Crew travel priority over paying pax?
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.
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.
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.
ATSR 2005 (Cwth)
- (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.
- (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.
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?
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.
About time I spent more time in the FCOM.
Pprune should stand for Professional Passenger Rumour Network.
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?
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?
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Dog House
Age: 49
Posts: 779
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
[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.
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.
Gender Faculty Specialist
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.
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.
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Dog House
Age: 49
Posts: 779
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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?
Gender Faculty Specialist
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?
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?
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.
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.
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Dog House
Age: 49
Posts: 779
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Gender Faculty Specialist
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?
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Dog House
Age: 49
Posts: 779
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
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?
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?
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.
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.
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???
Last edited by AerialPerspective; 15th Apr 2017 at 12:17. Reason: sp