LH divert due unruly passenger

[Rocco in Budapest]

Anybody got any info of LH 440 (FRA-IAH) which diverted over the North Sea into STN apparently due to an unruly passenger?

[Musket90]

Nothing at Stansted - believed returned to FRA.

[Barry Cuda]

It did go back to Frankfurt this morning, after being offered Stansted.

Had an escort out of UK airspace as well, apparently...

[Voldermort]

Well North East of NEW when he said he was diverting to LHR with unruly pax but not giving much other info.On being informed that there were delays into LHR he then declared a PAN.Seemed a bit odd that he wanted to deviate so far off course (350 miles??)just to dump 1? pax so the military got involved and he was then told that he would have to go to STN and 2 fighters were sent up to escort him(not sure which airfield they came from but it was from the south)Not long after being transfered to Lon he then decided to return to FRA instead.

[Rocco in Budapest]

I understand the reason for LHR was "operational" and when told he was going to STN on "Her Majesty´s Gov´t orders" he said that LH had no handling angent there, hence later he requested FRA (this was after asking if he could divert to NEW). By the sounds of it, a poor decision making fiasco... thousands of KG´s of fuel dumped, opting to divert to an airfield (LHR) with known delays, having to declare an emergency and scrambling two fighters subsequently.

[Notso Fantastic]

Maybe a bit unfair to start making judgements so early when we don't even know what was going on onboard! I can tell you they would have been very overloaded and under great pressure communicating with home base and trying to sort it out on the fly. I would hazard a guess that such a situation developing so rapidly would probably be handled as well by them as anybody else. Let's not jump to verdicts without hearing the case!

[Rocco in Budapest]

Ok, maybe a bit unfair to pass judgement.

[pprecious]

If it was an unruly PAX wouldn't it be nice if that particular person picked up the bill for the dumped fuel, two fighters and the sundry losses to the rest of the passengers!

However will probably be the usual slap on the wrist.......

[Notso Fantastic]

In the final analysis, the offender will always plead that it was the airline, and not he, that decided to divert, therefore how could he be responsible? Seems galling, but it is an effective defence. I have been involved in a very nasty air rage incident. Once subjugated (cuffed), there was no further need to divert for the individual, and all that was needed was Police on arrival (SYD). It took them 25 minutes to come, and the eventual Court case simply resulted in a fine of about 900 Pounds only. It took extensive interviews of all the crew, several passengers, statements etc, and the Court simply did not take it seriously, It seems the official Australian attitude is 'boys will be boys- one stubby too many- what a laugh!'

[Airbubba]

In the U.S., the perp is often hit with costs of the divert as part of a plea agreement:

An infamous case from 1995:

"Banker Pleads Guilty to In-Flight Mischief"

NEW YORK - Gerard B. Finneran, 52, an investment banker accused of defecating on a United Airline's food-service cart and threatening a flight attendant, told a judge Monday he was
angry because he had been refused another glass of wine.

Finneran pleaded guilty Monday to a federal misdemeanor charge for making the threat aboard a flight from Buenos Aires to New York on Oct 20. As part of a plea agreement, he also promised to reimburse United Airlines $49,029 for cleanup costs and for other passengers' tickets.

Finneran, the managing director at the Trust Company of the West, faces up to six months in jail and a $5,000 fine when he is
sentenced May 14.

Prosecutors said in court papers that Finneran started pouring
drinks on himself during the flight, threatened one flight attendant and shoved another into a seat.

"I was angry," said Finneran.

See: http://www.thesmokinggun.com/altitude/monday1.html


_______________________________________________

September 20, 2001

Cynthia Mikula ordered to pay $87K restitution

Crystal Mikula to be sentenced today

ANCHORAGE, Alaska (AP) - One of the twin sisters convicted of getting drunk and disrupting an international flight that had to be diverted to Anchorage was sentenced Wednesday to five years' probation but no additional jail time.

Federal District Court Judge John Sedwick also ordered Cynthia Mikula, 22, of Buckley, to pay nearly $87,000 in restitution and perform 231 hours of community service for her part in a ruckus on board on United Airlines Flight 857 from San Francisco to Shanghai, China on April 19.

"That represents one hour for every passenger on the airline," Assistant U.S. Attorney Charlie Brown said of the community service portion of the sentence.

The restitution - $86,774.92, to be exact - represents the amount the diversion cost United Airlines. Among the costs, Brown said, were flight crew overtime, landing fees, 20,000 gallons of jet fuel, plus food and hotel accommodations for the 231 other passengers.

Mikula reached an agreement in July to plead guilty to one count of interfering with a flight crew.

Mikula's identical twin, Crystal Mikula, 22, also of Buckley, is to be sentenced Thursday after pleading guilty to one count of misdemeanor assault.

The women were headed to a modeling competition in Shanghai when they got drunk, argued, directed profane language at each other and smoked in the airliner's restroom.

They resumed the argument outside the restroom and, when flight crew members tried to intervene, Cynthia Mikula struck a female flight attendant in the face and hit a male flight attendant and the captain, according to court documents. She bloodied the nose of the female flight attendant.

http://www.record-eagle.com/2001/sep/20mikula.htm

[Paracab]

Some interesting reading on goings on at STN when this problem was declared here Essex Fire & Rescue Service (www.essex-fire.gov.uk)

Go to News, then Press info

No wonder things often get out of hand in the media.

[Barry Cuda]

Paracab, the incident WAS treated as a suspected hijack for a time, as I understand.

[Turn It Off]

Maybe "Full emergency" isn't the best name for events that reach the public domain. Would it be better if when details were spoken about to the public if it was worded as a " Full Attendance was made at Stanstead airport....."?? - Certianly in terms of government websites that detail the attendences of their vehicles. Surely this would help to keep the scaremongerers at bay. It also means that the press cannot take crazy quotes about an ongoing emergency situation. The pilot said Pan, thats urgency, not emergency.

I really hope this guy gets whats coming to him. I hope the carrier really go for it in court, lets be honest, the caselaw posted by AirBubba could be damning. The guy deserves all he gets.

TIO

[Ignition Override]

As for potential incidents on the ground at the departure gate, this problem happened on Dec 24th or 26th, on a narrow-body jet.

A lady could not get her bag into the overhead bin in coach. When she came forwards to the galley and told a FA that she could not leave her bag at the gate (forgetting that it can go below in a large baggage bin?), the Flight Attendant assumed that it was a personal threat, which made no sense. This Flight Attendant then told the lady, who had spent (slept) 28 hours stuck in an airport, that the lady should get off the plane. This was an unnecesary comment to make, knowing her frustrations and problems just before Christmas, and this left the lady really upset-but she never threatened anybody. Fortunately a gate Supervisor showed up, listened to the story with patience and sympathy, and the lady cried for a minute on the other FA's shoulder. Trying to sleep in an airport, never mind family problems elsewhere, can seriously frustrate any of us.

For example: how about one divorced parent using a child as a tool (changing plans...) to 'get even' with the other parent (and grandparents) ? Never mind the constant brainwashing and lies about the other parent, which many children are exposed to, all year long. Holiday cheer...

A total lack of understanding on the part of any crewmember can make any distressing situation even worse. Try to let the passenger express their frustration, don't just say forget it, you are getting off...this first step can often help resolve a problem before the agent even tries to close the cabin door.:oh:

[bjcc]

Turn It Off

It's a case of different definition of 'emergency call'. To the Emergency Services a 999 call is an an 'emergency'. It may not be to the crew, but they are in possession of more info. Because Police/Fire/Ambulance don't know what they are going to have to deal with until an aircraft arrives, and it takes time to get more of the gang in, they turn up as a full attendence, which is therefore an emergency. I realise that doesn't make sense to an aircraft crew, but trust me, its better to have the whole shooting match in place, but not needed than have not enough.

The case law quoted by Airbubba may be damming in the US, but has no effect in Germany, nor the UK. It also depends on the offence charged with, the defence put foreward and the outcome.

[Rwy in Sight]

When I was student and lived in a Hall of Residence in the UK we had the odd alarm caused by carelessness (too many people smoking in a small place mainly).

I asked the resident tutor about allways having 3 fire engines every time there was a fire alarm even if there were strong indications that it was a false alarm... the answer was that a hall of residence is a preassesed risk.

SO maybe an airliner landing with anything than a sick person aboard requires a certain number of materiel and staff?


Rwy in Sight

[BigLebowsky]

Obviously noone has anything new to come up with regarding this subject...
The price of chicken today was 79p/pound in ASDA.

[Runway 31]

We proceed to emergencies and return from false alarms. We don't know they are false alarms until we get there and investigate.