Disgusting Jetstar
The one written in black and white in OM12
Last edited by Traffic_Is_Er_Was; 28th Mar 2023 at 17:59.
Having finally viewed the video in its entirety and listened to every witness interview I could find, it leaves me slightly disturbed that so many posters in this debate are totally comfortable with the outcome of this incident and speechless that some even appear gleeful.
As others have stated, we live in a world of grey, seldom black and white including the operation of an aircraft.
Australia always has had a considerable culture of blind compliance and here it is in full display. It turns out, not surprisingly that there is more to the incident than originally thought and some posters should have kept their powder dry.
This passanger was put in a damned if you do/damned if you dont situation by an airline customer service culture that too frequently substitutes practicality and pragmatism with a demand for total compliance regardless of the absurdity of the situation.
As others have stated, we live in a world of grey, seldom black and white including the operation of an aircraft.
Australia always has had a considerable culture of blind compliance and here it is in full display. It turns out, not surprisingly that there is more to the incident than originally thought and some posters should have kept their powder dry.
This passanger was put in a damned if you do/damned if you dont situation by an airline customer service culture that too frequently substitutes practicality and pragmatism with a demand for total compliance regardless of the absurdity of the situation.
But...
Go back a few years to the brouhaha where a male passenger (and more than one...) was moved from his assigned seat because he was sitting next to an unaccompanied minor - presumably the manifest wasn't updated, given it was the CC that ordered the move immediately before pushback, so why would that instance be acceptable - as it's "company policy to order such a move based solely on gender" - yet this one, is not?
To me, this particular instance smacks of the CC trying to emulate Cartman, "You will respect my authoreteh!" - and FWIW, I would challangebthe CC if they tried the similar thing on me, if I was travelling. Yes, my kids could sit next to the KRviatrix with me being 4,5,10 rows away - but in an emergency, particularly having regards to an evacuation, there's no way she could reasonably get herself and the two kids off the aircraft. But so long as I'm in my assigned seat, that's all good, right?
The following users liked this post:
"Every passenger shall sit in his/her assigned seat."
"Passengers shall obey the instruction of the crew."
Simple. CC assign that passenger to that seat and the swapper to theirs. Passengers sitting in assigned seats and following instruction of CC.
"Passengers shall obey the instruction of the crew."
Simple. CC assign that passenger to that seat and the swapper to theirs. Passengers sitting in assigned seats and following instruction of CC.
The following 4 users liked this post by ChrisVJ:
You’re not comprehending what I’ve written, das. Please read this again, twice:
I get it das: You interpret your Ops Manual as holy aviation writ, giving you and your crew ZERO options to exercise ANY judgment or apply ANY wisdom because that would be – prepare to genuflect – a strict liability offence for failure to comply with the Ops Manual. I get it.
But there’s a reason for that old saying about rules being for the guidance of wise people and strict adherence of fools. I get the impression that you don’t understand the reason.
I’ll give you a very simple example, to try again to get the point across. It’s a strict liability offence not to declare a MAYDAY if I realise I’m going to land with less than 30 minutes of final reserve fuel. Am I going to comply that rule when I can see the circuit area of the quiet little country aerodrome in G at which I’m about to land 2 minutes into that fuel? No. You can call the police to taser and arrest me after landing, but I’m not declaring a MAYDAY. (And before the usual suspects launch breathlessly into the ‘but what if’s’ about aircraft blocking the runway or having to go around or whatever, I’ll apply my judgment to those circumstances if they arise. You might be having a conniption about my outrageous flouting of the rules and be itching to get me tasered, but we’re different. That’s my point. The different perspectives are obvious throughout this thread.)
Lookleft: My brother is long and happily retired from a successful career, exercising judgment and applying wisdom to complex problems – including dealing with passenger issues – over decades at the front end of heavy metal. Passengers tasered: Nil.
[What I would do] would depend on the safety implications of the circumstances. If there’s been a swapping of seats by agreement between passengers, there’s no W&B risk and we know that being in the allocated seat for post-accident identification purposes is a furphy. Did old mate make it clear that he wasn’t going to comply with any directions of any crew in any circumstances? Lots of responsible people refuse to do patently stupid things but otherwise comply.
But I get it: With all the strict liability offences in the rules, the hapless minions called crew aren’t allowed to assess the safety implications and de-escalation options. As soon as there was a refusal to comply, it had to be escalated and the only option was to insist on compliance and to call in the police when there was a failure to comply. Otherwise, the hapless minions called crew commit their own strict liability offence for failure to comply with the ops manual. It’s ‘safety’ through imposition of strict liability on everyone for failure to strictly comply with the rules. No room for any application of any wisdom, here.
But I get it: With all the strict liability offences in the rules, the hapless minions called crew aren’t allowed to assess the safety implications and de-escalation options. As soon as there was a refusal to comply, it had to be escalated and the only option was to insist on compliance and to call in the police when there was a failure to comply. Otherwise, the hapless minions called crew commit their own strict liability offence for failure to comply with the ops manual. It’s ‘safety’ through imposition of strict liability on everyone for failure to strictly comply with the rules. No room for any application of any wisdom, here.
But there’s a reason for that old saying about rules being for the guidance of wise people and strict adherence of fools. I get the impression that you don’t understand the reason.
I’ll give you a very simple example, to try again to get the point across. It’s a strict liability offence not to declare a MAYDAY if I realise I’m going to land with less than 30 minutes of final reserve fuel. Am I going to comply that rule when I can see the circuit area of the quiet little country aerodrome in G at which I’m about to land 2 minutes into that fuel? No. You can call the police to taser and arrest me after landing, but I’m not declaring a MAYDAY. (And before the usual suspects launch breathlessly into the ‘but what if’s’ about aircraft blocking the runway or having to go around or whatever, I’ll apply my judgment to those circumstances if they arise. You might be having a conniption about my outrageous flouting of the rules and be itching to get me tasered, but we’re different. That’s my point. The different perspectives are obvious throughout this thread.)
Lookleft: My brother is long and happily retired from a successful career, exercising judgment and applying wisdom to complex problems – including dealing with passenger issues – over decades at the front end of heavy metal. Passengers tasered: Nil.
The following users liked this post:
So the label "cockpit meat puppet" doesn't apply to pilots of a certain vintage? You do realise that this is a forum for professional pilots. If you want to denigrate professional pilots you denigrate them all, even the retired ones.
It appears you’re not paying sufficient attention, either, Lookleft (though in your case it’s usually a consequence of blind prejudice). Had you been paying sufficient attention and not been blinded by prejudice, you’d know and accept that this forum is for whomever chooses to post in it, subject to agreement to the terms of use and other policies.
Some pilots claim to be professionals when their behaviour demonstrates otherwise. I don’t describe pilots who exercise judgment and apply wisdom in their decision-making as cockpit meat puppets. They know who they are – of whatever vintage, retired or otherwise – and I’m confident they’re not feeling denigrated by mere words used by a nobody like me.
You presume to speak for all 'professional pilots'. Big call.
Some pilots claim to be professionals when their behaviour demonstrates otherwise. I don’t describe pilots who exercise judgment and apply wisdom in their decision-making as cockpit meat puppets. They know who they are – of whatever vintage, retired or otherwise – and I’m confident they’re not feeling denigrated by mere words used by a nobody like me.
You presume to speak for all 'professional pilots'. Big call.
There are professional pilots and then there are wannabes. You presume to judge pilots who don't meet your personal standard of who are "cockpit meat puppets" and who are not. I think I have a better idea of the mindset of the professional pilot. I can also tell the mindset of those who think they know what goes on in the cockpit but then try to bluster their way into a discussion with legal weasel words. A big call? I have to make them all the time as a professional pilot.
There is little requiring comprehension there. You've dodged the question now 4 times. "The rules apply to others, not to me" isn't an answer.
For the 5th time, do you believe operating personnel are required to comply with the policy and procedures of their ops manual.
This is a yes/no question. I don't need another waffling paragraph featuring some curated made up scenario in a bid to avoid the question. Just a yes, or a no.
Can you manage even this?
For the 5th time, do you believe operating personnel are required to comply with the policy and procedures of their ops manual.
This is a yes/no question. I don't need another waffling paragraph featuring some curated made up scenario in a bid to avoid the question. Just a yes, or a no.
Can you manage even this?
The following users liked this post:
Meanwhile, as expected, you've dodged my question. I'll ask again.
Do you believe operational personnel are required to comply with the policy and procedures of their ops manual?
Yes or no.
Its like pulling teeth with these people.
The following users liked this post:
There is little requiring comprehension there. You've dodged the question now 4 times.......For the 5th time, do you believe operating personnel are required to .......This is a yes/no question. I don't need another waffling paragraph featuring some curated made up scenario in a bid to avoid the question. Just a yes, or a no...... Can you manage even this?
Originally Posted by Lead Balloon
It appears you’re not paying sufficient attention, either, Lookleft .............blinded by prejudice.........cockpit meat puppets. They know who they are – of whatever vintage, retired or otherwise – ..............You presume to speak for all 'professional pilots'.
Originally Posted by Lead Balloon
It’s a strict liability offence not to declare a MAYDAY......
I'd rather read through another covid vaccines thread than this crap. Where's the flying binghi???
The following users liked this post:
My god, what rot is being posted here. A guy changed seats and became disruptive and was removed and we have this garbage being thrown back and forth, ad nauseum. No wonder we are the butt of jokes in the international aviation scene, no wonder we have so many rules and regulations governing our lives in this nanny state if this is how people in our society really think things should work. You guys do us proud. You do know people from other countries read this forum, right? They come here for a laugh.
There is little requiring comprehension there. You've dodged the question now 4 times. "The rules apply to others, not to me" isn't an answer.
For the 5th time, do you believe operating personnel are required to comply with the policy and procedures of their ops manual.
This is a yes/no question. I don't need another waffling paragraph featuring some curated made up scenario in a bid to avoid the question. Just a yes, or a no.
Can you manage even this?
For the 5th time, do you believe operating personnel are required to comply with the policy and procedures of their ops manual.
This is a yes/no question. I don't need another waffling paragraph featuring some curated made up scenario in a bid to avoid the question. Just a yes, or a no.
Can you manage even this?
I didn't say the rules apply to others, not me. I keep saying that rules are for the guidance of wise people and strict adherence of fools and keep trying to get you to comprehend why.
The scenario I gave was not a 'curated made up scenario'. It was actually the subject of a discussion I had with an ATO (or flight examiner or whatever they're called these days) during my most recent flight review. It is a real life example of a real obligation to which I am subject, on pain of strict criminal liability, with which obligation I choose not to comply because my judgment is that compliance in the scenario discussed will contribute not thing one to anyone's safety. The ATO agreed with me.
I don't "believe" that operating personnel are required to comply with the policy and procedures of their ops manual. I know they have a statutory obligation to comply with their ops manual.
For the 6th time: I get it. Please just get on which strict adherence to the rules. You appear simply incapable of comprehending any scope for the exercise of any judgment or application of any wisdom contrary to a rule.
Arguing with a lawyer is like mud wrestling a pig. After a while, you get the feeling he enjoys it.
If the rules were written by wise men, then even blind, obedient fools would appear wise. Alas, lawyers got involved.
If the rules were written by wise men, then even blind, obedient fools would appear wise. Alas, lawyers got involved.
A bit mean with the selective quoting there Uber...
What he said was...
What he said was...
I don't "believe" that operating personnel are required to comply with the policy and procedures of their ops manual. I know they have a statutory obligation to comply with their ops manual.
The following users liked this post:
I know they have a statutory obligation to comply with their ops manual.
You appear simply incapable of comprehending any scope for the exercise of any judgment or application of any wisdom contrary to a rule.
The following users liked this post:
In fairness to LB I think this was his answer but his vicarious knowledge of operating in the world of airline ops just does not allow for this:
Operating outside the manuals is only available in an emergency and is explicitly stated in the airline manuals. Go outside the manual because you as an individual don't think it its sensible, wise, whatever will only get you shown the door. LB ask your ATO mate what would be the consequence of your scenario if it was a commercial operation. If you didn't declare a MAYDAY fuel even for two minutes into your reserve then CASA and the airline would be after your head before you left the flight deck.
Operating outside the manuals is only available in an emergency and is explicitly stated in the airline manuals. Go outside the manual because you as an individual don't think it its sensible, wise, whatever will only get you shown the door. LB ask your ATO mate what would be the consequence of your scenario if it was a commercial operation. If you didn't declare a MAYDAY fuel even for two minutes into your reserve then CASA and the airline would be after your head before you left the flight deck.
So the safety implications of consuming 2 minutes of final reserve when in a private aircraft in sight of the quiet destination aerodrome in G might be different than for an RPT jet inbound to a busy airport? Crikey. And, in contrast to a MAYDAY from the private aircraft, there could be some response by ATC and others to effectively mitigate the risks of the RPT jet’s fuel state? Struth.
I’ll have to write all that down in my Big Book of Vicariously Gained Knowledge.
As a matter of interest, how many different airlines have you flown for, Lookleft? You das? If for more than one, did all their Ops Manuals impose exactly the same obligations on crew about who deals with passengers who refuse to comply with a direction from CC, and in what way?
I’m wondering whether the Jetstar Ops Manual is written on the basis that when you’re running a cattle class service the passengers deserve to be treated like cattle.