HotDog

I think it would also test the limit of my patience, waiting 7 hours for take off. However the flight was probably jammed in the middle of a long que of aircraft waiting for take off clearance. It's God, not BA that should be charged.

Denti

Traffic for nearly all other airlines on that day was a bit delayed, but not by more than the normal 30 to 60 minutes you get during winter conditions in TXL. Especially with the deicing procedures used this year delays are cut short by nearly an hour if you compare it to the procedures of last year. Pax reportedly asked for several hours to deboard and step back from the flight and had to call german police using cell phones before they were allowed to leave the plane.

But after i was stuck lately behind a BA 767 in Munich who deiced for more than 40 minutes after half a millimeter of snow fall i'm not surprised by anything they do.

bjcc

Boy

I am assuming that this 'divertion' is in the UK. The instructon MAY be quite proper in Ireland, I don't know, I was only ever a Police Officer in the UK.

I can comment from experience of this sort of thing, its not an uncommon occurance not just for diverted aircraft, but also for long delayed ones.

Tthe times I was called, both to remote stands and aircraft on jetties, the outcome was the same. They wanted to walk, they walked.

The crew have no power to detain, or arrest. The pax does not commit any offence by demanding to be let off while the aircraft is on the ground.

The pax also did not nesseserily attract my attention as a Police officer just because they wanted to leave.

Often the reason it became an issue was the crew wrong assumed the could prevent the pax from leaving. The passenger then gets upset, causes a fuss and leads to the Old Bill being called. There is a conflicting interest, delay, verus rights of the person. And usually my only interest would be in trying to strike a fair balance, and preventing a breach of the peace.

Trying to look from both sides, yes, I can see it is inconvient to the airline, crew and other passengers for one of them to suddenly decide to get off, then having to go through the pain of a baggage ID etc. However there is no right given to crew to prevent that.

The offences mentioned in repect of being airside are debatable. Firstly because all pax at some stage end up airside. There is no problem being on a jetty, but yes the Airline or the Airport Operator would be responsible for ensuring they are escorted to customs/immigration if that is required. If there is no immigration or customs then Police could detain them until either or both other institutions are available.

As regards to an aircraft on a remote stand, the basics still apply, there is no right or power given to the crew to prevent a person from leaving. Obviously they can apply common sense in trying to talk the person out of just wandering off. And if I were called to a pax that had, I would give some serious words of advise. As a Police officer, I would probably find it difficult to justify the arrest of a pax in these circumstances.

fireloop

De-Icing is for wimps... The snow will blow off the wings during the take-off roll. Whats the big deal?

Hand Solo

Had Denti had a good look at the 767s wings to check for contaminants? If it took 40 minutes to de-ice a 767 I think the de-icing crews need to work a bit quicker. So much for German efficiency!

el @

They can be litigious as much as rabid dogs but counter-claiming for 'delaying the aircract' is not going to help them, False arrest is a criminal matter and we know that litigations related to a criminal act can be had only after the criminal process had completed.

Worth of note that while having an educated dicussion in another thread http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?t=203792, still there are posts that beside being biased, appears to take the issue very lighty, and generally treat passagenger's claims of basic rights more like a nuisance.

I hope that I will never be in a position where I have to defend my rights against an airline (or whatever other entity or persons) that is restricting my freedom, but in that case, circumstances permitting, I shall be firm in defending it to the full extent of law..

His dudeness

[QUOTE=Denti]Traffic for nearly all other airlines on that day was a bit delayed, but not by more than the normal 30 to 60 minutes you get during winter conditions in TXL..... Pax reportedly asked for several hours to deboard and step back from the flight and had to call german police using cell phones before they were allowed to leave the plane.

If thats true (and that will be easy to check), IMO, the Capt / BA deserves to be put before a judge. 2 or 3 hours are within reason, but 7 hours is just beyond reason. Just my opinion...

Nov71

From Jan 1, UK Police have the power of arrest ON SUSPICION of an offence, however minor. Given the OAP in Brighton, I guess they will use their new powers and arrest rather than use discretion.
What if the Captain says 'no steps available'?

derekl

It will be interesting to see how the new police powers of arrest interplay with the European Human Rights laws. On past form, arbitrary arrest for very minor reasons may play out badly against an aggrieved citizen.

el @

Go back and read what a former UK Police Officer wrote:
The crew have no power to detain, or arrest. The pax does not commit any offence by demanding to be let off while the aircraft is on the ground.

Send your suggestion to Ryanair, as you evidently share the opinion that deception is acceptable and even desirable in the business of air transportation.

ZFT

Without any real knowledge of what really occured in Berlin, what ever happened to just plain common sense?

132.3

Just to add my 2penneth and seek a bit of clarification,

Article 155 (2)(a) Of The ANO Specifies That an aircraft is in flight
'from the moment when, after the embarkation of its crew for the purpose of taking off, it first moves under its own power until the moment when it next comes to rest after landing'

By this definition a PAX wishing to leave a flight that has moved away from the stand under it's own power is leaving an aircraft while in flight, thus they are in breach of Art.77, the authority of the commander, the a/c in flying and thus the commanders word (in the intrests of efficiency) MUST be obeyed.

Bealzebub

Yes that might be when an aircraft is in flight, in fact Article 1 ch.3 of the Tokyo convention 1963(the UK is a signatory) states that :

"For the purposes of this Convention, 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. .

and Article 1 also states that :

This Convention shall apply in respect of:
offences against penal law;
acts which, whether or not they are offences, may or do jeopardize the safety of the aircraft or of persons or property therein or which jeopardize good order and discipline on board.

However Chapter 3 Article 5 of the same convention dealing with the powers of the aircraft commander states :
Notwithstanding the provisions of Article 1, paragraph 3, an aircraft shall for the purposes 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 bit to read again is for disembarkation.

Therefore if I as a commander divert my flight to another airport with the clear stated intention of continuing on to the original destination then the powers of the aircraft commander are still supreme even if the doors are open provided it is not for disembarkation.

Upon purchasing your ticket you agreed to be bound by the general conditions of carriage which would certainly mean complying with the lawful instructions of the aircraft commander. If the instructions are that the passenger is not to disembark, use their mobile phone, light up a cigarette, use their transistor radio or indeed anything else that they may feel is an innapropriate rule as it applies in their case, then if it jeopordizes good order the Captain has a duty to act as may be appropriate to the situation, but his authority would certainly still apply.

If a person believes that the Captain has acted against their interest they can complain or seek redress within the law, as they as an individual (or collective) see fit. However bear in mind article 10 of the tokyo convention which states :
For actions taken in accordance with this Convention, neither the aircraft commander, any other member of the crew, any passenger, the owner or operator of the aircraft, nor the person on whose behalf the flight was performed shall be held responsible in any proceeding on account of the treatment undergone by the person against whom the actions were taken.

An aircraft commander ought to be a master of common sense and not a legal expert. It may be entirely appropriate to disembark a passenger or passengers at a diversion airport. Even where it is not, it might be expedient and in accordance with the maintainance of good order to comply with a demand. It may be that a passenger is handed over to the police or immigration authorities ( if appropriate), however the passenger does not have a right to breach their contract with the airline, nor do they have a right to disregard the lawful instructions of the aircraft commander without incurring whatever penalties might subsequently apply.

Boy

Bealzebub, the first word is the key word: therefore since it clearly indicates a deduction. Are you really expressing the opinion that the commander of an aircraft can require, oblige or order a passenger to remain on board an aircraft when it has been diverted to an alternate because the flight is, in effect, still underway? Or are you making a different argument? One way or another, I think yours is an "interesting" interpretation to build upon the "General Conditions of Carriage" and I think I would prefer that you went to court to do the arguing!

BTW, how does asking - or even demanding - to depart the aircraft in such circumstances come fall within the applicability of the phrase "... may or do jeopardize the safety of the aircraft ... " and the intentions of the Convention?

RAT 5

I would like, indeed consider it essential, that this matter is cleared up PDQ. I suppose, in the case of RYR, the captain, if later sued by a pax, could claim he was acting as an agent under the direct orders of his superiors. Would that hold as a defence? Why is not a union, or ECA, asking the question to the authorities on behalf of the whole profession? This is not a company specific issue, but an industry-wide matter; thus it should be solved by a central body; and what better than a national union to ask the question of the local authority. Surely, as a goverment body, they should be able to issue the final ruling.

My only experience of such a scenario was this. AT the time I had all sympathy witht he pax, and no doubt would have acted the same in their shoes. It did seem petty, but the company ordered it thus.

Destination AAA, Held 40mins waiting for landing. Diverted BBB, about 100miles & 2.5 hours by coach away, due lack of fuel to hold any longer. Plan was to re-fuel and continue to AAA. However, as we sat at BBB, and all the new scheduled arrivals stacking up at AAA, slot times of over 3 hours were issued to us. Company decided to bus the pax from AAA - BBB. Pax at BBB would have to wait for the buses to arrive, then bus to AAA. WE were stuck out in the bundu, with a local handling agent who was unfamiliar with our company, and had other priorities. Thus we had no ground services and little communication, and certainly no priority.
Discussed situation with pax, some of whom wanted to get off. A seemingly reasonable request, as the coach from BBB - AAA would pass their intended local destination. Not only did the company refuse disembarkation, but also to drop off pax en-route to AAA. They calimed that they had a contract with the pax to deliver them and their baggage to AAA; and come hell or high water, that is what would happen, by plane, train or auto.
As there were no airport buses, or baggage loaders available, the near rioting pax were persuaded that to wander about on the apron would attract severe attention from the local fuzz.
Still, all in all it was a PR nightmare. I would not have liked to come the heavy handed messenger quoting chapter & verse from some regulations.

But, back to the top; Can the correct agency please obtain, on behalf of the whole profession, the answer to this very vexing question.

GGV

RAT5 I have in fact made such a request for legal guidance. The excuse being presented for not giving me a prompt reply is something called "Christmas and the New Year" and I have been told not to hold my breath .... I will post it eventually if nothing is posted by somebody else in the interim. As regards your comment: I beg to suggest that it would be a "defence" but I doubt that it would work since it is the authority and actions of the captain that are at issue here, not the authority and actions of Ryanair. As I understand it, this goes back to the fact that each pilot operates on the basis of HIS/HER licence, not Ryanair's AOC, or Ryanair's anything else.

RAT 5

GGV.

Thanks for your thoughts. Regarding the licence issue, surely that is primarily a flying matter; this is a ground matter. The licence does not confer rank. That is awarded by the company. The thread was started because of a memo issued to RYR captains. The captain, agent/ambassador for his company, has been issued with a direct order by that company on how to deal with this specific scenario. It could also have been issued to the handling agent, or local manager, who then could have read out the same blurb to the pax. Thus, I'm not sure the individual could be held wholely responsible. I realise, after 1945, that "I was only obeying orders" has ceased to be a watertight defence, but in this case I would of thought it would hold. If the captain or agnet was operating, knowingly, outside the law, then yes they would be liable. In this particular case, it would seem no-one knows quite what the law is.
Might this be a case of RYR being a law unto itself. It would be interesting for them to quote which law they are referring to. The feathers would certainly fly if there was a member of the legal fraternity on board and took issue with it. I think I would hand him my mobile and the number of the D'Ops.

stagger

I discussing whether it might be legal for a captain to detain passengers under the circumstances outlined above - everyone seems to be missing the gist of the original Ryanair announcement.

Ryanair are suggesting that not only are they legally entitled to detain the passengers, but that they are legally obliged to detain the passengers.

What is the basis for this?

GGV

RAT5 I think on this one you may be wrong - mainly because the "I was only obeying orders / had no choice" defence is unacceptable to those who have the power to act (courts, Aviation Authorities, etc) should they decide you did something wrong. Try this example, which I have (informally) asked my local Aviation Authority about in the specific context of Ryanair. Here's the question: "If I am threatened with the loss of my employment for refusing to complete my duty on grounds of fatigue and, as a result, I continue to fly will you be able to help me deal with my employer if I come to you?"

Ans: Nope, sorry …. and by the way, you would have acted illegally if you flew. You, and only you (the licence holder), have the responsibility in law for how you act. Your responsibility is absolute. If you fly in such circumstances you will have committed an offence. Not only that but, officially, if you then tell us (the Aviation Authority) we are technically obliged to pursue you, not them.

As regards tackling an employer the message was infinitely more difficult to grasp. I think I was basically told that it was essentially an industrial matter and that it would be up to me, my lawyers or my pilots association to pursue the matter. When I pointed out that the implications and consequences of such advice were well known I was given the "I know what you mean" smile and eyebrows (not a word was uttered) and told that whatever personal sympathy might be forthcoming, the legal types take a very black and white view of such matters. I then tried to suggest that if my association brought a complaint on my behalf ... to be told that for such purposes only I, in my capacity as a licence holder, could approach the Authority since the association has no standing in such matters (which came as news to me).

Hence RAT5 my feeling that this is all about me (the licence holder) and not about them (the employer). Regardless of employer, whether on the Ground or in the Air, it is all about the defensibility of the pilot’s actions in whatever legal context applies. The fact that an employer orders or requires you to do something illegal is irrelevant. Hope you now feel as pissed off as I do.

IcePack

Me thinks that the reason for not letting pax disembark at points other than destination is something to do with traffic rights. i.e. ANairline has rights to fly pax from A to B but NOT from A to C so if they let pax off at C they would be in breach of their traffic rights/5th freedom rights etc and the Airline "could" be heavily fined for breaking their traffic rights. Well something like that anyway