DAS DRONE -
Part 1-
I presume the doors were open.
As stated he had bought a ticket to sit with is his family.
Aircraft Changed.
He agreeably swapped with another pax to be seated next to his family,
There was never a c of g issue.
The CC should have let him be- there was no safety issue.
The CC should have first brought the issue to the ground staff.
I assume the CC brought the issue she felt to the Captain. (Well she should have). The captain should have allowed him to stay.
They should have pushed back on time an all happy.

Part 2
The Police Thugs-
I am pretty sure that they will get their arses handed to them on a plate in court. Use of TASER in the absence of a physical threat to them, as annunciated by the witnesses, is a crime.

Like Lead Balloon states - SOPS are not black and white. Never have been. Only fools and drones follow them at all times to the the letter.

Enlighten me with what OM12 says? I'm as blissfully ignorant of its content as I'm sure the passengers are.

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.

So, my question is you say the operators OM's require passengers to stay in their assigned seats until after takeoff. Now I've no inherent problem with that concept if it's not a one-for-one swap, but if it is one-for-one and mutually agreed, then personally believe it should have been ignored in this event and all others, for the reasons others have put forward. If CC want to make an issue of it, why do they not cross-check seat assignment vs photo ID for every flight? Short answer is, (you know, and I know) they don't and 99.95% of the time, they couldn't care less anyway unless someone's gone to an unoccupied seat with the potential W&B issues that could result, slim as that chance may be.

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?

"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.

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.

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.

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?

Asked and answered.

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.

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.

I'd rather read through another covid vaccines thread than this crap. Where's the flying binghi???

Take it up with the legislators? What people need to get their head around is that those at the coal face have little choice but to comply with their manuals.

There is much requiring comprehension, das.

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.

I would much prefer to read his garbage than that which is being posted here.

#freetheflyingbinghi

Halleluiah, we finally have a straight answer. And what an answer it is.

I think we're done here.

A bit mean with the selective quoting there Uber...

What he said was...

Not at all, and indeed if you take the full quote, I believe that makes it even worse. He knows he's required to follow the rules and still believes he's not bound by them.

Good luck with that.

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.