Passengers Aboard Flight Delayed 18 Hours

On Sun, 02 Jan 2005 11:54:35 -0800, AES/newspost
wrote:

In article ,
Malcolm Weir wrote:


There would have been three pilots.

But only a complete moron would suggest that pilots work longer than
permitted in order to avoid mildly inconveniencing some passengers...


Do the military services or police or public safety services (helicopter
life flight pilots and the like) have comparable (or any) regulations on
duty time and rest time for their pilots? -- including those working in
training or logistical transport operations as well as combat operations?

(I have no idea if they do, but I suspect they may well have such.)

Yes, they do.

If so, would it be moronic to suggest that those regulations be bent, or
even abandoned, in an emergency situation? -- badly needed supplies for
a combat operation, a civil disaster, a humanitarian situation?

The regulations include procedures under which the hours can be
extended.

However, likening combat and disaster relief to being stuck on a plane
overnight is ridiculous. And likening the fitness and training of
military and paramilitary pilots to that of commercial pilots is
equally ridiculous.

Think about it: the commercial pressure on pilots to make schedule is
already significant. The last thing any sane individual would want is
to create a situation whereby a commercial pilot was coerced into
flying against his better judgement simply because it would be cheaper
than putting the passengers up in a hotel...

Malc.

Malcolm Weir wrote:

"d) Emergency or forced landing. Should any aircraft carrying
passengers or crew required to be inspected under the Immigration and
Nationality Act make a forced landing in the United States, the
commanding officer or person in command shall not allow any passenger
or crewman thereon to depart from the landing place without permission
of an immigration officer, unless such departure is necessary for
purposes of safety or the preservation of life or property. As soon as
practicable, the commanding officer or person in command, or the owner
of the aircraft, shall communicate with the nearest immigration
officer and make a full report of the circumstances of the flight and
of the emergency or forced landing."

And it might be relevant to note that "landing place" is not necessarily the
aircraft.

On Sun, 02 Jan 2005 07:35:36 GMT, Adam Weiss
wrote:

Malcolm Weir wrote:
On Sat, 01 Jan 2005 18:01:31 GMT, "~~ Ray ~~"
wrote:


dont you think 18 hours is over exaggerated????


Nope. It's fact.

I think what Ray was trying to say is "don't you think something went
wrong if passengers had to spend 18 hours in a plane on a tarmac?"

Well, obviously. Although I think it was actually only 15 or so
hours.

First was the fog at SeaTac.

Second was mechanical problem with the aircraft bringing the new crew.

Third was the weather at Moses Lake when the new crew had arrived.

arent most crew limited to
12 hours before regulations steps in, and a requirement that crews to be
grounded them till they had a rest.


Ah! Welcome to part of the problem!

So, is it a problem that can be fixed? Or do passengers like myself
need to cross our fingers that we aren't the ones on-board next time a
flight is held on the tarmac for 18 hours?

Get a grip on the reality of the situation.

In 2004, there were something over 10,000,000 commercial, passenger
carrying flights in the USA alone.

And you're worried about the one that was held on the tarmac for 15 or
16 hours?

Certainly, there are lessons to be learned (e.g. maybe airlines should
divert earlier to larger fields). But I can absolutely guarantee you
that whatever the consequences of this incident may be, they won't be
without some negative implications.

(E.g. what if that flight had diverted to San Francisco, and then as
it landed at SFO, SEA had reopened? Imagine how many irate passengers
would have complained about *that*!)

Malc.

On Sun, 02 Jan 2005 07:35:36 GMT, Adam Weiss
wrote:

Malcolm Weir wrote:
On Sat, 01 Jan 2005 18:01:31 GMT, "~~ Ray ~~"
wrote:


dont you think 18 hours is over exaggerated????


Nope. It's fact.

I think what Ray was trying to say is "don't you think something went
wrong if passengers had to spend 18 hours in a plane on a tarmac?"

Well, obviously. Although I think it was actually only 15 or so
hours.

First was the fog at SeaTac.

Second was mechanical problem with the aircraft bringing the new crew.

Third was the weather at Moses Lake when the new crew had arrived.

arent most crew limited to
12 hours before regulations steps in, and a requirement that crews to be
grounded them till they had a rest.


Ah! Welcome to part of the problem!

So, is it a problem that can be fixed? Or do passengers like myself
need to cross our fingers that we aren't the ones on-board next time a
flight is held on the tarmac for 18 hours?

Get a grip on the reality of the situation.

In 2004, there were something over 10,000,000 commercial, passenger
carrying flights in the USA alone.

And you're worried about the one that was held on the tarmac for 15 or
16 hours?

Certainly, there are lessons to be learned (e.g. maybe airlines should
divert earlier to larger fields). But I can absolutely guarantee you
that whatever the consequences of this incident may be, they won't be
without some negative implications.

(E.g. what if that flight had diverted to San Francisco, and then as
it landed at SFO, SEA had reopened? Imagine how many irate passengers
would have complained about *that*!)

Malc.

Malcolm Weir wrote:
officer or person in command shall not allow any passenger or crewman
thereon to depart from the landing place without permission of an
immigration officer,

Not at all. NW was required by US law to refuse to let them
disembark, and as such litigation on *those* grounds would fail.


Landing place != aircraft.

The way I read it, the NW crew could have allowed deplaning as long as the
crew ensured no passenger left the "landing place". I could see one FA
bringing 5 pax to washrooms inside terminal at a time, and bringing them back
to airplane vicinity (or inside aircraft).

The definition of "landing place" is important here.


Perhaps what passengeers need when travelling on northwest is to have the full
on-line FARs and anoy other relevant regulations so that theyc ould consult
them and them show them to the crew to give the crew the ability/confidence
that they can do something about the situation.

Malcolm Weir wrote:
officer or person in command shall not allow any passenger or crewman
thereon to depart from the landing place without permission of an
immigration officer,

Not at all. NW was required by US law to refuse to let them
disembark, and as such litigation on *those* grounds would fail.


Landing place != aircraft.

The way I read it, the NW crew could have allowed deplaning as long as the
crew ensured no passenger left the "landing place". I could see one FA
bringing 5 pax to washrooms inside terminal at a time, and bringing them back
to airplane vicinity (or inside aircraft).

The definition of "landing place" is important here.


Perhaps what passengeers need when travelling on northwest is to have the full
on-line FARs and anoy other relevant regulations so that theyc ould consult
them and them show them to the crew to give the crew the ability/confidence
that they can do something about the situation.

Malcolm Weir wrote:
No-one deemed Cat Stevens guilty of anything. They just denied him
entry. Ridiculously dramatically, I agree, but nations (not just the
USA) can, and do, deny entry for all sorts of reasons.

This is where the USA is blurring the lines. Cat Stevens was not denied entry.
He was arrested probablty under suspicious of terrorist activity (patriot act
allows police to arrest anyone without cause by just using that excuse) and
deported back to UK. They forced the plane down prematurely, arrested him,
kept him in prison until they could arrange transport back to UK from Maine
where he was held.

Denying entry simply means that when person reaches the immigration desk at
her destination airport, the agent refuses entry and she is then accompanied
to the next flight back home. That person is not arrested nor kept in a
prison, nor handcuffed nor deprived of any human dignity. Denied entry means
the person never actually enters the USA and thus is never under USA
jurisdiction and is protected under international treaties to which the USA
has agreed to enforce on the airside side of airport.

In message , at 11:16:00 on
Mon, 3 Jan 2005, Malcolm Weir remarked:
And in the case you postulate, someone is deemed to be guilty before
being charged with any offence?

Apparently:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3678694.stm

No-one deemed Cat Stevens guilty of anything. They just denied him
entry. Ridiculously dramatically, I agree, but nations (not just the
USA) can, and do, deny entry for all sorts of reasons.

But they must have though him "guilty" of something, otherwise, if they
though he was innocent then the denied entry would be *even more*
absurd.
--
Roland Perry

In message , at 11:16:00 on
Mon, 3 Jan 2005, Malcolm Weir remarked:
And in the case you postulate, someone is deemed to be guilty before
being charged with any offence?

Apparently:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3678694.stm

No-one deemed Cat Stevens guilty of anything. They just denied him
entry. Ridiculously dramatically, I agree, but nations (not just the
USA) can, and do, deny entry for all sorts of reasons.

But they must have though him "guilty" of something, otherwise, if they
though he was innocent then the denied entry would be *even more*
absurd.
--
Roland Perry

"Malcolm Weir" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 31 Dec 2004 23:36:08 -0500, "Dennis G. Rears"
wrote:
too:
Not really, just another day in the life.... If you are talking about
the
terrorist attacks, it was where the beginning of USA paranoia and the
beginning of massive constitutional violations of USA rights.

(b) No, it wasn't the beginning of massive constitutional violations
either. Just another set of invasions! (Search and seizure
violations were the hallmark of "the war on drugs", for example). And
the internment of US Citizens of Japanese descent during WW2 wasn't
exactly in the spirit of the Constitution, etc.

Malc:

I was wrong and you are right. It was not the beginning. Just a
continuation.

dennis.