Phone on, passenger carted off

[munitalP]

I was on a CX flight this week they asked whoever had there phone on could the please turn it off, the captin just came on the intercom and asked it so he must have heard it in his radio or some other way realised it was a phone.
E

I have been on a flight where exactly the same request was made - a Lufthansa near new Airbus, so I don't think the age of the aircraft matters...


Mr!

 

[NM]

I guess the caption could do a Bluetooth scan from his own phone and anyone found is likely to a phone turned on on the cabin. Similar scan could be done for WiFi. Of course not all phones have Bluetooth or WiFi turned on all the time, but finding either inside the cabin is a good indication that someone has a device turned on.

 

[munitalP]

I guess the caption could do a Bluetooth scan from his own phone and anyone found is likely to a phone turned on on the cabin. Similar scan could be done for WiFi. Of course not all phones have Bluetooth or WiFi turned on all the time, but finding either inside the cabin is a good indication that someone has a device turned on.

I'm on a flight to PER monday, I will "look" at the bluetooth availables before the door is closed, then sometime over the water, will have a quick look again - yeah I know, breaking the rules, but it will be for scientific purpose

Will report back!

Mr!

 

[NYCguy]

My mistake for assuming that the reader would interpret my comment as relating to safety and security issues, since the original post related to what the airline industry considers; for better or worse; to be a safety issue, i.e., the use of mobile telephones in-flight.

 

[straitman]

That is the case, however I was referring to the comment that stated that there was a requirement to comply with ALL directions, which is not the case

Dave

Dave Noble,

Once again we disagree Dave.

The crew don't have their own authority BUT they share the authority of the Captain and unless their directions are over ruled by the Captain they are always acting under his authority. That is the way the crews (from Captain down) are trained and that is the way the system works.

Crew Resource Management (CRM) 101

 

[medhead]

Dave Noble,

Once again we disagree Dave.

The crew don't have their own authority BUT they share the authority of the Captain and unless their directions are over ruled by the Captain they are always acting under his authority. That is the way the crews (from Captain down) are trained and that is the way the system works.

Crew Resource Management (CRM) 101

If you look at the context of what Dave wrote I don't see how this delegated authority comes into to it. Regardless for the authority the crew operates under, one is not required to follow all directions of the crew. There must be a limitation based on safety to what directions the crew can issue regardless of authority.

To take it to an absurd level, if the crew directed you to give them $20, would you?

 

[straitman]

To take it to an absurd level, if the crew directed you to give them $20, would you?

As you said it would be absurd. However if they directed any operational related matter you are obliged to follow whether you believe they are wrong at the time or not. The federal law covering this is quite specific.

Believe me as I've been there and done that :!: .... ie called security on arrival and had an inappropriately behaving passenger removed. The details are sorted out later :!:

 

[NYCguy]

To take it to an absurd level, if the crew directed you to give them $20, would you?

The comment about following the directions of the crew needs to be taken in the context of the original post.

To suggest anything like the above is simply ridiculous, and you know it!

 

[oz_mark]

If you look at the context of what Dave wrote I don't see how this delegated authority comes into to it. Regardless for the authority the crew operates under, one is not required to follow all directions of the crew. There must be a limitation based on safety to what directions the crew can issue regardless of authority.

It should be taken in the context of the discussion on the thread. Individual sentences can often be interpreted in many ways (as lawyers are adept at doing), but when placed in the contxt of a particular discussion, the intended meaning becomes clear.

 

[medhead]

It should be taken in the context of the discussion on the thread.

Yes, exactly and the discussion of the thread starting with NYCguy was about ALL directions. No caveat, or limitation to operationasl matters, was placed on that discussion.

The source of authority of the aircrew, as mentioned, only extents to operational matters and not to ALL directions.

My absurd example illustrates this point that

The main point here is that when a crew member asks you to do something, you need to comply. End of story.

is not correct.

 

[NYCguy]

Get a life.

You know very well that if you're being a disobedient knob; as the twit in the OP was; then you have to do what you're told.

Making a big sissy tizz about rubbish statements like "ooh, what if the FA asks you to give the $20?" is totally irrelevant, puerile balderdash, and the members who made such statements need to stop acting like 5yo's...

Is this how you act in the world outside this board?

 

[nlagalle]

Yes, exactly and the discussion of the thread starting with NYCguy was about ALL directions. No caveat, or limitation to operationasl matters, was placed on that discussion.

The source of authority of the aircrew, as mentioned, only extents to operational matters and not to ALL directions.

My absurd example illustrates this point that



is not correct.

Actually you are wrong. If you are asked by a crew member you have to comply. They aren't going to ask you "absurd" things like give them $20 etc. They are only going to ask you to do something in relation to the safe operation of the aircraft. I've never seen an FA ask someone to do something that was out of the ordinary.

Like last week when i flew back from SYD, the plane stopped short of the bay, and some clown got up and started getting his gear, the FA had to announce 4 times to him to sit down and the plane hadn't stopped moving. He finally got the message when someone next to him tugged his jacket and told him to sit down.

 

[oz_mark]

Yes, exactly and the discussion of the thread starting with NYCguy was about ALL directions. No caveat, or limitation to operationasl matters, was placed on that discussion.

I don't believe this to be the case. The comment was made in a particular context of an operational matter. While no boundary was explicitly placed on what the comment referred to, I never considered the comment to expand out to mean in all situations. I think it is obvious that it would refer to what the crew had authority to do.

 

[straitman]

Yes, exactly and the discussion of the thread starting with NYCguy was about ALL directions. No caveat, or limitation to operationasl matters, was placed on that discussion.

The source of authority of the aircrew, as mentioned, only extents to operational matters and not to ALL directions.

My absurd example illustrates this point that



is not correct.

medhead,

Whilst I frequently disagree with you I do normally respect your opinions and your right to express them. This however is the stupidest and most childish thing I have ever read of AFF, FT or Pprune :!: (....& Pprune has some shockers )

 

[thegurio]

If there instruction is based on ensuring compliance with the rules and regulations then you do what they say (turn off the phone).

and are you REALLY that important that you NEED to have your phone on? I mean I know some of us have some important jobs but cmon...

 

[simongr]

Round and round we go, where we stop nobody knows...

 

[drron]

The main point here is that when a crew member asks you to do something, you need to comply. End of story.

So now i get it.Ralph was just doing what he had to!!!:mrgreen::idea: