Ryanair flight: 'Racial abuse passenger' referred to police
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Europe
Posts: 673
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ejecting pax without legal authority
The Tokyo convention states that, from door closure:
1. The aircraft commander may, when he has reasonable grounds to believe that a person has committed, or is about to commit, on board the aircraft, an offence or act contemplated in Article 1, paragraph 1, impose upon such person reasonable measures including restraint which are necessary:
(a) to protect the safety of the aircraft, or of persons or property therein; or
(b) to maintain good order and discipline on board; or
(c) to enable him to deliver such person to competent authorities or to disembark him in accordance with the provisions of this
Chapter. 2. The aircraft commander may require or authorize the assistance of other crew members and may request or authorize, but not require, the assistance of passengers to restrain any person whom he is entitled to restrain. Any crew member or passenger may also take reasonable preventive measures without such authorization when he has reasonable grounds to believe that such action is immediately necessary to protect the safety of the aircraft, or of persons or property therein.
(a) to protect the safety of the aircraft, or of persons or property therein; or
(b) to maintain good order and discipline on board; or
(c) to enable him to deliver such person to competent authorities or to disembark him in accordance with the provisions of this
Chapter. 2. The aircraft commander may require or authorize the assistance of other crew members and may request or authorize, but not require, the assistance of passengers to restrain any person whom he is entitled to restrain. Any crew member or passenger may also take reasonable preventive measures without such authorization when he has reasonable grounds to believe that such action is immediately necessary to protect the safety of the aircraft, or of persons or property therein.
It does not suggest you are unable to 'refuse carriage' however. The actual 'ejection' is done by the state authorities while the doors are open. I can't see a grey area, though I would appreciate someone more educated in aviation law to expand/contradict my interpretation!
Article 11 of the Ryanairs Terms/Conditions clearly states.
He should have been removed. IMHO
Article 11 - Conduct aboard aircraft
11.1 General
If, in our reasonable opinion, you conduct yourself aboard the aircraft so as to endanger the aircraft or any person or property on board, or obstruct the crew in the performance of their duties, or fail to comply with any instructions of the crew including but not limited to those with respect to smoking, alcohol or drug consumption, or behave in a manner which we reasonably believe may cause or does cause discomfort, inconvenience, damage or injury to other passengers or the crew, we may take such measures as we deem reasonably necessary to prevent continuation of such conduct, including restraint. You may be disembarked and refused onward carriage at any point, and may be prosecuted for offences committed on board the aircraft.
He should have been removed. IMHO
Article 11 - Conduct aboard aircraft
11.1 General
If, in our reasonable opinion, you conduct yourself aboard the aircraft so as to endanger the aircraft or any person or property on board, or obstruct the crew in the performance of their duties, or fail to comply with any instructions of the crew including but not limited to those with respect to smoking, alcohol or drug consumption, or behave in a manner which we reasonably believe may cause or does cause discomfort, inconvenience, damage or injury to other passengers or the crew, we may take such measures as we deem reasonably necessary to prevent continuation of such conduct, including restraint. You may be disembarked and refused onward carriage at any point, and may be prosecuted for offences committed on board the aircraft.
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Europe
Posts: 673
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No authority to eject the person directly, but still has the authority to refuse carriage and call the police to have the person removed. I get what you're saying, just trying to nail down the particulars.
Me thinks the fact that Ryanair have referred it to the Essex police and not either the Spanish or Irish police is an attempt to kick this into the long grass. The engines were not turning, the aircraft was parked in Spain. What authority do the boys in blue at Stansted have. None I suspect. I hate Ryanair with a passion but only for the way they treat their passengers and employees. I can't legislate for behaviour like this. I wonder if an on time departure was more in the crew's minds than doing the right thing and throwing this guy off the flight.
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: FL410
Posts: 860
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Article 11 of the Ryanairs Terms/Conditions clearly states.
He should have been removed. IMHO
Article 11 - Conduct aboard aircraft
11.1 General
If, in our reasonable opinion, you conduct yourself aboard the aircraft so as to endanger the aircraft or any person or property on board, or obstruct the crew in the performance of their duties, or fail to comply with any instructions of the crew including but not limited to those with respect to smoking, alcohol or drug consumption, or behave in a manner which we reasonably believe may cause or does cause discomfort, inconvenience, damage or injury to other passengers or the crew, we may take such measures as we deem reasonably necessary to prevent continuation of such conduct, including restraint. You may be disembarked and refused onward carriage at any point, and may be prosecuted for offences committed on board the aircraft.
He should have been removed. IMHO
Article 11 - Conduct aboard aircraft
11.1 General
If, in our reasonable opinion, you conduct yourself aboard the aircraft so as to endanger the aircraft or any person or property on board, or obstruct the crew in the performance of their duties, or fail to comply with any instructions of the crew including but not limited to those with respect to smoking, alcohol or drug consumption, or behave in a manner which we reasonably believe may cause or does cause discomfort, inconvenience, damage or injury to other passengers or the crew, we may take such measures as we deem reasonably necessary to prevent continuation of such conduct, including restraint. You may be disembarked and refused onward carriage at any point, and may be prosecuted for offences committed on board the aircraft.
However, question is, was the captain in this case informed and also to the extent of proceedings in the rear.
In other words, would he have been made aware of the reasons for incident, explained what was said by whom and when in response to initial moments.
Only then would he have been in a position to do so, and even then it is subjective as to whether he would believe one person over another.
As it appears, even cabin crew did not see and hear initial issue at hand, nor words said, therefore they too cannot be relied upon in this matter.
You have one passenger vs another passenger...
And before flight, he would not have the time to look at all evidence of videos on different mobile devices to make such a decision having (re)viewed the evidence.
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Having a margarita on the beach
Posts: 2,423
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Can you be more specific?
The Tokyo convention states that, from door closure:
So if the doors are open, you are not legally allowed to impose 'restraints' directly on the passenger, nor ask anyone else to do it. The correct course of action is to notify the state's authorities to perform this function. The Article simply gives you additional powers to restrain a passenger when the state authorities may be unable to do so themselves.
It does not suggest you are unable to 'refuse carriage' however. The actual 'ejection' is done by the state authorities while the doors are open. I can't see a grey area, though I would appreciate someone more educated in aviation law to expand/contradict my interpretation!
The Tokyo convention states that, from door closure:
So if the doors are open, you are not legally allowed to impose 'restraints' directly on the passenger, nor ask anyone else to do it. The correct course of action is to notify the state's authorities to perform this function. The Article simply gives you additional powers to restrain a passenger when the state authorities may be unable to do so themselves.
It does not suggest you are unable to 'refuse carriage' however. The actual 'ejection' is done by the state authorities while the doors are open. I can't see a grey area, though I would appreciate someone more educated in aviation law to expand/contradict my interpretation!
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Europe
Posts: 673
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I didn't know it was in the operator security program, I'll see if I can get my hands on a copy for our company.
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Somewhere over the rainbow
Posts: 946
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Europe
Posts: 673
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The problem occurred on the ground where the cockpit door would likely have been open.
Looks like the usual Ryanair logic - path of least resistance allied with keeping costs down at all costs. As already mentioned, what if any jurisdiction do Essex Police have in relation to an offence committed in an Irish-registered aircraft sitting on the ground at a Spanish airport with the doors open? Various PPruNE members with legal expertise pop up in other groups so I hope someone can provide informed comment on that one.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: London
Posts: 500
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Essex police have no jurisdiction to deal with this incident. It occurred on Spanish soil in an Irish registered aircraft. Had the incident occurred in flight whilst en route to Stansted then they would have jurisdiction - s92 Civil Aviation Act 1982. In flight is defined in the Act as For the purpose of this section the period during which an aircraft is in flight shall be deemed to include any period from the moment when power is applied for the purpose of the aircraft taking off on a flight until the moment when the landing run (if any) at the termination of that flight ends, similarly had the incident occurred on a British registered aircraft then jurisdiction would apply.
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Manchester, UK
Posts: 1,958
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
“Stunned PIC didn’t come out...”. My understanding is PIC wasn’t made aware until well after the event. In any case, much as I loathe Ryanair it can be very hard to know what’s gone before when confronted with a full-blown shouting match. If this had happened in a bar/shop/bus/train/taxi/tube would we be blaming the staff -or, rightly, the person who misbehaved?
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Europe
Posts: 673
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If this had happened in a bar/shop/bus/train/taxi/tube would we be blaming the staff -or, rightly, the person who misbehaved?
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Stockport MAN/EGCC
Age: 70
Posts: 991
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Learned contributors,
Do cabin crew receive any training initial or recurrent on dealing with aggressive, abussive, intoxicated or violent pax ?
Be lucky
David
Do cabin crew receive any training initial or recurrent on dealing with aggressive, abussive, intoxicated or violent pax ?
Be lucky
David
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Manchester, UK
Posts: 1,958
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
“Maybe they should both...”. Someone coming in midway would have seen an old man trying to take his seat in a two-way shouting match with a younger women from another part of the plane. It’s not impossible the wrong person could have been kicked out.
Last edited by ShotOne; 22nd Oct 2018 at 20:50.
“Maybe they should both...”. Someone coming in midway would have seen an old man trying to take his seat apparently being harangued by a younger women. It’s not impossible the wrong person could have been kicked out.
Too many of us react to "claims" of racism and other hot button items right or wrong..
I see nothing wrong in having an opinion, but are we truly being played by the media etal.
In forums like this we need to stick to the rules that govern our jobs and not opinions of who is right or wring in their claims
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: Uk
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It would be stupid for P1/2 to get involved even if it’s on the ground. You get knocked out in a fight, the flights cancelled, the schedules shafted and there is thousands of pounds down the tube.
let senior crew deal with it and radio for police assistance as necessary
let senior crew deal with it and radio for police assistance as necessary