Who is in command?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Europe
Posts: 108
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Who is in command?
Hi all,I'm currently training to become an airline pilot and whould find it extremely useful if someone could clear the following up for me.
With the long recent discussion over the Ryan Air and Air Arran diverted flights, who is actually in command and has reponsibility for the a/c when:
a)taxiing on a taxiway after landing
b)on stand with the parking brake set
during a bomb threat.
As far as I understand it the Captain remains command when on the taxiway but there appears to be some arguement over who is in overall authority on stand with the parking brake set. If anyone could clear this up for me (preferably with SOP information or JAA/EASA regulations) I would be very grateful.
With the long recent discussion over the Ryan Air and Air Arran diverted flights, who is actually in command and has reponsibility for the a/c when:
a)taxiing on a taxiway after landing
b)on stand with the parking brake set
during a bomb threat.
As far as I understand it the Captain remains command when on the taxiway but there appears to be some arguement over who is in overall authority on stand with the parking brake set. If anyone could clear this up for me (preferably with SOP information or JAA/EASA regulations) I would be very grateful.
Last edited by Dit; 21st Apr 2006 at 19:27.
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Dre's mum's house
Posts: 1,432
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From the time I sign the Tech Log out until I sign it in......me.
Ops Manual....." The Commander can do whatever he likes to ensure the safety of his aircraft and passengers".
JARS..try www.jaa.nl
Ops Manual....." The Commander can do whatever he likes to ensure the safety of his aircraft and passengers".
JARS..try www.jaa.nl
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Grobelling through the murk to the sunshine above.
Age: 60
Posts: 562
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
there appears to be some arguement over who is in overall authority on stand with the parking brake set.
Who else is suggested as having 'overall authority', and who is doing the arguing?
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Middle East / UK
Age: 45
Posts: 520
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Firstly I appologise if this may be covered in the other thread but, if ....." The Commander can do whatever he likes to ensure the safety of his aircraft and passengers". in the above cases both captains wanted to evacuate the A/C, why didn't they? I believe the police/army ordered them not to, but the police/army are not the legal commanders of the a/c. As the commander is reponsible for the a/c and all it's occupants, I fail to see how they could order them not to evacuate. 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: Runcorn,Cheshire,England
Posts: 195
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
To elaborate o the above, it's not even the signing of the tech-log that denotes the period of command...from the ANO "the time at which the Captain enters the aircraft with the intention of flight"...
However, it's a dody area if parked on a stand with the door open as the local police still have every authority do board the aircraft and can do pretty much what ever they choose.
However, it's a dody area if parked on a stand with the door open as the local police still have every authority do board the aircraft and can do pretty much what ever they choose.
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Europe-the sunshine side
Posts: 755
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If I'll want to evacuate the plane this is what i'll do,this is cpt's decision everywhere I've been.
I don't think the info regarding police ordering them not to evecuate is accurate.
You should also know that most of the times the evacuation should not be rushed,due to potential injuries to the pax during this manouvre.If the stairs will be at the plane in the next minute or so,maybe you'll decide to wait a little bit before opening the slides ..
About local police entering and doing whatever they want on board of a foreign airplane,I very much doubt that...
I don't think the info regarding police ordering them not to evecuate is accurate.
You should also know that most of the times the evacuation should not be rushed,due to potential injuries to the pax during this manouvre.If the stairs will be at the plane in the next minute or so,maybe you'll decide to wait a little bit before opening the slides ..
About local police entering and doing whatever they want on board of a foreign airplane,I very much doubt that...
Guest
Posts: n/a
A couple of comments not directly related to the incident that started this thread - and I speak as an air traffic controller and not a professional pilot.
First, there is a distinction between being responsible for the aircraft and being in command of a situation in which the police or military services are involved. I'm not sure what bits of legislation give the powers but I think police powers trump most others. In the event that an aircraft commander was challenged over his or her actions regarding the aircraft and its safety, I would guess that it would be a generally acceptable defence if the actions were in compliance with police instructions.
As alex says, if the commander decides to evacuate the aircraft, he or she is the one who can do it - and it probably doesn't make much difference what the police say! But on the other hand, you'll probably find that the local police do have powers wherever your aircraft is parked up on the ground - and their powers will relate to far more than those of the commander in respect of the aircraft.
Taking off my bar room lawyers hat - on a related, and far more common issue, you might like to think about who is responsible for what when your aircraft is being pushed around by a tug. I recall reading about an incident at Heathrow a while back where this question was significant and I don't think anyone knew the answer. I did hear that the CAA was looking into these things but I don't know what he outcome is.
Both this and the situation with the police are rather grey areas!!!
First, there is a distinction between being responsible for the aircraft and being in command of a situation in which the police or military services are involved. I'm not sure what bits of legislation give the powers but I think police powers trump most others. In the event that an aircraft commander was challenged over his or her actions regarding the aircraft and its safety, I would guess that it would be a generally acceptable defence if the actions were in compliance with police instructions.
As alex says, if the commander decides to evacuate the aircraft, he or she is the one who can do it - and it probably doesn't make much difference what the police say! But on the other hand, you'll probably find that the local police do have powers wherever your aircraft is parked up on the ground - and their powers will relate to far more than those of the commander in respect of the aircraft.
Taking off my bar room lawyers hat - on a related, and far more common issue, you might like to think about who is responsible for what when your aircraft is being pushed around by a tug. I recall reading about an incident at Heathrow a while back where this question was significant and I don't think anyone knew the answer. I did hear that the CAA was looking into these things but I don't know what he outcome is.
Both this and the situation with the police are rather grey areas!!!
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Middle East / UK
Age: 45
Posts: 520
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
During pushback, the ground crew are responsible for the A/C. On the ground, parked or at any other stage of flight, the Captain is responsible. Therefore I can not see how the local police (who are not on board the a/C) can tell a Captain not to evacuate. Would you sit on a bomb for 2 hrs? What if there was a bomb and it did go off? Who would have been at fault? Would the press/everyone have blamed the crew by quoting chapter and verse of the ANO/JAR OPS? Obviously I don't know all of the facts, but given half the chance, I would have evacuated. I actually had the same scenario in the simulator not long ago.
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Scotland
Age: 53
Posts: 164
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think you will find that if the flight deck have delcared to ATC that there is a bomb threat, then the Capt is no longer in command. He MUST follow the instruction given to him by the police or other government body. He will taxi and park where instucted, and will evacuate/disembark ONLY on instruct from outside.
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: 3rd Rock from the Sun
Age: 61
Posts: 33
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Dit
Hi all,I'm currently training to become an airline pilot and whould find it extremely useful if someone could clear the following up for me.
With the long recent discussion over the Ryan Air and Air Arran diverted flights, who is actually in command and has reponsibility for the a/c when:
a)taxiing on a taxiway after landing
b)on stand with the parking brake set
during a bomb threat.
As far as I understand it the Captain remains command when on the taxiway but there appears to be some arguement over who is in overall authority on stand with the parking brake set. If anyone could clear this up for me (preferably with SOP information or JAA/EASA regulations) I would be very grateful.
With the long recent discussion over the Ryan Air and Air Arran diverted flights, who is actually in command and has reponsibility for the a/c when:
a)taxiing on a taxiway after landing
b)on stand with the parking brake set
during a bomb threat.
As far as I understand it the Captain remains command when on the taxiway but there appears to be some arguement over who is in overall authority on stand with the parking brake set. If anyone could clear this up for me (preferably with SOP information or JAA/EASA regulations) I would be very grateful.
Once the A/c is dispatched, the Captian is in command, and has full authority - park-brake set or otherwise.
This does not change during push-back, except that the Captain is NOT responsible for collision, etc during the push-back process.
Finally, the issue arises... Who is in command during a hostile take-over whilst ON THE GROUND. This is the part where I wish I had my manuals infront of me. I recall that during such a time, Law Enforment agents have authority, which over-rides the captains.
When I get back to my manuals, I"ll verify this (or correct it), but that's sort of how I remember it.
Cheers
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: In my seat
Posts: 822
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
One remark:
The local police has not, I say again to make it clear: HAS NOT got the right to enter any aircraft under a foreign flag unless allowed by the Commander.
The aircraft is effectively territory of the state of registration. The same goes for ships.
If a commander wants to evacuate, he evacuates. NO ONE can order otherwise.
rant over.
The local police has not, I say again to make it clear: HAS NOT got the right to enter any aircraft under a foreign flag unless allowed by the Commander.
The aircraft is effectively territory of the state of registration. The same goes for ships.
If a commander wants to evacuate, he evacuates. NO ONE can order otherwise.
rant over.
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Scotland
Age: 53
Posts: 164
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't think this is correct. When the Ryanair was escorted to PIK last week, from the moment he told ATC that there was a Bomb Threat, he effectively handed control over to the authorities.
You surely can't be telling me that he could refuse Strathclyde Police entry to the aircraft when it was sitting on the apron!
As bomb threat comes under civil law, the police immediately become the controlling authority and therefore the Captain of the aircraft MUST follow their command. This included inflight, as well as on the ground.
Also, I was surprised to hear that if there is an unruly passenger on board, the Captain cannot force the other passengers to stay on board, even if he feels that they may be in danger should they try to disembark. This would be deamed as unlawful imprisonment. Unless he contacts the police, and is authorised by them to keep everyone on board.
You surely can't be telling me that he could refuse Strathclyde Police entry to the aircraft when it was sitting on the apron!
As bomb threat comes under civil law, the police immediately become the controlling authority and therefore the Captain of the aircraft MUST follow their command. This included inflight, as well as on the ground.
Also, I was surprised to hear that if there is an unruly passenger on board, the Captain cannot force the other passengers to stay on board, even if he feels that they may be in danger should they try to disembark. This would be deamed as unlawful imprisonment. Unless he contacts the police, and is authorised by them to keep everyone on board.
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Montsegur
Posts: 313
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The aircraft is effectively territory of the state of registration.
The local police has not, I say again to make it clear: HAS NOT got the right to enter any aircraft under a foreign flag unless allowed by the Commander.
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Middle East / UK
Age: 45
Posts: 520
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jockflyer
A Captain of any aircraft cannot stop anyone from getting off. As you said it is unlawful imprisonment. He can only stop a person from entering the aircraft (pax). As far as this handing over control thing goes, I have never seen it in any company manual I have worked for. The police assume control of the aircraft upon reciept of the bomb threat? Does that mean if during said threat an engine fails do you need to consult the police with regard to the QRH??? Also do the police sign the tech log when signing the a/c back in following the all clear? No, because they can't. Upon getting the all clear do the retrospectively hand back control for the incident and say "well you're back incharge now so all of that was nothing to do with us!?!" The whole thing needs clearing up BIGTIME!!
A Captain of any aircraft cannot stop anyone from getting off. As you said it is unlawful imprisonment. He can only stop a person from entering the aircraft (pax). As far as this handing over control thing goes, I have never seen it in any company manual I have worked for. The police assume control of the aircraft upon reciept of the bomb threat? Does that mean if during said threat an engine fails do you need to consult the police with regard to the QRH??? Also do the police sign the tech log when signing the a/c back in following the all clear? No, because they can't. Upon getting the all clear do the retrospectively hand back control for the incident and say "well you're back incharge now so all of that was nothing to do with us!?!" The whole thing needs clearing up BIGTIME!!
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Herefordshire
Posts: 153
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
First of all we must remember that just because someone is 'in command' it doesn't necessarily mean that they make the right decisions! When the wrong decisions are made it is up to all of us to learn by the occurance to help us in the future to make the right one.
Ultimately, the person in command is that person where the 'Buck Stops'. Just because you 'hadn't yet signed the tech log' would be a a poor excuse if something happened. At the subsequent enquiry for the most part the On-Comming Captain should assume command as soon as possible and certainly as soon as the off-going Captain leaves the Aircraft. If there is no on-comming Captain, then the aircraft should be left accordingly or 'handed over' to the engineers or whatever.
"So tell me Captain", says the man from the ministry, "When the APU caught fire, you did nothing because at the time you weren't in Command even though you were the highest ranking officer on the scene at the time?"
I hope you're well insured!!!
Ultimately, the person in command is that person where the 'Buck Stops'. Just because you 'hadn't yet signed the tech log' would be a a poor excuse if something happened. At the subsequent enquiry for the most part the On-Comming Captain should assume command as soon as possible and certainly as soon as the off-going Captain leaves the Aircraft. If there is no on-comming Captain, then the aircraft should be left accordingly or 'handed over' to the engineers or whatever.
"So tell me Captain", says the man from the ministry, "When the APU caught fire, you did nothing because at the time you weren't in Command even though you were the highest ranking officer on the scene at the time?"
I hope you're well insured!!!
Join Date: Nov 1999
Posts: 2,312
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Prior to flight an aircraft will have a nominated "commander". This is an important distinction because there may well be more than one captain on board and indeed more than one captain as part of the designated flight deck crew.
The commander will be nominated to be in command of the flight, but will well have other command functions (both legal and administrative) before and after the aircraft has even been boarded or disembarked.
In the event of the designated commander becoming incapatitated then the command function would devolve in a predetermined order to another crewmember usually the co-pilot (first officer ) additional pilot if carried, senior cabin crewmember and so on.
The commanders responsibilities obviously vary and the scope of his authority is determined by the role he undertakes whilst on duty for the company that employs him. Without wandering too far down that particular path, it is clearly a primary requirement that the commander will maintain a familiarity with all relevant UK (in this case) and international air legislation and agreed aviation practices and procedures. As far as the flight or series of flights are concerned, his responsibility and sole command will start from the time he boards the aircraft (or has it handed over from another commander) until he hands over the aircraft to another commander or an authorised official or agent of the company.
The commanders responsibilities will be largely structured by their definition within the company operations manual, however the relevant legislation and statute will provide the framework for his legal obligations. There may be a raft of legislation which has relevance from time to time, however for the purpose of brevity and attempting to answer this question there are 2 pieces of legislation that should be considered since they provide some help in defining the answer. One is the Uk Air navigation order. The second is the Tokyo convention (1963). the latter cocerns matters in respect of offences against penal law and or acts that may or may not be offences but which jeopardize the safety of the aircraft or of persons onboard or property carried therein, or which jeopardize good order and discipline on board.
Chapter 1 article 1 paragraph 3 of this convention states that an aircraft is considered to be "in flight" from the moment when power is applied for the purpose of take off until the moment when the landing run ends.
However Article 5 paragraph 2 of the convention that deals with the powers of the aircraft commander when he believes an offence has been or is about to be committed outside of the state of registration states that ;
Notwithstanding the provisions of article 1 paragraph 3, an aircraft shall for the purpose of this chapter be considered to be "in flight" at any time from the moment when all its external doors are closed following embarkation until the moment when any such door is opened for disembarkation." The powers of the aircraft commander are defined as being "in flight" and hence the importance of the definition to their applicability.
So to answer the original questions : who is actually in command and has responsibility for the aircraft when :
a)taxiing on a taxiway after landing
command lies with the aircraft commander and he has responsibility for the aircraft. However the reponsibility may be shared with other agencies such as Air traffic control etc.
b)on stand with the parking brake set
during a bomb threat.
This depends whether the aircraft doors are open if the scope of article 5 is in effect in which case the competent authorities of the state (police) take over responsibility for the aircraft and for the persons and property onboard. If Article 1 is effective then the flight effectively terminates when the landing role is complete, although the commander would be still be responsible for the safety and security of the passengers and aircraft until such time as as the competent authority takes over responsibility.
A full read of articles 1 through 26 of the convention ( which isnt as unwieldy as it first sounds) might help better understand the legalities.
As with most things, commonsense plays a large part in a commanders responsibilities and actions. No legislation, convention or administrative instruction can cover every conceivable situation or event. If a commander believes that the safety of the aircraft its crew and passengers are at risk he has an absolute duty and the authority to take the necessary action to ensure their safety. The convention and other legislation is designed to assist with the legal position where difficulty might otherwise exist.
Clearly in a situation where the aircraft is subject to criminal interference or offences or acts may have been committed it is very likely that other agancies of the state will insist or recommend on various courses of action. The commander is required to provide any necessary instructions to those on board who are in turn required to comply with all lawful instructions. However the commander is in turn also required to comply with the instructions given to him by competent recognised authorities.
No one said it was easy !
Despegue wrote
.
I am afraid article 4 would appear to make this statement invalid as it applies to aircraft ( except military, customs or police aircraft ). Provided it is a contacting state to the convention and within the 5 sub clauses. It is a popular myth, but in general with civil aircraft it is not true.
The commander will be nominated to be in command of the flight, but will well have other command functions (both legal and administrative) before and after the aircraft has even been boarded or disembarked.
In the event of the designated commander becoming incapatitated then the command function would devolve in a predetermined order to another crewmember usually the co-pilot (first officer ) additional pilot if carried, senior cabin crewmember and so on.
The commanders responsibilities obviously vary and the scope of his authority is determined by the role he undertakes whilst on duty for the company that employs him. Without wandering too far down that particular path, it is clearly a primary requirement that the commander will maintain a familiarity with all relevant UK (in this case) and international air legislation and agreed aviation practices and procedures. As far as the flight or series of flights are concerned, his responsibility and sole command will start from the time he boards the aircraft (or has it handed over from another commander) until he hands over the aircraft to another commander or an authorised official or agent of the company.
The commanders responsibilities will be largely structured by their definition within the company operations manual, however the relevant legislation and statute will provide the framework for his legal obligations. There may be a raft of legislation which has relevance from time to time, however for the purpose of brevity and attempting to answer this question there are 2 pieces of legislation that should be considered since they provide some help in defining the answer. One is the Uk Air navigation order. The second is the Tokyo convention (1963). the latter cocerns matters in respect of offences against penal law and or acts that may or may not be offences but which jeopardize the safety of the aircraft or of persons onboard or property carried therein, or which jeopardize good order and discipline on board.
Chapter 1 article 1 paragraph 3 of this convention states that an aircraft is considered to be "in flight" from the moment when power is applied for the purpose of take off until the moment when the landing run ends.
However Article 5 paragraph 2 of the convention that deals with the powers of the aircraft commander when he believes an offence has been or is about to be committed outside of the state of registration states that ;
Notwithstanding the provisions of article 1 paragraph 3, an aircraft shall for the purpose of this chapter be considered to be "in flight" at any time from the moment when all its external doors are closed following embarkation until the moment when any such door is opened for disembarkation." The powers of the aircraft commander are defined as being "in flight" and hence the importance of the definition to their applicability.
So to answer the original questions : who is actually in command and has responsibility for the aircraft when :
a)taxiing on a taxiway after landing
command lies with the aircraft commander and he has responsibility for the aircraft. However the reponsibility may be shared with other agencies such as Air traffic control etc.
b)on stand with the parking brake set
during a bomb threat.
This depends whether the aircraft doors are open if the scope of article 5 is in effect in which case the competent authorities of the state (police) take over responsibility for the aircraft and for the persons and property onboard. If Article 1 is effective then the flight effectively terminates when the landing role is complete, although the commander would be still be responsible for the safety and security of the passengers and aircraft until such time as as the competent authority takes over responsibility.
A full read of articles 1 through 26 of the convention ( which isnt as unwieldy as it first sounds) might help better understand the legalities.
As with most things, commonsense plays a large part in a commanders responsibilities and actions. No legislation, convention or administrative instruction can cover every conceivable situation or event. If a commander believes that the safety of the aircraft its crew and passengers are at risk he has an absolute duty and the authority to take the necessary action to ensure their safety. The convention and other legislation is designed to assist with the legal position where difficulty might otherwise exist.
Clearly in a situation where the aircraft is subject to criminal interference or offences or acts may have been committed it is very likely that other agancies of the state will insist or recommend on various courses of action. The commander is required to provide any necessary instructions to those on board who are in turn required to comply with all lawful instructions. However the commander is in turn also required to comply with the instructions given to him by competent recognised authorities.
No one said it was easy !
Despegue wrote
The local police has not, I say again to make it clear: HAS NOT got the right to enter any aircraft under a foreign flag unless allowed by the Commander.
The aircraft is effectively territory of the state of registration. The same goes for ships
The aircraft is effectively territory of the state of registration. The same goes for ships
I am afraid article 4 would appear to make this statement invalid as it applies to aircraft ( except military, customs or police aircraft ). Provided it is a contacting state to the convention and within the 5 sub clauses. It is a popular myth, but in general with civil aircraft it is not true.
Join Date: Nov 1999
Posts: 2,312
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Eff Oh
Jockflyer
A Captain of any aircraft cannot stop anyone from getting off. As you said it is unlawful imprisonment. He can only stop a person from entering the aircraft (pax). As far as this handing over control thing goes, I have never seen it in any company manual I have worked for. The police assume control of the aircraft upon reciept of the bomb threat? Does that mean if during said threat an engine fails do you need to consult the police with regard to the QRH??? Also do the police sign the tech log when signing the a/c back in following the all clear? No, because they can't. Upon getting the all clear do the retrospectively hand back control for the incident and say "well you're back incharge now so all of that was nothing to do with us!?!" The whole thing needs clearing up BIGTIME!!
A Captain of any aircraft cannot stop anyone from getting off. As you said it is unlawful imprisonment. He can only stop a person from entering the aircraft (pax). As far as this handing over control thing goes, I have never seen it in any company manual I have worked for. The police assume control of the aircraft upon reciept of the bomb threat? Does that mean if during said threat an engine fails do you need to consult the police with regard to the QRH??? Also do the police sign the tech log when signing the a/c back in following the all clear? No, because they can't. Upon getting the all clear do the retrospectively hand back control for the incident and say "well you're back incharge now so all of that was nothing to do with us!?!" The whole thing needs clearing up BIGTIME!!
There are many situations when an aircraft commander or his designated authority can prevent a person from leaving an aircraft. This is not in itself "unlawful imprisonment". Likewise there may be situations where he cannot prevent a person from boarding an aircraft although not necessarily for the purpose of transportation.
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Scotland
Age: 53
Posts: 164
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Eff Oh
Jockflyer
A Captain of any aircraft cannot stop anyone from getting off. As you said it is unlawful imprisonment. He can only stop a person from entering the aircraft (pax). As far as this handing over control thing goes, I have never seen it in any company manual I have worked for. The police assume control of the aircraft upon reciept of the bomb threat? Does that mean if during said threat an engine fails do you need to consult the police with regard to the QRH??? Also do the police sign the tech log when signing the a/c back in following the all clear? No, because they can't. Upon getting the all clear do the retrospectively hand back control for the incident and say "well you're back incharge now so all of that was nothing to do with us!?!" The whole thing needs clearing up BIGTIME!!
A Captain of any aircraft cannot stop anyone from getting off. As you said it is unlawful imprisonment. He can only stop a person from entering the aircraft (pax). As far as this handing over control thing goes, I have never seen it in any company manual I have worked for. The police assume control of the aircraft upon reciept of the bomb threat? Does that mean if during said threat an engine fails do you need to consult the police with regard to the QRH??? Also do the police sign the tech log when signing the a/c back in following the all clear? No, because they can't. Upon getting the all clear do the retrospectively hand back control for the incident and say "well you're back incharge now so all of that was nothing to do with us!?!" The whole thing needs clearing up BIGTIME!!
The reason for this I would imagine, is that its highly unlikely that the Captain has any experience of this type of thing, and would therefore not be aware of what is required to ensure a safe outcome to a potentially fatal situation. However, we would all hope that the authorities who would be in charge, will have well thought out stratgies to deal with the situation.
I understand that the Ryanair guys got their knuckles wrapped because they did not advise ATC that the Flight Deck was secure (ie pilots in control, not terrorists or hijackers). That is why the Tornados were scrambled to escort them. Had the Captain not followed intructions, they may well have been shot down. That sounds dramatic, but true. I'm sure the Captain could have found his own way to Prestwick, so why else would they be there?.
So Eff Oh, you may not have found it in any company manual, but perhaps next time you have some security Training, ask Dr D Harris, and I'm sure he'll back up what I've said.
Last edited by Jockflyer; 25th Apr 2006 at 08:18.