Hopefully CASA and the airline would taser and arrest you first. After all, you would have deliberately flouted the rules like old mate.

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.

You know what I found out today, that it's actually law that you can only have a certain number of cattle per acre. How cool is that? One less thing that a farmer needs to make a decision about in their busy day. I'll bet pilots wish they had more rules like this.

I don't care if other countries laugh at us, at least we have governments that care enough about us to free us from personal responsibility and decision making.

I will leave comment to the above quote to others who are far more erudite and intelligent than I.

Tossbag; Please confirm that the above quoted comment was made very much 'tongue in cheek.'

Honestly if you gave me the choice of sitting through a whole Jetstar flight or being tasered, ****ing myself and being dragged off by the AFP I'm not sure which I'd pick.

Since it doesn't seem that you can answer a straight question, I'll get yours out of the way. Yes I do. It's a pretty standard workplace requirement. My workplace has policies and procedures I am bound by as well.
Now, what is the wording in the ops manual, this mysterious OM12, that the JQ CC was following to the letter that resulted in this situation? How else can we establish if the operational personnel were in fact complying with the policy and procedures of their ops manual.

best post on the entire site 😂

cLeArIcE, a very astute observation. I would like to buy you a beer. Brilliant.

Take them to court
 

Yep, Australia 2023 - I live there...Crew and Police and trained robots, no initiative, no brain, no empathy, total lack of problem solving skills - do it by the book and paragraph. Try talking to jetstar customer service - I'll take my chance with a google AI once it replaces them all.
I hope that this guy takes them to court, the passengers provide sufficient evidence and he gets a couple of millions. Its the only way to change things - hit them where it hurts.

Don't worry "that guy" will get his day in court but there won't be any compensation. This is not just a Jetstar problem and if you want to be outraged at the way disruptive passengers are treated then put those words into a search engine. You might want to look at ICAO's take on the problem, for a problem it is. https://www.icao.int/Meetings/LegalS...Passengers.pdf

LB you really are clueless when it comes to jet RPT operations:

I can just imagine Captain LB blithely disregarding his F/O's concern about landing with the FR not being intact and not declaring MAYDAY fuel. I can also well imagine Captain LB trying to bluster his way through the subsequent Flight Ops and CASA interview explaining why the F/O's use of the Emergency Statement was way over the top as Captain LB knew the aircraft and all its occupants were perfectly safe with 28 minutes of FR in the fuel tank.

I wouldn't do that in those circumstances. That's the point. If you don't get that point - rather than being deliberately obtuse - I genuinely fear for your passengers.

they won’t have any money left after they lose in the high court.

So, that's what happened to old mate. Can we expect him to change???? :)

You are the lawyer, you get paid more by not getting to the point. No need to worry about my passengers, its yours I fear for with your "I know planes" attitude. More than happy to have one less belligerent passenger who thinks they know better than the crew to not travel on my aircraft.

I ask you and das a second time:I also note that TIER’s question to das remains unanswered:

Blind obedience to irrational rules enforced by a poorly trained 21 year old backed up by the threat of physical violence?

Orwell will be spinning in his grave.

When does a Captain's Authority start
 

My understanding garnered from a few years ago (actually longer than I wish to admit to) was that the 'Authority' of the Captain was only established when the doors were closed.
While the aircraft was at the airbridge, or connected in another way to ground support, then the jurisdiction was still vested in the local plod (or airport authority).
Somewhere in my archaic filing system, I have the precedent authority - originally derived from the Hague Convention.

Now a boarding pass would constitute an 'instruction' but that is issued well before a captain or crew member takes 'command'.

So it begs the question - when does an 'instruction' given by the CC or TC become a 'lawful command'. Same sits with Maritime Law from whence our Aviation Law was derived.

That’s the question I highlighted earlier, but of course was executed for pointing out the fact that there is a constraint on when a binding safety direction under CASR 91.575 or safety instruction under CASR 91.580 may be given. My underlining added:

Quote:

---

91.575

---

The CA Act defines “flight” to mean, in the case of a heavier-than-air aircraft:The following CASR appears not to be constrained to the duration of a flight and instead to any person on an aircraft at any time. But note that an element of the offence is that, as a result of the person’s behaviour, “the safety of the aircraft or persons on the aircraft is endangered”. Doing a seat swap so a bloke can sit next to his wife and child? Yeah nah.I may be missing something.

ISTR something similar from my reading of the Air Law textbooks a while back... Insofar as the CASR's, there is this...NFI if it is still current with the MOS' and Part 135's and 121's and, and, and Part godknowswhat these days though.
There's a few definitions listed, but the main one, "Flight" only refers to

Yes, and CASR 91.220 gives the operator and PIC, but not CC, powers that apply before and after the "flight" as defined in the CA Act:Was making old mate 'unswap' necessary for the safety of the aircraft, a person on the aircraft or a person or property on the ground or water?

Pinkbits, I can 185% confirm that it was a pisstake. I also 185% despair (I don't really, I don't give a ****) at the mindless dickheads that inhabit this earth. Look at covid and how easy it is to manipulate scared, gutless, weak human beings.

Nowhere in JQ's conditions of carriage (currently dated April 2022 on their website) does it state that a passenger must sit in their assigned seat. The words assign, assigned, or assignment aren't even in it in relation to anything. Seat Allocation is a section heading only followed by fluff.
JQ don't define "Boarding Pass" in their Conditions of Carriage. QF do though and it's the document (in paper or electronic form) that is issued to you as evidence that you have checked-in for a flight. Hardly an instruction. QF also don't mandate sitting in assigned seat which is why JQ's lack of same is understandable. VA do not mandate it either. In fact, almost all references to seat or seating are there for the airlines benefit as to why they don't have to take any notice of any preferences or whether you've paid for a particular seat class or whatever.

I looked up some random airlines. Most had nothing, but I found this in United's Contract of Carriage:
UA also prohibits Passengers from selling their seat assignments at any time and/or exchanging them at the time of boarding without first advising a member of the crew. You could argue this doesn't mean you have to get their permission or approval, you just have to let them know, You'll probably end up riding the lightning arguing the semantics of that though.

While JQ may have an expectation that a passenger will sit in their assigned/allocated whatever seat, they haven't stipulated it as a requirement of carriage to do so.

Take away is cabin crew only need to believe a passenger is a threat to safety by not following any instruction given , legal , fair or sensible need not apply ? De escalation is no longer a skill , it’s about authority and control with what’s usually considered an extreme option or last resort of calling in the tasers . Does it apply if they ask me to switch from my assigned seat to help them out which happens regularly as a StaffTraveler ? I consider myself educated for my next flight in Australia .

The taser has zero to do with the cabin crew.

Old mate brought that on himself with his behavior towards the AFP officers,

Sensible people generally comply with the instructions of armed police.

I haven’t seen anything in this thread about the details of any direction by the PIC to old mate in accordance with CASR 91.220. I’ve seen various assertions and theories about the CC’s authority, whatever they say and whenever they say it, despite the actual terms of CASR 91.580:
Here’s a particularly interesting assertion: Consistent with that assertion was this one: I can’t find “delegate” or “on behalf of the PIC” anywhere in Part 91.

This is another particularly interesting one: This one is, frankly, scary:As is this one:Who knew that Jetstar is actually a branch of the military.

No, sheep do.

Do you think the CC called the AFP in order to employ their negotiating skills or do you think its understood that such a move would guarantee physical conflict?

This is a downright scary comment to make.



Jetsar have just turned an aeroplane into a gulag and so many people are comfortable with that.

Everyone is responsible for risk assessments in the workplace.

Check list & SOP, Deviation is well documented.

Ignorance on the crew awareness of the child’s father genuine safety concern especially escalating the situation

https://employsure.com.au/blog/what-...sk-assessment/



Risk assessment for successful outcomes reference the childs ‘ safety for an occurrence of

RTO pax evacuation,

rapid depression, smoke in cabin. Etc.

A.Seated with mother only.

B.Seated with father only.

C.

Seated with mother and father.

Family together has symbiosis.

The father had his child’s best interest and safety in mind

THE CABIN CREW SHOULD ASSIST WITH SUPERVISION OF CHILDREN,

NOT THE OPPOSITE.

It is the crew responsibility to ensure children are safe and Not separate them.Children are your future customers, treat them as very important customers, good airlines provide colour pencils and books etc.

A thousand apologies, finger trouble, my bad.

You purposely miss the point.

As already stated, sensible people follow police instructions knowing a legal remedy is available if they are wrong.

LB

CASR 91.220 (b) and (c) are the critical bits of regulation which give the right of the PIC in this instance.
Was the instruction lawful? There is an implied delegation to the CC under 91.220(1) which stipulates the 'operator' being the airline as I read the regulation. Now a curly one, - and it is not mentioned - is there an automatic delegation to any crew member for duties within their responsibility? Or is it up to the PIC only to make the request for assistance?
Also, is a CC member who works for a Labour Hire company, an employee of the Airline. No they are not (applying the precedent in the mining industry and the recent High Court deliberations re contractor v employee arrangements that has the ATO in conniptions) but the operator does owe them a duty of care as if they were an employee.
But the critical issue turns on whether the command to sit in the assigned seat was a requirement - it clearly was not necessary for the 'safe' operation of the flight - which then must be translated if the command was necessary.
I know what my judgement would be if it came up on my list for mention.

No, the taser has EVERYTHING to do with the cabin crew.

Had she been a critical thinking, reasonable well trained provider of customer service she would not have abrogated her responsibility by simply palming it off to the big man with weapons.

Thank god most people dont go about their daily lives simply calling for an assault team backup everytime life gets a little difficult.

Yes (although it is a power/authority rather than ‘right’).

What instruction? Did the PIC or operator give old mate an instruction? There is no contravention of CASR 91.220(3) by old mate unless he was given a direction by the PIC or operator.

Interestingly, though, the PIC and operator have power/authority to remove - with such assistance and by the use of such force as is reasonable and necessary - a person before the flight begins, even if the person has not contravened CASR 91.220(3). So on the face of CASR.220, old mate does not have to been directed by anyone to do anything and the PIC and operator still have power/authority to remove him – with assistance and by the use of reasonable force if necessary - provided the operator or PIC believes it is necessary for the safety of the aircraft, a person on the aircraft, or a person or property on the ground or water.

Where does this delegation stuff come from? Under CASR, the PIC is the PIC, the operator is the operator and CC are neither (unless one of the CC happens to be the holder of the AOC authorising the flight in question). There is a separate provision authorising/empowering CC to give safety instructions to passengers: CASR 92.580, but only “during a flight”.

There’s that delegation word again. CASR 91.220 seems to me to confer power/authority only on the PIC and operator. Does anyone have any legislative provision or judicial authority to say that, under the CASR, CC have or can be delegated the power/authority of the PIC and operator under CASR 91.220?

For the purposes of CASR, CC are CC, and the definition is not affected by whether they are employees of the operator or ‘body shop’ supplied. Whether a person is or is not CC depends on whether they perform, in the interests of the safety of an aircraft’s passengers, duties assigned by the operator or PIC. Key point: giving someone a job to do is not the same as giving them power or authority over people. That’s presumably why, for example, CASR 92.580 is there: To give CC power/authority to issue binding directions to passengers.

Well, I suspect that some will argue that the PIC could form the view that failure by a passenger to comply with a CC's direction to sit in the allocated seat meant the passenger was a risk to safety. Whether the PIC did so in this case: I don’t know. Most of the expressions of opinion in this thread appear to be this effect:

CC gave a lawful direction for old mate to return to his allocated seat.

As soon as old mate failed to comply, he committed an offence.

That justified the intervention of the AFP to remove old mate.

Parade rest.

As I’ve said, I’m dubious about whether CC have power under CASR 92.580 before the flight commences, I’m very dubious about whether CC somehow get a ‘delegation’ of the PIC’s and operator’s powers/authorities under CASR 91.220 and, therefore, I’ll be very interested to find out the PIC’s state of mind and actions throughout all this (or to be shown some provision of CASR or judicial authority that says that CC have or can be delegated the PICs/operator’s power/authority under CASR 91.220).

Getting someone worked up then calling in authorities could be a managment tool ?
If I stir up my neighbours dog and it bites my kid , I get rspca in and dog gets put down would you support me or say the dog should not have bit the kid and deserved to die !

I read everything that was available at the time this happened and there is no weight & balance issue. He seat swapped with another passenger. Not saying he should have behaved the way he did, but I don't think the CC handled it all that well either. The pax he swapped with wasn't the same ethnicity and stated that the tasered pax did nothing wrong (other than refuse the CC direction to go back to his original seat).

I see all the flying lawyers are out and about.

After all this time, I think only one poster has managed to hit the nail on the head:

Simple fact (from evidence available) is that the CC refused a perfectly reasonable request for a mutual seat swap. That was the totally avoidable issue here. People talk about respect - it goes both ways. Passengers need to respect the crew, and the crew need to respect a father's desire to be sitting next to his wife and infant, and accommodate if possible.

Refusing a reasonable request which had no safety grounds for refusal would absolutely make my blood boil if it meant I would spend the next 4 hours sitting away from my wife and infant for no bloody reason.

Hopefully I wouldn't end up full-on Michael Douglas Falling Down, but I would be very pissed off. Keep in mind that a father of a new-born has an elevated protective instinct over the average male - human nature.

For all of you arguing aviation law - it's irrelevant. He's been charged with resisting arrest. Nothing to do with aviation law. However, an interesting point has been raised in the process: that annoying word "safety" keeps appearing. What was unsafe about this mutual seat swap?

One poster continually implies that the CC are powerless to authorise such a seat swap, in which case the inflexibility lies with the Airline - I'm not sure whether to believe that. I've swapped seats many times over the years - sometimes with CC approval, sometimes without their knowledge, sometimes at their request so two family members can sit together!

So, I don't get why it was a problem on this occasion.

In over 40 years of flying, I have found Jetstars Cabin crew to be the most officious I have encountered.

Quite the reverse, never found an airline where the service of one stood out from another, except Singapore perhaps, those CC served drinks as though they received a bonus on consumption. Once deplaned from a QF in LAX and presented by CC with a bag containing two bottles of wine, deplaned United at Tulla with three bottles of French wine presented by CC with white napkins still around the necks, bit of a bother being over the allowance at customs, chap went off conferred with boss and all was OK, being day before Xmas may have helped.

Never had reason to be dissatisfied with any flight undertaken anywhere in the world, other than being told to pull the blind down, I prefer to watch the world go by. A frequent Jetstar pax and absolutely no complaints,

I agree entirely with all your practical arguments and conclusion.

(I'd only note that in order to be found guilty of resisting arrest, you have to have been the subject of a lawful arrest. For what alleged crime was old mate being arrested? That's why the substance of the safety issue becomes important if the crime is a failure to comply with a direction under one of the CASRs quoted above, all of which have a safety element. The definition of a CC is someone given duties to perform "in the interests of the safety of an aircraft’s passengers".)

True - that part of it presumably involves the operator's lawful refusal to carry a passenger. Was it lawful? The airline could probably argue that any refusal to comply with a cabin crew direction pre-flight makes the passenger a safety risk, so unfit for carriage. The passenger could probably also argue that it wasn't a safety direction that he was non-compliant with, and so long as he could sit next to his wife and child, he was a perfectly calm passenger and fit to fly.

However, once the passenger was directed by the crew to disembark and refused, it's the job of law-enforcement to enforce the removal of the passenger, and if necessary force is required, then so be it. If he had disembarked when directed by the AFP, probably no charges would have been made. His refusal at this point was a mistake - he wasn't refusing a crew direction any longer, he was refusing a police order. He was then placed under arrest and resisted arrest. As to the use of a taser against an unarmed man in the process - that is obviously a police matter and nothing to do with Jetstar. Not good PR though. Remember that doctor in the USA who was dragged off a jet with a bloody face a few years ago?

It's just a pity it got to that point.

(My bolding)

I haven't seen any video of the start of the incident, but did he request? Or did he swap and then advise of the swap when challenged by the CC? Perhaps not asking first is what peeved the CC and started the ball rolling. You never know what some people will take as an affront to their authority. As I've stated, JQ's Conditions of Carriage do not stipulate that you sit in your assigned seat, or that you request approval of or simply advise of any swaps. "You have to sit in your seat" is not backed up anywhere in writing that the Airline has stated or that the passenger has accepted.