First I’ve seen reference to this. Was the first flight delayed/ cancelled?

That idea worked in years past, the reality at many airlines now is that (cabin) crew are trained to a minimum standard and any discretion they once had has gone.
They must follow the script... or else!

Besides this moron passenger got tasered by the cops. We've all been out of line in arguments before, but never neen tasered. What does that say about the guy.

The policy might have been unnecessary, but not as unnecessary as this guys actions obviously were.

For every badly-behaved or in your words "disgusting" customer needing to read that sign is a badly-behaved, boorish, ill-mannered, entitled customer-service person who brings bad behaviour upon him or herself by providing such a ****ty, sub-par and frustrating experience to the paying customer that sanity is pushed to the limit. In the dining industry Aussies are renowned for providing grudging service as if they are above having to bow to anyone else, even someone paying the salary.

When I see those "respect our staff" signs my first thought is generally about how bad the service must be to enrage the customers frequently enough to warrant such a defence. Those signs are little more than a cop-out for the standard of their service or product which is the fault of anyone but the customer. Jetstar and Qantas are regularly in the news for the crimes against humanity to which their paying passengers are routinely subjected and I notice the PAs now include a parental-style urging to respect the staff.

One day someone should do a study on the weird, symbiotic yet antagonistic relationship between punter and sandwiche-chucker. For a few hours at a time, they need each other yet often detest each other. One is fed by the other and vice versa and yet the antipathy displayed toward each other, particularly to the pax by the hostie, is bizarre.

At least he got his energy re-charged at no extra cost.

What is it you're trying to say here, Jack? Spit it out.

(My bold and italics.)

The father of this young child only had the best intentions for his child.

Safety and their well being should be the crew’s first priority, or so they remind us.

Imagine RTO with evacuation, or depressurising need oxygen,

the child is alone and in need of assistance, he did not see the preflight briefing from his low eye level seat,
and can not understand the takeoff briefing card.

It is the crew’s responsibility to ensure children are safe and not left alone. Not separate them.

Children are your future customers, treat them as very important customers, good airlines provide colour pencils and books etc.

The child was with its mother.

It 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.

(One of the fascinating aspects of the tasering of old mate is that the obligation of a passenger to comply with safety directions (CASR 91.575) is confined to directions given “during the flight”. Similarly, the obligation of a passenger to comply with safety instructions (CASR 91.580) is confined to instructions given “during a flight”. There is a definition of “flight” in the Civil Aviation Act. Can anyone point me to the bit of CASR that says that the word “flight” in CASRs 91.575 and 91.580 has a different meaning to the definition of “flight” in the Civil Aviation Act?

Had the aircraft started moving under its own power before the CC directed old mate to return to his allocated seat? It may turn very untidy for the airline and AFP if old mate was never subject to a lawful direction to return to his allocated seat. And a bit embarrassing for those who keep saying that old mate committed a strict liability offence as soon as he failed to do what he was told by CC...)

Amazing how you use an acceptable term for the customer and yet a derogatory wording for the CC, there be a problem. Society in general has a problem, respect is missing, I can honestly say I've never had a problem as a customer with anyone, treat the other with respect and it will be returned in spades. Jetstar went tech in Brisbane and the chap at the desk was providing exemplary service in arranging overnight accommodation, dinner, transport etc, chap in front of me was a FIFO worker and started with the demands on the basis of "we provide so much business to the company", very belligerent and got short shift from the Jetstar chap who told him in no uncertain manner that if he didn't belt up he wouldn't be getting any service at all.

Flew into Brisbane one morning on a Thai international which went tech (why always Brisbane) and so didn't get to the ultimate Tulla destination. Desk staff were inundated with a full 777 load to organise onward travel and handing out vouchers for the terminal restaurant when a six foot something twenty stone of so barged to the front of the line with a list of demands, got up from my seat and tried to calm him down, brother and I then headed for the restaurant, walking down the finger this chap was right behind us saying "come outside and lets sort this out" then kicked me in the ankle trying to trip me up. Sitting in the restaurant two police walked in, came to our table wanting details as to what had occurred, told the story and asked if we wanted to press charges for assault, explained that folk do get upset in such circumstances and sort of understandable, but on reflection should have had him charged as I later thought I bet he uses his intimidating bulk to always get what he wants. What I didn't know until later was at the time we walking down the finger the chap and we were being followed by a prison governor and some of his guards who were part of our travel group, so if he wanted to kick off he was in trouble. It was they who alerted the police. Travel to Tulla was finally arranged on a QF 767 via Sydney, staff ensured the bully was the very last to board and had to endure the jeering, hooting and clapping of all on board as he made the trek from the front entry door to the very last row at the back.

Drove a young pilot to catch a flight to Adelaide from Tulla enroute to their first flying job, bags of belongings which were assigned as freight, when checking the freight in got talking with the lad behind the desk as to what it was all for and he cut the charges in half, can't remember the airline as its some decades ago. Treat folk with respect and it gets returned with interest.

Only a sleazebag ambulance chasing lawyer reading this would seriously put forth such an argument. Sadly, the state of our judiciary is so soft, that some judge with no regards for setting dangerous precedent could well accept it.
In my day it was simple. The Captain was in command from the moment he boarded the aircraft until he handed it over at the end of the duty. It followed that Cabin Crew held certain authority because they were delegated by the Captain.
Whatever happened to CDF?

Ground agent must have authority over seating before door closed . Cabin crew are making assessments of individuals while boarding and if one found not fit to fly or occupy emergency seating then has obligation to resit them , offload or call in the taser team ?

I have never heard of a passenger who has been turfed off an aeroplane for not following instructions, successfully suing the airline over the definition of flight.

My apologies for the imbalance but I couldn't think of an adjective sufficiently derogatory to describe your stereotypical Jetstar pax and yet not a such a generalisation as to possibly be confused with certain elements of wider society.

As for the crew, most of them can see the humorous side and accept sandwiche-chucker, biscuit-flinger, trolley-dolly, wagon-dragon, etc etc as terms of endearment.

It sounds like you are a master of Zen or close to it. I salute you.

It's nice when this works however I'm not sure I'd go so far as to imply this is an unshakeable principle of contemporary social interaction.

Classic.

Maybe we'll see a new legal precedent set as a result of this; it could be very interesting. Let's hope the punter includes pprune in his search for legal advice. And why not? Many pilots get their financial advice here.

Jeez mach, you’re doing a bit of messenger execution there. I merely quoted what a couple of the rules say and pondered the consequences of them meaning what they say if they were what the CC were relying on as the source of their authority. I didn’t write those rules.

Even ‘in your day’ there was – and remains to this day - the quaint concept that subjecting a person to physically injurious contact – like tasering them – then manhandling them and depriving them of liberty were crimes, unless conducted with lawful authority and reasonable force. Even the toughest of tough judges won’t accept “CDF” as the lawful authority excusing what would otherwise be crimes. (Though I do note that, back in the ‘good ol days’ of police engaging in the sport of ‘poofter bashing’, the poofters were asking for it. It was CDF, wasn’t it.)

I don’t know the basis upon which the police decided they had authority to do what they did to old mate. For all I know, the crew decided that he was no longer permitted to be on board and was therefore trespassing as soon as he was informed of that then failed to leave the aircraft when asked to do so. Arresting someone for trespass is not the same as arresting them for failing to comply with safety directions or safety instructions under the CASRs I quoted. And I don’t know the specifics of the ‘turfings off’ to which Lookleft referred.

All I can say is that if the only basis upon which the police intervened was old mate’s failure to comply with a safety direction under CASR 91.575 or a safety instruction under CASR 91.580, the durr-obvious starting point for anyone defending him will be to 'read' those provisions. And when those provisions are read, there is a durr-obvious limitation as to when a direction or instruction binding under the provisions may be given. As I say: I didn’t write them. And I did ask whether I’d missed anything obvious.

For the last few decades at least, it certainly was an offence of strict liability, so you can stow the attitude. Yes, a whole 15 or so months ago that was repealed and moved with what appears to be a distinction for 'flight', so if you want to argue in court that you're under no obligation to follow CC instructions during the pushback, by all means undo the seatbelt, hop up and run around. I'm sure only success awaits.

What shouldn't be in debate is whether or not the CC are able to invent their own rules in contravention with their ops manual. No. Oddly enough, you seem to recognise this fact, so the actual point of your post is lost on me, beyond an 'aaakkcctthhhuaallly' moment that is of course, Pure Professional Pilot.

Except it wouldn't. I asked you in the previous post, is it your position that operating personal are not required to comply with policy and procedures laid out in their operations manual? You dodged the question so I put it to you again. Because if no, then the entire argument is moot. CC did what they were required to do, the end. It seems more like you have an issue with strict liability, which will incur no objection from me. But it has nothing to do with JQ.

And there we have it.

You asked what I would do, I answered that what I would do would depend on the safety implications of the circumstances, and you simply assert that it wouldn't. I even explained that I understand why you drones consider you have no choice but to comply with the ops manual rather than apply any of your own wisdom. I said I get it.

Every day I give thanks to all the deities that I'm not a cockpit meat puppet. I pity you, das.

​​​​​​​I'm sure your brother would appreciate that description of his profession.

To all of you who blamed the passenger for not selecting seats properly - KAPAC has it right. He was going to be with his family until Jetstar switched aircraft.

Were they? What requirement would that be? That passengers must sit in their assigned seats? I haven't seen JQ doing ID to seat checks of every passenger prior to pushback to ensure they are compliant with their Ops Manual. Why was this individual singled out if no one else was checked that they were sitting in their assigned seat....you know,....as per the requirement apparently stipulated in their operations manual? You know, the one that the now defunct CAR ordered them to comply with? You know, the one with the strict liability?

I've already addressed the CAR. Provisions still exist, just moved. Still strict liability.

The one written in black and white in OM12?

That's the one. You've even had another pilot from a different operator confirm that this requirement exists in their operation also. Its hardly unusual or unique.

When the headcount fails, out comes the manifest and you better believe they go through each passenger on a name basis to ensure they are where they're supposed to be.

All of this is utterly irrelevant. To revisit, you claimed the CC acted incorrectly. So, I'll ask you the same question that Lead Balloon has now dodged 3 times.

Do you believe operational personnel are required to comply with the policy and procedures of their ops manual? We can wrap this whole thing up right now with an answer to that question. I'm all ears.

Moving on;


These two statements are contradictory. Statement 1 you declare that you'd potentially act in contravention to your ops manual. Statement 2 you say you 'understand' why us 'drones' (lovely) have no choice.

So you haven't answered my question at all. Either you believe operational personnel are required to comply with the ops manual (which would include you, thus precluding you from making your own decision), or you don't, which creates a whole other interesting conversation. For the 3rd time, which is it?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lead Balloon

Every day I give thanks to all the deities that I'm not a cockpit meat puppet. I pity you, das.

---

You must be fun at parties.

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.