Ryanair flight: 'Racial abuse passenger' referred to police

[Kerosine]

Ejecting pax without legal authority

Can you be more specific?

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.

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!

[Hogg]

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.

[IcePack]

As I said Kerosine "Not a lot of authority in law for the Captain prior to door closure."

[Kerosine]

Originally Posted by IcePack

As I said Kerosine "Not a lot of authority in law for the Captain prior to door closure."

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.

[ciderman]

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.

[Skyjob]

Originally Posted by Hogg

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.

Agreed 100%

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.

[sonicbum]

Originally Posted by Kerosine

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!

As a Captain You are fully entitled (and obliged btw) to offload any passenger that may represent a threat to the safety of the flight in conjunction with rules laid out in your Operator Security Program.

[Kerosine]

Originally Posted by sonicbum

As a Captain You are fully entitled (and obliged btw) to offload any passenger that may represent a threat to the safety of the flight in conjunction with rules laid out in your Operator Security Program.

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.

[pineteam]

Originally Posted by Buzzing

I'm just stunned that the PIC didn't come out to stop this nonsense.

Some airlines, like the one I work for it’s forbidden for the cockpit crew to interfere and we must make sure the cockpit door is locked. You never know, it can be a ruse to hijack the plane.

[Kerosine]

Originally Posted by pineteam

Some airlines, like the one I work for it’s forbidden for the cockpit crew to interfere and we must make sure the cockpit door is locked. You never know, it can be a ruse to hijack the plane.

The problem occurred on the ground where the cockpit door would likely have been open.

[Strumble Head]

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.

[Legalapproach]

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.

[ShotOne]

“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?

[Kerosine]

If this had happened in a bar/shop/bus/train/taxi/tube would we be blaming the staff -or, rightly, the person who misbehaved?

I don't think any of us are in disagreement over whether the guy was an a*sehole for the way he was behaving. Agreeing on that point doesn't stop us discussing whether the person should have been allowed to travel. The airline has a duty of care for passengers and staff which is delegated to the commander for the period of time he is on board the aircraft. The question is whether this duty of care was carried out or whether an unnecessary risk was taken in allowing this person to travel.

[The AvgasDinosaur]

Learned contributors,
Do cabin crew receive any training initial or recurrent on dealing with aggressive, abussive, intoxicated or violent pax ?
Be lucky
David

[Flyingmac]

He called her ugly. She told him he stank. Maybe they should both have been ejected.

[airpolice]

Originally Posted by crewmeal

It gives Ryanair a bad name

That made me larf out loud!

[ShotOne]

“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.

[lomapaseo]

“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.

Finally a "could of"

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

[Meester proach]

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