What constitutes "an appropriate order"? Can a FA ask me to stop reading a novel or don't make pictures on the landscape we are flying over?

They do under US federal law.
This wasn't a US aircraft and it wasn't in US airspace.

Passengers' behavior is governed by laws of the country where the airplane is registered.
So is what the crew can and can't do.

I once had the CC inform me that one of the passengers was so far gone that he had thrown up in the bus to the aircraft. Old days, well before 9/11, so I went down the back and informed said "gentleman" that he was going to be offloaded. "Who the f**k do you think you are?" was his reasoned reply. His mate, whom I had no problem with, then confirmed his own offloading with "Yeah, who the f**k do you think you are?". It took a while, and the arrival of the police, before they were off the aircraft. Not the first or last time I had experience the gate staff passing the problem to the cabin crew. Usually it manifests itself once airborne, and several times I've had the aircraft met by the police.

The authority of the commander is devolved to the cabin crew in performing their duties, the commander does not need to issue specific instructions. All reasonable instructions are backed up by the legal authority of the commander. If you fail to follow an instruction from the cabin crew, of which stop filming IS a reasonable instruction, as is an instruction to turn off any electronic device regardless of flight mode status, the authority of the commander has not been followed and a law has been broken.

It doesn't have to be a direct or relayed order from the captain, provided that the authority of the captain, as granted by the ANO, is devolved to the cabin crew who may act upon their own initiative.

Make no mistake, if the CC consider ANYTHING may constitute a hazard to the aircraft, and that may include further provoking a drunken passenger, they are justified in taking such measures as they see fit to contain the situation and, as captain, I would back them up.

Remember: this is in an aircraft in flight; it is not in a bar.

I'd appreciate Flying Lawyer's comment.

Make no mistake, if the CC consider ANYTHING may constitute a hazard to the aircraft, and that may include further provoking a drunken passenger, they are justified in taking such measures as they see fit to contain the situation and, as captain, I would back them up.

Does that include feeling the fire of alcohol consumption? What do they hope; the pax will go to sleep before they explode? If taking social photos of you and your friends on holiday is acceptable, when does taking a photo become unacceptable. If a pax refuses to stop photographing and the airline tries a prosecution under ANO, claiming that the 1 year experienced Purser was using what they believed to be the wishes of the captain, I would not be surprised if the judge/magistrate was bemused. What do you expect to happen if said photographer was a journalist for a national major newspaper. Do you think they would cower meekly? I think it is not quite so black & white as some make out. How many seats away from the melee is antagonising the situation and how far away is not?
Where I live all buses have on board cameras. I don't know if they transmit live or record. Might a/c move to the same?

Try it some time and establish legal precedent one way or the other; personally, I'd stop videoing.

Would the company perhaps instruct their staff to ensure filming does not take place, for fear that it might let people know what it's like to fly Ryanair?! :rolleyes:


Seriously though, could it be a company instruction that crew should try to get people to stop filming (for any number of reasons) and that crew fear that if they do not then they will be disciplined or at least called up on it?

Playing devil's advocate, what may constitute a reasonable instruction to you Victorc10 may well not do so to a member of the public. The problem lies with individual interpretations of the term "reasonable". For me this is a grey area in such circumstances.

OK let's try a similar but slightly different situation and let's be honest with our answers: we are at a mall and we see some ladies that we like very much and it seems they are not bothered by us filming them (the drunken man on the clip was not showing any objection being filmed). A shopping centre security agent comes and asks us to stop taping. Leaving aside our image of caring and nice person and putting our full honestly hut who would stop filming and who would ignore the security guard?

Seriously though, could it be a company instruction that crew should try to get people to stop filming (for any number of reasons) and that crew fear that if they do not then they will be disciplined or at least called up on it?

If it is a company policy, and is a legal restriction of the freedom of pax, then it must be notified in the passenger announcements which already include such things as use of mobile phones & electronic devises etc. On all the various airlines I've flown on I've never heard such an announcement.
I would have thought that video evidence would be very helpful in bringing a prosecution after the event. Taking 188 pax statements + 4 C/A's would be very time consuming and could well lead to a confusing picture of the true events.

That depends upon whether the shopping centre is considered to be a private place or a public place. If private, then I believe that a representative of the owner may demand that you cease videoing.

That example is, of course, irrelevant to the present discussion.
It is not in an aircraft and the ANO does not apply.

Stag party causes Ryanair diversion
 

In the early glory days of cheap UK charter flights it was not unusual to have large groups of drunken idiots escorted on board by Gatwick police apparently because they were causing trouble in the Terminal! Once after a European Cup Final in Amsterdam we were 'ordered' to take a random 150 highly tanked-up and rioting Scotsman with us to Manchester (although they had mostly booked to Glasgow). We dumped them there in the early hours and they were left to find their own way north. More sadly and much later I backed up my Cabin crews' judgement and had a young man declined boarding because he was slurring his words badly and couldn't stand unaided. We were at risk of losing our slot ex LAX. I discovered subsequently he was highly medicated for a neurological illness and was forced to spend a couple of hours incarcerated before his relatives were able to contact him. Was close to a lawsuit in the US but my company was able to show he should not have tried to travel alone. Very glad I don't have to make decisions like that anymore. Retirement has many virtues.

Contrary to earlier reports, the groom was not among those thrown off at Berlin and he regrets the disruption his party caused...

Ryanair flight violence: Groom says stag do behaviour 'unacceptable' - BBC News

A bit diversionary from the main problem here - which is humanity on a downward spiral - but the cabin crew, if the caption is correct said "don't take video please", which seems closer to a "polite request" than an order.

I guess from the crew point of view, it's a no win situation. I don't handle aggressive people, nor have I been trained to, but it may be that stopping someone filming is in some kind of comfort zone, whereas confronting the situation was likely to lead to conflict and out of the comfort zone - so it could be a subconscious decision to go with what you are familiar with to buy time. I don't know how the brain works and I won't criticise the crew action as I wasn't there and I doubt I would be able to handle it myself.

It is a shame that there isn't more video though, even to allow a crew post mortem of the events and to use for future training.

I've not looked at the Ryanair statement but I'd bet a pint that it contains the phrase "the safety of our passengers is our first priority" or something very similar, because these sort of statements always do.

Always baffled me that airlines/airports always say this sort of thing when the whole industry is underpinned by flogging people cheap booze - how is safety promoted by encouraging people to take inflammable liquids in glass bottles onto aircraft.

Also, not picking on RYR in particular as this is nothing new - used to face the same issues as a dispatcher 35 years ago.

At what point do the provisions of the ANO come into effect? I'd guess it's the point when the aircraft starts to taxi under its own power.

So I'm thinking that if the CC want to remove a passenger before the aircraft leaves the gate (and certainly if they want to remove them from the transfer bus), they'd have to rely on the provisions of Section 12 of the Licensing Act 1872 (the offence of being drunk in a public place), rather than the provisions of the ANO.

That said, everything I've read so far about this incident suggests this should have been dealt with before they made it through the departure gate.

For an international flight, i's from power on for takeoff until the end of the landing run.

It's the Tokyo Convention All crew should be aware of its terms.

http://www.un.org/en/sc/ctc/docs/conventions/Conv1.pdf

Domestic law applies before/after such times.

So do tell me the training everyone will be given to spot drunkeness ?

My poor friend following a stroke slur his words, can be slightly unsteady on his feet if standing for to long, cann not drink because of health.

Now have been with him where had I not known better that he was drunk, been with him where a Police officer said exactly the same, until medical alert bracelet shown, Cop apologised and lets face it it was a town centre where drunks are common. So even with his training and experience people will make mistakes.

Got it in one.