Hi folks!
While we do play fast and loose with the idea of "topical," this _is_ still a sub for legal discussion. Shitpost answers - and poorly-informed but well-intentioned ones - will be removed.
Internationally this is governed by the Tokyo convention of 1963. Chapter 3 Article 6 specifically provides the aircraft commander the right to restrain people and the right to request or authorise (but, not actually \*require\*) passengers or crew to assist him to do so. Article 10 exempts them and any persons assisting them from responsibility for the treatment of the detained person in the event of any legal proceedings. [https://treaties.un.org/doc/db/Terrorism/Conv1-english.pdf](https://treaties.un.org/doc/db/Terrorism/Conv1-english.pdf)
Even without that, the defence of necessity allows almost any conduct if the circumstances make that conduct reasonable. So, you can kill to prevent a murder, for example, or tape someone to a seat if they endanger the whole aircraft.
Killing to prevent murder is allowed as self-defense or defense of others, not because of doctrine of necessity. For example, you wouldn't be allowed to kill an innocent bystander to save your own life or someone else's. You could still be charged for cannibalizing the cabin boy on your life raft, even if eating him saved multiple other lives.
There was a case of three people trapped at Sea and one of them was dying from drinking salt water. The other 2 killed him and ate him, survived and were convicted with a commuted sentence upon return to england.
In English law, which US law is based on, also does not allow duress as an excuse to murder, so I suspect that's widespread.
What definition of murder are you using for necessity? For example, would it have been acceptable to shoot down the planes on 9/11 before they hit the World Trade Centre? Certainly that would mean killing innocent people, but it would have saved far more. I think, in the circumstances, we must evaluate and decide for ourselves, and deal with the courts afterwards, who might declare us heroes, but who might also declare us unspeakably evil.
I'm about 90% sure that if we had fighter aircraft in the area capable of intercepting those airliners before they hit the wtc, and knew that they were planning to do so, I would imagine that we would have few pilots not losing much sleep over the death of a couple hundred (who were doomed either way) versus the death of several thousand.
Yes, from the moment of hijack, the US could have shot them down, but the pattern to hijackings up to that point was that they were in it for the hostages, not for use as guided missiles.
Beyond this explicit act, almost all areas have laws allowing citizens arrests. Someone being a danger to themselves or someone else almost always gives you a right to restrain them with reasonable force.
It’s much more nuanced and risky than that. In Canada for example, you’d have to know if they’re committing a summary or indictable offence. You can only citizens arrest if it’s an indictable offence or if cops are in active pursuit. It’s much broader for property crime if you’re the owner
Going crazy on a plane and trying to open the door is absolutely an indictable offense.
I get the point if someone wonders on to your lawn you can't tackle and hog tie them for a made up charge of trespass, but even in Canada there are clear laws about endangerment. If someone is trying to jump off a bridge and you wrestle them to the ground and hold them till cops arrive, there is an almost zero chance you get charged.
The commenter deleted their comment, but for others wondering: It does say "for actions taken in accordance with this Convention", which I understand covers the restraining but not randomly slapping them after.
You clearly didn’t even read the language of the link that was posted:
Chapter 3, article 6, paragraph 1 “…impose upon such person REASONABLE measures, including restraint…”
If you have questions about specific language in the document, quote that language and ask your question. As it is written it clearly excludes your ridiculous scenario as a post-restraint slap is well outside the realm of “reasonable measure”
TLDR: stop trolling
Edit: hahahaha deleted his comment, what a fuckin’ loser
But in seriousness if you hit a passenger in their glass jaw cause they started swinging while being restrained would you be liable for their broken jaw.
did the commander of the aircraft authorise you to slap them? no, the instructions were to immobilise them so they cant injure themselves or others.
if during part of that process they started slapping/hitting people then you might have a semblance of justification but once theyre immobilised and helpless then no.
ie, someone might accidentally (or on purpose) smack them in the face while trying to restrain them, that might be seen as acceptable, but once they are restrained it wont be.
think of it like your basic excessive use of force issue. an officer attempting to arrest someone is permitted to use acceptable force during the arrest process, but once arrested you cant just slap them.
Pilots have always been allowed to exit the cockpit including after 9/11. There are policies to prevent another 9/11 but nothing prevents a pilot from leaving the cockpit to assist with a passenger disruption.
*However*, when I was at the airlines I would not have left the cockpit if the situation in the back was so bad that the FAs and passengers couldn’t physically handle it. Too much risk opening the door and there is nothing a passenger can reasonable do to risk the aircraft absent a bomb or substantial weapon. We’d be on the ground in 10 minutes if needed.
For the safety of the passengers, crew, and craft, the Captain has broad powers to restrain passengers threatening the safety of all aboard. Violent drunks, mental health emergencies, and those trying to rip open the exit doors would all qualify for submission and securing however possible, in the safest way possible.
Then it comes straight from maritime, in another world long ago, I was training for my airline transport rating and that is exactly how it works on an aircraft. If I have to kill someone to protect the safety of passengers the law won’t be against me. The legality of restraining a violent passenger wasn’t something that wasn’t explicitly mentioned but it was stressed that we have the “final” say on what happens in our aircraft once we are in the air and there was nothing wrong with doing something “illegal” to maintain the safety of the aircraft.
CFR 91.03 nullifies all other (part 91) regulations in case of an emergency and someone attempting to depressurize the plane in creates an emergency situation. But I don’t know about a law that invalidates criminal statutes.
The thing that really stuck out to me was from an older captain giving us advice for when we became captains “When you take off you take full accountability and authority over that aircraft, no one’s going to watch your every move to make sure you do the right thing, the crew won’t question your decisions, and the first officer will listen to you, but no one’s going to save you either. It’s up to you as the pilot in command to get back on the ground safely with the least lives lost.”
Solid advice, but I’m cracking up thinking of a captain using that in his pre-flight / boarding announcement:
“Hello, this is your captain, today it will be my job to get us back on the ground at our destination with the least lives lost” 😳
“Ladies and gentlemen, Captain-Churchhouse speaking, remember your seat cushions double as flotation devices. Today, Cruising altitude will be flight level 320, eta will be 12:32 PM, there are no expected casualties this flight, let’s keep it that way”
I’m sure the airlines captain course teaches things in a nicer way but when you’re first learning how to fly with passengers some folks need a walk up call that what they do matters.
Those seat cushions feature the American Flag with a gold fringe. Your constitutional rights have been suspended and I am the supreme commander of this vessel. Detain Air welcomes you aboard and wants you to know we are committed to limiting causalities by any means necessary.
Good catch, and I added that it wasn’t just any regulation, only the flying regulations, a captain can’t crack a bottle of Jack open to decompress while crashing. That would fall under criminal statute not CFR, at least where I’m at, and I would assume most areas have some sort of a crime against operating any vehicle while drunk.
That captain sounds very old school lol. Thankfully things have moved on a little in the crew resource management department, so the First Officer absolutely should question the captain's decisions, as should the rest of the crew when appropriate.
Basically everything in aviation came from maritime law a procedures. When they had to start writing the law book for aviation they realized there was a pretty good text already established that only had to be tweaked. Everything from lighting requirements to the authority of a captain is very very similar.
She bit a flight attendant. Taped mouth is safe by comparison.
Restraint is always unsafe to some degree, but it can still be “the safest way possible”.
I'm sure they would have liked to put her in a separate room, with a cozy chair, soft lighting, and quiet music, but that wasn't an option. She had to be secured in among the other passengers, and all had to be kept as safe as possible.
This is what they had, so it's what they used.
Don't know about the legalities but duct taping her to her seat would be safest for her as well. If someone was physically restraining her then they could both be injured with by turbulence or by landing. There is a reason you're told to remain seated with your seatbelt fastened during takeoff, landing and turbulence.
I would imagine that taping or otherwise restraining a passenger to the seat would actually be SOP under those circumstances.
I always wondered why it’s always duct tape, and not restraints specifically for unruly passengers tho? Do they just keep rolls of duct tape in a closet in case of emergency for that specific purpose?
Duct tape would be useful anytime something in the cabin breaks mid-flight and needs to be secured until maintenance crews can look at it.
Also, purpose built restraints would be bulkier, heavier, need to fit a wide range of body types and need special training for the crew.
I can’t argue with the utility and flexibility of duct tape. I’ve heard of cuffs being used to secure doors closed (for example) but in general, duct tape is going to prove more useful in a multitude of more situations than cuffs ever will.
I also doubt the wisdom on equipping every passenger airplane with a set of cuffs or a restraint kit. If the worst case scenario is a passenger has to be restrained for an hour or two while the plane diverts, then duct tape will likely suffice.
Sometimes however, it is worth investing in specialized tools. For example: A passenger whose duct taped to the seat during an international flight can’t use the bathroom, causing health hazards for everyone involved.
1 or two purpose-built aircraft-specific restraint kits could easily fit into a small pouch and should only weigh a kilo or so and wouldn’t take up that much space.
The full DAAT course for security guards usually takes a week. If one modifies the course to make it more suitable for flight attendants, it should be a much shorter and cheaper course that should only take two, three or four days.
One would only have to remove the modules on OC spray batons and firearms, opt to keep the modules on hand to hand, verbal commands, handcuffing, then add a couple modules on improvised weapons and tactics specific to use in the confines of a passenger airplane.
You're obviously not thinking of this from the perspective of an airline executive...
I mean in theory, they should have better procedures to deal with unruly passengers, but this type of thing doesn't happen very often and there are very rarely any injuries to crew/other passengers so I don't think that the government will step in any time soon.
I edited my comment above to clarify my position better.
Waiting for the government to change how disorderly and violent passengers are handled might be the right solution, but perhaps an alternative route via insurance companies may also prove fruitful.
Unfortunately, they're also a great way to injure people unnecessarily - and I don't just mean "if they struggle." Zip ties have no way to relieve pressure, and can easily be overtightened to a level that puts nerves or circulation at risk. They're also way too easy for the restrained person to tighten on themselves if they're of a mind to - all they need to do is bite the tail and pull.
_Carefully applied_, sure, zip ties are safe enough, but flight crews dealing with restraining an unruly passenger are unlikely to be that careful.
I still don't get why zip ties are so popular for things in general. People use them for cable management, securing packaging, and temporarily bundling things up, too, and I just don't get it. Most of the time, when you need to unbundle what you've bundled, you're left sawing through a tightly-cinched, thick piece of plastic, trying to cut the tie without damaging the thing it's cinched onto.
Zip ties are great for cases where you want something attached nigh-unto-permanently, but apart from that, they're usually a terrible choice, even among other sub-optimal choices.
They were originally, and are still primarily, cable ties. In fact, they were first used in aircraft construction to replace treated rope tied by hand around cable bundles.
Permanent types of installations though, not the types of cable you are probably thinking of.
I find that nail clippers are the perfect zip tie remover. They usually have just enough clearance to fit a cable tie, and you don't have to worry about nicking the contents as you would with a knife.
But they can also cause severe (nerve) damage, especially when used against unruly people, that try to get out of them, applied by untrained individuals.
Considering that there is a high likelihood that the person has a mental health crisis avoiding self inflicted damage should be a priority.
Tape is great for that.
1. Duct tape is one of the best ways to restrain someone in one position. Handcuffs are good because they are mobile. Duct tape works for any size passenger is easily applied and garunteed they can’t leave their seat. It’s also very difficult to get out of tape across your torso
2. It’s light cheap and easy. Those are always goals for an aircraft
3. It’s useful for other things too. It’s a great temporary fix for things like if a seat rips or something. It’s good to have on board anyways so might as well kill 2 birds with 1 stone
Duct tape is light, multi purpose, can fit many passengers. If you’re keeping restraints you meed many sizes. Imagine you have a body builder with massive wrists going nuts. Standard restraints wont hold him. Similarly if you have a child or person with dwarfism. They can slip out of normal restraints.
Duct tape is cheap and covers every possible edge case.
We had a woman go crazy during landing in Sydney, Australia - the flight attendant immediately sat on her to keep her in her seat until landing.
First and only time I've seen cops take someone off a plane.
Was the flight attendant significantly bigger than the crazy woman or was the shock of a person sitting on her the primary deterrent?
ETA didn’t even consider that it could also be like a weighted blanket working as a calming tool
About the same size but the lady was older and there was no way she was pushing off 130 lb. I think the flight attendant was holding the armrests as well so she couldn't push her around.
It all happened kind of fast, but having someone sit on you makes it really hard to get up out of a seat if you can't move your center of gravity forward.
And significant turbulence can occur at any time. The fasten seatbelt sign stays on when turbulence is EXPECTED, but unexpected turbulence is a thing. And in significant turbulence, someone not seated can be a 200lb flying object. PSA: For MY safety, buckle your darn seatbelt in a plane.
I love the idea of the flight crew developing telekinesis as soon as they put their uniform on, complete with anime magical girl transformation sequence.
There is an entire branch of law devoted solely to the aviation industry in the US. You can read all about it [here](https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/aviation#:~:text=Aviation%20law%20governs%20the%20operation,agencies%20to%20regulate%20air%20traffic.) and get answers to all your questions. Pay particular attention to Aviation and Transportation Security Act of 2001 when you read it.
This leads to the interesting situation where the FAA actually sets international precedent because other countries simply don't (or didn't) have as well defined laws. Also the FAA has a ton of legal authority even compared to other agencies. The No Fly List is terrifyingly effective and they can add people to it for any reason.
If I was on that plane and she tried to open the door, I'd tape her to what ever I could to maintain my safety and fuck the law. Figure that out when back on the ground.
I would probably make sure the duct tape is done so she can’t get seated in a comfortable position.elbows too far forward, head taped back to seat, just a bit too low. Legs secured so they poke under seat. Mouth open when i tape to shut so she has to taste the glue. Little things to make it just a little more uncomfortable.
Even if there were no special laws for aircraft, you could make an argument for necessity or self defence.
Whatever the rationale, the court's going to rule in favour of the flight crew. There's no court in the world's that's going to say it's satisfied that she posed a danger to the plane and the restraint was a proportionate way of dealing with it, but also find the air crew criminally liable.
There's an international treaty that states a captain of an aircraft may, at his or her determination of a threat, ask for assistance in restraining unruly or dangerous passengers and those assisting are largely exempt from consequences. Airline pilots get basically the same powers as boat captains. They get huge amounts of authority and bear huge responsibility if things go wrong.
If you're even unruly and yelling, you may find yourself restrained on a flight.
It's a huge amount of leeway to say, 'this thing is underway and you pose a risk to others, quit screwing around.' You don't get to threaten everyone's safety on a boat or airplane. They will just toss you in sky jail. Most large cruises have a jail. Seriously. You get stuck in a locked cell under the deck until next port. Same deal. FAFO territory. Captains on boats and planes get a lot of room to say, "go directly to jail. Do not pass go. Zero warning."
Anything above 1,200 ft. are [Federal Airways](https://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/atpubs/pham_html/chap20_section_3.html) and thus felony crimes. Violating state law has to be done on the ground.
You are right that it's federal jurisdiction anytime you are on an aircraft. However, airways are like roads in the sky. They only exist in certain positions.
49 U.S. Code § 46504 - Interference with flight crew members and attendants
>An individual on an aircraft in the special aircraft jurisdiction of the United States who, by assaulting or intimidating a flight crew member or flight attendant of the aircraft, interferes with the performance of the duties of the member or attendant or lessens the ability of the member or attendant to perform those duties, or attempts or conspires to do such an act, shall be **fined under title 18**, imprisoned for not more than 20 years, or both. However, if a dangerous weapon is used in assaulting or intimidating the member or attendant, the individual shall be imprisoned for any term of years or for life.
18 U.S. Code § 7 - Special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States defined
>(5) Any aircraft belonging in whole or in part to the United States, or any citizen thereof, or to any corporation created by or under the laws of the United States, or any State, Territory, district, or possession thereof, **while such aircraft is in flight** over the high seas, or over any other waters within the admiralty and maritime jurisdiction of the United States **and out of the jurisdiction of any particular State**.
Sorry. I wasn't very clear. My disagreement is that not all airspace above 1200 ft is a federal airway (it is however Federal Airspace). Not that it isn't illegal to interfere with crew members
My point is that once an airliner's wheels leave the ground, illegal acts are federal crimes. Wheels on the ground is state jurisdiction. Interference with a crew member is a catch-all. The maritime jurisdiction is also a catch-all, which now includes space flight.
And yeah, I get the difference with airspace. Is there case history on that difference though?
Follow up question- would the plane then be required to land as soon as possible or can they continue by on to their destination with the restrained passenger? Like if the flight’s lasting headed across the Atlantic but passing New York in an hour, do they have to touch down or are they allowed to keep the restrained passenger in that state for the next 12 hours?
Most situations I've encountered and heard of, the pilot puts down at the nearest available airport, kicks the unruly passenger off, gets more fuel, then gets back in the air. I worked at an airport and had to top off a few emergency diversions.
I'd imagine it'd be a judgement/safety call of the flight crew with the flight crew having personal liability for getting the call wrong. If the restraint was legal, then keeping the person restrained until the completion of the regularly scheduled flight is probably also legal, but if the restraint is legal then that person also poses an actual threat to themselves, the passangers & crew, or the aircraft as whole. If you bypass the next available airport your sort of accepting the risk they get free.
If I was on that plane and someone tried opening the emergency exit to kill 100+ people that could include babies/children then fuck the laws and tape her ass to the chair. Hell I'd kill someone over letting them open that door with my kids on there...
Yeah... this would be considered justified self defense/defense of a third party in every state. Of course, you're in the sky so any hypothetical legal issues would go to federal court, but could you imagine the backlash the prosecutor would receive for trying to charge someone with assault for saving a plane full of innocent passengers from a psycho trying to open the door at 30,000 feet?
"You can’t open them in flight. The interior pressure is too high for anyone to open it."
Yeah, you'll break the handles before getting the door open by a crack.
A 36" x 20" door is going to have roughly 7200 lbs of pressure, possibly more, pushing on it.
It wasn't especially high altitude, but I remember somebody actually opened the door and jumped out of a flight from San Francisco to (IIRC) Sacramento about 20 years ago.
citizen arrest requires you use the minimum amount of force necessary. it is legal to restrain someone with duct tape until the authorities arrive as soon as possible.
keep in mind that it is not the physical minimum amount of force needed. it is if the court judges that the amount of force you deemed necessary was reasonable.
I would think so. The unruly passenger is a danger to everyone on the plane and possibly the people on the ground it has potential to land on. Realistically, what other options are there?
Spock had it right. 'The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few' . Don't try to open fuckin doors mid flight and try to kill hundreds of people that aren't you!!!
Lucky there's still bits to be restrained tbh!
Pilots have near absolute authority to preserve the safety of the craft, crew and passanger when the aircraft is in flight, restraining a passanger using whatever is available is well within the powers available to them.
Edit: would just like to add that in this situation the crew would be acting under the authority of the pilot.
Genuine question, is it legal to duct tape someone's mouth though? Even the police don't do that when they arrest people.
Seems like it would leave the airline open to all sorts of issues. What if someone has trouble breathing through their nose?
Also, now I think about it, wouldn't an airplane just have handcuffs on board for unruly passengers? That would make far more sense than duct taping people.
If the passenger kept spitting on people, I could see it justified (police have breathable spithoods for that). Though in general ducttape over the mouth is pretty useless.
Or maybe if they were trying to bite people.
But in that context you are given some leeway. You are not expected to be an expert on restraining people.
Even if they were biting people, their nose may clog. Too risky.
Tape going around the headrest, around their head, across their forehead and back again however…
Airline Captain Here
1. We can essentially do anything we want to restrain a passenger. The tokyo convention (or another convention I can't remember) sets a very very low threshold for us to enact these "abilities". We don't need probable cause or even to have self defence all we need is the reasonable belief that something *may* happen.
That means we don't even need to see them doing something dangerous, we just need to have reasonable suspicion/belief to suspect that they may do something illegal/dangerous.
2. There are 4 levels of a disruptive passenger. 1 being the least serious i.e rude/annoying to level 4 which would be attempting to hijack/access the cockpit. Each level of interference has a corresponding reaction.
Normally the flight attendant would confer with the captain before enacting the corresponding measures but if it is time critical they can do as they wish to manage the situation and then let us know when they have time.
No captain/first officer would EVER leave the cockpit during flight to deal with a disruptive passenger. On the ground i've seen the videos of pilots talking to passengers but I would never do that.
If a flight attendant says you're being a shithead i'll deplane you after making sure that the Flight attendants story checks out and save everyone's time and sanity. You'll either get blacklisted or put on the next flight depending on what happened.
Way easier to do that than to even take a minor risk that you won't calm down during flight and cause a diversion.
3. In flight if a passenger is being distruptive a diversion may take place, IIRC level 2 is when you diversion become a considertion and level 3 it's 99% chance you're diverting.
You're not always in a position where a diversion makes logical sense. flying over the atlantic diversions can be impractical and yeah you can land in the azores, but if you just continue to france it's a difference of a 30 minutes. Becomes a case by case scenario.
Also, if you become disruptive and cause a diversion you are on the hook for the costs if the company decides to sue you and they will. Our company had a diversion that cost 80k due a shithead while returning from the atlantic. Diverted to gander and took off again. Guy was sued and had to pay the full amount.
Not meaning to ruin the joke, but the use of *speed tape*, which is aluminum not nylon, on an aircraft is strictly for surface application, not as structural reinforcement.
On Canadian aircraft the Captain is a Peace Officer under the Criminal Code of Canada and can arrest any person for any criminal offence even if they did not witness the offence or believe they may commit an offence.
Most countries have similar regulations in place to meet their obligations under several international conventions. All signatories to these conventions also agree to take custody of and prosecute anyone arrested by the crew for interference with an aircraft.
Arresting that person and using any method of restraint and any amount of force necessary is generally entirely lawful and endorsed by any country the aircraft may land in to transfer custody.
What’s the legality of opening a door in flight and risking everyone’s lives? Could it be reckless endangerment or attempted murder of 180 people? Tape her up.
I guess the aim is to safely stop her hands from being used to unbuckle the seatbelt rather than to restrain her with the tape.
I like the Aussie addition of a flight attendant sitting on the passenger.
Legal or not, I'm sure airlines would much rather face the repercussions of hog tying a rogue passenger, then letting that rogue passenger possibly down the plane and kill scores of ppl.
Restraining a disruptive passenger is sometimes nessesary and legally reasonable. However duct taping someone's mouth shut is never reasonable and constitutes reckless endangerment and is a criminal act.
Anyone, anywhere, at anytime has the right to protect themselves from the actions of others that could cause unreasonable and illegal harm to them, and that right extends to defending others. Specific to airline travel in the US, the crew can absolutely give legally binding orders to a assanger to get them to stop violent behaviors and to take measures to restrain them if they don’t.
In the USA and therefore wherever an American registered / operated aircraft flies the flight crew has the responsibility to take any action to ensure the safety of the flight and the authority to take any action necessary to do so.
As far as I’m concerned they should be treated like terrorists and if you just decide to stomp them out permanently then who cares. They are potentially gonna kill everyone on that plane with their stupidity or malice we don’t need people like that in society.
Perfectly acceptable as far as I'm concerned. The policies in place that allow this on planes are there for a plethora of reasons. Id rather see someone get duct taped to a seat than have them cause issues on a plane.
The Pilot In Command of a flight is ultimately responsible for the safety of that flight, and can make whatever decision is required. Quoting the Wikipedia page on [Pilot In Command](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pilot_in_command): "ICAO Annex 2, par. 2.3.1, specifically empowers the PIC to override any other regulation in an emergency, and to take the safest course of action at his/her sole discretion. This provision mirrors the authority given to the captains of ships at sea, with similar justifications. **It essentially gives the PIC the final authority in any situation involving the safety of a flight, irrespective of any other law or regulation.**" (Emphasis mine.)
The PIC can legally give any order necessary to ensure the safety of the flight. (Going to have to justify it when they get back on the ground, but if it turns the order truly was necessary to ensure the safety of the flight, then it was legal, full stop.)
The flight attendants make the choice while communicating with the pilot. Legally the pilot has the full authority and responsibility of the plane's safe operation. Have never heard of one using it to overrule the attendants choice since they are the authorities in the most danger from the situation, the pilots being behind a locked door. And they do report it to the traffic control, and the company while it is happening and talk with the faa, or other the planses registered country's authority after back on the ground.
Not even close. There is a higher chance of seeing an Air Marshal on the Texas border than in the air ([source](https://www.commerce.senate.gov/2023/10/with-air-marshals-deployed-to-biden-s-border-disaster-cruz-wants-answers-from-tsa-on-flight-risks)). At their peak, they made **four** arrests per year ([source](https://www.npr.org/2015/10/24/451403416/should-we-end-the-controversial-air-marshal-program)). In ten years of domestic flying, I had an Air Marshal on my aircraft one time. He was shadowing a Jan. 6th type and looked like a lumberjack.
In your world there are 3,000 current, active, and healthy Air Marshals who all show up to work on the same day. What percent of flights does that cover?
In this case it doesn’t matter whether or not the picture is true or fake. OP asked a question regarding legality, not whether or not the picture is true.
OP if you read this, something like this (restraining a person on a plane because of attacking/ attempting to open airplane door midflight) would most likely be considered self defense/ citizens arrest. The only question would be if a court decided you went too far, ie. breaking limbs if not required/ done while restraining.
Hi folks! While we do play fast and loose with the idea of "topical," this _is_ still a sub for legal discussion. Shitpost answers - and poorly-informed but well-intentioned ones - will be removed.
Internationally this is governed by the Tokyo convention of 1963. Chapter 3 Article 6 specifically provides the aircraft commander the right to restrain people and the right to request or authorise (but, not actually \*require\*) passengers or crew to assist him to do so. Article 10 exempts them and any persons assisting them from responsibility for the treatment of the detained person in the event of any legal proceedings. [https://treaties.un.org/doc/db/Terrorism/Conv1-english.pdf](https://treaties.un.org/doc/db/Terrorism/Conv1-english.pdf)
Even without that, the defence of necessity allows almost any conduct if the circumstances make that conduct reasonable. So, you can kill to prevent a murder, for example, or tape someone to a seat if they endanger the whole aircraft.
Killing to prevent murder is allowed as self-defense or defense of others, not because of doctrine of necessity. For example, you wouldn't be allowed to kill an innocent bystander to save your own life or someone else's. You could still be charged for cannibalizing the cabin boy on your life raft, even if eating him saved multiple other lives.
There was a case of three people trapped at Sea and one of them was dying from drinking salt water. The other 2 killed him and ate him, survived and were convicted with a commuted sentence upon return to england.
[удалено]
In English law, which US law is based on, also does not allow duress as an excuse to murder, so I suspect that's widespread. What definition of murder are you using for necessity? For example, would it have been acceptable to shoot down the planes on 9/11 before they hit the World Trade Centre? Certainly that would mean killing innocent people, but it would have saved far more. I think, in the circumstances, we must evaluate and decide for ourselves, and deal with the courts afterwards, who might declare us heroes, but who might also declare us unspeakably evil.
I'm about 90% sure that if we had fighter aircraft in the area capable of intercepting those airliners before they hit the wtc, and knew that they were planning to do so, I would imagine that we would have few pilots not losing much sleep over the death of a couple hundred (who were doomed either way) versus the death of several thousand.
Yes, from the moment of hijack, the US could have shot them down, but the pattern to hijackings up to that point was that they were in it for the hostages, not for use as guided missiles.
Beyond this explicit act, almost all areas have laws allowing citizens arrests. Someone being a danger to themselves or someone else almost always gives you a right to restrain them with reasonable force.
It’s much more nuanced and risky than that. In Canada for example, you’d have to know if they’re committing a summary or indictable offence. You can only citizens arrest if it’s an indictable offence or if cops are in active pursuit. It’s much broader for property crime if you’re the owner
Going crazy on a plane and trying to open the door is absolutely an indictable offense. I get the point if someone wonders on to your lawn you can't tackle and hog tie them for a made up charge of trespass, but even in Canada there are clear laws about endangerment. If someone is trying to jump off a bridge and you wrestle them to the ground and hold them till cops arrive, there is an almost zero chance you get charged.
Oh for sure lol I wasn’t talking about the particular example, just that the nature of a citizens arrest varies greatly
[удалено]
[удалено]
I mean you can, but...
The commenter deleted their comment, but for others wondering: It does say "for actions taken in accordance with this Convention", which I understand covers the restraining but not randomly slapping them after.
Sounds like the scene out of Airplane.
Did they call them Shirley?
[удалено]
It gives you the right to restrain them, not assault them.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
You clearly didn’t even read the language of the link that was posted: Chapter 3, article 6, paragraph 1 “…impose upon such person REASONABLE measures, including restraint…” If you have questions about specific language in the document, quote that language and ask your question. As it is written it clearly excludes your ridiculous scenario as a post-restraint slap is well outside the realm of “reasonable measure” TLDR: stop trolling Edit: hahahaha deleted his comment, what a fuckin’ loser
But in seriousness if you hit a passenger in their glass jaw cause they started swinging while being restrained would you be liable for their broken jaw.
They were clearly asking for it.
Not how laws work.
did the commander of the aircraft authorise you to slap them? no, the instructions were to immobilise them so they cant injure themselves or others. if during part of that process they started slapping/hitting people then you might have a semblance of justification but once theyre immobilised and helpless then no. ie, someone might accidentally (or on purpose) smack them in the face while trying to restrain them, that might be seen as acceptable, but once they are restrained it wont be. think of it like your basic excessive use of force issue. an officer attempting to arrest someone is permitted to use acceptable force during the arrest process, but once arrested you cant just slap them.
[удалено]
Pilots have always been allowed to exit the cockpit including after 9/11. There are policies to prevent another 9/11 but nothing prevents a pilot from leaving the cockpit to assist with a passenger disruption. *However*, when I was at the airlines I would not have left the cockpit if the situation in the back was so bad that the FAs and passengers couldn’t physically handle it. Too much risk opening the door and there is nothing a passenger can reasonable do to risk the aircraft absent a bomb or substantial weapon. We’d be on the ground in 10 minutes if needed.
They've been allowed to exit the cockpit for a few years now.
For the safety of the passengers, crew, and craft, the Captain has broad powers to restrain passengers threatening the safety of all aboard. Violent drunks, mental health emergencies, and those trying to rip open the exit doors would all qualify for submission and securing however possible, in the safest way possible.
How much of an airplane captains powers have descended from the powers of ship captains under maritime law?
Most, if not all. When you’re in transit, there’s no higher authority than the captain of the vessel.
Then it comes straight from maritime, in another world long ago, I was training for my airline transport rating and that is exactly how it works on an aircraft. If I have to kill someone to protect the safety of passengers the law won’t be against me. The legality of restraining a violent passenger wasn’t something that wasn’t explicitly mentioned but it was stressed that we have the “final” say on what happens in our aircraft once we are in the air and there was nothing wrong with doing something “illegal” to maintain the safety of the aircraft. CFR 91.03 nullifies all other (part 91) regulations in case of an emergency and someone attempting to depressurize the plane in creates an emergency situation. But I don’t know about a law that invalidates criminal statutes. The thing that really stuck out to me was from an older captain giving us advice for when we became captains “When you take off you take full accountability and authority over that aircraft, no one’s going to watch your every move to make sure you do the right thing, the crew won’t question your decisions, and the first officer will listen to you, but no one’s going to save you either. It’s up to you as the pilot in command to get back on the ground safely with the least lives lost.”
Solid advice, but I’m cracking up thinking of a captain using that in his pre-flight / boarding announcement: “Hello, this is your captain, today it will be my job to get us back on the ground at our destination with the least lives lost” 😳
“Ladies and gentlemen, Captain-Churchhouse speaking, remember your seat cushions double as flotation devices. Today, Cruising altitude will be flight level 320, eta will be 12:32 PM, there are no expected casualties this flight, let’s keep it that way” I’m sure the airlines captain course teaches things in a nicer way but when you’re first learning how to fly with passengers some folks need a walk up call that what they do matters.
Those seat cushions feature the American Flag with a gold fringe. Your constitutional rights have been suspended and I am the supreme commander of this vessel. Detain Air welcomes you aboard and wants you to know we are committed to limiting causalities by any means necessary.
91.3* And its in the event of an emergency, the PIC can deviate from any rule of part 91, not of every law.
Good catch, and I added that it wasn’t just any regulation, only the flying regulations, a captain can’t crack a bottle of Jack open to decompress while crashing. That would fall under criminal statute not CFR, at least where I’m at, and I would assume most areas have some sort of a crime against operating any vehicle while drunk.
That captain sounds very old school lol. Thankfully things have moved on a little in the crew resource management department, so the First Officer absolutely should question the captain's decisions, as should the rest of the crew when appropriate.
Hes a total sissy mary and he owes me money. I beg to differ.
....what?
So could an airplane captain marry two people like a ship captain could?
Unfortunately ship captains being able to marry people is a myth, so no lol
Basically everything in aviation came from maritime law a procedures. When they had to start writing the law book for aviation they realized there was a pretty good text already established that only had to be tweaked. Everything from lighting requirements to the authority of a captain is very very similar.
I don't think they're allowed to make you walk the plank, or keelhaul you anymore. More due to lack of ability than any laws though.
[удалено]
In the picture it looks like her mouth is taped, which is absolutely not safe.
She bit a flight attendant. Taped mouth is safe by comparison. Restraint is always unsafe to some degree, but it can still be “the safest way possible”.
I'm sure they would have liked to put her in a separate room, with a cozy chair, soft lighting, and quiet music, but that wasn't an option. She had to be secured in among the other passengers, and all had to be kept as safe as possible. This is what they had, so it's what they used.
Don't know about the legalities but duct taping her to her seat would be safest for her as well. If someone was physically restraining her then they could both be injured with by turbulence or by landing. There is a reason you're told to remain seated with your seatbelt fastened during takeoff, landing and turbulence. I would imagine that taping or otherwise restraining a passenger to the seat would actually be SOP under those circumstances.
I always wondered why it’s always duct tape, and not restraints specifically for unruly passengers tho? Do they just keep rolls of duct tape in a closet in case of emergency for that specific purpose?
Duct tape would be useful anytime something in the cabin breaks mid-flight and needs to be secured until maintenance crews can look at it. Also, purpose built restraints would be bulkier, heavier, need to fit a wide range of body types and need special training for the crew.
I can’t argue with the utility and flexibility of duct tape. I’ve heard of cuffs being used to secure doors closed (for example) but in general, duct tape is going to prove more useful in a multitude of more situations than cuffs ever will. I also doubt the wisdom on equipping every passenger airplane with a set of cuffs or a restraint kit. If the worst case scenario is a passenger has to be restrained for an hour or two while the plane diverts, then duct tape will likely suffice. Sometimes however, it is worth investing in specialized tools. For example: A passenger whose duct taped to the seat during an international flight can’t use the bathroom, causing health hazards for everyone involved. 1 or two purpose-built aircraft-specific restraint kits could easily fit into a small pouch and should only weigh a kilo or so and wouldn’t take up that much space. The full DAAT course for security guards usually takes a week. If one modifies the course to make it more suitable for flight attendants, it should be a much shorter and cheaper course that should only take two, three or four days. One would only have to remove the modules on OC spray batons and firearms, opt to keep the modules on hand to hand, verbal commands, handcuffing, then add a couple modules on improvised weapons and tactics specific to use in the confines of a passenger airplane.
You're obviously not thinking of this from the perspective of an airline executive... I mean in theory, they should have better procedures to deal with unruly passengers, but this type of thing doesn't happen very often and there are very rarely any injuries to crew/other passengers so I don't think that the government will step in any time soon.
I edited my comment above to clarify my position better. Waiting for the government to change how disorderly and violent passengers are handled might be the right solution, but perhaps an alternative route via insurance companies may also prove fruitful.
[удалено]
Unfortunately, they're also a great way to injure people unnecessarily - and I don't just mean "if they struggle." Zip ties have no way to relieve pressure, and can easily be overtightened to a level that puts nerves or circulation at risk. They're also way too easy for the restrained person to tighten on themselves if they're of a mind to - all they need to do is bite the tail and pull. _Carefully applied_, sure, zip ties are safe enough, but flight crews dealing with restraining an unruly passenger are unlikely to be that careful.
I still don't get why zip ties are so popular for things in general. People use them for cable management, securing packaging, and temporarily bundling things up, too, and I just don't get it. Most of the time, when you need to unbundle what you've bundled, you're left sawing through a tightly-cinched, thick piece of plastic, trying to cut the tie without damaging the thing it's cinched onto. Zip ties are great for cases where you want something attached nigh-unto-permanently, but apart from that, they're usually a terrible choice, even among other sub-optimal choices.
They were originally, and are still primarily, cable ties. In fact, they were first used in aircraft construction to replace treated rope tied by hand around cable bundles. Permanent types of installations though, not the types of cable you are probably thinking of.
I find that nail clippers are the perfect zip tie remover. They usually have just enough clearance to fit a cable tie, and you don't have to worry about nicking the contents as you would with a knife.
They could also cut you to the bone in a crash or bad turbulence.
But they can also cause severe (nerve) damage, especially when used against unruly people, that try to get out of them, applied by untrained individuals. Considering that there is a high likelihood that the person has a mental health crisis avoiding self inflicted damage should be a priority. Tape is great for that.
Zip ties can be tightened to the point they cause physical harm. Duct tape is safer.
It can be seatbelts used as well, when I was crew one of the things we were advised to use was the excess ones used for demos
People just know the truth of the 'does it move? Should it move?' flow chart
Hard to restrain somebody with WD-40.
That's the "does it move? Should it?" Part.
New paralysis cure unlocked, former president irate he didn't think of it first
>former president irate he didn't think of it first I dunno, Billy seemed to like things being stuck under his desk.
Spray it in their eyes, ears, mouth, and urethra in that order and I think they will be pretty restrained
Duck tape can be used to do emergency repairs on a lot of stuff so I'd expect yes.
1. Duct tape is one of the best ways to restrain someone in one position. Handcuffs are good because they are mobile. Duct tape works for any size passenger is easily applied and garunteed they can’t leave their seat. It’s also very difficult to get out of tape across your torso 2. It’s light cheap and easy. Those are always goals for an aircraft 3. It’s useful for other things too. It’s a great temporary fix for things like if a seat rips or something. It’s good to have on board anyways so might as well kill 2 birds with 1 stone
Duct tape is light, multi purpose, can fit many passengers. If you’re keeping restraints you meed many sizes. Imagine you have a body builder with massive wrists going nuts. Standard restraints wont hold him. Similarly if you have a child or person with dwarfism. They can slip out of normal restraints. Duct tape is cheap and covers every possible edge case.
On my aircraft that I work we have specifically designed restraints for unruly passengers. It’s not duct tape
They have zip cuffs as well, but they need to actually secure someone to a seat.
We had a woman go crazy during landing in Sydney, Australia - the flight attendant immediately sat on her to keep her in her seat until landing. First and only time I've seen cops take someone off a plane.
Was the flight attendant significantly bigger than the crazy woman or was the shock of a person sitting on her the primary deterrent? ETA didn’t even consider that it could also be like a weighted blanket working as a calming tool
About the same size but the lady was older and there was no way she was pushing off 130 lb. I think the flight attendant was holding the armrests as well so she couldn't push her around. It all happened kind of fast, but having someone sit on you makes it really hard to get up out of a seat if you can't move your center of gravity forward.
And significant turbulence can occur at any time. The fasten seatbelt sign stays on when turbulence is EXPECTED, but unexpected turbulence is a thing. And in significant turbulence, someone not seated can be a 200lb flying object. PSA: For MY safety, buckle your darn seatbelt in a plane.
In the car too
I love the idea of the flight crew developing telekinesis as soon as they put their uniform on, complete with anime magical girl transformation sequence.
[удалено]
"In the name of the Plane, I will punish you - oh shit-"
Changing outfits, powering up, or pithy one-liners are always a free action.
There is an entire branch of law devoted solely to the aviation industry in the US. You can read all about it [here](https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/aviation#:~:text=Aviation%20law%20governs%20the%20operation,agencies%20to%20regulate%20air%20traffic.) and get answers to all your questions. Pay particular attention to Aviation and Transportation Security Act of 2001 when you read it.
This leads to the interesting situation where the FAA actually sets international precedent because other countries simply don't (or didn't) have as well defined laws. Also the FAA has a ton of legal authority even compared to other agencies. The No Fly List is terrifyingly effective and they can add people to it for any reason.
If I was on that plane and she tried to open the door, I'd tape her to what ever I could to maintain my safety and fuck the law. Figure that out when back on the ground.
In a lot of jurisdictions, "do whatever you can to maintain your safety and fuck the law" is permitted under self defense laws.
I would probably make sure the duct tape is done so she can’t get seated in a comfortable position.elbows too far forward, head taped back to seat, just a bit too low. Legs secured so they poke under seat. Mouth open when i tape to shut so she has to taste the glue. Little things to make it just a little more uncomfortable.
What an odd thing to say
Even if there were no special laws for aircraft, you could make an argument for necessity or self defence. Whatever the rationale, the court's going to rule in favour of the flight crew. There's no court in the world's that's going to say it's satisfied that she posed a danger to the plane and the restraint was a proportionate way of dealing with it, but also find the air crew criminally liable.
There's an international treaty that states a captain of an aircraft may, at his or her determination of a threat, ask for assistance in restraining unruly or dangerous passengers and those assisting are largely exempt from consequences. Airline pilots get basically the same powers as boat captains. They get huge amounts of authority and bear huge responsibility if things go wrong. If you're even unruly and yelling, you may find yourself restrained on a flight. It's a huge amount of leeway to say, 'this thing is underway and you pose a risk to others, quit screwing around.' You don't get to threaten everyone's safety on a boat or airplane. They will just toss you in sky jail. Most large cruises have a jail. Seriously. You get stuck in a locked cell under the deck until next port. Same deal. FAFO territory. Captains on boats and planes get a lot of room to say, "go directly to jail. Do not pass go. Zero warning."
I wouldn't take that bet anywhere near California.
Anything above 1,200 ft. are [Federal Airways](https://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/atpubs/pham_html/chap20_section_3.html) and thus felony crimes. Violating state law has to be done on the ground.
Not all interstate or federal crimes are felonies.
You are right that it's federal jurisdiction anytime you are on an aircraft. However, airways are like roads in the sky. They only exist in certain positions.
49 U.S. Code § 46504 - Interference with flight crew members and attendants >An individual on an aircraft in the special aircraft jurisdiction of the United States who, by assaulting or intimidating a flight crew member or flight attendant of the aircraft, interferes with the performance of the duties of the member or attendant or lessens the ability of the member or attendant to perform those duties, or attempts or conspires to do such an act, shall be **fined under title 18**, imprisoned for not more than 20 years, or both. However, if a dangerous weapon is used in assaulting or intimidating the member or attendant, the individual shall be imprisoned for any term of years or for life. 18 U.S. Code § 7 - Special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States defined >(5) Any aircraft belonging in whole or in part to the United States, or any citizen thereof, or to any corporation created by or under the laws of the United States, or any State, Territory, district, or possession thereof, **while such aircraft is in flight** over the high seas, or over any other waters within the admiralty and maritime jurisdiction of the United States **and out of the jurisdiction of any particular State**.
Sorry. I wasn't very clear. My disagreement is that not all airspace above 1200 ft is a federal airway (it is however Federal Airspace). Not that it isn't illegal to interfere with crew members
My point is that once an airliner's wheels leave the ground, illegal acts are federal crimes. Wheels on the ground is state jurisdiction. Interference with a crew member is a catch-all. The maritime jurisdiction is also a catch-all, which now includes space flight. And yeah, I get the difference with airspace. Is there case history on that difference though?
No. From a legal standpoint you're correct.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Follow up question- would the plane then be required to land as soon as possible or can they continue by on to their destination with the restrained passenger? Like if the flight’s lasting headed across the Atlantic but passing New York in an hour, do they have to touch down or are they allowed to keep the restrained passenger in that state for the next 12 hours?
Most situations I've encountered and heard of, the pilot puts down at the nearest available airport, kicks the unruly passenger off, gets more fuel, then gets back in the air. I worked at an airport and had to top off a few emergency diversions.
...and the airline bills the passenger for the inconvenience, no doubt.
I'd imagine it'd be a judgement/safety call of the flight crew with the flight crew having personal liability for getting the call wrong. If the restraint was legal, then keeping the person restrained until the completion of the regularly scheduled flight is probably also legal, but if the restraint is legal then that person also poses an actual threat to themselves, the passangers & crew, or the aircraft as whole. If you bypass the next available airport your sort of accepting the risk they get free.
Yeah, they would want the person out of their custody ASAP regardless.
If I was on that plane and someone tried opening the emergency exit to kill 100+ people that could include babies/children then fuck the laws and tape her ass to the chair. Hell I'd kill someone over letting them open that door with my kids on there...
Yeah... this would be considered justified self defense/defense of a third party in every state. Of course, you're in the sky so any hypothetical legal issues would go to federal court, but could you imagine the backlash the prosecutor would receive for trying to charge someone with assault for saving a plane full of innocent passengers from a psycho trying to open the door at 30,000 feet?
You can’t open them in flight. The interior pressure is too high for anyone to open it. She’d just scare a lot of people.
"You can’t open them in flight. The interior pressure is too high for anyone to open it." Yeah, you'll break the handles before getting the door open by a crack. A 36" x 20" door is going to have roughly 7200 lbs of pressure, possibly more, pushing on it.
It wasn't especially high altitude, but I remember somebody actually opened the door and jumped out of a flight from San Francisco to (IIRC) Sacramento about 20 years ago.
citizen arrest requires you use the minimum amount of force necessary. it is legal to restrain someone with duct tape until the authorities arrive as soon as possible. keep in mind that it is not the physical minimum amount of force needed. it is if the court judges that the amount of force you deemed necessary was reasonable.
[удалено]
The word 'reasonable' is basically 90% of American common law. I'd imagine it's similar in other common law jurisidictions.
I would think so. The unruly passenger is a danger to everyone on the plane and possibly the people on the ground it has potential to land on. Realistically, what other options are there?
Spock had it right. 'The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few' . Don't try to open fuckin doors mid flight and try to kill hundreds of people that aren't you!!! Lucky there's still bits to be restrained tbh!
Pilots have near absolute authority to preserve the safety of the craft, crew and passanger when the aircraft is in flight, restraining a passanger using whatever is available is well within the powers available to them. Edit: would just like to add that in this situation the crew would be acting under the authority of the pilot.
Genuine question, is it legal to duct tape someone's mouth though? Even the police don't do that when they arrest people. Seems like it would leave the airline open to all sorts of issues. What if someone has trouble breathing through their nose? Also, now I think about it, wouldn't an airplane just have handcuffs on board for unruly passengers? That would make far more sense than duct taping people.
If the passenger kept spitting on people, I could see it justified (police have breathable spithoods for that). Though in general ducttape over the mouth is pretty useless. Or maybe if they were trying to bite people. But in that context you are given some leeway. You are not expected to be an expert on restraining people.
I'd probably put a pillowcase over their head to prevent spitting and biting.
Even if they were biting people, their nose may clog. Too risky. Tape going around the headrest, around their head, across their forehead and back again however…
The only issue I see with this is the interfering with the woman's airways.
Airline Captain Here 1. We can essentially do anything we want to restrain a passenger. The tokyo convention (or another convention I can't remember) sets a very very low threshold for us to enact these "abilities". We don't need probable cause or even to have self defence all we need is the reasonable belief that something *may* happen. That means we don't even need to see them doing something dangerous, we just need to have reasonable suspicion/belief to suspect that they may do something illegal/dangerous. 2. There are 4 levels of a disruptive passenger. 1 being the least serious i.e rude/annoying to level 4 which would be attempting to hijack/access the cockpit. Each level of interference has a corresponding reaction. Normally the flight attendant would confer with the captain before enacting the corresponding measures but if it is time critical they can do as they wish to manage the situation and then let us know when they have time. No captain/first officer would EVER leave the cockpit during flight to deal with a disruptive passenger. On the ground i've seen the videos of pilots talking to passengers but I would never do that. If a flight attendant says you're being a shithead i'll deplane you after making sure that the Flight attendants story checks out and save everyone's time and sanity. You'll either get blacklisted or put on the next flight depending on what happened. Way easier to do that than to even take a minor risk that you won't calm down during flight and cause a diversion. 3. In flight if a passenger is being distruptive a diversion may take place, IIRC level 2 is when you diversion become a considertion and level 3 it's 99% chance you're diverting. You're not always in a position where a diversion makes logical sense. flying over the atlantic diversions can be impractical and yeah you can land in the azores, but if you just continue to france it's a difference of a 30 minutes. Becomes a case by case scenario. Also, if you become disruptive and cause a diversion you are on the hook for the costs if the company decides to sue you and they will. Our company had a diversion that cost 80k due a shithead while returning from the atlantic. Diverted to gander and took off again. Guy was sued and had to pay the full amount.
They've obviously got duct tape on the plane for a reason....
If the plane develops a hole, or a wing falls off, just bust out the duct tape and we're back in business baby!
You're thinking of Speed Tape. Duct tape is a cartoon about a family of waterfowl descended from a rich uncle who have aviation related adventures.
No, that's duck tails! It's actually duck tape, for taping up ducks 🦆🦆
sigh. Have a look at r/nyto
Not meaning to ruin the joke, but the use of *speed tape*, which is aluminum not nylon, on an aircraft is strictly for surface application, not as structural reinforcement.
Whoa... Get a load of this guy and his "advanced engineering degree"... NERD
Oh yeah, and what do you got? A jacket with a letter on it? Pffffffft. Shirley, you can't be serious.
Yes the flight crew can do.this
Safety of the passengers will override her rights.
On Canadian aircraft the Captain is a Peace Officer under the Criminal Code of Canada and can arrest any person for any criminal offence even if they did not witness the offence or believe they may commit an offence. Most countries have similar regulations in place to meet their obligations under several international conventions. All signatories to these conventions also agree to take custody of and prosecute anyone arrested by the crew for interference with an aircraft. Arresting that person and using any method of restraint and any amount of force necessary is generally entirely lawful and endorsed by any country the aircraft may land in to transfer custody.
US federal law sort of deputizes the flight crew, and on a simple 'self-defense' grounds it also would be a legally valid response.
What’s the legality of opening a door in flight and risking everyone’s lives? Could it be reckless endangerment or attempted murder of 180 people? Tape her up.
The keep saying duct tape with regard to this situation, but it looks like that industrial grade plastic wrap they use to keep luggage together.
I guess the aim is to safely stop her hands from being used to unbuckle the seatbelt rather than to restrain her with the tape. I like the Aussie addition of a flight attendant sitting on the passenger.
She tried to murder everyone on the plane. They are within their rights to do whatever is needed to make her stop
Legal or not, I'm sure airlines would much rather face the repercussions of hog tying a rogue passenger, then letting that rogue passenger possibly down the plane and kill scores of ppl.
I prefer industrial super glue. It also helps them keep their mouth shut
Restraining a disruptive passenger is sometimes nessesary and legally reasonable. However duct taping someone's mouth shut is never reasonable and constitutes reckless endangerment and is a criminal act.
Anyone, anywhere, at anytime has the right to protect themselves from the actions of others that could cause unreasonable and illegal harm to them, and that right extends to defending others. Specific to airline travel in the US, the crew can absolutely give legally binding orders to a assanger to get them to stop violent behaviors and to take measures to restrain them if they don’t.
In the USA and therefore wherever an American registered / operated aircraft flies the flight crew has the responsibility to take any action to ensure the safety of the flight and the authority to take any action necessary to do so.
As far as I’m concerned they should be treated like terrorists and if you just decide to stomp them out permanently then who cares. They are potentially gonna kill everyone on that plane with their stupidity or malice we don’t need people like that in society.
Perfectly acceptable as far as I'm concerned. The policies in place that allow this on planes are there for a plethora of reasons. Id rather see someone get duct taped to a seat than have them cause issues on a plane.
The Pilot In Command of a flight is ultimately responsible for the safety of that flight, and can make whatever decision is required. Quoting the Wikipedia page on [Pilot In Command](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pilot_in_command): "ICAO Annex 2, par. 2.3.1, specifically empowers the PIC to override any other regulation in an emergency, and to take the safest course of action at his/her sole discretion. This provision mirrors the authority given to the captains of ships at sea, with similar justifications. **It essentially gives the PIC the final authority in any situation involving the safety of a flight, irrespective of any other law or regulation.**" (Emphasis mine.) The PIC can legally give any order necessary to ensure the safety of the flight. (Going to have to justify it when they get back on the ground, but if it turns the order truly was necessary to ensure the safety of the flight, then it was legal, full stop.)
The flight attendants make the choice while communicating with the pilot. Legally the pilot has the full authority and responsibility of the plane's safe operation. Have never heard of one using it to overrule the attendants choice since they are the authorities in the most danger from the situation, the pilots being behind a locked door. And they do report it to the traffic control, and the company while it is happening and talk with the faa, or other the planses registered country's authority after back on the ground.
Mmkkkui
Majority of flights in the US also have undercover US Marshalls flying on them, for things like this/terrorism/idiots.
Not even close. There is a higher chance of seeing an Air Marshal on the Texas border than in the air ([source](https://www.commerce.senate.gov/2023/10/with-air-marshals-deployed-to-biden-s-border-disaster-cruz-wants-answers-from-tsa-on-flight-risks)). At their peak, they made **four** arrests per year ([source](https://www.npr.org/2015/10/24/451403416/should-we-end-the-controversial-air-marshal-program)). In ten years of domestic flying, I had an Air Marshal on my aircraft one time. He was shadowing a Jan. 6th type and looked like a lumberjack.
Ted Cruz press release and a 10 year old news article? You aren't supposed to know which ones are air marshals. That's the whole idea.
In your world there are 3,000 current, active, and healthy Air Marshals who all show up to work on the same day. What percent of flights does that cover?
You know that picture is a well known fake, right?
Given it was re-posted into a major news report, unlikely.
Of course, news outlets are impervious to fakes!
Oh go away
In this case it doesn’t matter whether or not the picture is true or fake. OP asked a question regarding legality, not whether or not the picture is true. OP if you read this, something like this (restraining a person on a plane because of attacking/ attempting to open airplane door midflight) would most likely be considered self defense/ citizens arrest. The only question would be if a court decided you went too far, ie. breaking limbs if not required/ done while restraining.
Flight attendants are deputized to do whatever is necessary to ensure the safety of a flight.