Why the emphasis on CA duties, e.g., involvement in CRM, recurrent
training, crowd control, etc in JAR-OPS 1 (AND 3) if theyaren't regarded
as essential crewmembers?
No disrespect intended, but isn't it time that all "at the coal face"
(operating crewmembers, be it flightdeck OR CAs) simply accepted the
reality of the situation vs. that which the legislators perceive to be
the case? That is, each serves a proper purpose in being on an aircraft,
and so, irrspective of (current) definition of "essential crewmember",
should be protected to the fullest extent by law from unlawful
interference whilst they are conducting their duties. That being said,
the unfortunate CA whose plight started all this debate SHOULD have been
supported by laws whose intent, after all, is to ensure the safety and
security of each and every one of us who use/avail ourselves/work in the
air transport industry.
My feelings go out to the lady, and I trust she recovers soon, and the
sanity AND justice will prevail for her's and our sakes!
Phil R.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Donald A. Talleur wrote:
>
> Flight attendents are not Flight crewmembers, airmen, or the like by
> certification. (reference the FARs) therefore interfering with them alone
> probably falls under some different laws. However, the premise of
> "interfence" is not solely with the flight crewmembers. If you interfere
> with the safe operation of the flight (via a flight attendant or any other
> means) you are violating federal laws for which there are a whole slew of
> fines and jail times established for. If you simply assult a flight
> attendant but bring no harm to the flight or "interfere" with it's saftey,
> a loose interpretation may allow civil penalities to be imposed. Bottom
> line: it is a federal offense to place the safe outcome of a flight (of any
> kind) in jeopardy.
>
> Don
>
> At 09:40 PM 9/10/98 -0400, you wrote:
> >
> >I for one am quite shocked at the story. I was under the impression that
> >interference with a flight crew, particularly during flight, was a felony
> >under American law. To me, the flight attendents qualify as flight crew, so
> >if they are treated adversely, shouldn't that law apply?
> >
> >You have my sympathy and condolences, Mike. I hope your wife recovers, and
> >some sort of justice can bring you and your family some peace.
> >
> >Greg Deen
> >