Pilot takes forgotten iPad – trial raises questions about everyday airport routines

Pilot takes forgotten iPad – trial raises questions about everyday airport routines

Key question: Why could a member of the cabin or cockpit crew keep a forgotten device for so long – and is a fine an adequate response?

On 20 June 2024 a flight from Madrid landed in Palma. A passenger left the aircraft and only later realized that his iPad — declared to be worth more than €400 — had been left on the seat. The pilot of the flight put the device in his pocket after landing and only handed it back on 1 July, after the Guardia Civil was involved. Before the Palma District Court, the pilot was fined €2,700 for misappropriation; his appeal was dismissed.

The legal classification the court applied was straightforward: anyone who takes another person's property and does not outwardly show the intention to return it is acting unlawfully. The defence tried to argue that there was no determined intention to keep the tablet permanently. The court disagreed and interpreted the behaviour as an intent to appropriate it, especially since the device was only returned after police intervention.

For Mallorca the case is more than an isolated personnel matter. Every day streams of people cross the access roads to the airport, taxi drivers stop on Avinguda Gabriel Roca, suitcases roll across the tarmac, and the terminal loudspeakers make announcements. In this hustle items are left behind, lost-and-found offices are used, and staff make decisions in fractions of a second. That a member of the flight crew did not immediately initiate the correct procedure breaks the expectations of reliability and trustworthiness; recent incidents such as Arrests at Palma Airport: Two employees detained after alleged thefts show this is not unique.

What has so far hardly appeared in public debate is: who is responsible within the airline? What internal rules specifically apply to pilots and cabin crew when passengers forget items? In this case the airline – as far as is publicly known – was not named; that leaves a gap for important questions: Was the incident reported internally, was there an investigation, are disciplinary measures possible? And how often do similar incidents occur at Palma airport? Public coverage of other operational failures, for example "An Outrage" at Palma Airport: Why Did Passengers Disembark — and the Plane Fly Off Empty?, underlines why transparency is needed.

The perspective on ground procedures is also critical. Airport security personnel, ground staff and the Guardia Civil have different responsibilities. If a crew member who finds a device does not immediately hand it over to the lost-and-found office at the airport, tracking problems arise. The fact that the item was only returned after official request suggests that reporting routes were not followed automatically or were not binding; instances such as Accidentally Detained: When a Wrong Turn After Returning from Mallorca Becomes Costly illustrate how procedural confusion can escalate.

Concrete solutions that could help are obvious: a mandatory reporting protocol for forgotten items that applies to all crew members; immediate handover to the central lost-and-found at Palma Airport with a receipt and timestamp; compulsory training for flight staff on handling found items; transparent reporting obligations to the competent supervisory authority; and internal documentation so cases can be reconstructed later. Additionally, a small information campaign at the airport (for example notices in seat pockets, QR codes for lost electronics, clear announcements during boarding) could reduce the number of forgotten items.

For affected passengers it would be helpful if the lost-and-found system were easier to access and responded more quickly. A digital reporting channel through which passengers can centrally register lost items would — coupled with short deadlines for return requests to crew and ground staff — ease the situation. Such procedures exist at other airports; why they are not more clearly communicated at Palma is a legitimate question for operators and airlines.

The case also reveals a social dimension: on Passeig Mallorca you see cleaning staff, delivery drivers and commuters in the morning; they are all part of an infrastructure that functions because many small rules are observed. If employees who carry particular responsibility circumvent or do not know these rules, trust erodes. A fine corrects the criminal behaviour, but it does not fully answer the question of prevention and responsibility in everyday operations.

Conclusion: The court has decided; the pilot will pay. For the island, however, it would be wiser to draw systemic lessons from the incident: clear reporting and handover processes, mandatory training, better communication to travellers — and more transparency from the airlines. Otherwise a lost iPad will remain only the visible part of a problem that continues behind the terminal doors.