Passenger offloaded from Air NZ flight for ignoring safety briefing
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Western Pacific
Posts: 27
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"They're not overly long if they're entertaining. I found BA's recent star-studded safety video (the one hosted by Chabuddy G) quite good actually."
Star-studded? Who TF is Chubby G?
Star-studded? Who TF is Chubby G?
givemewings..... Interesting to hear it from the point of view one who is "at the sharp end" and I don't mean in the cockpit...You seem to come at this from the point of view of a military officer rather than someone who is dealing with passengers who happen to be customers. You see the briefing as "non-optional": to you it is part of your job. You cannot force the pax to participate; they can only be encouraged to participate. As I have said I am just not comfortable with passengers being thrown off a/c when they pose no threat or are not actively hostile. I am even less happy trying to ban them from further flying. The aircraft is operated by an airline to provide a public service for all who can afford to buy a ticket. This is in contrast to a privately owned aircraft where the owner can say who comes on board.
99.0075% of passengers are quite happy to follow instructions. However if a passenger refuses to then they must be offloaded because they could become a safety risk to themselves, other passengers or the aircraft itself.
I don’t know the full details in the case of this thread - I wasn’t there - but if a passenger in an emergency exit row refuses to listen and agree to follow safety instructions, then they must be moved from that exit row seat. If there were no alternative seats available and no other passenger was prepared to swap with them, then the original uncooperative passenger would have to be offloaded; we cannot have passengers who pose a safety risk. If they refuse to follow safety instructions, will they also smoke in the toilets for example? A discarded lit cigarette in the waste bin can cause a fire, and fire in an airplane is extremely dangerous and serious.
Every other year on average I have to call police to meet the aircraft on landing to deal with an unruly passenger who refused to follow safety instructions or is acting in a dangerous manner. One charming fellow who refused to fit his seatbelt before landing and was abusive to the cabin crew was last seen on the airbridge shouting at the Spanish police to “speak fxxxxxg English” as he was led away.
Just last week while over the Atlantic the toilet smoke warning suddenly went off. I am sure you can appreciate the seriousness of a fire in the cabin at 37,000’ over the ocean, an hour and a half flying time away from any airport. This despite the safety briefing stating that smoking was not allowed.
So unfortunately, passengers do have to be instructed. We cannot rely on them behaving safely voluntarily - most do, but we can not assume it. You find the manner occasionally too bossy, but perhaps your attitude or behaviour is borderline non compliant or difficult? There simply isn’t time to negotiate safety procedures with every passenger. They are simply trying to maximise your safety.
Just relax.
Gnome de PPRuNe
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Too close to Croydon for comfort
Age: 60
Posts: 12,599
Received 277 Likes
on
153 Posts
Uplinker, shame there is no like button on this site.
The bossy lady member of platform staff at Clapham Junction station who recently shouted at me to get behind the yellow line was thinking of my safety and got a smile and a thank you in return.
The bossy lady member of platform staff at Clapham Junction station who recently shouted at me to get behind the yellow line was thinking of my safety and got a smile and a thank you in return.
I know you find this uncomfortable, but passengers - whether they have paid for a ticket or not is irrelevant to safety - MUST obey safety instructions on an aircraft. This is the law, it is not optional. Would you argue with or ignore the instructions/orders from a fireman in a department store, telling you to leave the building? Or instructions from a ship’s Captain telling you to don your life jacket and proceed to lifeboat stations?
99.0075% of passengers are quite happy to follow instructions. However if a passenger refuses to then they must be offloaded because they could become a safety risk to themselves, other passengers or the aircraft itself.
I don’t know the full details in the case of this thread - I wasn’t there - but if a passenger in an emergency exit row refuses to listen and agree to follow safety instructions, then they must be moved from that exit row seat. If there were no alternative seats available and no other passenger was prepared to swap with them, then the original uncooperative passenger would have to be offloaded; we cannot have passengers who pose a safety risk. If they refuse to follow safety instructions, will they also smoke in the toilets for example? A discarded lit cigarette in the waste bin can cause a fire, and fire in an airplane is extremely dangerous and serious.
Every other year on average I have to call police to meet the aircraft on landing to deal with an unruly passenger who refused to follow safety instructions or is acting in a dangerous manner. One charming fellow who refused to fit his seatbelt before landing and was abusive to the cabin crew was last seen on the airbridge shouting at the Spanish police to “speak fxxxxxg English” as he was led away.
Just last week while over the Atlantic the toilet smoke warning suddenly went off. I am sure you can appreciate the seriousness of a fire in the cabin at 37,000’ over the ocean, an hour and a half flying time away from any airport. This despite the safety briefing stating that smoking was not allowed.
So unfortunately, passengers do have to be instructed. We cannot rely on them behaving safely voluntarily - most do, but we can not assume it. You find the manner occasionally too bossy, but perhaps your attitude or behaviour is borderline non compliant or difficult? There simply isn’t time to negotiate safety procedures with every passenger. They are simply trying to maximise your safety.
Just relax.
My thoughts are set out in several messages on this thread, not necessary to repeat. I am in no way defending those passengers who are "actively unruly" mostly fuelled by alcohol, I am sure you will confirm. As an aside here, have to wonder why alcohol is made so readily available airside in terminals, but of course they would need to forego some revenue if the obvious decision were to be taken. Your "modus operandi" works fine with troops on a C130. In my view you close your eyes to the fact passengers are there voluntarily. Very many will play along with you and shout "how high". You have problems with the ones who choose to ignore you or shout back " don't feel like jumping ". You will not agree, I am sure but SOME safety procedures have become rituals and the observance of them as a ritual has become more important that any safety advantage they may confer. As always an interesting debate.....
Last edited by Planemike; 11th May 2019 at 16:56.
"Mildly" Eccentric Stardriver
Planemike. Perhaps you should refrain from posting on this thread. As I recall, the British Air Navigation Order (and I would think most of the world is similar), gave me COMPLETE RESPONSIBILITY for the safety of the flight. By logical extension it also gave me COMPLETE AUTHORITY. That was delegated to the cabin crew. If the crew feel a passenger should be offloaded, then they are offloaded. I've done it several times, and each time I was exercising my RESPONSIBILITY.
Last from me to Planemike while I wait for my lawnmower battery to recharge......
Close enough.
Not mine, sir, it is the CAA’s....
Whether voluntary or not, paid or not, it makes no difference to the safety standards we are required by law to enforce. When you are in a cinema or in a department store, you still have to obey fire regulations, to take one example.
Safety is not a game. We are not “playing” at it.
What? they would rather stay on a burning aircraft??? All crews and pilots ‘have problems’ with passengers who refuse to follow lawful safety instructions. The law has problems with passengers who ignore safety instructions. We are required to uphold the law.
Pilots and crews perform a safety brief or review before every flight - and we might fly six flights in a day.. Even business passengers are unlikely to fly every day, so is it really too much to ask that they pay attention to the safety briefing and follow instructions given by the cabin crew?
Wearing seat belts when we say, stowing baggage correctly, putting tray tables away, putting seats backs upright, opening window blinds, not getting drunk, not smoking, dimming cabin lights before night landings, getting you to sit down when we say; all these and more are done purely for reasons of safety.
Passengers are allowed to visit the cockpit on the ground while the aircraft engines are not running, (as long as we are not too busy). Why not ask if you can next time you are on an aircraft?
Happy flying
Close enough.
Your "modus operandi" .......
..............works fine with troops on a C130. In my view you close your eyes to the fact passengers are there voluntarily.
Very many will play along with you and shout "how high".
You have problems with the ones who choose to ignore you or shout back " don't feel like jumping ".
You will not agree, I am sure but SOME safety procedures have become rituals and the observance of them as a ritual has become more important that any safety advantage they may confer. As always an interesting debate.....
Wearing seat belts when we say, stowing baggage correctly, putting tray tables away, putting seats backs upright, opening window blinds, not getting drunk, not smoking, dimming cabin lights before night landings, getting you to sit down when we say; all these and more are done purely for reasons of safety.
Passengers are allowed to visit the cockpit on the ground while the aircraft engines are not running, (as long as we are not too busy). Why not ask if you can next time you are on an aircraft?
Happy flying
Herod & uplinker............ Hi guys, take a look at your pms !!! PM
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Dublin
Posts: 415
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wearing seat belts when we say, stowing baggage correctly, putting tray tables away, putting seats backs upright, opening window blinds, not getting drunk, not smoking, dimming cabin lights before night landings, getting you to sit down when we say; all these and more are done purely for reasons of safety.
On a UA flight last week I was quite surprised when the window blinds were left down for landing. I was in an aisle seat and had no advance warning of the touchdown.
I’ve also been told to stow my laptop for landing while overhead Amsterdam on an EK flight to Dublin.
A classic example of people dying because they did not read/listen to the safety briefing was the ditching of the hijacked Ethiopian B767 when passengers inflated their life jackets BEFORE they exited the aircraft and then got trapped inside the inverted fuselage and could not escape and drowned!
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Europe
Posts: 280
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The URL:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...tructions-card
The passenger probably heard airline safety instructions dozens of time before. Is there that much difference between them? Frankly it surprised me that the crew made a big deal about this situation.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...tructions-card
The passenger probably heard airline safety instructions dozens of time before. Is there that much difference between them? Frankly it surprised me that the crew made a big deal about this situation.
BUT - nobody touches bloody duty time regulations for pilots(and our collegues in the cabin) in a proper way(except making them "better" and better for airlines, of course). Tired pilots, fine. No problem. Or pilots that get called to Dublin for being sick to often, "encouraging" them to fly as well when they do not feel really that well(otherwise your free plane ride, DO NOT MISS the saftety then , free hotel and "nice" chat including warning letter is waiting up there on the green island). BUT not watching always that same safety demo is a saftey concern - right
Fantastic new world of aviation. And by that I mean it made very WELL sense to have that safety demo in place a long while ago when aviation still was something nice and enjoyable. Not so many people(which was a good thing) fly, making it necessary to explain that uncommon mean of transport. "Thanks" to RYR and co this is not an issue anymore. Time to change some laws. And I am not talking about safety demos only here.
Now I know "ANZAC" aviation quiet a bit, have been a skipper down under before Sept 11 with Ansett. I know HOW they sometimes behaved towards passengers and I very often did not agree with cabin crew behaviour towards paying customers. Filed as well sometimes a report if deemed necessary(hell, sometimes they even behaved VERY blunt towards us pilots being on a deadhead and I was a very quiet fella - even nowadays if morons in the head office do not step on my toes to much). Well, Ansett went under, Air NZ did not(as partner of Ansett). It seems crew attitude did not changed so much over the last 18 years down there....
Last edited by tomuchwork; 11th May 2019 at 20:02.
Planemike. Perhaps you should refrain from posting on this thread. As I recall, the British Air Navigation Order (and I would think most of the world is similar), gave me COMPLETE RESPONSIBILITY for the safety of the flight. By logical extension it also gave me COMPLETE AUTHORITY. That was delegated to the cabin crew. If the crew feel a passenger should be offloaded, then they are offloaded. I've done it several times, and each time I was exercising my RESPONSIBILITY.
I think planemike is plain wrong in this case and the pax in question were quite rightly off loaded. But what ever authority you may have on a plane I don't think it carries over to the internet in general or this thread in particular. I disagree with planemike but I do think he has every right to express his opinion here.
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: USA
Posts: 241
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As I pointed out elsewhere in this thread, it will always be possible to spend more money on safety and get a safer aircraft or safer operational procedures. The opportunity is open-ended, literally infinite. People use the phrase "putting a price on human life" as though that were an evil thing, but until you do that, you can't sanely answer questions like, "Is it worth it to spend an extra 50 million dollars per aircraft to cut the accident rate by ten percent?" or "Would you pay an extra $50 per flight to reduce your chance of being in a fatal crash by a quarter?"
"Mildly" Eccentric Stardriver
Planemike.
You sent me a pm asking why I made my last post. I'll make my reply publicly. You say you do not support disruptive passengers. However, your posts carry that line. You seem to suggest, and correct me if I'm wrong, that the safety brief is something that is of no importance, even the briefing at the emergency exit. Remember that the general public and the press venture onto Pprune, and you are giving the wrong idea. Perhaps you wouldn't be troubled with being in a burning aircraft, waiting for someone to open the exit; someone who has no idea how to do so. Personally I, and I suspect most members of the public, would be. Continue to play Devil's Advocate, and I will continue to read your posts with interest. As for me, I will not be posting further on this thread.
You sent me a pm asking why I made my last post. I'll make my reply publicly. You say you do not support disruptive passengers. However, your posts carry that line. You seem to suggest, and correct me if I'm wrong, that the safety brief is something that is of no importance, even the briefing at the emergency exit. Remember that the general public and the press venture onto Pprune, and you are giving the wrong idea. Perhaps you wouldn't be troubled with being in a burning aircraft, waiting for someone to open the exit; someone who has no idea how to do so. Personally I, and I suspect most members of the public, would be. Continue to play Devil's Advocate, and I will continue to read your posts with interest. As for me, I will not be posting further on this thread.
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Western Pacific
Posts: 721
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Didn't anyone else see the pictures a little while ago of passengers (lots of them) with the oxygen mask over their mouths only, rather than the nose & mouth. Two different incidents if I remember correctly. So much for 'we've seen this dozens of times & know what to do.' And if you think they can read the card or the signs & work out what to do, I've lost count of the number of passengers I have observed who couldn't figure out where the toilet is & have even seen a few who couldn't undo their seatbelt.
Planemike.
You sent me a pm asking why I made my last post. I'll make my reply publicly. You say you do not support disruptive passengers. However, your posts carry that line. You seem to suggest, and correct me if I'm wrong, that the safety brief is something that is of no importance, even the briefing at the emergency exit. Remember that the general public and the press venture onto Pprune, and you are giving the wrong idea. Perhaps you wouldn't be troubled with being in a burning aircraft, waiting for someone to open the exit; someone who has no idea how to do so. Personally I, and I suspect most members of the public, would be. Continue to play Devil's Advocate, and I will continue to read your posts with interest. As for me, I will not be posting further on this thread.
You sent me a pm asking why I made my last post. I'll make my reply publicly. You say you do not support disruptive passengers. However, your posts carry that line. You seem to suggest, and correct me if I'm wrong, that the safety brief is something that is of no importance, even the briefing at the emergency exit. Remember that the general public and the press venture onto Pprune, and you are giving the wrong idea. Perhaps you wouldn't be troubled with being in a burning aircraft, waiting for someone to open the exit; someone who has no idea how to do so. Personally I, and I suspect most members of the public, would be. Continue to play Devil's Advocate, and I will continue to read your posts with interest. As for me, I will not be posting further on this thread.
However, your posts carry that line.
Lest there be any doubt in your mind or any one elses, I repeat: I DO NOT SUPPORT DISRUPTIVE PASSENGERS. Au revoir Herod !!
Last edited by Planemike; 12th May 2019 at 10:28.
Didn't anyone else see the pictures a little while ago of passengers (lots of them) with the oxygen mask over their mouths only, rather than the nose & mouth. Two different incidents if I remember correctly. So much for 'we've seen this dozens of times & know what to do.' And if you think they can read the card or the signs & work out what to do, I've lost count of the number of passengers I have observed who couldn't figure out where the toilet is & have even seen a few who couldn't undo their seatbelt.
Last edited by Planemike; 12th May 2019 at 10:23.
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: bkk
Posts: 92
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
One of the problems with Air New Zealand PA's is that they have appointed themselves as cultural headmistresses.
Consequently the first thirty seconds is in the indigenous language, at which point you've lost the attention of the less politically correct.
Air New Zealand have never grasped the concept that less can be actually be more.
Thirty seconds of my time is all they need to keep me safe.
Consequently the first thirty seconds is in the indigenous language, at which point you've lost the attention of the less politically correct.
Air New Zealand have never grasped the concept that less can be actually be more.
Thirty seconds of my time is all they need to keep me safe.
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: moraira,spain-Norfolk, UK
Age: 82
Posts: 389
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You may not agree
NZ citizen with a number of Air NZ flights taken.
The Air NZ safety announcements can be tedious.
If they cut them back to only what is really necessary, ie
safety rather than entertainment it would be fine by me.
I do, of course, pay attention as on any other airline.
The Air NZ safety announcements can be tedious.
If they cut them back to only what is really necessary, ie
safety rather than entertainment it would be fine by me.
I do, of course, pay attention as on any other airline.
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Australia
Posts: 50
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think we all understand you, you do not support disruptive passengers, but do not see tho two passengers in this example as disruptive since they were just sitting in their seats minding their own business whilst pointedly ignoring instructions given by the crew.
You questioned the actions of the crew in offloading said passengers. So I would like to ask how would you handle the situation. You have asked them politely multiple times, and the only reaction you received was the other person putting her fingers in her ears (my ten-year-old child was shocked when he heard this). This action could be reasonable for anyone older than eight years old if the flight attendant was yelling or screaming (no report of that) or if the aircraft was making a harsh, annoying sound (also no report of that). Would you just leave the couple there and do nothing?
If so, how would you handle a "non-disruptive" passenger who refused to put on their seat belt? If they do not put up a fight, but simply ignore requests to do so, what would you do? They are not disruptive passengers by your definition if they are not loud or aggressive or drunk, right? How about someone who leaves the tray down and use their laptop while the plane is preparing to take off? I am fairly sure there are not laws saying that a passenger MUST wear their seat belts or put away their tray tables during take-off . Those are proabbly covered under the same "obeying lawful instructions of the flight crew" regulations.
Also, with regards to your earlier question " Would you accept that sort of treatment if you were in a shop?? ", the answer is "yes, if you do not want to break the law and be reported to Police". Here in Australia, disobeying emergency officers (such as a building warden) performing their duties can get you in trouble with the law. This is true even if there is not an real emergency happening (such as a fire drill). If the warden asks you to throw away that cup of hot coffee you are carrying during an evacuation drill and you refuse to comply, guess what happens.
[And there are good reasons for not carrying food and drinks during evacution. At my workplace, someone was badly scalded during a fire drill when the person behind her spilt freshly made hot coffee down her back, not to mention how spllages make the stairs more slippery.]
You questioned the actions of the crew in offloading said passengers. So I would like to ask how would you handle the situation. You have asked them politely multiple times, and the only reaction you received was the other person putting her fingers in her ears (my ten-year-old child was shocked when he heard this). This action could be reasonable for anyone older than eight years old if the flight attendant was yelling or screaming (no report of that) or if the aircraft was making a harsh, annoying sound (also no report of that). Would you just leave the couple there and do nothing?
If so, how would you handle a "non-disruptive" passenger who refused to put on their seat belt? If they do not put up a fight, but simply ignore requests to do so, what would you do? They are not disruptive passengers by your definition if they are not loud or aggressive or drunk, right? How about someone who leaves the tray down and use their laptop while the plane is preparing to take off? I am fairly sure there are not laws saying that a passenger MUST wear their seat belts or put away their tray tables during take-off . Those are proabbly covered under the same "obeying lawful instructions of the flight crew" regulations.
Also, with regards to your earlier question " Would you accept that sort of treatment if you were in a shop?? ", the answer is "yes, if you do not want to break the law and be reported to Police". Here in Australia, disobeying emergency officers (such as a building warden) performing their duties can get you in trouble with the law. This is true even if there is not an real emergency happening (such as a fire drill). If the warden asks you to throw away that cup of hot coffee you are carrying during an evacuation drill and you refuse to comply, guess what happens.
[And there are good reasons for not carrying food and drinks during evacution. At my workplace, someone was badly scalded during a fire drill when the person behind her spilt freshly made hot coffee down her back, not to mention how spllages make the stairs more slippery.]