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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
“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.
False.
> 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 ???
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.
> 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.
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.
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).
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.