Hacker News Reader

Comment by teiferer | Hacker News Reader

> Being on the plane doesn't remove your right to free speech

While I agree with you that this was obviously a ridiculous overreaction, an air plane is not a public space. It's more akin to being in someones living room in that the pilot has absolute authority over whom to kick out for whatever reason. If they don't like your hair, they can have you escorted out by police if you don't comply. They won't do it normally because it's bad PR and their employer wouldn't like it, but they could. Not free speech amendment violated.

View on HN

This. Many people are unaware of just how much authority a captain has; Failing to follow their instructions is (basically) a felony. It's best to just not mess around on an aircraft.

Am a pilot, this is totally wrong.

PIC authority is strictly limited to in-scope items, this very obviously wasn’t in scope unless it was e.g. causing other passengers to behave in an unruly manner.

thanks for clarifying, this whole thread was sounding a bit ridiculous

The Pilot in Command (PIC) holds absolute, ultimate responsibility and final authority for the operation and safety of the aircraft.

Also, in another reply you state, "aircrew has actual legal authority which stems from the fact that they’re aircrew."

Do your pilot credentials include an ATP cert?

I’m not sure what point you are trying to make. PIC has authority over things which relate to the operation of the aircraft, yep.

The PIC does not get to make a passenger blow him, just like he can’t come read your emails if he feels like it.

The PIC might not like a shirt you’re wearing, he can’t make you take it off.

>Do your pilot credentials include an ATP cert?

I’m lacking on the 1500 hours, but other than that, yeah.

> I’m lacking on the 1500 hours, but other than that, yeah.

Hmm. So by, "yeah," you mean, "no."

> The PIC does not get to make a passenger blow him, just like he can’t come read your emails if he feels like it.

Straw man much? A captain of a 121-op is not going to get on the intercom and ask for this ... and expect to keep their job. Given that most people don't know where the line is drawn, there is an expectation that you do need to follow all directions. There are definitely directions that, if not followed, result in committing a felony. The other side of the expectation is that of professionalism on behalf of the crew:

Google "professionalism" > It is a combination of competence, ethical behavior, and respectful communication.

You would do well to consider the effects of this statement before continuing too far past 1500 hours.

> Hmm. So by, "yeah," you mean, "no."

“Frozen ATPL” is the industry term, and I could never have imagined an adult trying to debate the difference when it comes to theoretical education (hint: it’s the same).

> There are definitely directions that, if not followed, result in committing a felony

So? Nobody is disputing that!

It’s certainly not a felony to disobey directions that are not relevant to flight operations or safety.

You’ve utterly failed to communicate what it is that you apparently disagree with me about, instead you’ve just dropped a bunch of unnecessary personal attacks.

> ... you’ve just dropped a bunch of [...] personal attacks

False.

Let’s see:

> Do your pilot credentials include an ATP cert?

An unnecessary insinuation that I’m overstating my credentials.

> Hmm. So by, "yeah," you mean, "no."

A direct allegation that I’m overstating my credentials. Given that only the theory part of ATP training has any relevance to this conversation, what was your purpose here if not to attack my character?

> Google "professionalism"

A rather more direct and entirely baseless accusation of unprofessionalism

> You would do well to consider the effects of this statement before continuing too far past 1500 hours.

An insinuation that I should not be flying planes because ???

> The PIC might not like a shirt you’re wearing, he can’t make you take it off.

That's likely a false statement, even if unintentionally so.

If the t-shirts print is offensive enough then I'm sure a strong enough argument can be made. After all, how are a "bomb" bluetooth name or a "free palestine" wifi ssid much different from a t-shirt with similar contents?

Try wearing a t-shirt with "I'm carrying a bomb and will blow this aircraft up" and see how far it gets you on your next flight. The crew (including the PIC) won't be amused.

Well duh, obviously the PIC can order you to undress if you’re wearing a shirt made out of flaming batteries.

> If the t-shirts print is offensive enough then I'm sure a strong enough argument can be made

I’m pretty sure I’ve explained this: if it is necessary for the safe operation of the flight, then yes.

The PIC does not get to do this because he personally finds your shirt offensive.

You make it sound like it's a black-or-white situation, but it surely is not. What consitutes a danger to the safe operation of a flight is quite broadly up for interpretation. The word "bomb"? A strongly worded hateful message? Lots of things can e argued to compromise safety, by claiming they cause fear in other passengers, by indicating aggressive attitudes of the wearer, but claiming mental instability. I'm not saying that any of this is good. See the BT or wifi examples. But not liking it doesn't change reality.

And that you as a pilot would personally not do that in many situations may be commendable, but doesn't mean others won't nor that they don't have the authority to do so since in the end of the day it would be hard to counter in court.

> You make it sound like it's a black-or-white situation, but it surely is not

I have no idea how you could possibly interpret my comments like that.

> Lots of things can e argued to compromise safety, by claiming they cause fear in other passengers, by indicating aggressive attitudes of the wearer, but claiming mental instability. I'm not saying that any of this is good. See the BT or wifi examples. But not liking it doesn't change reality.

Now you are either just assuming dishonesty or falsely supposing that “can be argued” is the relevant test.

It’s a weird thing to debate in this manner, we’ve got endless legal precedents establishing the relevant standards. Absolutely no need to speculate.

> since in the end of the day it would be hard to counter in court.

No, it wouldn’t. Even legitimate cases of misbehaviour on aircraft rarely lead to prosecution (in the US).

> falsely supposing that “can be argued” is the relevant test.

Hm? It's what counts in court, so it is the only relevant test.

> Even legitimate cases of misbehaviour on aircraft rarely lead to prosecution (in the US).

People have been removed from aircraft by the police for decades. Yes, there is lots of precedence here. Whether in the end that leads to prosecution is secondary. What we are debating here is whether the PIC had the right to have them removed in these cases, and clearly they had.

I assure you, “can be argued” is most certainly not the test used by courts when convicting people of crimes.

It's not about a special status of flight captains. Same can be said of e.g. a store manager acting in-place of the owner. It's a matter of one being on someone's private property, instead of on public property.

Hi, when I was in flight school it wasn’t explicitly stated but certainly heavily implied that as pilots were not allowed to trespass passengers and kick them off the plane mid-flight.

If you have information to the contrary, I would like to be made aware because occasionally I have ended up stuck for hours in the air with unpleasant passengers.

Was just clarifying GP's general point and not stating anything specific to pilots.

You’re badly wrong, aircrew has actual legal authority which stems from the fact that they’re aircrew.

Absolutely nothing to do with private property, especially considering that you can’t trespass people on a plane.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com