Crew travel priority over paying pax?
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.
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?
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?
Last edited by AerialPerspective; 20th Apr 2017 at 10:21. Reason: punct.
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.
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.
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Dog House
Age: 49
Posts: 779
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Dog House
Age: 49
Posts: 779
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Dog House
Age: 49
Posts: 779
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
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.
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.
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Dog House
Age: 49
Posts: 779
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
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
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
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Dog House
Age: 49
Posts: 779
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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!
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, 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.
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.
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Dog House
Age: 49
Posts: 779
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Dog House
Age: 49
Posts: 779
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
[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]
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]
So, we were/are left with a grey area as to WHO is responsible in this scenario
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Dog House
Age: 49
Posts: 779
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Nemo Me Impune Lacessit
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Derbyshire, England.
Posts: 4,091
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.