PIC Obligations and Authority
This hypothetical came to me privately, but I thought it has enough general interest for me to post here, scrubbed of personal references. It may have made an appearance in a different part of the forum, however, I did not check for that.
First, some assumptions (I wouldn't be a good lawyer if I did not make certain assumptions about things ;)). The scenario involves the PIC of a business jet, not a commercial airline. The passengers in the back begin to do things such as snorting cocaine, planning a terrorist attack, plying underage kids with beer and liquor, or drinking themselves to oblivion.
Does the PIC, assuming he becomes aware of the situation, have a legal obligation to investigate and stop the illegal activity? What is the basis for this authority? How far should and can the PIC go in averting further bad behavior? Should he land the plane at the nearest airport? What, if any, consequences may he suffer if he does nothing? Would your answer change if the behavior in the back was different (e.g., the boss was having sex with his mistress?) Would the PIC have some liability if the drunk passengers later on were driving to their hotel and struck another car killing the passengers of that other car? How far does this chain of culpability go?
It would be interesting to know the FAA position on this, whether the company has considered these types of possibilities and have a policy to deal with it, and what the courts have said about it. Tort law is full of hypotheticals and real cases of the bar tender being held liable if he did not stop a patron from drinking more and/or getting into his car while obviously drunk. It would be a slippery slope indeed if the PIC is held liable for events far down the chain.