Air NZ pilot refuses to take off
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: negative RAIM.....
Posts: 329
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So why was it inevitably left to the Captain to act? Why wasn't the situation resolved when checking in, at the departure gate prior to boarding, or at least prior to entering the aircraft???
Seems like a whole range of people failed in their job and left it to the common believe that "someone else will say something". If anything I feel sorry for the Captain having to be forced to act as he had to.
As for law suites and hurting the hobbits's precious feet in the event of any mishap, check out The Steller Awards (or try Stella??) in a search engine for a good laugh at actual pathetic law suites that have been successful....
Seems like a whole range of people failed in their job and left it to the common believe that "someone else will say something". If anything I feel sorry for the Captain having to be forced to act as he had to.
As for law suites and hurting the hobbits's precious feet in the event of any mishap, check out The Steller Awards (or try Stella??) in a search engine for a good laugh at actual pathetic law suites that have been successful....
Sprucegoose
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Hughes Point, where life is great! Was also resident on page 13, but now I'm lost in Cyberspace....
Age: 59
Posts: 3,485
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Now I may be a bit past all this, but when I was taught to fly it was continually stressed that when flying, you should be wearing sturdy lace up shoes/boots, a long sleeve shirt and long pants both made of natural fibres.
Nothing to do with a dress code, simply a tiny pice of insurance should the unthinkable happen. Even if this were to aid a little in survival it would be worth it!!
Cheers, HH.
PS: Now I wonder why military, medivac, coastwatch and a whole plethora of organisations wear full length overalls and boots?
Nothing to do with a dress code, simply a tiny pice of insurance should the unthinkable happen. Even if this were to aid a little in survival it would be worth it!!
Cheers, HH.
PS: Now I wonder why military, medivac, coastwatch and a whole plethora of organisations wear full length overalls and boots?
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: NZ
Posts: 81
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Suitable clothing was an issue with the Wright Flyer as it was most likely to crash. Modern jet aircraft have reliability and safety records that make this requirement silly.
You mention hygiene - is it their feet or the aircraft that stink.
Looking at this issue from a wider perspective - it is nothing but ridiculous.
Plenty of people have been in support of the pilot. If the story was reversed - pilot takes off with passengers with no shoes to avoid delay - they would still be in support of him (those Air NZ guys can do no wrong).
If I had been a passenger on that flight I would have called the pilot a tosser!
You mention hygiene - is it their feet or the aircraft that stink.
Looking at this issue from a wider perspective - it is nothing but ridiculous.
Plenty of people have been in support of the pilot. If the story was reversed - pilot takes off with passengers with no shoes to avoid delay - they would still be in support of him (those Air NZ guys can do no wrong).
If I had been a passenger on that flight I would have called the pilot a tosser!
Evertonian
I was involved in a similar incident some years back. There were some pax travelling to AKL (strangely enough) on CO & all they had on their feet was thongs. CO Duty Manager at the counter refused to uplift them until they went & got shoes. I think we learned that there was an International standard on this, but I can't be certain. It basically meant we were checking all pax from then on.
On a similar note to the poor little toddlers chances of injury, a teenager over here has been awarded a little over AUD5 million in damages because he became a paraplegic after jumping into a river. He sued the local council for negligence. Therefore, no company or employee can ever be too cautious because there are ambulance chasers out there just dying to meet you!
On a similar note to the poor little toddlers chances of injury, a teenager over here has been awarded a little over AUD5 million in damages because he became a paraplegic after jumping into a river. He sued the local council for negligence. Therefore, no company or employee can ever be too cautious because there are ambulance chasers out there just dying to meet you!
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Townsville,Nth Queensland
Posts: 2,717
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
NZPA
Airline backs pilot over shoes
02 September 2004
By ANNA CLARIDGE and NZPA
Air New Zealand is standing by a pilot who refused to take off because two children on the flight did not have shoes on.
The flight, from Christchurch to Wellington on Monday afternoon, was delayed 45 minutes while cabin staff fumbled through luggage to find the children's shoes. More than 100 passengers were left fuming, some complaining to cabin staff about the delay.
The airline apologised yesterday but defended the pilot's decision saying children who flew without shoes risked possible injury.
The children were believed to be aged about two and four.
The captain eventually agreed to take off when the children put on the socks they had with them.
Passenger Terry Bach was furious at the delay, which meant he arrived late for a lecture at Tawa College that evening.
"There were a number of people who were incensed and went up and talked to cabin staff, I was sitting right behind the poor family ... it's very annoying when you're told the delay is for finding shoes."
Other airlines also have strict dress standards based on safety, with Qantas policy insisting all children over two years wear shoes in an aircraft.
Air New Zealand spokesman Glen Sowry said yesterday he was not aware of any complaints over the incident. Ultimately, the pilot was responsible for safety, he said.
"On this occasion, he made sure shoes would be worn."
========================================
Airline backs pilot over shoes
02 September 2004
By ANNA CLARIDGE and NZPA
Air New Zealand is standing by a pilot who refused to take off because two children on the flight did not have shoes on.
The flight, from Christchurch to Wellington on Monday afternoon, was delayed 45 minutes while cabin staff fumbled through luggage to find the children's shoes. More than 100 passengers were left fuming, some complaining to cabin staff about the delay.
The airline apologised yesterday but defended the pilot's decision saying children who flew without shoes risked possible injury.
The children were believed to be aged about two and four.
The captain eventually agreed to take off when the children put on the socks they had with them.
Passenger Terry Bach was furious at the delay, which meant he arrived late for a lecture at Tawa College that evening.
"There were a number of people who were incensed and went up and talked to cabin staff, I was sitting right behind the poor family ... it's very annoying when you're told the delay is for finding shoes."
Other airlines also have strict dress standards based on safety, with Qantas policy insisting all children over two years wear shoes in an aircraft.
Air New Zealand spokesman Glen Sowry said yesterday he was not aware of any complaints over the incident. Ultimately, the pilot was responsible for safety, he said.
"On this occasion, he made sure shoes would be worn."
========================================
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: negative RAIM.....
Posts: 329
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think the point, or mine anyway, with all this is the pathetic "ambulance chasing," and "blame someone else for my idiocracy" world that we live in.
The captain did the right thing, not because pilots want to support pilots on any issue..... In this case he was damned if he did and damned if he didn't. That is; company policy dictates one thing yet common sense dictates another. Does anyone honestly believe that the Captain wanted to delay the flight and getting home to his / her family, etc?
At the end of the day, go by the SOPs and your backside is safe (most of the time...!!).
The captain did the right thing, not because pilots want to support pilots on any issue..... In this case he was damned if he did and damned if he didn't. That is; company policy dictates one thing yet common sense dictates another. Does anyone honestly believe that the Captain wanted to delay the flight and getting home to his / her family, etc?
At the end of the day, go by the SOPs and your backside is safe (most of the time...!!).
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 590
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Forgive me if I'm wrong but isnt the Pilot in Command responsible for exercising Operational Control of their flight?
By definition this is "Control over the initiation, continuation, diversion or termination of a flight".
The Captain IMHO acted quite responsibly and correctly in ensuring these passengers had an acceptable form of footwear.
And yes, if the kids did stub a toe or cut themselves, burn themselves in an emergency or any other one-in-a-million possibilities, guess who would be running to the courts with their lawyers in tow?
Not to mention the afforementioned Occupational Health problems involved in going barefoot.
Seems to be an international problem and should be addressed by ICAO as a ticketing condition that appropriate footwear be adorned.
By definition this is "Control over the initiation, continuation, diversion or termination of a flight".
The Captain IMHO acted quite responsibly and correctly in ensuring these passengers had an acceptable form of footwear.
And yes, if the kids did stub a toe or cut themselves, burn themselves in an emergency or any other one-in-a-million possibilities, guess who would be running to the courts with their lawyers in tow?
Not to mention the afforementioned Occupational Health problems involved in going barefoot.
Seems to be an international problem and should be addressed by ICAO as a ticketing condition that appropriate footwear be adorned.
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Where the beer is cold and the weather is colder.
Posts: 268
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
We get alot of tree-huggers and um's show up expecting to travel barefoot, they all get told to put shoe's on and in the past have been offloaded if they refuse. Airline have a right to set minimum standards for both safety and customer service if the pax dont like it take the bus. Who travel's without shoes anyway??
So the Aussies are dropping sheep jokes in favour of hobbit jokes eh? From the country that bought us: Rolph Harris, Steve Urwin (not to forget his little dog souy.), Yahoo serious, hats with corks attatched, XXXX, fosters and those ugly ass Airvan's. I would'nt be attracting attention to myself chaps?
So the Aussies are dropping sheep jokes in favour of hobbit jokes eh? From the country that bought us: Rolph Harris, Steve Urwin (not to forget his little dog souy.), Yahoo serious, hats with corks attatched, XXXX, fosters and those ugly ass Airvan's. I would'nt be attracting attention to myself chaps?
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: The nearest white sandy beach
Posts: 285
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's not just about safety in case of an emergency.. what about safety IN the cabin?
If that child would have injured itself in the cabin, on the aerobridge or tarmac the parents would have been suing Air New Zealand faster than you could say "Where's my lawyer?".
It's called Duty of Care.
SG
If that child would have injured itself in the cabin, on the aerobridge or tarmac the parents would have been suing Air New Zealand faster than you could say "Where's my lawyer?".
It's called Duty of Care.
SG
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: NZ
Posts: 81
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
When you talk toddler safety and airliners you need to look at the loop belt issue. If the plane crashed most of them would be dead like in the Sioux City DC-10. There is not much room when the adult torso flies forward on impact.
A least they would have their shoes on!
A least they would have their shoes on!
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Europe
Posts: 655
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Come on guys, do you have to be barefoot to sue Air New Zealand? Or any one else? Having said that, how many barefoot kids are on board after takeoff? How are SHOES defined in the NZ air regulations (Jandals, sandals, flip-flops, thongs (even if I thought that was a thong up my missus's butt) slops, beachwear)? Or any others? Is a sock a shoe and if not, should the captain be in court for taking off with two passengers without shoes that he was well aware of? Because, clearly he did! In my opinion, it's a storm in a teacup. And it's the captain who made the tea in the first place. 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: HEAVEN
Posts: 114
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I know of an occassion when a Qantas pilot refused to take his shoes off when doing training drill in school mock-up. He went down the slide with nylon soled shoes on, when he slid down the slide the friction had melted his soles, when he struck the bump at the bottom his shoes stuck and he flipped over and broke both his ankles. That is why pax are asked to remove there shoes before evacuating, ask the girls how hot it can get with nylon undies on.
Evertonian
ask the girls how hot it can get with nylon undies on
I don't think the idea of sueing is an issue here.
If a K1W1 can clarify for me that would be good.....
In uNZid they have some sort of accident compensation scheme whereby if you get injured through someone elses fault, the tax payer will pay up after a review of what is entitled to you.
Therefore you can't sue.
Is this correct?
Still think it's funny that uNZed only ever makes the UK news over things like this!
halas
If a K1W1 can clarify for me that would be good.....
In uNZid they have some sort of accident compensation scheme whereby if you get injured through someone elses fault, the tax payer will pay up after a review of what is entitled to you.
Therefore you can't sue.
Is this correct?
Still think it's funny that uNZed only ever makes the UK news over things like this!
halas
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Canberra, ACT, Australia
Posts: 12
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This is just insanity! I have no problem with airlines requiring customers to wear shoes BUT it should be enforced at the check-in or at worst the gate. Delaying a flight (no doubt costing thousands of dollars as well as resulting in a lot of upset customers) is just stupid.
To claim there is a safety issue in case of evacuation in this case is also ridiculous. A 2 and 4 year old are not going to be evacuating themselves - they will be carried off the plane (I have a 7yo and I can assure you I would carry her out of a plane if there was an evacuation).
As for safety in the cabin - what exactly is the problem? A lot of adults take their shoes off during flight (on long-haul anyway) and I can't think of anything dangerous that would hurt their feet. Getting on and off is a bit different but THEY HAD ALREADY DONE THIS! Again it should be enforced at check-in, not on the plane.
To claim there is a safety issue in case of evacuation in this case is also ridiculous. A 2 and 4 year old are not going to be evacuating themselves - they will be carried off the plane (I have a 7yo and I can assure you I would carry her out of a plane if there was an evacuation).
As for safety in the cabin - what exactly is the problem? A lot of adults take their shoes off during flight (on long-haul anyway) and I can't think of anything dangerous that would hurt their feet. Getting on and off is a bit different but THEY HAD ALREADY DONE THIS! Again it should be enforced at check-in, not on the plane.