Nov71

As regards the other pax; if the Police had told you to keep them onboard until the situation was sorted then I think it would be a reckless pax to disembark, knowing Police were at the bottom of the steps.

Nov71

Trip, I am not a lawyer or 'plod'
If smoking on an aircraft is a criminal offence and you had reasonable suspicion, eg smokers breath, independent witness, that the individual had committed the offence then a 'citizens arrest' as described would be lawful. Leave proof to the Courts
If an offence under Civil Law, unlikely, then no power to detain
Re other pax, you only requested their co-operation. If a pax had insisted on disembarkation (to make a connecting flight etc) I suggest all you could do would be to satisfy yourself you had the pax name, contact details for the Police to follow up, if the pax was not implicated in the offence.
If the offence suggested a conspiracy, then all pax & crew could be considered suspects and wholesale ground detention would be lawful subject to 'reaonable' force, provided you do not end up with a hostage situation
I use the term 'reasonable' in the legal sense - if physically aggressive, restrain; if he points a gun, kill him if no other option

Nov71

Trip, I am strong on human rights of the individual My 'kill him' comment was related to prevailing situation & legal opinion if innocent lives were in imminent danger Ideally you, and any Police Officer, would be charged with Murder 1, 2 or manslaughter and left for a Jury to decide

bjcc

Trip Switch

You asked when you may detain a person on board.

I can't give you a simple answer. The general powers to detain a person (arrest) are in the Police and criminal evidence act. That also covers whats termed 'Citizens arrest'.

In short, any person may arrest a person that has committed an arrestable offence, or a person who he has reasonable cause to suspect has committed one. (I have not used the exact wording)

An arrestable offence is one which carries a penatly of 5 years imprisonment for the first offence (again thats a simplistic version of what the legislation says)

Offences under the Air Navigation order carry a maximum penalty of 2 years imprisonment, thus are not arrestable offences, and carry no 'any person' power of arrest.

If you ask your pax to wait in their seats until police arrive, and they comply with that 'request' is it arrest? Possibly, although I wouldn't like to bet on it. Flying lawyer would be the person to give you a better answer to that. I would guess it would depend on exactly what you said.

The detention for 'economic' reasons, which sparked this, would not be legal. I can see the common sense of not allowing a pax off to go wandering about on his own. However, being airside in itself is not an arrestable offence and there is therefore no power to arrest. Even if it were, the power would not come into being for 'any person' until an offence had been committed, ie they had actually got off and entered the restricted area.

Boy

The exchange above ending with - yet again - the addition of sobering facts and common sense by bjcc should be an instruction to all. Yet again we have seen pilot reasoning, based on particular conceptions of the law and misinterpreted premises, demonstrated to be flawed.

The lesson for me is that it is now looking to me that pilots often (like to) think they have powers that they simply do not have. (Interesting that in one comment above the contributor, having successfully asked his passengers to remain on board, thinks he has "detained" them. What would he have made of the situation, or done, had they collectively refused!!?? Tried to "citzens arrest" them all? I have been on an aircraft where a number of passengers became determined to leave after a sustained delay - it would have needed a very courageous person to stand in their way).

On a more personal note, it is interesting to see the divide between those who seem to think that "human rights" are a means of manipulating "the system" and those, like me, who think they are a protection against the arbitrary abuse of power.

As I said many posts ago, all the signs are that the original Ryanair memo has little to do with the law and lots to do with Ryanair. I've seen nothing since to persuade me differently.

RAT 5

bjcc:

Glad we got back on track with this. Too important to have allowed it become hi-jacked by a Garuda bashing, etc.

You said the original spark for this thread was "economic reasons". I'm not sure how that arises. The PA says specifically it is for legal & security reasons. This whole debate has been about whether this statement is true, or not. Is the Captain stepping beyond thier authority? (Perhaps the real reason is economic and the rest is a smoke screen?)

Concerning the reply about route licences & freedom rights; what about the case where a/c diverts and there is no plan to continue, eventually, by the same a/c to the original destination? Thus the pax disembark at the diversion airfiled under orders of the carrier.
In my only case of such an event, the interesting scene which must have ensued in the baggage hall, when a few pax did not want to take the coach service to their original destination AAA, as the diversion BBB was closer ot their accommodation. The airline refused to release their baggage, and insisted on taking it to AAA. No forwarding service was offered as the baggage had not been lost. Infuriating in the extreme; seriously bad PR, but probably legal as per the original contract between airline & pax.

I asked that a national agency (union) asks these questions on behalf of the whole profession. From GGV's replies it might be that the CAA's do not want to get involved. If not, then they should be able to tell you who is the definitive authority. Untimately the government, I would have thought. Surely a question to the Dept of Transport should be successful; or is that naive?

GGV: I sympathise with your contact with the CAA. I can understand that, if you were dismissed for obeying the law, then that is an unlawful dismissal case in the civil courts. However, I would have expected the CAA to become involved if it was known that an airline had coerced an employee to break the law. Sadly, it would seem another case of the CAA's being more interested in incorrect paperwork and record keeping that actual opertional matters effecting real people every day during real operations; or is that cynical?

bjcc

RAT 5

Yes the memo, or instruction from Ryan air quoted at the begining did say Security Reasons.

My point in saying I wonder if perhaps it was motivated more by 'economic' reasons. Ryanair is an Irish carrier, and the rules, legislation in the ROI may be different from those in the UK. It may be the case that there, the memo's contents has some standing. In the UK though I am suggesting it does not.

My reasons are strainght forward. Preventing a pax from disembarking at a divertion airfield does not present any more of a security issue that it does at any other airport.

Yes, they would have to be escorted to a Terminal, if the aircraft is on a remote stand. Yes, there may be an additional charge levied by the airport operator to the airline for that. As indeed there may be for any extra time spent on the ground while baggage is unloaded, if that is nessesery.

However, passenger airports are designed to accomadate all of these things, obviously at cost to an airline.

Given then, that in reality there is NO security implication, then the memo seems to fall on it's face.

The issue of contract goes over my head I'm afraid. But having been called to a fair few similar incidents, not involving Ryanair, at Heathrow,all I can say is my actions were never questioned in allowing pax to dissembark if that is what they wished to do.

A contract between the airline and the pax does not entitle the airline to refuse an entitlement to freedom, in this case, to leave. I will also say that the Captains of the aircraft concerned varried between not caring and being indignent at my actions. But thats not my concern, the big airline with red white and blue planes at Heathrow didn't pay my wages! The airline attitude was however similar to Ryanairs apparent message in the memo quoted. In reality that 'concern' did not stand up to scrutiny.

If an airline felt that strongly about it, then I am sure they could persure the matter in a Civil Court, but for the time of the 'incident' the passenger can leave if he wishes.

NigelOnDraft

bjcc

You are giving us some insight into the legal side from your pov, but I think missing ours. So let's try an analogy.

You are a passenger on a bus stop/starting on the M25. You decide you've missed the meeting... and want to get off and walk. You say as much to the driver.

Is he committing an offence by refusing to let you off the bus in the middle lane of the M25? Or must he immediately get to the hard shoulder and let you off? Or exit at the next Motorway exit and let you off? And has he not breached some duty of care or whatever letting you off in a dangerous / prohibited place? And what you do as the police to the bus driver? And to the now motorway pedestrian?

This leads on to a situation we have where bus drivers are refusing to let us alight as one exits from LHR airside, and insisiting "for H&S" we mst stay on the bus to the other side of the airport, to have to return by public transport. The point we request to alight is a grassed verge to a public road, it is not illegal to stop there etc. Are they breaking the law? Do we have the right to demand to be let off?

Thanks in advance...

NoD

D SQDRN 97th IOTC

bjcc

From a legal point of view, "in flight" means from the time from the first application of power for the purpose of taking off until the moment the landing run ends at the termination of that flight.

The ANO (made under s.61 of the 1982 Civil Aviation Act), in particular Art. 77 is informative here. This article requires every person in an aircraft to obey all lawful commands which the commander of the aircraft may give for securing the safety of the aircraft and its passengers or for the efficiency of air navigation. Breach of article 59 is an offence.

It is also an offence to trespass on an aerodrome licensed under the ANO - see s.39 of the CAA 1982.

So if a passenger in the UK decides he doesn't want to obey a lawful command given under Art 59 of the ANO and he wants to voluntarily trespass too - then more fool him.

Happy New Year!

bjcc

NigelOnDraft

I can see what you mean by the analagy you use. But to take it a stage further, would you expect to not be allowed to get off the same bus at the stop before yours? Of course you would no more expect to be allowed off the bus on the M25 than you would 5 minutes after take off, expect to be allowed to leave the plane.

In this case though, the aircraft is on the ground at an airport. So in a similar position as a bus at a stop.

The same principles apply. If a bus passenger wants off, he goes. The complication though is yes, you are airside, and common snese, never mind duty of care, legislation in respect of restricted access etc have to be born in mind.

If said pax says, I am going and goes, then what right do you have to detain him? None, I would say. There is no power to arrest for being stupid. There is no power to deatin for being about to commit an offence, so you have no way of detaining. I accept that trying to show him the error of his ways is a good idea, but if that fails then thats that. It then becomes a matter for someone else to deal with.

On the other hand, airports are geared up to take a passenger from an aircraft to a terminal and then on to Landside. And they are able to deal with that whatever the circumstances of the aircraft being there. So the practical implications of getting from aircraft to Landside can be overcome. But at a cost.

The suggestion from Ryanair though is that this is due a security reason. There does not seem to be any justification for that concern. Its one the big airline with red white and blue planes at LHR used to use, but the reality is when asked to explain they failed to do so on every occation. Although if bags had to be off loaded, there was much nashing of teeth etc about cost of delay and unloading....

I can see your point, and its a difficult position for the crew to be in, I also see that.


D Sqdn

Yes it is more fool him, not only are there offences under the ANO, there are many others to consider, but none of them, as far as I recall with an 'any person' power to arrest, of course you are also assuming the aircraft is on a remote stand, away from a terminal.

Your definition of in flight, is one of a few, and thats why for simplicity we used doors open not in flight, doors shut in flight.

Again your correct the ANO does say that. It does not however give the captain a power to detain for an offence under the act. Breaching S59 may well then be an offence, to misquote something I used to hear 'What you going to do about it Captain?'

Where a captain may have a problem is in whether the command 'you can't get off' is legal. And I can't see it being for the reasons Ryanair appear to quote.

Faire d'income

Nigel does missing the point come naturally or do you have to practise?

We are not talking about a passenger trying to disembark in the middle of the UL607 are we? If you said the passenger wanted to get off the bus buring a tyre change at an unscheduled service station that may be more comparable. I doubt if the driver would go beyond asking you to remain on board which is all I suggest we as commanders can do on the ground, engines shut down.

It is seriously disappointing to see how many skippers ( or wannabe skippers ) here grossly overestimate their legal postition. I suggest some research before the predictable high profile case comes along and some one ends up shafted.

In most countries including Ryanair's Ireland you need very solid ground to deny anyone their civil liberties. Call the plods and let them decide. Do not rely on management memos.

D SQDRN 97th IOTC

bjcc

I might also add that the police powers of arrest changed on the 1st.

Section 110 of the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005 inserted a new section 24 into the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. The new section 24 removes the distinction between criminal offences which are arrestable and those which are not and provides that a constable may, provided certain criteria are met, arrest a person in relation to any criminal offence.

Just adding this for the benefit of those who don't know any better for checking the statements of those who claim to or should.

:-)

Ringo

A word of caution for any RYR Captain "following these orders".... Ryanair has failed on just about every legal case it has taken on in recent memory and I would not count on too much support from them in the event of any civil claim made against the crew.

NigelOnDraft

bjcc / F'dI

Thanks for the replies...
I don't know anything about bus stops... but I do about airports If I divert and am off stnad, or if I have left stand and am now caught up in de-icing etc. or just the usual delays air transport seems to get itself into, I might as well be in UL607:

• At LHR I might wait 45mins for a stand to become available when I am scheduled to arrive. So if I suddenly announce I want one because Mr Jones wants to get off that might take 1 hour.
• If I have waited an hour or so in the de-ice queue and go back to stand to offload Mr Jones, I now go to the back of that queue.
• If I have waited the hour and de-iced, I now have a "holdover" time to get airborne in - maybe 15mins. If I go back and offload Mr Jones, that is lost, and I have to de-ice again.
• By the time I have done this, for Mr Smith as well, the crew are out of hours, and the other 99 pax go nowhere.

In short, does Mr Jones' "right to get off" after I have left stand i.e. the flight / journey he has contracted with us to do has started supersede the expectations of all the other pax and the company?

Do I have to open a door, inflate a slide, and leave him on taxiway A??

Some would disagree.... something more to do with shopping

My point is that the law does not seem to differentiate between being airborne and on the ground. If I am on stand, jetty attached, I do understand I cannot withhold the passenger. And elsewhere I have already stated that. The fact that the jetty is "restricted access" and the passenger will be apprehended by the outsourced security staff in the jetty won't be my problem. And certainly in my company, asking the ground staff to reattend will take 30+mins at a minimum. However, once the aircraft has left stand, it might as well be airborne for the time and hassle and cost it will take to offload the pax. But more importantly, the law you quote does not differentiate between being airborne and on the ground, so if what you say is true, a passenger has an equal right to demand we land...

Do you not think this is what this discussion is aimed at...

bjcc

D SQDRN 97th IOTC

Thank you, we can all read papers, but this is about a member of the public not a police officer.

Although I did say earlier that when I police officer, I would find it difficult in the circumstances surrounding Ryanairs memo to justify it being nessesary to arrest a person who decided to get off. Even though he may well have committed all sorts of offences.
The new powers do not change that.


NigelOnDraft

I don';t doubt your ability to tell the difference, nor do I envy the position an airline crew may find it's self in.

Many of the circumstances you discribe I would be suprsied if an aircraft went back to stand to throw the passenger off, although it has happened. And once in the air, I certainly wasn't coming to you, so what happens while you are up there is your call.

Maybe I was reading too much into the circumstances, I assumed would be, if the memo was called into use. An aircraft stuck at a divertion for a period of time. And it is in those much more simplistic circumstances I would think a captain wouldn't have a leg to stand on if he refused disembarkation.

The cost implication to an airline isn't a concern of mine if I was called to that, or indeed a pax who at the last moment decided he was not going.

Thats not to say the cost isn't important to the airlines, just it wasn't something I could take into account when deciding what, if anything I was going to do.

Trip Switch.

Yes you have the powers discibed, which you would probably be called on to justify. The power you quote, only gives you the right to restrain on for acts on board and in relation to your aircraft, but we are not talking about a pax who decides to go nutty. We are talking about a person, who once on the ground decides he wants off. What justification have you for refusing that?

I am saying I don't think you have any. If you are at an airport, then the facilities exist to facilitate that. If the doors are open, then short of using the powers you discribe then how are you going to stop them going?

Again, I'll refer you to Flying Lawyer to answer points on sueing. It's a Civil matter not a Police one.

el @

All what you said has been said already - and is of little relevance to the matter discussed.
Also it has been said already that a plane is not in flight when stopped for a diversion or long delay.
That asking to leave an airplane in such conditions is not an offence.
That denying a person of his basic rights is in fact a serious crime - Captains have been warned that they could suffer consequences if acting so no matter the Airline instructions.

Much of this advice came from experienced Captains or Pilots or even Police Officers. An intelligent discussion has developed and I hope it continues in this way.

Yet, we have to listen the train or highway analogy, to the threat of pax being arrested because (not obeying orders | go airside unauthorized | place your favorite here), or to people defending the mere economic interest of Airlines. Then this threat is preposterously defended in light of the new UK law on power of arrest - that again has nothing to do with the matter.

Go ahead and say or do what you want - each is one entitled to his own opinion, but do not expect things to be the way you like just because you're not listening.

Boy

Trip Switch, earlier today you took me to task thus (even though I refrained from specifiying any particular poster):Funny enough, I don’t believe that. However, please reflect on the following statements you made and - may I suggest - reflect further on the fact that not only is it not a question but is, instead, revealing of certain attitudes to be found in your posts: Given the nature of your forthright opinions I would have thought you came across as being rather sensitive. I stand by my remarks and I too “wish you well” despite your accusation that: Now, where did that come from? There is not an iota of justification for such a statement in my post.

fireloop

No, I believe you cannot be sued. Your responsibility for taking care begins as soon as the passenger puts his/her foot on the steps of the aircraft with the intention of travelling. It ends as soon as he/she sets foot on the apron or enters the jetty.

IOW: if Mr. Jones gets hit by a fuel truck, on the apron, it's his fault, not yours. IF he trips and falls down the stairs onto the apron you're the one to fill out the paperwork and possibly be sued.

regards

PS: it's rediculous isn't it? I'm a pilot not a lawyer, damnit!

D SQDRN 97th IOTC

bjcc

We may be close to agreement on something for a change, but as always I like to look at the detail.

In relation to the powers of arrest and the new s.24 inserted in PACE, there is also a new s.24A inserted that covers the powers of arrest for persons other than constables. The 24A change is that the ability to make a "citizen's arrest" is no longer based on the test of arrestability, but that the offence should be indictable. Broadly, there is likely to be only one indictable offence on an airplane for which a non constable could arrest a person which is endangering the safety of an aircraft - Art.73 of the ANO. The simple act of disobeying the lawful command of a commander is a summary offence only - a citizen cannot arrest someone for this, but it is an argument for police in the air! (But as you pointed out, the indictable offence could land someone in jail for 5 years and is similar to the old arrestability test.)

What could happen if you tried to arrest someone as a citizen and you had no power of arrest? Could you be sued for assault, wrongful imprisonment and false arrest? All of these are possibilities. The remedy to anyone suing someone for false imprisonment etc. is usually damages.

In respect of making an arrest where someone is threatening the safety of the aircraft, s24A (b) provides a defence to a citizen making such an arrest if he had "reasonable grounds for suspecting".

If a citizen makes an arrest for any other reason on a plane, I suggest he could be in trouble. Arrest means to physically restrain or detain somebody, and in the UK this is unlawful unless the law gives someone the power of arrest. So if somebody is being wrongly arrested, he can therefore use reasonable force to resist, and the person making the unlawful arrest could be on the end of an assault charge.......

bjcc

D SQDRN 97th IOTC

I'm not sure how helpful your legal lesson really is in respect of this thread.

I don't agree that the only indicable (triable at Crown Court) offence committed in the air is the ANO offence of Endangering an aircraft. What about the Aviation Security Act? And of course the old favourates, Theft, assaults and criminal damage. All of which are arrestable by a member of the public, and have been committed on aircraft.

Moving on though..........

Can we go back to the original subject?