Crew travel priority over paying pax?
The ground staff will sign their section of the load sheet,
they will sign the technical log confirming the aircraft is fit to fly and it is then countersigned by the captain.
There really are no ifs or buts about this with airlines of any size
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
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Dog House
Age: 49
Posts: 779
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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".
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".
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: not Bungendore
Posts: 42
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Dog House
Age: 49
Posts: 779
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
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
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
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Dog House
Age: 49
Posts: 779
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
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.
Legal responsibility has a knack of making people diligent.
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Dog House
Age: 49
Posts: 779
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Sydney
Age: 60
Posts: 1,542
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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?!
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?!
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Dog House
Age: 49
Posts: 779
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Dog House
Age: 49
Posts: 779
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
NO!
So you now say the aircraft will not fly!
Yep smart comment.
Nunc est bibendum
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.
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.
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).
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Dog House
Age: 49
Posts: 779
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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!!!
Keg 224 uses the word flight - that word is defined by the regulator, in this case the aircraft must be moving under own power!!!
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?
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Sydney
Age: 60
Posts: 1,542
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.