User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 4/25/2017 6:37:55 PM EDT
[#1]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
So what charges have been filed against him? |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2017 6:40:24 PM EDT
[#2]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
You have to obey the instructions of the flight crew. "Get off the plane" is a valid instruction. If you do nto obey that, you have broken the law. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
What law? CITADELGRAD87 isn't saying he broke a federal law and the one Chairborne referenced requires one to believe "Drag me down" is intimidating a flight crew member. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2017 6:43:30 PM EDT
[#3]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I don't know. Ask the U.S. District Attorney for that jurisdiction. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
So what charges have been filed against him? |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2017 6:45:39 PM EDT
[#4]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
How specific. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2017 6:45:51 PM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
And if a mugger wants your wallet they are going to get your wallet. Doesn't mean they have a legal right to it. B. The flight crew are the Captain's delegates. Only in extraordinary circumstances would a Captain fail to back up his flight crew. Flight crew instructions ALSO have the force of law. C. A and B have NOTHING, zip, zero, nada to do with contracts, cartage, tickets, etc. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2017 6:46:48 PM EDT
[#6]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Gate agent boards passengers gets the ok from the ramp that all external appendages are shut and all cargo and bags aboard, then tells the flight crew yes, the door is shut the jetway is moved back chocks are removed and a tow bar gets pressure from a tug who requests a pushback from the CAPT, I say it's right then and there the CAPT knows he is the main responsibility for the a/c where he is untethered ETA the ground crew pushing him back is still with the CAPT until they unhook the tow bar, the ground crew is at an advantage being able to see and avoid other a/c and vehicles as he is pushed back, once the ground crew is clear they will request the CAPT to brake park and start engines, them you have freedom of flight a true a/c  |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2017 6:52:05 PM EDT
[#7]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Would you prefer passengers exercise their own discretion on what orders of the flight crew to obey? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
How specific. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2017 6:53:04 PM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
How specific. These are from the Civil Aviation rules, Part 91. 91.5 Compliance with crew instructions and commands A passenger shall comply with any commands given to them by the pilot-in- command pursuant to 91.203. This is about how the PIC can give any command required to maintain safety. 91.203 Authority of the pilot-in-command Each pilot-in-command of an aircraft shall give any commands necessary for the safety of the aircraft and of persons and property carried on the aircraft, including disembarking or refusing the carriage of— 1. (1) any person who appears to be under the influence of alcohol or any drug where, in the opinion of the pilot-in-command, their carriage is likely to endanger the aircraft or its occupants; and 2. 3. (2) any person, or any part of the cargo, which, in the opinion of the pilot-in-command, is likely to endanger the aircraft or its occupants. This is from the 1990 Civil Aviation act. Note it does not say flight crew member, but crew member. 65G Disruptive conduct towards crew member (1)Every person commits an offence who, while in an aircraft,—• (a)uses any threatening, offensive, or insulting words towards a crew member; or • (b)behaves in a threatening, offensive, insulting, or disorderly manner towards a crew member; or • (c)behaves in a manner that interferes with the performance by a crew member of his or her duties; or • (d)intentionally interferes with the performance by a crew member of his or her duties. (2)Every person who commits an offence against subsection (1)(a) or (b) or (c) is liable on conviction to a fine not exceeding $5,000. (3) Every person who commits an offence against subsection (1)(d) is liable on conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 2 years or a fine not exceeding $10,000. This is where we talk about delegation - bolding mine 65JNon-compliance with commands given by pilot-in-command • (1)Every person commits an offence who fails to comply with any commands given to the person directly by the pilot-in-command, or indirectly by the pilot-in-command through a crew member, in accordance with his or her duties under section 13 or the rules. (2)Despite section 28(6), every person who commits an offence against subsection (1) is liable on conviction to a fine not exceeding $5,000. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2017 6:53:58 PM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I'll help you. The answer is "none". You know this - right? |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2017 6:54:36 PM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I would prefer if government agents use force on citizens that they actually be acting in accordance with the law. A mere statement that something is against the law without being able to show a law that was actually broken leaves me wanting there. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2017 7:15:21 PM EDT
[#11]
Tautology is being presented here in lieu of any details in regards to exactly which specific law was broken by the customer who was subjected to forceful handling that resulted in physical injury including a broken nose, loss of teeth, facial bleeding, and concussion of the brain; and when he'll be charged with breaking that particular law.
Absent criminal charges; his RIGHTS were, in fact, violated. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2017 7:19:44 PM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I'll help you - whether charges are filed, or not, has nothing to do with whether a specific act is, or is not, a violation of law. You know this - right? 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2017 7:20:52 PM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
What is the point that you want made? That once in your seat, if not misbehaving, the airline should be forced to allow you to stay on the plane no matter what? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
OK. They decided to take him. He was in the process of being taken. He did nothing and they removed him. Once you are in your seat, if not misbehaving and no situations from rule 21 apply then they should follow through on their contract. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2017 7:24:05 PM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
A. It is the Captain's bird. If he says "Get the F*** off my airplane", that command has the force of law. No ifs, ands or buts. If you fail to comply with his lawful order, you have broken the law. B. The flight crew are the Captain's delegates. Only in extraordinary circumstances would a Captain fail to back up his flight crew. Flight crew instructions ALSO have the force of law. C. A and B have NOTHING, zip, zero, nada to do with contracts, cartage, tickets, etc. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
And if a mugger wants your wallet they are going to get your wallet. Doesn't mean they have a legal right to it. B. The flight crew are the Captain's delegates. Only in extraordinary circumstances would a Captain fail to back up his flight crew. Flight crew instructions ALSO have the force of law. C. A and B have NOTHING, zip, zero, nada to do with contracts, cartage, tickets, etc. http://www.businessinsider.com/united-airlines-pilots-letter-2017-4 C. Then where does that authority come from? |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2017 7:24:07 PM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
More specific - see bold. These are from the Civil Aviation rules, Part 91. 91.5 Compliance with crew instructions and commands A passenger shall comply with any commands given to them by the pilot-in- command pursuant to 91.203. This is about how the PIC can give any command required to maintain safety. 91.203 Authority of the pilot-in-command Each pilot-in-command of an aircraft shall give any commands necessary for the safety of the aircraft and of persons and property carried on the aircraft, including disembarking or refusing the carriage of— 1. (1) any person who appears to be under the influence of alcohol or any drug where, in the opinion of the pilot-in-command, their carriage is likely to endanger the aircraft or its occupants; and 2. 3. (2) any person, or any part of the cargo, which, in the opinion of the pilot-in-command, is likely to endanger the aircraft or its occupants. This is from the 1990 Civil Aviation act. Note it does not say flight crew member, but crew member. 65G Disruptive conduct towards crew member (1)Every person commits an offence who, while in an aircraft,—• (a)uses any threatening, offensive, or insulting words towards a crew member; or • (b)behaves in a threatening, offensive, insulting, or disorderly manner towards a crew member; or • (c)behaves in a manner that interferes with the performance by a crew member of his or her duties; or • (d)intentionally interferes with the performance by a crew member of his or her duties. (2)Every person who commits an offence against subsection (1)(a) or (b) or (c) is liable on conviction to a fine not exceeding $5,000. (3) Every person who commits an offence against subsection (1)(d) is liable on conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 2 years or a fine not exceeding $10,000. This is where we talk about delegation - bolding mine 65JNon-compliance with commands given by pilot-in-command • (1)Every person commits an offence who fails to comply with any commands given to the person directly by the pilot-in-command, or indirectly by the pilot-in-command through a crew member, in accordance with his or her duties under section 13 or the rules. (2)Despite section 28(6), every person who commits an offence against subsection (1) is liable on conviction to a fine not exceeding $5,000. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
How specific. These are from the Civil Aviation rules, Part 91. 91.5 Compliance with crew instructions and commands A passenger shall comply with any commands given to them by the pilot-in- command pursuant to 91.203. This is about how the PIC can give any command required to maintain safety. 91.203 Authority of the pilot-in-command Each pilot-in-command of an aircraft shall give any commands necessary for the safety of the aircraft and of persons and property carried on the aircraft, including disembarking or refusing the carriage of— 1. (1) any person who appears to be under the influence of alcohol or any drug where, in the opinion of the pilot-in-command, their carriage is likely to endanger the aircraft or its occupants; and 2. 3. (2) any person, or any part of the cargo, which, in the opinion of the pilot-in-command, is likely to endanger the aircraft or its occupants. This is from the 1990 Civil Aviation act. Note it does not say flight crew member, but crew member. 65G Disruptive conduct towards crew member (1)Every person commits an offence who, while in an aircraft,—• (a)uses any threatening, offensive, or insulting words towards a crew member; or • (b)behaves in a threatening, offensive, insulting, or disorderly manner towards a crew member; or • (c)behaves in a manner that interferes with the performance by a crew member of his or her duties; or • (d)intentionally interferes with the performance by a crew member of his or her duties. (2)Every person who commits an offence against subsection (1)(a) or (b) or (c) is liable on conviction to a fine not exceeding $5,000. (3) Every person who commits an offence against subsection (1)(d) is liable on conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 2 years or a fine not exceeding $10,000. This is where we talk about delegation - bolding mine 65JNon-compliance with commands given by pilot-in-command • (1)Every person commits an offence who fails to comply with any commands given to the person directly by the pilot-in-command, or indirectly by the pilot-in-command through a crew member, in accordance with his or her duties under section 13 or the rules. (2)Despite section 28(6), every person who commits an offence against subsection (1) is liable on conviction to a fine not exceeding $5,000. ETA: Did you really just post an IACO regulation in response to what law was broken?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2017 7:43:48 PM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I don't know where you pulled those from, but FAR part 91.5 and 91.203 are nothing like you posted. 91.5 is about multi-pilot aircraft and 91.203 is the paperwork an airplane needs. ETA: Did you really just post an IACO regulation in response to what law was broken? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
How specific. These are from the Civil Aviation rules, Part 91. 91.5 Compliance with crew instructions and commands A passenger shall comply with any commands given to them by the pilot-in- command pursuant to 91.203. This is about how the PIC can give any command required to maintain safety. 91.203 Authority of the pilot-in-command Each pilot-in-command of an aircraft shall give any commands necessary for the safety of the aircraft and of persons and property carried on the aircraft, including disembarking or refusing the carriage of— 1. (1) any person who appears to be under the influence of alcohol or any drug where, in the opinion of the pilot-in-command, their carriage is likely to endanger the aircraft or its occupants; and 2. 3. (2) any person, or any part of the cargo, which, in the opinion of the pilot-in-command, is likely to endanger the aircraft or its occupants. This is from the 1990 Civil Aviation act. Note it does not say flight crew member, but crew member. 65G Disruptive conduct towards crew member (1)Every person commits an offence who, while in an aircraft,—• (a)uses any threatening, offensive, or insulting words towards a crew member; or • (b)behaves in a threatening, offensive, insulting, or disorderly manner towards a crew member; or • (c)behaves in a manner that interferes with the performance by a crew member of his or her duties; or • (d)intentionally interferes with the performance by a crew member of his or her duties. (2)Every person who commits an offence against subsection (1)(a) or (b) or (c) is liable on conviction to a fine not exceeding $5,000. (3) Every person who commits an offence against subsection (1)(d) is liable on conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 2 years or a fine not exceeding $10,000. This is where we talk about delegation - bolding mine 65JNon-compliance with commands given by pilot-in-command • (1)Every person commits an offence who fails to comply with any commands given to the person directly by the pilot-in-command, or indirectly by the pilot-in-command through a crew member, in accordance with his or her duties under section 13 or the rules. (2)Despite section 28(6), every person who commits an offence against subsection (1) is liable on conviction to a fine not exceeding $5,000. ETA: Did you really just post an IACO regulation in response to what law was broken? |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2017 7:50:09 PM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I think 91 are general rules for a/c, Part 121 are for commercial a/c Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
How specific. These are from the Civil Aviation rules, Part 91. 91.5 Compliance with crew instructions and commands A passenger shall comply with any commands given to them by the pilot-in- command pursuant to 91.203. This is about how the PIC can give any command required to maintain safety. 91.203 Authority of the pilot-in-command Each pilot-in-command of an aircraft shall give any commands necessary for the safety of the aircraft and of persons and property carried on the aircraft, including disembarking or refusing the carriage of— 1. (1) any person who appears to be under the influence of alcohol or any drug where, in the opinion of the pilot-in-command, their carriage is likely to endanger the aircraft or its occupants; and 2. 3. (2) any person, or any part of the cargo, which, in the opinion of the pilot-in-command, is likely to endanger the aircraft or its occupants. This is from the 1990 Civil Aviation act. Note it does not say flight crew member, but crew member. 65G Disruptive conduct towards crew member (1)Every person commits an offence who, while in an aircraft,—• (a)uses any threatening, offensive, or insulting words towards a crew member; or • (b)behaves in a threatening, offensive, insulting, or disorderly manner towards a crew member; or • (c)behaves in a manner that interferes with the performance by a crew member of his or her duties; or • (d)intentionally interferes with the performance by a crew member of his or her duties. (2)Every person who commits an offence against subsection (1)(a) or (b) or (c) is liable on conviction to a fine not exceeding $5,000. (3) Every person who commits an offence against subsection (1)(d) is liable on conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 2 years or a fine not exceeding $10,000. This is where we talk about delegation - bolding mine 65JNon-compliance with commands given by pilot-in-command • (1)Every person commits an offence who fails to comply with any commands given to the person directly by the pilot-in-command, or indirectly by the pilot-in-command through a crew member, in accordance with his or her duties under section 13 or the rules. (2)Despite section 28(6), every person who commits an offence against subsection (1) is liable on conviction to a fine not exceeding $5,000. ETA: Did you really just post an IACO regulation in response to what law was broken? |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2017 7:53:07 PM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
My point is that the airline should be forced to hold to the contract that they wrote. Once you are in your seat, if not misbehaving and no situations from rule 21 apply then they should follow through on their contract. Airlines are a for profit business, competing against other carriers. They are not going to intentionally do this to upset their customer base or cause a bad PR incident. All that aside, airlines are run by humans who are susceptible to making mistakes or exercising poor judgement. However, the jet is not the place for passengers questioning or disobeying airline staff. The passenger will lose that battle (and maybe a tooth or two) every time. But if you, as the passenger, were truly wronged and unjustifiably removed from a flight, there are avenues of reconciliation after the fact. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2017 8:17:06 PM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I agree. They should. However, airline travel is a dynamic experience, and as such, somebody must hold the trump card. And I think it is perfectly acceptable for the airline to hold that trump card, as they are the ones responsible for the safe conduct of the flight. If the airline staff tell me to get off the plane, I may ask why, but at the end of the day I will comply without incident, as should every other passenger. Airlines are a for profit business, competing against other carriers. They are not going to intentionally do this to upset their customer base or cause a bad PR incident. All that aside, airlines are run by humans who are susceptible to making mistakes or exercising poor judgement. However, the jet is not the place for passengers questioning or disobeying airline staff. The passenger will lose that battle (and maybe a tooth or two) every time. But if you, as the passenger, were truly wronged and unjustifiably removed from a flight, there are avenues of reconciliation after the fact. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
My point is that the airline should be forced to hold to the contract that they wrote. Once you are in your seat, if not misbehaving and no situations from rule 21 apply then they should follow through on their contract. Airlines are a for profit business, competing against other carriers. They are not going to intentionally do this to upset their customer base or cause a bad PR incident. All that aside, airlines are run by humans who are susceptible to making mistakes or exercising poor judgement. However, the jet is not the place for passengers questioning or disobeying airline staff. The passenger will lose that battle (and maybe a tooth or two) every time. But if you, as the passenger, were truly wronged and unjustifiably removed from a flight, there are avenues of reconciliation after the fact. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2017 8:28:25 PM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
But that trump card doesn't need to exist at all. If the airline had been required to charter a jet for those four passengers then the airline would make these mistakes a lot less often. Secondly, these situations are exceedingly rare. Overbooked/rebooking situations happen hundreds of times everyday and the exceeding majority are resolved without making it onto cnn. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2017 8:35:22 PM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The trump card must absolutely exist. There are situations which occur in airline travel which are unforseeable and unpredictable. Somebody with training and proven judgement must have the trump card where everyone, in the moment, obeys their orders. Work out the details later. Kinda like the military. Secondly, these situations are exceedingly rare. Overbooked/rebooking situations happen hundreds of times everyday and the exceeding majority are resolved without making it onto cnn. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
But that trump card doesn't need to exist at all. If the airline had been required to charter a jet for those four passengers then the airline would make these mistakes a lot less often. Secondly, these situations are exceedingly rare. Overbooked/rebooking situations happen hundreds of times everyday and the exceeding majority are resolved without making it onto cnn. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2017 8:37:46 PM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I get what you are saying, but the airline as it stands is always going to make that decision to go in the way that works the best for the airline. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2017 8:39:24 PM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Didn't you mention a scenario in which the airlines went above and beyond to take care of you? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
I get what you are saying, but the airline as it stands is always going to make that decision to go in the way that works the best for the airline. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2017 8:45:00 PM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
A & B - "United pilots are infuriated by this event." http://www.businessinsider.com/united-airlines-pilots-letter-2017-4 C. Then where does that authority come from? |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2017 9:15:35 PM EDT
[#25]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
United States Code. Quoted above. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
A & B - "United pilots are infuriated by this event." http://www.businessinsider.com/united-airlines-pilots-letter-2017-4 C. Then where does that authority come from?
Holy shit. Through a quick Google I just figured out why the 91.5 and 91.203 you quoted don't match the FAR that I use. You quoted the New Zealand Law. New Zealand and IACO. Those are the United States Codes you quoted.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2017 9:40:02 PM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
My welcome, what? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Appology accepted. Right or wrong, like it or not, if the airline wants you off the plane, your ass is getting off the plane. The details and justifications may be worked out later with the passenger, if the passenger pursues it. But if the airline wants that seat, you're not flying. Simple as that.  So... your welcome. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2017 9:43:22 PM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
You are the one that said thank you. Pretty sure your welcome is the customary reply. So... your welcome. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Appology accepted. Right or wrong, like it or not, if the airline wants you off the plane, your ass is getting off the plane. The details and justifications may be worked out later with the passenger, if the passenger pursues it. But if the airline wants that seat, you're not flying. Simple as that. So... your welcome. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2017 9:47:51 PM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
He's focusing on the "your" instead of the "you're". It's a common tactic for anyone to employ that is losing a debate. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Appology accepted. Right or wrong, like it or not, if the airline wants you off the plane, your ass is getting off the plane. The details and justifications may be worked out later with the passenger, if the passenger pursues it. But if the airline wants that seat, you're not flying. Simple as that. So... your welcome.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2017 10:04:34 PM EDT
[#29]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Thanks. I see it now. Voice to text and all. This is the internet and we are on a discussion forum with a a zombie forum so I am not too concerned with grammar when adults know what is being said. And yes, grammar tactics come out when they know they are losing. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Appology accepted. Right or wrong, like it or not, if the airline wants you off the plane, your ass is getting off the plane. The details and justifications may be worked out later with the passenger, if the passenger pursues it. But if the airline wants that seat, you're not flying. Simple as that. So... your welcome.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2017 10:07:58 PM EDT
[#30]
There are a lot of Eric Cartman's in this thread... nothing is worse than Cartman with athouritah!
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2017 10:15:40 PM EDT
[#31]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Thanks. I see it now. Voice to text and all. This is the internet and we are on a discussion forum with a a zombie forum so I am not to concerned with grammar when adults know what is being said. And yes, grammar tactics come out when they know they are losing. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Appology accepted. Right or wrong, like it or not, if the airline wants you off the plane, your ass is getting off the plane. The details and justifications may be worked out later with the passenger, if the passenger pursues it. But if the airline wants that seat, you're not flying. Simple as that. So... your welcome. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2017 10:20:04 PM EDT
[#32]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
So I'm losing when the other side came to the debate unarmed? Nobody can show a single contractual agreement, regulation, or American law that allowed what is being discussed. And yet you guys are circle jerking so hard that you think you are winning. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2017 10:32:47 PM EDT
[#33]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Nobody is defending what happened on that United flight. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
So I'm losing when the other side came to the debate unarmed? Nobody can show a single contractual agreement, regulation, or American law that allowed what is being discussed. And yet you guys are circle jerking so hard that you think you are winning. Nobody is defending what happened on that plane anymore, right? Because these threads have been rife with assertions that "the customer deserved what he got because he created the entire problem" and " the fake felon homo doctor was entirely in the wrong and the company and police acted in accordance with applicable laws", and "the customer who was dragged off of the plane broke the law and was therefore responsible for his own substantial physical injuries". |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2017 10:36:06 PM EDT
[#34]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Nobody is defending what happened on that United flight. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
So I'm losing when the other side came to the debate unarmed? Nobody can show a single contractual agreement, regulation, or American law that allowed what is being discussed. And yet you guys are circle jerking so hard that you think you are winning. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2017 10:45:08 PM EDT
[#35]
I have never supported what happened on that flight.
Let me clarify - I don't support the actions by either party. Right or wrong, the doctor should have obeyed the instructions ofthe flight crew. Kinda like when a cop says put your hands behind your back. Maybe you did absolutely nothing wrong, but you comply anyway, and fight the battle later. Choose to fight that battle right then, you're gonna have a bad day, regardless of who is right or wrong. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2017 10:47:53 PM EDT
[#36]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Holy shit. Through a quick Google I just figured out why the 91.5 and 91.203 you quoted don't match the FAR that I use. You quoted the New Zealand Law. New Zealand and IACO. Those are the United States Codes you quoted. 49 U.S. Code § 46504 - Interference with flight crew members and attendants An individual on an aircraft in the special aircraft jurisdiction of the United States who, by assaulting or intimidating a flight crew member or flight attendant of the aircraft, interferes with the performance of the duties of the member or attendant or lessens the ability of the member or attendant to perform those duties, or attempts or conspires to do such an act, shall be fined under title 18, imprisoned for not more than 20 years, or both. However, if a dangerous weapon is used in assaulting or intimidating the member or attendant, the individual shall be imprisoned for any term of years or for life. Federal Aviation Administration, Part 91 General Flight Rules, Subpart A: General Part 91.3 Title 14 CFR 91.3: Responsibility and authority of the pilot in command. (a) The pilot in command of an aircraft is directly responsible for, and is the final authority as to, the operation of that aircraft. (b) In an in-flight emergency requiring immediate action, the pilot in command may deviate from any rule of this part to the extent required to meet that emergency. (c) Each pilot in command who deviates from a rule under paragraph (b) of this section shall, upon the request of the Administrator, send a written report of that deviation to the Administrator. (Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control number 2120-0005) 14 CFR 125.328 No person may assault, threaten, intimidate, or interfere with a crewmember in the performance of the crewmember's duties aboard an aircraft being operated under this part. See: United States vs. Meeker Meeker caught a charge, a conviction, and a prison term for failure to obey flight crew instructions, and other charges and convictions for assault. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2017 10:52:10 PM EDT
[#37]
The way I understand it is there are special rules on aircraft, governed by FAA, I.e.federal law, that basically says pilot has complete control, and effectively owns the aircraft.
Therefore he can have you removed. It might screw business, but legally he can have you ejected from the plane. But that is just from watching tv and reading articles about it.I have never read the actual law so I'm guessing |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2017 10:52:15 PM EDT
[#38]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I have never supported what happened on that flight. Let me clarify - I don't support the actions by either party. Right or wrong, the doctor should have obeyed the instructions ofthe flight crew. Kinda like when a cop says put your hands behind your back. Maybe you did absolutely nothing wrong, but you comply anyway, and fight the battle later. Choose to fight that battle right then, you're gonna have a bad day, regardless of who is right or wrong. Quote HistoryQuoted:
I have never supported what happened on that flight. Let me clarify - I don't support the actions by either party. Right or wrong, the doctor should have obeyed the instructions ofthe flight crew. Kinda like when a cop says put your hands behind your back. Maybe you did absolutely nothing wrong, but you comply anyway, and fight the battle later. Choose to fight that battle right then, you're gonna have a bad day, regardless of who is right or wrong. Quoted:
Nobodyis defending what happened on that United flight. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2017 10:53:30 PM EDT
[#39]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The way I understand it is there are special rules on aircraft, governed by FAA, I.e.federal law, that basically says pilot has complete control, and effectively owns the aircraft. Therefore he can have you removed. It might screw business, but legally he can have you ejected from the plane. But that is just from watching tv and reading articles about it.I have never read the actual law so I'm guessing |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2017 10:54:23 PM EDT
[#40]
You quoted me twice saying the same thing. What's your point?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2017 10:56:34 PM EDT
[#41]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Great. Quote the law. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
The way I understand it is there are special rules on aircraft, governed by FAA, I.e.federal law, that basically says pilot has complete control, and effectively owns the aircraft. Therefore he can have you removed. It might screw business, but legally he can have you ejected from the plane. But that is just from watching tv and reading articles about it.I have never read the actual law so I'm guessing |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2017 10:58:44 PM EDT
[#42]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Try these: 49 U.S. Code § 46504 - Interference with flight crew members and attendants An individual on an aircraft in the special aircraft jurisdiction of the United States who, by assaulting or intimidating a flight crew member or flight attendant of the aircraft, interferes with the performance of the duties of the member or attendant or lessens the ability of the member or attendant to perform those duties, or attempts or conspires to do such an act, shall be fined under title 18, imprisoned for not more than 20 years, or both. However, if a dangerous weapon is used in assaulting or intimidating the member or attendant, the individual shall be imprisoned for any term of years or for life. Federal Aviation Administration, Part 91 General Flight Rules, Subpart A: General Part 91.3 Title 14 CFR 91.3: Responsibility and authority of the pilot in command. (a) The pilot in command of an aircraft is directly responsible for, and is the final authority as to, the operation of that aircraft. (b) In an in-flight emergency requiring immediate action, the pilot in command may deviate from any rule of this part to the extent required to meet that emergency. (c) Each pilot in command who deviates from a rule under paragraph (b) of this section shall, upon the request of the Administrator, send a written report of that deviation to the Administrator. (Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control number 2120-0005) 14 CFR 125.328 No person may assault, threaten, intimidate, or interfere with a crewmember in the performance of the crewmember's duties aboard an aircraft being operated under this part. See: United States vs. Meeker Meeker caught a charge, a conviction, and a prison term for failure to obey flight crew instructions, and other charges and convictions for assault. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Holy shit. Through a quick Google I just figured out why the 91.5 and 91.203 you quoted don't match the FAR that I use. You quoted the New Zealand Law. New Zealand and IACO. Those are the United States Codes you quoted. 49 U.S. Code § 46504 - Interference with flight crew members and attendants An individual on an aircraft in the special aircraft jurisdiction of the United States who, by assaulting or intimidating a flight crew member or flight attendant of the aircraft, interferes with the performance of the duties of the member or attendant or lessens the ability of the member or attendant to perform those duties, or attempts or conspires to do such an act, shall be fined under title 18, imprisoned for not more than 20 years, or both. However, if a dangerous weapon is used in assaulting or intimidating the member or attendant, the individual shall be imprisoned for any term of years or for life. Federal Aviation Administration, Part 91 General Flight Rules, Subpart A: General Part 91.3 Title 14 CFR 91.3: Responsibility and authority of the pilot in command. (a) The pilot in command of an aircraft is directly responsible for, and is the final authority as to, the operation of that aircraft. (b) In an in-flight emergency requiring immediate action, the pilot in command may deviate from any rule of this part to the extent required to meet that emergency. (c) Each pilot in command who deviates from a rule under paragraph (b) of this section shall, upon the request of the Administrator, send a written report of that deviation to the Administrator. (Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control number 2120-0005) 14 CFR 125.328 No person may assault, threaten, intimidate, or interfere with a crewmember in the performance of the crewmember's duties aboard an aircraft being operated under this part. See: United States vs. Meeker Meeker caught a charge, a conviction, and a prison term for failure to obey flight crew instructions, and other charges and convictions for assault. 
The key word in the first and third ones (that I haven't heard any authoritative answer on) is when "operating/operated" starts since the gate crew is still primarily responsible at that point. ETA: The last one isn't applicable as it was being operated under part 121 not part 125. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2017 11:13:32 PM EDT
[#43]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Great. Quote the law. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2017 11:15:07 PM EDT
[#44]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Congratulations on getting the right country's laws this time.
The key word in the first and third ones (that I haven't heard any authoritative answer on) is when "operating/operated" starts since the gate crew is still primarily responsible at that point. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2017 11:25:17 PM EDT
[#45]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Look up. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Great. Quote the law. by assaulting or intimidating a flight crew member or flight attendant of the aircraft Title 14 CFR 91.3 and 14 CFR 125.328 United States vs. Meeker He had several alcoholic drinks prior to the flight and after departing Miami, left his seat, made bizarre remarks to a female passenger and later began hitting another passenger sitting directly behind him. The only person on this flight that was hit was the passenger. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2017 11:27:06 PM EDT
[#46]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
At no point does the gate crew have the authority to over-ride a decision by the flight crew to have someone get off of the airplane. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Congratulations on getting the right country's laws this time.
The key word in the first and third ones (that I haven't heard any authoritative answer on) is when "operating/operated" starts since the gate crew is still primarily responsible at that point. But even still, that doesn't answer the question for those two rules: When does "operating" start? |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2017 11:34:22 PM EDT
[#47]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Nobody is defending what happened on that United flight. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
So I'm losing when the other side came to the debate unarmed? Nobody can show a single contractual agreement, regulation, or American law that allowed what is being discussed. And yet you guys are circle jerking so hard that you think you are winning. Their business their rules. I embrace what little bit of freedom businesses have left. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2017 11:36:25 PM EDT
[#48]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Sorry man, I couldn't resist. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Appology accepted. Right or wrong, like it or not, if the airline wants you off the plane, your ass is getting off the plane. The details and justifications may be worked out later with the passenger, if the passenger pursues it. But if the airline wants that seat, you're not flying. Simple as that. So... your welcome. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2017 11:38:49 PM EDT
[#49]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Doesn't apply. The only assault or intimidation was against the passenger. Doesn't apply. Aircraft wasn't in operation. That's your equivalent? Someone that started hitting people on the flight? The only person on this flight that was hit was the passenger. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Great. Quote the law. by assaulting or intimidating a flight crew member or flight attendant of the aircraft Title 14 CFR 91.3 and 14 CFR 125.328 United States vs. Meeker He had several alcoholic drinks prior to the flight and after departing Miami, left his seat, made bizarre remarks to a female passenger and later began hitting another passenger sitting directly behind him. The only person on this flight that was hit was the passenger. I am sure that passenher and many others will seek their flights elsewhere.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2017 11:44:42 PM EDT
[#50]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Free market. I support it. Do you? I am sure that passenher and many others will seek their flights elsewhere. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Great. Quote the law. by assaulting or intimidating a flight crew member or flight attendant of the aircraft Title 14 CFR 91.3 and 14 CFR 125.328 United States vs. Meeker He had several alcoholic drinks prior to the flight and after departing Miami, left his seat, made bizarre remarks to a female passenger and later began hitting another passenger sitting directly behind him. The only person on this flight that was hit was the passenger. I am sure that passenher and many others will seek their flights elsewhere. |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
