where is that written?
If it is the Captain then where is that written? We haven't been able to find it in the Tokyo Convention or the regs.
Cheers

[Band a Lot]

Correct framer.


We have found 2 points where it states the PIC has responsibility.


* Tokyo Convention - from when cabin doors are closed (and think till opened).
* The Australian CASA regs - from the moment the aircraft moves under its own power.


Now this gap may be covered under some other area like company SOP or it may be covered in some contract with the actual airport. It may simply not exist.

But if framers example happened on my aircraft I would like to know where I stood. I would rather it clear I was carrying out my duties as an employee, than a rouge employee acting outside his duties and therefore dismissed to easily off load bad media.

[framer]

The main reason it is important in my mind is that it affects the oversight of the removal of pax. The person who knows they are in the gun if it gets ugly will run fairly close oversight of the operation, ( it makes them more likely to instruct a security officer on the tone of the operation), if nobody feels like it is on their shoulders then things are more likely to slip into undesirable territory.
Legal responsibility has a knack of making people diligent.

[Band a Lot]

If I was SLF and was being told to get off the aircraft, I would hope I could ask to speak to the manager and they could show me how and why I was selected to be off loaded and exactly what my rights are/were.

I would have expected such a system to offload would consider such things as occupation. Flights have requested for people with medical qualifications to please make them self known to cabin crew - never heard of a request for say a butcher. Someone with a LAME ticket could also be of a benefit not to offload as with emergency services and even ex cabin crew. In fact any person that could be useful in an emergency.


Hopefully a bit of a review will be underway into this practice and things will then be clear for all concerned.

[Tankengine]

You guys can argue "legalities" of who is responsible at whatever point as long as you like.
The reality is the aircraft goes nowhere till the Captain is happy.
If some dip**** is blueing over seating they will be removed before flight, one way or another. ;)
( not because they are wrong with being upset, because they are blueing about it! )

If the United Captain had made a PA that due to a seating problem EVERYONE is to get off, and then the good DR had not been given a new boarding pass then the issue would not have happened?!

[Band a Lot]

The door would need to be closed to make that announcement!

We are talking America here and I assume you know they like to sue?

P.S. prove the captain needs to be "happy"

You are going back to the starting point of this thread!

The captain has control when??????? in the taxi on way to the airport?

Christ here we go again______ prove your point/s with regs or something official.

[Band a Lot]

If I as Cabin Crew off load the captains wife because she got too drunk in the Qantas lounge to fly - will the Captain be happy?


NO!


So you now say the aircraft will not fly!


Yep smart comment.

[Keg]

Don't be ridiculous. You know that's not the point Tankengine was making.

Read CAR224. That's the start and finish of the argument. The flight isn't going to 'start' if the PIC isn't happy* to start it.

*'Happy' has nothing to do whether the missus has been booted off the flight.

[plainmaker]

Simple really and has already been mentioned. The Tokyo Convention is quite specific. While Aviation Law has it's derivation in Maritime Law, the accepted proposition in Australia is 'release' of the aircraft. That means doors closed and the airbridge detached. We did have an instance around passenger injury once when the airbridge had to be moved to allow 1L to be closed and locked. I do not have the judgement in front of me to quote.... but the clear issue was 'release' (same as the mooring lines coming off a ship). The captain, irrespective of seniority / rank etc has no 'authority' on the ground - he / she may 'request' but until they have 'control' of the aircraft, the implied authority does not exist. Think in terms of a sworn officer who has access to the aircraft. While the door is open, that officer may enter and enforce the law. Even a return to the airbridge - the Senior Pilot can elect to make that return, but will need to request the sworn officers of the resident jurisdiction to enter the aircraft once it is no longer under 'command'. 'Command' in this context is taken to be 'the ability to independently control the operation of the aircraft, including giving instruction to other persons to give effect to that control (think push back tug).

[Band a Lot]

I guess in the United case the captain could be charged by interfering with a crime scene - by moving it!


Keg 224 uses the word flight - that word is defined by the regulator, in this case the aircraft must be moving under own power!!!

[framer]

Bandalot goes off on those weird unrealistic tangents but if you can ignore them for a second, it is interesting and probably important to know who is holding the can if/ when someone gets offloaded from your aircraft. If it is you, as the Captain, then best to put all your normal duties to one side for ten minutes and oversee the operation, if it isn't you, then who is it and are they even aware it's them?

[Band a Lot]

plainmaker, any idea then who is legally responsible till door closed?

[Band a Lot]

framer, they often follow unbelievable comments that have not understood or read many valid posts.

[Tankengine]

framer, they often follow unbelievable comments that have not understood or read many valid posts.

Have read lots of posts, mostly inane.
You tell me if the aircraft is going anywhere without the Captain.
Have personally seen a Captain show a "manager" the finger, you know, the one that starts the engine - or not! ;)
Some don't have the balls, some do.

Back to the title of the thread:
If the company wishes to transport crew on the aircraft they will.
If that means cancelling the service and flying the aircraft as a ferry flight, they will.

[Band a Lot]

What company United or Republic?

A captain now they have a job to do! And "You can't handle the truth" rings a bell!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9FnO3igOkOk

[Band a Lot]

And from memory that did not end well for Jack!

[atr-drivr]

DD we all agree with the common sense approach you suggest. Bandalot has nailed the gist of the discussion at the moment.
I'll use an example that is very close to what someone else used earlier in the thread;
If your Purser comes to you and says that pax in 4D shouldn't travel and you back them ( as I would) and then the security guy from Dr Dao's flight ( he has recently relocated for personal reasons) comes onboard and smacks 4D's head against the chairs, killing him as he removes him, who is responsible for the operation going wrong? Who goes to jail? ( apart from the security guy who has committed a crime )
You for authorising it and not supervising the operation? The cabin crew member for not adequately supervising? The station manager for not overseeing the removal in a way that prevented the whole thing going wrong?
The United Captain has been named in a law suit yet it is not clear in the regs who is responsible ( legally) for the safety and well being of the people onboard prior to the doors closing.
If it is ground staff who should be named in the law suit as responsible for overseeing the removal of pax then where is that written?
If it is the Captain then where is that written? We haven't been able to find it in the Tokyo Convention or the regs.
Cheers

For clarification, no United Captain has been named in any suit pertaining to this incident....a REPUBLIC Captain may have.

[Band a Lot]

For clarification, no United Captain has been named in any suit pertaining to this incident....a REPUBLIC Captain may have.



And that may make for muddier responsibility boundaries, or clearer ones.

[Keg]

Keg 224 uses the word flight - that word is defined by the regulator, in this case the aircraft must be moving under own power!!!

Let's be sure we are talking about the same thing. You were responding to Tankengine about the Captain being happy. My point is and remains that unless the Captain is happy the flight will not 'start'. It doesn't matter who you think is responsible for the 'flight' at ther terminal. It doesn't matter if an airline's policies state the airport manager may be responsible for making the decision about passengers under the influence and their fitness to fly. If my crew is not happy about it and i agree with their assessment (meaning I'm not happy) the flight will not start. End of the discussion.

[Tankengine]

Let's be sure we are talking about the same thing. You were responding to Tankengine about the Captain being happy. My point is and remains that unless the Captain is happy the flight will not 'start'. It doesn't matter who you think is responsible for the 'flight' at ther terminal. It doesn't matter if an airline's policies state the airport manager may be responsible for making the decision about passengers under the influence and their fitness to fly. If my crew is not happy about it and i agree with their assessment (meaning I'm not happy) the flight will not start. End of the discussion.

Correct! In this legalistic politically correct world that is one of the few certainties. :)

[Band a Lot]

Let's be sure we are talking about the same thing. You were responding to Tankengine about the Captain being happy. My point is and remains that unless the Captain is happy the flight will not 'start'. It doesn't matter who you think is responsible for the 'flight' at ther terminal. It doesn't matter if an airline's policies state the airport manager may be responsible for making the decision about passengers under the influence and their fitness to fly. If my crew is not happy about it and i agree with their assessment (meaning I'm not happy) the flight will not start. End of the discussion.

Keg, with all due respect. You can not provide that you have the authority (a document) to make that call.

You only have the authority after the "flight" has started.

So there is now a stand off between you and a passengers standing their ground - the flight then gets cancelled. They miss connecting flights and decide to sue.


The judge asks you under what authority captain, did you refuse to carry out the "flight" that led to the cancellation?

You can not claim that you were PIC, because that starts when the aircraft starts moving.

[Tankengine]

Keg, with all due respect. You can not provide that you have the authority (a document) to make that call.

You only have the authority after the "flight" has started.

So there is now a stand off between you and a passengers standing their ground - the flight then gets cancelled. They miss connecting flights and decide to sue.


The judge asks you under what authority captain, did you refuse to carry out the "flight" that led to the cancellation?

You can not claim that you were PIC, because that starts when the aircraft starts moving.

FFS, if not in command then how did the Captain affect anything by refusing the "flight".?
Band a lot, you say you are a LAME. You can stop the flight by not signing the RTS, the Captain can stop the flight by not starting it. Why is that so hard to understand?

[neville_nobody]

You only have the authority after the "flight" has started.



Negative Ghostrider.............


For each flight the operator shall designate one pilot to act as pilot in command.

Penalty: 5 penalty units.

(1A) An offence against subregulation (1) is an offence of strict liability.

Note: For strict liability , see section 6.1 of the Criminal Code .

(2) A pilot in command of an aircraft is responsible for:

(a) the start, continuation, diversion and end of a flight by the aircraft; and

(b) the operation and safety of the aircraft during flight time; and

(c) the safety of persons and cargo carried on the aircraft; and

(d) the conduct and safety of members of the crew on the aircraft.

(2A) A pilot in command must discharge his or her responsibility under paragraph (2)(a) in accordance with:

(a) any information, instructions or directions, relating to the start, continuation, diversion or end of a flight, that are made available, or issued, under the Act or these Regulations; and

(b) if applicable, the operations manual provided by the operator of the aircraft.

(3) The pilot in command shall have final authority as to the disposition of the aircraft while he or she is in command and for the maintenance of discipline by all persons on board.

That's what the CAR says. No idea what the FAR's say but it looks like it will be tested by the disgruntled Dr.

[Troo believer]

4 pages and he is still argueing the point.
Do not confuse "a flight" with " in flight".
From ICAO
Pilot-in-command. The pilot designated by the operator, or in the case of general aviation, the owner, as being in command and charged with the safe conduct of a flight.

2.4 Authority of pilot-in-command of an aircraft
The pilot-in-command of an aircraft shall have final authority as to the disposition of the aircraft while in command.
Band a Lot, Command of the aircraft would be as stated before is at time of pre flight preparations including boarding fuelling loading etc.