Um, Darren, it's clear you have strong feelings.  But about this "in the real world" business - most of us in this thread are from the real world, and we've cited real-world sources.  We've heard from pilots, aviation consultants, attorneys, law enforcement professionals, and (speaking for myself) a PR consultant that works with businesses to keep them from harming themselves.  All of those people are critical of United.  Are all of them wrong?

About pilot in command doctrine - are you sure you aren't interpreting it a bit broadly, as Gary has just suggested?  If the captain's power is absolute, then you're on firm ground.  But the captain's power isn't absolute - it's limited by the scope of his responsibilities.  Passengers need to comply with safety instructions (e.g. "you need to be willing and able to operate the emergency exit if seated in the exit row.")  But they don't have to comply with all instructions, and the failure to comply is not in itself a safety violation.  If we follow your model, then the captain can come down the aisle and say to a passenger, "In my role as captain, for the safe conduct of the flight, I require you to shoot yourself," and hand the passenger a revolver.  Is the passenger required to shoot himself?  If he refuses, is that by definition a safety violation (refusal to follow crew instructions) that requires his removal from the flight?  I don't think you'd agree with that.  But that's where your logic takes us - unless you're willing to agree with Gary that the captain's authority, like any authority, is limited.  Is the captain Kilgrave?  I don't think so.

Why would they pax crew in preference to 4 passengers?  Perhaps because it seemed to be the cheapest or easiest option, vs. chartering a private aircraft.  In retrospect, the decision was neither cheap nor easy.

An airplane isn't a democracy, but it isn't a dictatorship either.

7 hours ago, DEHowie said:

Please note Pilot In Command powers are pretty much universal and mirrored from country to country per ICAO regulations.

Yes, but as Gary and Alan point out, any order must be lawful.

One of the many issues here is that there is a very strong suggestion that the order to deplane was not lawful or in accordance with the FAA regulations.

As Gary says, the PIC is responsible (in effect) for ensuring compliance with the regulations. There is no suggestion that Dr Dao was doing anything to contravene any regulation when he was ordered to deplane for the commercial convenience of the company and, quite reasonably, he decided that being in a commercial dispute he was not prepared to deplane until such time as he was happy with the compensation provided, whether that be an earlier flight to his destination, more cash or whatever. Quite correctly, he also realised that his negotiating power was only significant whilst he was still on the aeroplane.

7 hours ago, DEHowie said:

Imagine a scenario where you now expect a crew member to risk there life in an evacuation to assist a non co-operative Dr Dao or maybe go back into a burning aircraft to save him.

Enjoy your debate but in the real world we dont have weeks to sort out what was right or wrong we just have to deal with what was the "safest" option.

Trying to argue Dr Dao was offloaded because he was a safety threat when clearly he was not (again: is sitting quietly in your seat a safety issue? If so, then I'm surprised I haven't been offloaded yet) is entirely counterproductive. Nobody on board that aircraft, and the vast majority of reasonable people who have seen the footage, considered Dr Dao a safety threat. This insistence on arguing Dr Dao was a threat to safety only ends up like the boy who cried wolf: people will stop listening when there is a real threat. This was a commercial dispute -- it had nothing at all to do with safety.

Hundreds of people are deplaned every day across the world for entirely good reasons, some by law enforcement. The reason none of those stories have hit the headlines is because most people understand perfectly well that a drunk, anti-social etc passenger poses a threat to safety and are absolutely supportive of the crew in offloading them. What the average airline customer does not support is the use of law enforcement (or not, as the case appears to be) to resolve a commercial dispute in a violent way because the company was too tight or too inflexible to properly deal with the situation in a civilised manner.

Hi Alan,

no our powers do not extend to the point i can order you to shoot yourself..lol.

However if I or any of my crew believe you(ie Dr Dao)will be a hazard to..

1 Yourself.

2. A crewmember

3. Any other passenger

4. The safe conduct of the flight.

5. Be a hazard to any crewmember in conducting their duties or there ability to safely conduct there duties or ANY passenger in the event of an evacuation.

In any of these cases then they will be offloaded.

Dr Dao was not able to be shot..lol..

The legal right of the Pilot in command to exert there authority has been tested on several occasions. 

The reason..its simply impossible to do the job without full and express authority.

Captains on ships and aircraft have full and complete authority with the full backing of law behind them on the basis they act reasonably and use that authority in a reasonable manner,

Can someone here guarrantee with 100% certainty that a man defying all indtructions and flagrantly defying authority is safe to put in an aircraft where he can be expected to cooperate and follow instructions?

Exactly..

And as an addition why is what i have written above important.

Because along with that authority comes responsibilty.

The responsibility for the lives and well being of every person on the aircraft.

IE if something happens to anyone, its all my/our fault.

Id Dr Dao is open to flagrant and clear belligerant behavior then good luck if he tries it on any aircraft i ever Captain as i will not bear the responsibility for his life when he cannot offer the respect that authority befits.

 

9 hours ago, Alan_A said:

Um, Darren, it's clear you have strong feelings.  But about this "in the real world" business - most of us in this thread are from the real world, and we've cited real-world sources.  We've heard from pilots, aviation consultants, attorneys, law enforcement professionals, and (speaking for myself) a PR consultant that works with businesses to keep them from harming themselves.  All of those people are critical of United.  Are all of them wrong?

About pilot in command doctrine - are you sure you aren't interpreting it a bit broadly, as Gary has just suggested?  If the captain's power is absolute, then you're on firm ground.  But the captain's power isn't absolute - it's limited by the scope of his responsibilities.  Passengers need to comply with safety instructions (e.g. "you need to be willing and able to operate the emergency exit if seated in the exit row.")  But they don't have to comply with all instructions, and the failure to comply is not in itself a safety violation.  If we follow your model, then the captain can come down the aisle and say to a passenger, "In my role as captain, for the safe conduct of the flight, I require you to shoot yourself," and hand the passenger a revolver.  Is the passenger required to shoot himself?  If he refuses, is that by definition a safety violation (refusal to follow crew instructions) that requires his removal from the flight?  I don't think you'd agree with that.  But that's where your logic takes us - unless you're willing to agree with Gary that the captain's authority, like any authority, is limited.  Is the captain Kilgrave?  I don't think so.

Why would they pax crew in preference to 4 passengers?  Perhaps because it seemed to be the cheapest or easiest option, vs. chartering a private aircraft.  In retrospect, the decision was neither cheap nor easy.

An airplane isn't a democracy, but it isn't a dictatorship either.

Se3, that's where you're wrong. If a captain sees that someone isn't following instructions, then it is a safety concern? Why, because it's doubtful that said person will follow directions when their lives are in danger if they can't follow directions when they are safely on the ground.

You're confusing two very different things.

It's not about whether the captain is right in asking someone to leave, it's about obeying crew instructions.

 

It's super obvious that you have absolutely zero experience as an airline pilot. Your OR experience does not translate very well to the left seat.

Your arguments about a pax shooting themselves because the captain says so is so far from being relevent, it's laughable at best.

I understand your point of view and I respect it. However, what you're advocating about the captain's authority will never gain ground.

Also, try it. Disobey a captain anywhere around the world and see how fast you get told to take another flight.

29 minutes ago, ahsmatt7 said:

Se3, that's where you're wrong. If a captain sees that someone isn't following instructions, then it is a safety concern? Why, because it's doubtful that said person will follow directions when their lives are in danger if they can't follow directions when they are safely on the ground.

So a captain's orders, even if you believe they are wrong/unlawful should be obeyed without question? I believe even the military doesn't go that far.

Even the president should not expect to give illegal orders and have them obeyed.

Also, the conflation that refusing to vacate a seat you have rightfully paid for and refusal to follow instructions in an emergency situation are similar is likely to be laughed out of court rather quickly.

Even United's lawyers I assume, know better than to go there at this point.

19 minutes ago, DEHowie said:

Can someone here guarrantee with 100% certainty that a man defying all indtructions and flagrantly defying authority is safe to put in an aircraft where he can be expected to cooperate and follow instructions?

The main problem with that statement is the assumption of authority.  The situation was not one where there was authority to demand the passenger deplane.  That is the primary stumbling block of the entire situation.  The passenger had paid for and was granted a seat on the aircraft.  After being allowed to occupy said seat, that same passenger was then told they had to leave the aircraft so that an employee could take the seat.  There is absolutely no authority in that regard.  None.  You may want to put an employee on the aircraft and you may ask someone to surrender their seat to do so.  However, once the passenger is on the plane and in their seat, you can not demand they surrender the seat without the reasons falling within the Contract of Carriage or for safety reasons.  Wanting to use the seat for an employee doesn't fall under "safety reasons".  It really doesn't.  Nor is it covered by the Contract of Carriage.

Authority, when used for purposes other than its intent, is never correct and is not typically protected either.

12 hours ago, Gartro said:

Darren

Reg 309 needs to be read in the context of the Act and Regulations as a whole, rather than in isolation.

Even in isolation, it does not give the pilot in command a "blank cheque". The power is limited, including to what the pilot in command "considers reasonably necessary to ensure compliance with the Act or these Regulations".

The Australian lawyer in me can't help wondering what breach of the Civil Aviation Act and the Civil Aviation Regulations would have existed to trigger the exercise of the Reg 309 power if the Dr Dao incident had occurred in Australia.

Gary

Hi Gary

I guess thats the difference between lawyers and pilots.

Lawyers are around to pick up the pieces when pilots make mistakes...the pilots are still in pieces.

If Dr Dao had been on my aircraft he would of been offloaded as a safety hazard to my crew and passengers. Failing to be able to follow the most basic of instruction is reason enough for me to offload him as a hazard to safety under the CAR's.

If you think carriage of a belligerant and flagarantly disobedient passenger is ok thats fine as you dont carry or bear the responsibility for there life.

If you think i take this seriously i do as i as the PIC am the soul resonsible for ALL persons onnthe aircraft.

Do i care if anyone doesnt get home because they carry on and cant follow onstructions? No. There life is more important as "we" are always planning worst case not best case.

Why? Because i take the responsibility of lives seriously and if any random passenger cannot fullfil the basic obligations of carriage then i will offload them and i have on many many occasions.

Fliying on an aircraft is not a right and even being a passenger requires responsibility or I cannot do my job properly.

What would you propose we do with a passenger who fails to obey any instructions and is very clear in his desire to disobey any further requests or instructions?

Pretend he is not on board?

Or do we defer our command to them which is clearly whay he was after?

Should i say typical Dr???

 

 

2 hours ago, DEHowie said:

Hi Alan,

no our powers do not extend to the point i can order you to shoot yourself..lol.

However if I or any of my crew believe you(ie Dr Dao)will be a hazard to..

1 Yourself.

2. A crewmember

3. Any other passenger

4. The safe conduct of the flight.

5. Be a hazard to any crewmember in conducting their duties or there ability to safely conduct there duties or ANY passenger in the event of an evacuation.

In any of these cases then they will be offloaded.

Dr Dao was not able to be shot..lol..

The legal right of the Pilot in command to exert there authority has been tested on several occasions. 

The reason..its simply impossible to do the job without full and express authority.

Captains on ships and aircraft have full and complete authority with the full backing of law behind them on the basis they act reasonably and use that authority in a reasonable manner,

Can someone here guarrantee with 100% certainty that a man defying all indtructions and flagrantly defying authority is safe to put in an aircraft where he can be expected to cooperate and follow instructions?

Exactly..

And as an addition why is what i have written above important.

Because along with that authority comes responsibilty.

The responsibility for the lives and well being of every person on the aircraft.

IE if something happens to anyone, its all my/our fault.

Id Dr Dao is open to flagrant and clear belligerant behavior then good luck if he tries it on any aircraft i ever Captain as i will not bear the responsibility for his life when he cannot offer the respect that authority befits.

 

I see a lot of platitudes here about captain's authority and safety, but little that actually applies to the actual situation. You probably skipped the first 10 pages of this discussion, so at the risk of being repetitive, I suppose I will try and point out again why the customer is actually in the right in this situation.  And before your next pairing, I would also suggest you look over again your company's flight ops manual with regard to customer handling and your company's contract of carriage, or equivalent Australian document, as you may want to reconsider how you should handle such a situation if it happened aboard your plane.  And before we go any further since people  here have devolved to 'you obviously have no experience...I'm a flightcrew.....etc, etc', I will just add that I spent 13 years at Expressjet on the E145, 9 years as captain, in the Continental Express/United Express system.  Currently a E190 captain at a competing airline.

The agent had no right to unseat Mr Dao since that action was a violation of United's contract of carriage.  Nowhere in that document's Rule 21 is removal of a passenger to protect the company's operational needs one of the reasons given for the forced removal of a passenger.  

Now, you speak of safety and refusing to comply with crew or agent instructions as why he should have been removed.  Let's explore that.

Is Republic's need to reposition a crew for tomorrow morning's flight a safety requirement aboard this flight?  No.  

When the agent asked him to vacate that seat and he replied 'no' since the request was not within the CoC, did he then 'fail to comply with or interfere with, the duties of the flight crew, federal regulations or security directives'?  Is it the duty of the flight crew to remove passengers in contravention to the company's CoC, for the convenience of crew scheduling? No.  The flightcrew's duty aboard the plane is to ensure the passengers comply with safety rules by being buckled up, with seatbacks up, and bags properly stowed, etc.  Not resolving overbooking, or scheduling, etc. issues.   

Is there a federal regulation that requires flight crews to be deadheaded in time to ensure an on time departure of their next flight? No.  The next day's flight can be easily delayed for crew rest and the passengers 'reaccomodated' as necessary.

 Is there a security directive that requires the removal of a passenger to protect the company's morning schedule? No.  Helping Republic cheat the rules by squeezing that deadhead crew onto this flight is hardly helpful in our fight against terrorists.

At xjt, as a uex operation, scheduling was not supposed to schedule a deadhead on short notice into a flight without seats.  Somebody at Republic's scheduling failed to follow their desk instructions.  Mr Dao had no obligation to inconvenience himself to cover up a Republic scheduler's ignorance or attempt at circumventing directives.  

When the security guards grabbed Mr Dao and caused him to smash his face into the armrest, does that make his conduct disorderly or violent?  No, as he did not lay his hands on anybody else.  It was him that had hands laid on while he sat in his assigned seat.  In fact, the security guards there had no authority to be aboard that aircraft or wear 'police' insignia and badges, according to Chicago police.  That is because the guards were minimally trained in policing, with no arrest powers.  And as a minimally trained force, the Chicago pd did recognize the risk that the Chicago Aviation Police may act inappropriately, and had previously ordered them to remove 'police' from their shirts and not to board aircraft or act alone without CPD present. If they were properly trained police, they would have recognized this as a 'civil matter' and not intervened, averting this entire fiasco. But they were not fully trained police, and therefore did not know the difference between a criminal and civil matter, and made a big mess aboard an aircraft they were not supposed to be on.  

As captain, it is incumbent upon you to understand what your authority is and weild it responsibly.  And that means knowing when somebody should be kicked off or not, and knowing what is a lawful or not.  Because if you don't then you may find yourself at the wrong end of a losing lawsuit because you weilded your authority a bit overzealously.

Frankly, if the pilots were to be concerned about anything related to safety, then they should have been concerned about a bunch of thugs who came on board their aircraft and injured a passenger in their care with their clumsy attempts to remove him without the authority to even do so. The suggestion that because a passenger refuses to follow what we know to have been an extremely questionable request in terms of legality, not to mention popular opinion too, will somehow mean we can conclude that same passenger would not adhere to safety instructions whilst the aircraft is in flight or whatever, is a blatant logical fallacy. It's a complete straw man argument which wouldn't last two seconds in any court of law.

I'd be more impressed with the pilots and their command of the aircraft if they'd really taken some responsibility and told those security guys to get the hell off the aircraft instead of allowing their actions to severly injure one of the passengers in their care and in the process leave the crew open to a law suit too, since, as has been pointed out in this flawed argument, the safety of all the passengers is their primary responsibility, including the guy who ended up with his face smashed in whilst on board their aeroplane. I'd be absolutely mortified if anyone on board an aircraft I was in command of was injured, regardless of how that injury occurred.

1 hour ago, DEHowie said:

Hi Gary

I guess thats the difference between lawyers and pilots.

Lawyers are around to pick up the pieces when pilots make mistakes...the pilots are still in pieces.

If Dr Dao had been on my aircraft he would of been offloaded as a safety hazard to my crew and passengers. Failing to be able to follow the most basic of instruction is reason enough for me to offload him as a hazard to safety under the CAR's.

If you think carriage of a belligerant and flagarantly disobedient passenger is ok thats fine as you dont carry or bear the responsibility for there life.

If you think i take this seriously i do as i as the PIC am the soul resonsible for ALL persons onnthe aircraft.

Do i care if anyone doesnt get home because they carry on and cant follow onstructions? No. There life is more important as "we" are always planning worst case not best case.

Why? Because i take the responsibility of lives seriously and if any random passenger cannot fullfil the basic obligations of carriage then i will offload them and i have on many many occasions.

Fliying on an aircraft is not a right and even being a passenger requires responsibility or I cannot do my job properly.

What would you propose we do with a passenger who fails to obey any instructions and is very clear in his desire to disobey any further requests or instructions?

Pretend he is not on board?

Or do we defer our command to them which is clearly whay he was after?

Should i say typical Dr???

 

 

Unfortunately, as a captain in a commercial or military operation, you are as much a lawyer as a pilot.  Because you have to understand and apply the information in several rulebooks thousands of pages long.  Are you legal to begin the day at this hour, do you need an alternate, is the aircraft legal, is the mel complied with, is the logbook in proper order, can you release the brake yet, is this direct to clearance going to take you too far offshore, is this airspeed mandatory, can i begin the approach with this rvr, can we continue the approach, etc etc. All these legal questions.  And if you can't accept your role as lawyer while swinging your captain's authority around, you can easily land yourself, and possibly your company, in a lot of hot water someday.

4 hours ago, HiFlyer said:

So a captain's orders, even if you believe they are wrong/unlawful should be obeyed without question? I believe even the military doesn't go that far.

Even the president should not expect to give illegal orders and have them obeyed.

Also, the conflation that refusing to vacate a seat you have rightfully paid for and refusal to follow instructions in an emergency situation are similar is likely to be laughed out of court rather quickly.

Even United's lawyers I assume, know better than to go there at this point.

The Airplane is not the place to determine what's lawful. It's already law for passenger to obey crewmembers' orders or instructions.

Take a step back and realize that most crewmembers have had thousands of hours in a particular jet and operation.

They know what needs to be done to keep things safe. They know the airplane and how things are going to get in an emergency. Most traveling public don't fly as often as pilots and flight attendants.

This was a one off event. Most crew members are professional. We hold the industry to a high standard. Trust us when we feel that something isn't right. We are doing what we can to keep people safe.

The best advice I ever got was that if you have a bad feeling about something, do whatever you need to do to make that feeling go away.

 

Figure out if you have a lawsuit on your hands at the gate.

Its also not laughable in court. It's law.

This is were wisdom comes in...

If someone disagrees with something, there are correct avenues.

 

Just because someone doesn't agree with something, doesn't make it right to just blatantly disobey law. especially this one.

I'm not arguing this in light of what happened last week or so. I'm talking in general everyday terms.

It seems that a lot of people are commenting on PIC authority without ever actually being PIC.

Once you are one, you will know exactly where pilots come from. Especially when you have set rules in your airplane and people start to question why you have said rules.

 

This has always been like this in terms of PIC authority. It's not and shouldn't change.

 

This is an example of a distinct absence of pic authority.  I feel really bad for the captain of that flight because he will be named in the lawsuit and rightly so for allowing this to happen.  As captain, you are responsible for whatever happens aboard your plane, and if anybody, even a gate agent tries to do something that is wrong aboard your aircraft, you as the pic, will hold responsibility for the consequences if you don't stop it.  The captain of the flight had absolutely nothing to do with what happened aboard that plane, and that is the problem.  He should have taken an interest in what was happening in the back and stepped in to stop it before it got out of hand.

18 hours ago, DEHowie said:

I think Ed if you take a look through the FAR's at the powers of the Pilot In Command you will see i have understated the powers...

Your entire chain of logic has several flaws, but one critical flaw that effectively moots your entire argument.

At no time did the PIC of this flight have anything whatsoever to do with the "Dao Incident." Everything that transpired on board that aircraft involved the cabin crew and the gate attendant.

Both the PIC and the PNF had already locked themselves in the cockpit, preparing for departure. The situation would likely never have devolved into such a tragic sequence of events had there been a figure of obvious authority (or maybe just the presence of a mature adult) present.

1 hour ago, n4gix said:

...Both the PIC and the PNF had already locked themselves in the cockpit, preparing for departure...

That brings up another question from the layman (me!). Was anything about the incident actually communicated to the PIC and PNF. Did they really know what was going on behind that hijacker-proof door?

Once locked in, can the crew not exit the cockpit should the situation arise; "Get the hell off my aeroplane!" etc.?

Those that are are basing their arguments on the captain's authority are missing a couple of key points.

One: outside of dictatorships, authority is never absolute.  Authority is grounded in something.  The prime minister serves the crown and the electorate.  The president of the US swears to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution (which means he has to obey the Constitution).  The captain has authority because he or she is responsible for the safety of the flight.  The captain's authority is grounded in safety.  That means that the captain can give directives related to safety, but not for other reasons.  "You have to leave the seat because you refuse to operate the emergency exit" - that's safety.  "You have to leave the aircraft because you're carrying a weapon" - that's safety.  "You need to leave your seat because the airline has another use for it" -  that's not safety.  Why is that not safety?  Because...

Two: there's a distinction between safety requirements and business interests.  United's needing the seat for deadheading crew isn't a safety issue - it's a business issue.  If crew can't make the morning flight from Louisville, that's not a safety issue, that's a business issue (the passengers aren't put at risk, they're just inconvenienced because they're delayed or have to take other flights).  When United decides to bump passengers rather than get the crew to Louisville by other means, that's a business decision.  When United decides to offer much less than the required amount to compensate bumped passengers, that's a business decision.  When United asks Dr. Dao, a paying customer who's minding his own business, to leave the flight, that's a business decision.   When Dr. Dao refuses, he's therefore NOT BREAKING A LAW.  He's entering into a private party dispute between himself and United - a corporation.  Safety is not at issue and the law is not at issue.  I've linked to this article before, but for those who missed it, I'm linking to it again.  Please read it.  It's an explanation by a law enforcement officer of why no laws were broken on United 3411, and why the police should never have been called (and yes, the fact that the enforcement personnel that showed up weren't police just compounds the situation).  

The argument that Dr. Dao's refusal to leave the aircraft represents a safety violation is an example of circular reasoning - a rather bizarre kind of circular reasoning that takes the form of action.  Dr. Dao gets upset and resists only after (and because) he's been given an instruction.  The instruction has nothing to do with safety.  He was not told, "Do this, or stop doing that, because you're endangering the fight."  He was told, "Leave the plane because we want your seat."  Had he not been given the instruction, he would have been an obedient passenger.  The instruction provokes the incident and creates the supposed violation. The crew creates exactly the situation they're supposed to prevent.      

Oh, and about my examples, along the lines of "The captain tells you to shoot yourself - do you have to do it?"  Again, you may have missed the earlier explanation.  Those are thought experiments.  They're deliberately exaggerated examples meant to illustrate a point - in this case, the point is that the captain can't tell you to do just anything.  He can only tell you to do things that are part of his mandate.  Unseating passengers for business reasons isn't part of the mandate.

52 minutes ago, HighBypass said:

That brings up another question from the layman (me!). Was anything about the incident actually communicated to the PIC and PNF. Did they really know what was going on behind that hijacker-proof door?

Once locked in, can the crew not exit the cockpit should the situation arise; "Get the hell off my aeroplane!" etc.?

Interesting question - I don't think we know the answer.  At no point does the flight crew turn up in the videos.  It's not clear they were fully aware of what was going on.

But they should have been.