EasyJet passengers told 'get off the plane or you will be arrested'

[Safety Concerns]

thanks for the comment rosco which undoubtedly gets us a step nearer to the truth. your comment on easyjet ops on this thread may shine some relevant light onto this subject I don't know.

http://www.pprune.org/flight-ground-...ml#post5823602

Simple question, simple answer

Hi
I was wondering if someone that works for EZY ops could PM me for a question..

Rosco said:

You will be lucky!! They don't have the man power 2 lift the phone to their staff so i would not hold your breath!!!

So as an easyjet pilot rosco, who do you believe was at fault here and why wasn't this solved prior to boarding?

[KBPsen]

Originally Posted by Safety Concerns

The commander shall ensure that before each flight a weight and balance calculation is prepared using the correct procedure and that it complies with the aircraft weights and C.G. certified limitations. The correct fuel loading of the aircraft is the legal responsibility of the commander.

You are, intentionally or not, misrepresenting the meaning of the quote.

The commander is responsible for the flight departing with the correct fuel loading. Correct fuel loading refers to distribution and minimum legal requirements.

This was a weight issue. The commander fully lived up to his responsibility by ensuring it was within certified limits before departing.

[Safety Concerns]

with respect I did add this comment

You could I suppose argue that the above has in fact been carried out hence the situation. However one would expect errors particularly with fuel to be detected earlier than boarding complete.

[Nicholas49]

Safety Concerns:

Thanks very much for reminding me what I said yesterday morning. Funnily enough, I can remember that far back. I can also read what I wrote.

In any case, what exactly is your point? That the Commander is ultimately responsible for the correct fuel being loaded? NO ONE IS DISPUTING THAT!

As an aside, I am not sure of the reason for your swipe at 'street corner law'. For what it's worth, I said I do not practise aviation law. That does not mean I don't practise another equally specialist area of law.

You are irritating the professional pilots commenting on this thread and you are irritating me too. Maybe go back to the other thread where you are trying to "prove" that driving is safer than flying...

[42psi]

A few points to mention which may (or may not ) help clarify things.

Fuel these days is mostly provided from hydrant systems, not an actual "tanker". The fulling vehicle simply moves the fuel from the hydrant into the aircraft.

While fuelling companies may have some bowser/tankers around for remote/non hydrant stands etc there won't be many and they it will usually always take quite a while to provide one.


Why is the fuel "contaminated" once loaded onto an aircraft.


1. There may be contamination of the aircraft tanks themselves.

2. The existing fuel on board may already be contaminated.

3. Some airlines procedures for accepting fuel mean that they can't accept fuel that has been de-fuelled even from their own a/c (if they publish that to the CAA as their rule then they stick to it).

Once the "new" fuel enters the a/c it's status can no longer be certain.

Now that may seem a bit over the top to some but that's how aviation safety works .... previous problems/accidents lead to rules which reduce the chances of them happening again.


I would suggest that at smaller airfields without any (or extensive) hydrant systems for fuel delivery it's more likely you can find a spare bowser to de-fuel.



Folks can debate all they like about the ins & outs of regarding fuel as contaminated ... it matters not a jot ..... it's part of aviations safety approach.



As for the overfuelling itself .... well clearly an error was made



Who made it? ... does it really matter ?



But it you want a discussion on it consider this:


Could the impact of the low cost carriers have contributed?


In the old expensive days of air travel a line engineer would often attend each turnaround, resolve the small niggling non-serious defects and oversee fuelling.

These days for most carriers and certainly all low cost carriers no-one from engineering turns up unless it's a no-go defect.

The pilots oversee the fueling themselves .... they may need to do this while having their break .... so pilot tells fueller the required uplift and goes back to cabin to have break.


You might argue that in the old days there were many overpaid/overqualified folks who attended turnarounds and were wasted in this way.

Maybe that's true .... one things for sure .. once the low cost carriers dumped them so did many others to try and compete/save costs.

So one opinion might be ...... the drive for low cost air travel is to blame (just to make clear - that bit really is a joke ... apoor one maybe .. but there you go)..

Anyway,

Fueller pumps away merrily and when completed takes uplift chitty to pilot for signing.

If he know he's made an error he does so sheepishly...

If he's not made an error (or unaware) he does so with a spring in his step and a merry whistle.


In the following few minutes as all becomes clear not a few worried frowns appear and someone gets that sinking feeling.



Right ... that's enough for one day and it should stop that irritating nag to contribute go away for a while when I next log in

[Safety Concerns]

nicholas, it wasn't an intentional swipe but word choice could have been better. But I do have very little respect for your occupation it is true. Note occupation and not necessarily your good self.

Well the irritation bit would depend on a few things.

Are you irritated because the truth is frustrating or are you irritated because you reject my views?

I would agree though that perhaps what I am searching for here has got lost in amongst pointless legal chat.

What interests me is how this happened. If the error was ops based (this includes flight planning) then it should have been detected earlier and dealt with in the lounge area.

The fact that it happened on board after boarding concerns me and suggests a local error. If delays were involved and time was tight, even more reason for the captain to pay more attention to the fuel.

This then brings me to question the culture prevalent at the time in order to determine whether this was a one off or whether there is a darker underlying trend that needs correcting. Rosco's post is also concerning.

Now if I were a lawyer, which I ain't. I would be placing my efforts with the passengers who were disrupted and possibly even threatened. Because if the indicators are of a darker underlying trend then lives are at risk.

It may appear clever to always be smiling and ignore what may turn out to be nothing and avoid the uncomfortable questions but there could be more general safety issues here.

And it seems a like minded individual has posted similar thoughts between our posts.

Is the low cost model a safe business model?

[Nicholas49]

is all I have to say about your latest post, Safety Concerns.

[GrahamO]

Silly question I am sure, but only being SLF I really don't know. Is the gist of this thread, that the particular type of aircraft is unable to take off with a full load of passengers and a full load of fuel ? I'm confused ..... why does it have this amount of fuel capacity if it can only use it when it has practically no passengers ? Why design an aircraft with X passengers if it cannot take off unless its half empty ?

[Juud]

Nicholas49, by going into the user CP at the top of the page, you will come upon the Control Panel.

At the bottom of that you will find the Buddy / Ignore list.



Use of the Ignore list improves ppruning no end.

[redsnail]

unable to take off with a full load of passengers and a full load of fuel

It can take off, but it couldn't burn enough fuel to get to the max landing mass. (MLW).
It is less than the MTOM (max take off mass).

[GrahamO]

Thank you.

[YorkshireTyke]

Safety Concerns

I answered your earlier questions in detail, but my reply was moderated, removing all that was worthwhile, however I can send you a PM - don't bother to reply, I'm not wasting anymore time on this.

Yes, I am a pilot, 35 yrs and 20,000+ hrs of PRECISELY this kind of operation with two very Big Airlines, where even there this sort of incident occasionally happened, the World is not perfect but you obviously think that you are.

I have absolutely no issue with a Captains' ultimate responsibilities, which in this case he appears to have executed correctly so far as operational requirements are concerned, which I would argue is the extent of his authority, but I've already said that I have no idea of Easyjet policy with regard to responsibilities for passenger handling in this instant, and therefore won't comment on area about which I know nothing - unlike you.

You may just be trying to wind us up for fun, well, I've unwound. Goodbye.

My thanks to the majority who do understand, and support my viewpoint.

[Confirm Password]

About Off-Loading Self-Loading Freight

Hi there Joao de Silva, Bealzebub and Nicholas49.

I have read discussions as to whether or not the Air Navigation Order's article 141 allows the Commander of an aircraft to order some of the passengers off the aircraft. It is a complex legal issue, at least until you can see through the smoke.

Unfortunately, the Navigation Order is poorly drafted in some places. Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II has not been well advised by the Privy Council. Perhaps the worst is the 'musical chairs' sub-article, which appeared first in the 2005 version of the order.

Then there is the 'air rage' protection section, Acting in a disruptive manner, which first appeared in the 2000 version of the order. "Please be polite to your cabin crew, etc." It was OK, as far as it went, but there was no balancing protection of passengers from misbehaviour or rudeness by cabin crew.

There are several issues about the Easyjet overfuelled crisis but one is overriding:

First, under article 141 a command needs to be lawful and there is no law which allows the Commander to pick out 30 or so passengers and discriminate against them and equally no law that allows the Police to arrest and arbitrarily off-load 30 well-behaved items of fully-paid self-loading freight, sitting with their properly issued boarding cards and their cross-border travel papers.

Second, a lawful command can only be enforced by a prosecution in a UK court if it was given for one or more of the reasons specified by the Air Navigation Order, for example, "for the purpose of securing the safety of the aircraft and of passengers or property carried". To be enforced by a UK court, first a command has to be lawful and second it has to have been given for one or more defined reason.

Here is the crunch but remember mainly the first point above. Ask an Aviation Law Barrister if you have any doubt:

Article 141 simply gives power to a court to prosecute an offender who disobeys a lawful command, provided it was given for one or more of several defined reasons. Article 141 gives no powers to the Commander of the aircraft. As to what may be the Commander's powers, article 141 is 'silent'. He needs some other legal authority or precedent for making the lawful command. The Chicago convention or Tokyo convention or similar international agreements might give him that legal authority. In this case they do not! In this case no UK laws give him legal authority either, as far as I am aware.

All the passengers have a Common Law right and an equal right to sit in their seats.

Do you remember the teenager from the Richmond area who went to the High Court a few years back, to assert his right to be out in the streets at night? He was concerned that Police were likely to take him home, without good reason. The High Court upheld his Common Law right and declared, at the end of a Judicial Review, that legislation about the powers of the Police did not extend to taking a well-behaved boy home, without his agreement.

Any command to disembark, given to just a few of the passengers would be unlawful here, not because there would be discrimination against the chosen few but simply because there is no relevant law for the commander to invoke. If he wanted all passengers to get off he would have to look for an appropriate law or procedure to invoke but article 141 would not be the source of any power to resolve the matter.

Third, the Air Navigation Order is an Order in Council, made by the Monarch, which owe's its existence and its status to the Civil Aviation Act of 1982, etc. That act defines the jurisdiction of UK courts in relation to criminal acts or omissions. See article 92. For jurisdiction, as defined by 92, the doors have to be closed and the engine(s) switched on.

International laws gives lots of powers to the commander after the external doors have been closed with the engine(s) on, but before that point he has quite limited power.

There are some extra circumstances to which the jurisdiction of UK Courts apply, according to the act, with the engines off but the doors closed. The commander is given limited powers and also some obligations by article 94. It is mainly about serious misbehaviour and restraining violent or dangerous people. If the doors are open 94 does not apply. If the doors are closed nobody can get off. Catch 22 for Easyjet. Not so easy...

So, in the current Easyjet case, UK Courts are not given jurisdiction by the Civil Aviation Act and the Air Navigation Order to enforce anything in the name of article 141.

My conclusion is that Easyjet's dilemma was not an issue of Criminal Law. Easyjet or somebody else seems to have made a muddle or had an incident with fuelling. The Law of Torts may catch Easyjet if off-loaded passengers decide to sue. I doubt that Easyjet should derive any protection from the Air Navigation Order.

[Bealzebub]

Excellent CP, and no doubt that would be the basis of your argument.......In court!

It wouldn't be on the aircraft, where the commanders instruction would be final.

To be lawful, the instruction need only be authorized, sanctioned, or not forbidden by law.

In this and similiar hypothosis, the instruction given to ensure the safety of the flight, or the efficiency or regularity of air navigation in accordance with the provisions of 141 would almost certainly result (where in extremis it might prove necessary,) in the compliance by police enforcement, and would most likely be used in part as the basis for any prosecution that resulted.

Should your argument prove founded after it has been tested through the appelant courts, no doubt another statute would be sought. However to date I am not aware of that being necessary.

[Rwy in Sight]

Just a question that might be irrelevant but I like to air it: How can a captain's order to break a (transport) contract can be legal and thus should be obeyed?

Rwy in Sight

[Safety Concerns]

In this and similiar hypothosis, the instruction given to ensure the safety of the flight, or the efficiency or regularity of air navigation in accordance with the provisions of 141 would almost certainly result (where in extremis it might prove necessary,) in the compliance by police enforcement, and would most likely be used in part as the basis for any prosecution that resulted

but the problem I see here aligns very much with confirm password. The ANO explains what it considers to be a justifiable reason for kicking off 30+ passengers and too much fuel ain't one of them.

The safety of this flight was not jeopardised by the passengers. In fact this flight could have safely departed.

[WHBM]

A further question, at what stage is "The Commander" of the aircraft actually effective. Is it not when they sign the documentation for the flight ? And if the load sheets are not complete because there is a gross error, and thus they have not been signed, do we even have a commander appointed at this stage ? Does normal law of the land not apply until that point ?

Genuine question because I don't know.

[Nicholas49]

Confirm Password: that is very interesting. You clearly know more about this than me.

I do not know how the ANO and the extent of the Commander's powers have been interpreted by the courts. I would be very interested to know whether airline captains are given guidance / training on precisely what they can and cannot do under the ANO.

I would, however, re-emphasise the following contractual term to which all passengers agreed when they bought their ticket:

Article 8
Refusal and Limitation of Carriage
8.1. Right to refuse carriage
We may refuse to carry you or your Baggage for reasons of safety...

I am willing to stick my neck out to say a Court would interpret this to mean that passengers can be off-loaded once they have boarded if the Captain decides this is necessary. As I understand it from this discussion, the aircraft could depart safely, but could not land safely as it would be over its Maximum Landing Weight. That is a 'reason of safety'! It is therefore highly unlikely that the passengers have a contractual claim against the airline.


Rwy in Sight: I hope you can see that this provision means the Captain is not breaching any contract by refusing to allow the passengers to travel.

As to when the captain becomes the captain, I think that is a bit academic. Think about it this way: is he 'the captain' of the flight when he orders the fuel in the dispatch room before he even reaches the aircraft? Or when he does the walk-around before doors are closed and ready to push? Of course he is. (I appreciate procedures vary etc., but you see my point).

The bigger picture here is that: he is the one who knows what's best in the interests of flight safety; he is the one delegated authority to ensure flight safety by the company; the passengers have agreed in their contract that they may not be able to travel if safety is compromised.

[Safety Concerns]

not sure if this helps determine when a commander becomes a commander but I would suggest as soon as he steps on board

Public transport – operator’s responsibilities
42 (1) The operator of an aircraft registered in the United Kingdom shall not permit the aircraft to fly for the purpose of public transport without first:
(a) designating from among the flight crew a pilot to be the commander of the
aircraft for the flight;

Authority of commander of an aircraft
77 Every person in an aircraft shall obey all lawful commands which the commander of that aircraft may give for the purpose of securing the safety of the aircraft and of persons or property carried therein, or the safety, efficiency or regularity of air navigation.

[Nicholas49]

It does not help at all.

Thanks for the tip, Juud!