offloading pax

[Johnny_56]

Hello all,

Scenario:

You're mid cruise and the hostie calls up and says an obnoxious passenger squeezed her arse as she was walking past

Your destination is another hour and a half away, but there is a suitable field about 30minutes away.

She is adamant he is being a tool and wants him off ASAP.

What would you do? I was wondering if you diverted and asked for cops on arrival would you need a better reason than that? Or is it all just pilot discretion? Is there a CAR that would back you up, or is it just company specific SOPs?

Thanks in advance for the replys.

[bubble.head]

Get a tech crew to have a word with him regarding the federal police meeting him on arrival if he does not behave himself. Further escalation, a PIC may authorize the restrain of the passenger.

[Gunger]

If it's a QF hostie - he's a sick bastard
If it's a VA hostie - make sure he does it again
If it's a One * hostie - she'll probably charge him double for the scotch
If it's a Tiger hostie - he'll make the TV series 'Airways' 100%

[Keg]

No F/A I've every flown with would want the passenger off the aeroplane ASAP if all the passenger did was grab their backside. Most would certainly want the wallopers there at the other end and even if they didn't, I'd get the wallopers out anyway. No bastard is going to lay a hand on one of my crew and not get the shock of their life when the aircraft door is opened.

If the passenger is sitting their quite calmly with no other signs of doing the wrong thing then we leave it until we get on the ground. If they're continuing to be a tool then we escalate it to the lowest level possible to ensure that the crew and the aircraft remain safe from harm. If that means the offender ends up in cuffs then that was their choice, not mine! If they're in cuffs, no need to divert.

[Twin Beech]

Hmmm. I think that the minimum response nescessary to ensure good order would be appropriate. Back in the day a good friend of mine suffered a bikie insurrection on board abeam Gualdelajara. He diverted, the Mexican policia performed the mobile **** storm all the way back to the prison. One of the three died, the other two were still there three years later.

I think the piñata would be a useful metaphor in the minds of your average douche bag who acts out on board, but how to evoke that particular image without causing undue offence?

[Lodown]

No bastard is going to lay a hand on one of my crew and not get the shock of their life when the aircraft door is opened.

Keg...:ok::D

As with seemingly a lot of decisions required in flight, the wording by Johnny_56 makes it almost seem trivial. To make the decision a little easier...It's assault! From a US definition at:
assault legal definition of assault. assault synonyms by the Free Online Law Dictionary. (http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/assault)

At Common Law, an intentional act by one person that creates an apprehension in another of an imminent harmful or offensive contact.

An assault is carried out by a threat of bodily harm coupled with an apparent, present ability to cause the harm. It is both a crime and a tort and, therefore, may result in either criminal or civil liability.

Assault on the ground or in the air is the same thing. Don't know if the incident is covered in your SOPS, but if the cabin supervisor recommends a diversion, then in my mind, it would be absolutely foolish to continue the flight. One of your fellow employees is being assaulted. As captain, you cannot ignore this crime. You do not know what is happening in the cabin. Follow the cabin supervisor's recommendations. Declare an emergency if appropriate. Get the plane on the ground and have the police ready with the cuffs the second that cabin door is opened. Let the aircraft operator sort out the scheduling, cost and legal issues.

[What The]

One of your fellow employees is being assaulted. As captain, you cannot ignore this crime. Follow the cabin supervisor's recommendations. Get the plane on the ground and have the police ready with the cuffs the second that cabin door is opened. Let the aircraft operator sort out the scheduling, cost and legal issues. That's not your job.

If the cabin crew are unable to sort out a bottom pinching episode to a sensible conclusion what hope in a hijack?

I would not divert for this situation. I would instruct the cabin crew to manage the situation as they are entrusted under MY legal authority to do.

I take information from cabin crew and decide accordingly. I do not take advice or instruction. I have the lives of many people to consider and a couple of hundred million dollars of company asset as well.

[Lodown]

Let me add a couple of small caveats What The...

...assuming the deversionary airport and the route are operational acceptable and the services available are those necessary to be able to prosecute the arrest.

[Keg]

I suspected this may occur. We were all going to get out of shape on this one given the paucity of information in the original question as well as respective past histories colouring our perception of what is going on. We also have very little information as to what happened in the immediate aftermath of the backside pinching. Did the F/A sound off or remonstrate with the pax? Did she resolve the situation? Is it an isolated incident? Has the pax been drinking? Does the pax appear intoxicated? These are all questions that determine the level of response.

Given the info in the original question provides no additional context to the back side pinching episode, were that all it is in isolation then a decision to divert- irrespective of what the F/A thinks- is premature. If it was more sinister- persistent, resistant to subsequent chats from the supervisor or CSM or being belligerent or non com-formative to instructions- then the decision making process will change.

So to Johnny_56, more info is required in order to make an accurate and appropriate decision. You've got some initial thoughts from people here as to some of the issues going through our minds but the real answer is 'it depends'.

[Capn Bloggs]

If the cabin crew are unable to sort out a bottom pinching episode to a sensible conclusion what hope in a hijack?

I would not divert for this situation. I would instruct the cabin crew to manage the situation as they are entrusted under MY legal authority to do.

I take information from cabin crew and decide accordingly. I do not take advice or instruction. I have the lives of many people to consider and a couple of hundred million dollars of company asset as well.
Agree. On the info provided, a total over-reaction by some. If necessary, stop the service, make a PA suitably embarrassing the idiot, and advise that the cops will meet and greet on arrival. Worry about the rest at your (and all the other punter's) destination.

[Ollie Onion]

I remember a case from around 10 years ago when a charter operator in the UK was flying some scumbag passengers back from somewhere in the Caribbean to Manchester. One passenger kicked off and started making advances towards the crew. The flightcrew finally got fed up with the behaviour and diverted to some tiny little ETOPS alternate in the middle of nowhere run by the American military. They detained the passenger and the aircraft carried on to the UK after a quick refuel. Passenger was immediately released upon sobering up only to find that there was no regular airservice to the island and that the next ship wouldn't be along for around 2 weeks. He arrived back in the UK around ten thousand pounds worse off and promptly set about suing the airline for his cost in getting back to the UK. Not only did he lose but the airline was awarded costs in the order of another fifteen thousand pounds and the said idiot was banned from the airline for life. I have now been waiting for around 10 years for the opportunity to do the same to some disruptive idiot and always keep in mind that if I am going to offload someone that the best sh*thole I can find will be my preference :}

[A37575]

Air Nauru 727 flying Hong Kong to Taipei years ago. Pacific island seaman bush lawyer character kept feeling up the hosties as they walked past. Hostie called the captain who went down the back personally to sort out this idiot.
The captain advised the islander that if he had any more reports of this behaviour he would arrange for the Chinese security to meet the aircraft at Taipei and he would get tortured as punishment. No further problems.

[Collando]

Hmm, so if a hot looking chick squeezed a male stewards bum, would there be the same reaction?

[Lookleft]

Hostie called the captain who went down the back personally to sort out this
idiot.


At J* that will get you 4 weeks SOC and a command progress sim check before you get put back on line!

[Anthill]

It is no longer advised that pilots go into the cabin to sort out a disruptive passenger. In the old days, the sight of a authority figuire in uniform with a hat may have been enough to get some miscreant to behave, but not nowdays:*

I would only divert if there was a safety reason to do so. If they are told to keep their hands to themselves and they don't comply, use the handcuffs. Diversion is an expensive exercise and there had better be some compeling reasons to do so.

There is also a duty of care issue: you can't just dump someone on the nearest rock and leave them there. For example; would you dump and Israeli citizen in Zamboanga? The legal process can have some funny twists and turns and you might find that YOU are on the wrong end of the law.

I would not divert for this situation. I would instruct the cabin crew to manage
the situation as they are entrusted under MY legal authority to do.


Sound advice. Call the cops too.

Follow the cabin supervisor's recommendations.

Whilst the CS is a valuable resource they are still not in command. Make up your own mind as whether to continue, return or divert, as you would in any other instance.

[haughtney1]

I remember a case from around 10 years ago when a charter operator in the UK was flying some scumbag passengers back from somewhere in the Caribbean to Manchester. One passenger kicked off and started making advances towards the crew. The flightcrew finally got fed up with the behaviour and diverted to some tiny little ETOPS alternate in the middle of nowhere run by the American military.

Ollie, he got deposited on Porto Santo, and thoroughly deserved it....he was also charged for the cost of the diversion:ok:

Info here
(http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/manchester/4567856.stm)

[Johnny_56]

Cheers for the replies,

I guess more what I was getting at was; if you do request police attendance on arrival do they need an adequate reason to come onto the aircraft and offload a pax, is it just at pilot discretion or does it need to be a case that could be proved as assault.

I appreciate the replies.

[Johnny_56]

If its a clear cut thing where the harassment has been ongoing and persistent despite warnings then I imagine you wouldn't have an issue. The scenario was more if it's a marginal situation will the police come and offload on pilot say so

Not necessarily in a major airport too, but in a regional port with local cops not the Feds.

[Capt Claret]

As I see it, the AFP/Police will attend the aircraft on arrival if their presence is requested by the PIC.

I recently heard that they were becoming reluctant to attend if the air crew were not prepared to give statements and press charges. The giving of statements and pressing of charges takes time & effort, and in many cases crew members are reluctant to take that step, which leaves the coppers in limbo because without witnesses and statements and evidence, they can't do anything.

Imagine as PIC making the decision to divert, costing perhaps many thousands of dollars, not to mention inconvenience to other pax, and no one will give a statement. :eek:

[SpannerTwister]

One thing that would have me worried was if the PIC chose not to divert after the bottom pinching episode and later in the flight the same pax did something more inappropriate causing actual injury to crew or another passenger.

You can just imagine the passengers (crews) barrister to the PIC on the witness stand..

Q. Did you have any idea that the passenger was unruly or prone to bad behaviour ?

A. Yes, But I thought it was going to be OK

Q. Well, since the passenger subsequently did *insert bad things here * obviously your judgement was wrong ?

What's your next response ?

A1. No my judgement was correct
Q1a. Well obviously it wasn't, the passenger had previously assaulted a crew member on your flight in front of 200 witnesses and he did it again.
Q1b. What qualifications did you have to be able to judge his mental state, are you a registered psychiatrist ?
Q1c. Does your company prohibit you from diverting if a passenger assaults a member of the crew or a fellow passenger ?

OR

A2. Yes, My judgement was incorrect, and as a result of that *insert bad thing* happened

Ever been on the receiving end of a tongue-lashing from a switched on barrister ?

Let me tell you, there's no right answers to the questions they ask !

CYA !

S_T

[*Lancer*]

Q1a - I'm sorry, was that a question? ;)
Q1b - The same qualification I applied for the XXX other passengers.
Q1c - No.

Johnny, if you call the police they will come, but it is the authority of the PIC (or airport duty manager) to offload a pax... not the cops. Alternatively they might be called for an alleged theft or an assault not witnessed by anyone, in which case it gets sorted out after disembarking. In any case, the response needs to be proportional to the threat.

[Traffic_Is_Er_Was]

I take information from cabin crew and decide accordingly. I do not take advice or instruction

Quote that little gem and see what a complete tosser you come across as.

[RENURPP]

One thing that would have me worried was if the PIC chose not to divert after the bottom pinching episode and later in the flight the same pax did something more inappropriate causing actual injury to crew or another passenger.

You can just imagine the passengers (crews) barrister to the PIC on the witness stand..

Q. Did you have any idea that the passenger was unruly or prone to bad behaviour ?

A. Yes, But I thought it was going to be OK

Q. Well, since the passenger subsequently did *insert bad things here * obviously your judgement was wrong ?

What's your next response ?

A1. No my judgement was correct
Q1a. Well obviously it wasn't, the passenger had previously assaulted a crew member on your flight in front of 200 witnesses and he did it again.
Q1b. What qualifications did you have to be able to judge his mental state, are you a registered psychiatrist ?
Q1c. Does your company prohibit you from diverting if a passenger assaults a member of the crew or a fellow passenger ?

OR

A2. Yes, My judgement was incorrect, and as a result of that *insert bad thing* happened

Ever been on the receiving end of a tongue-lashing from a switched on barrister ?

Let me tell you, there's no right answers to the questions they ask !

CYA !

S_T

How about the beak that allows a drunk driver off with a warning and subsequently drives drunk again and this time kills some one?

How about a person who is a little rude whilst boarding, we all hear them, mabe running late or something similar, should we throw them off just in case they get more aggressive later in the flight and it becomes an issue where someone gets hurt?

You make a sensible decision you can justify based on the current and likely circumstances. That's he best we can do, leave the lawyers to fight the rest out at a later date.

[HowMuchFurther]

How about reminding both the Cabin Crew member and Mr. Wandering Hands of the consequences of breaching CAA24:
"Interference with crew or aircraft
(1) A person commits an offence if:
(a) the person does an act; and
(b) the act:
(i) interferes with a crew member of an aircraft in the course of the performance of his or her duties as such a crew member; or
(ii) threatens the safety of an aircraft or of persons on board an aircraft.
Penalty: Imprisonment for 2 years."

I like this rule, as there is no option for the beak!!
If he continues with his behaviour, call the AFP on arrival. I agree with previous posts - you MUST lodge a formal complaint for legal action to proceed.

[SpannerTwister]

You make a sensible decision you can justify based on the current and likely circumstances. That's he best we can do, leave the lawyers to fight the rest out at a later date.

Totally agree, but it's just that given the "current" circumstances are that a passenger has, to be totally blunt, technically assaulted a crew member, I wouldn't like to be the one on the witness stand trying to justify my position.

There are several law firms now that will fight for the plaintiff on a no-win, no-fee proposal.

If the passenger retains one of these ambulance-chasers to sue the PIC personally, as a civil matter, the passenger has got nothing to loose by trying and I can guarantee that the PIC will have $10,000 of legal fees before seeing the inside of a courtroom !

Again, as PIC what you do is your decision and responsibility, but the law applies a "reasonable person" test in many cases, and while your decision not to divert may of seemed reasonable to you at 40,000 feet, in the cool light of the court-room, will twelve men good and true (who are NOT your flying peers) agree that to not get rid of (by the barristers words) the violent, raging maniac who had already assulted your crew member was a good decision ?

You don't have to justify it to me, or PPRuNe or even yourself (always the easiest :) ) but one day you may need to justify it to a jury sympathetic to (as the barrister described the 30-something passenger) the little old lady who was (as the barrister described the bruised arm and scraped shin) so viscously and callously attacked with no provocation, causing her PTSD, migraines and an inability to sleep.

S_T

[kalavo]

Actually a lot of our regulations come from maritime law where the safety of the vessel is the first priority and the commanders decision is final - there is no reasonable person test and the airlines are not public transport.

The passenger may be removed, detained, placed under restraint or taken in to custody and may be arrested without warrant for committing, suspected of committing, attempting to commit or being about to commit an offence under the act or regulations.

You can try suing the airlines for costs incurred by their failure to provide a service, but expect to be counter-sued for the cost of the diversion. Most companies would have a policy on how they expect their crew to react to this particular circumstance, but don't expect an easy time in the courts as a passenger provoking the crew.

[Traffic_Is_Er_Was]

The quote is from a pilot, not a passenger.

[wiggy]

northern hemisphere POV - do you guys carry a formal warning letter that you can issue (similar to to soccer yellow card) to the alleged offender?

In the scenario described I'd be inclined to get a suitably built cabin crew member to "issue the card", or in it's absence a warning, and if the assaulted cabin crew member was willing to give a statement get the feds to meet the flight at destination.

Obviously in case of escalation it's the cuffs...diversion, IMHO is the last resort.

Just my two cents worth:)

[Mach E Avelli]

Much easier if this happens on an international flight. Tee up Customs to quietly take the miscreant aside for a full body search - the rubber glove treatment.....

[Checkboard]

Diversion is an expensive exercise and there had better be some compeling reasons to do so.

Actually, in Europe at least, landing fees are only charged at destination and weather alternates. Fees are never charged for safety diversions - so the cost is simply the fuel and extra flying time.

If you are working for any operator who can't afford a descent and landing (in terms of fuel and time) as a completely incidental expense, then I hope you have been desperately sending out resumes because they are about to go under!

In short - the cost for a safety diversion is such a low expense in terms of operating costs, it doesn't even enter the equation.

----

Having said that - the police will always attend an airliner diversion. The Captain has the absolute authority to offload any passenger (and doesn't have to provide a reason).

Once a passenger is in the hands of the police, it is up to them whether to proceed with an arrest etc. That would depend on the severity of the assault, and the quality of the evidence. In the case cited, they probably wouldn't do anything other than offer a warning.

What would I do? I would get the FA involved into the cockpit, sit them on the jumpseat, and go through the event with them. If after that, they are still insistent that the passenger is an ongoing threat - yes I would divert. If, after discussion, I find I can separate them (get the FA to work another section) - and that the FA agrees that the passenger isn't an escalating threat - then I would have the police meet on arrival, rather than divert.