Hope For The Criminal Justice System Yet? [Archive]

View Full Version : Hope For The Criminal Justice System Yet?

ONTPax

26th Mar 2002, 09:11

Here's something that may be of interest to viewers from the March 19 edition of the LA TIMES.. .. .Isn't it interesting how some of this guy's cockiness and arrogance disappeared when he was pleading for leniency from the judge??? <img border="0" title="" alt="[Big Grin]" src="biggrin.gif" /> <img border="0" title="" alt="[Razz]" src="tongue.gif" /> . . . .. .<a href="http://latimes.com/news/local/la-000020048mar19.story" target="_blank">http://latimes.com/news/local/la-000020048mar19.story</a>. .. .March 19, 2002 . .. .Immigrant Gets Prison for Threats on Plane. . . .By DAVID ROSENZWEIG, TIMES STAFF WRITER. .. .Weeping and pleading for mercy, an Iranian immigrant was sentenced to two years and nine months in federal prison Monday for threatening to "kill all Americans" after he was caught smoking on a plane bound from Los Angeles to Toronto.. .. .Appearing in chains before a Los Angeles federal judge, Javid Naghani, a 38-year-old Canoga Park businessman, apologized for violating the no-smoking rule on airplanes, but denied uttering any anti-American remarks during the Sept. 27 flight.. .. ."Judge, give me a chance," he pleaded. "I did a mistake. I never did mean to harm anybody; I'm sorry about smoking." Naghani, a legal U.S. resident, was convicted by a federal jury in December of interfering with the Air Canada flight crew.. .. .Defense attorney Theodore Flier argued that Naghani would have received a fine or a much lighter sentence if his crime had occurred before Sept. 11. He said he would appeal the conviction.. .. ."If this were a pre-9/11 situation, we would not be in court today arguing over sentencing," Flier told U.S. District Judge Ronald S. W. Lew.. .. .Lew said that Sept. 11 was not a factor in his sentencing decision.. .. ."I do not take smoking lightly," said the judge, adding that Naghani had never fully accepted responsibility for his actions.. .. .Under federal sentencing guidelines, Naghani could have received up to three years and five months in prison. He already has spent six months behind bars, which will count toward his sentence.. .. .Naghani's troubles began during the start of a long-anticipated vacation trip to Canada with his wife and their pet poodle.. .. .While waiting to board their plane at Los Angeles International Airport, Naghani had several glasses of wine, his wife testified at his two-day trial.. .. .Flier said Monday that his client was "completely intoxicated" when he boarded the plane and that flight attendants were aware of his condition. Naghani was later found to have a blood-alcohol reading in excess of 0.20%, Flier said. The legal limit for drivers in California is 0.08%.. .. ."This situation could have been avoided if the flight attendants had simply said, 'We can't let you on the plane,'" Flier said.. .. .Several minutes after the Boeing 767 took off, Naghani went to a lavatory, where he lighted a cigarette.. .. .Responding to a smoke alarm, flight attendants pounded on the lavatory door and ordered him to come out.. .. .Two attendants testified that he initially denied smoking and resisted telling them where he had disposed of his cigarette.. .. .They said he became belligerent, saying that he wanted to "kill all Americans" or words to that effect.. .. .Naghani, who lives in Woodland Hills, took the stand in his own defense.. .. ."I swear to God, I never say that and I never will," he told the jury in broken, heavily accented English.. .. .He said he begged the crew not to have him arrested because he needed to be available to pay employees at his Canoga Park business, Cleaning of America.. .. .Flier argued that, given Naghani's thick accent, the flight crew may have mistaken "Cleaning of America" for "killing Americans.". .. .Acting on the flight attendants' request, the Air Canada pilot returned to LAX, escorted by two military jets.. .. .Naghani was arrested by FBI agents who stormed the plane.. .. .In an unrelated aircraft disturbance case, David Murdoch Boone, 36, of New Orleans pleaded not guilty in federal court Monday to a charge of interfering with the crew of a Southwest Airlines jetliner that was taxiing on a runway at LAX on Jan. 7.. .. .Boone was accused of hitting a flight attendant and opening an exit door as the plane was about to take off for Las Vegas.. .. .Trial was set for April 16.

PaperTiger

26th Mar 2002, 11:07

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Flier said Monday that his client was "completely intoxicated" when he boarded the plane and that flight attendants were aware of his condition. Naghani was later found to have a blood-alcohol reading in excess of 0.20%, Flier said. The legal limit for drivers in California is 0.08%.. .. ."This situation could have been avoided if the flight attendants had simply said, 'We can't let you on the plane,'" Flier said.. .<hr /></blockquote>I rarely agree with defence lawyers. This time I do if as alleged, the CC knew he was smashed. What part of keep drunks off the plane don't they get ?. . . . [ 26 March 2002, 07:08: Message edited by: PaperTiger ]

Alchemy

26th Mar 2002, 12:01

Paper,. .. .I beg to differ.. .. .One of our society's greatest problems is the compulsion to label ourselves as "victims". I'm a victim, you're a victim and NOTHING IS OUR FAULT. In fact SOCIETY OWES US because we are the victims.. .. .This mentality is pure crap and sadly I see traces of it in your reply. So it's okay to do anything I please on board an aircraft as long as I manage to get on tipsy. I shouldn't worry about the consequences........I'M THE VICTIM.. .. .PLEASE! This man made a choice to become drunk before he boarded the aircraft. This man made a choice to light up in the lav. This man made a . .choice to make a terroristic threat. He deserves the severist punishment allowable by law.. .. .The fact that the crew may not have done their job precisely as they should've has no bearing on the consequences of the choices made by this individual.

slj

26th Mar 2002, 15:32

Alchemy. .. .If you read the original posting and Paper Tiger's post you will see where Mr Tiger is coming from.. .. .As I read it he is saying that if the airline staff knew the man was intoxicated before the flight then the airline staff have some responsibility for the events that happened on the plane.. .. .It seems a reasonable view which you can or cannot agree with. Mr Tiger has his view and he is entitled to it.. .. .If the claim re pre boarding intoxication is false and an then I am sure Mr Tiger would agree with us that the passenger is totally at fault, asuming the crew did not ply him with more drink in his obviously slashed state.

Check 6

26th Mar 2002, 16:59

YOU DO THE CRIME, YOU DO THE TIME. <img border="0" title="" alt="[Big Grin]" src="biggrin.gif" /> <img border="0" title="" alt="[Big Grin]" src="biggrin.gif" />

Lawyerboy

26th Mar 2002, 17:23

Not that I wish to get embroiled in legalities, but Alchemy, would you not at least agree that if. .. .(a) the flight crew were aware of this man's state of intoxication;. .. .(b) let him on anyway; and. .. .(c) he endangered the aircraft because, at least in part we have to assume, because he was intoxicated,. .. .then the crew share some of the blame? If I'd been a passenger on the flight, he'd done me some damage and I subsequently found out that the crew had decided to let him on knowing full well he was three sheets to the wind, I'd want to know why. Wouldn't you?

Duncan2

26th Mar 2002, 18:20

I think it is quite clear that this guy did the wrong thing several times:. .. .First he got drunk. .Second he smoked in a no smoking area. .Third he wouldn’t immediately say where he put his cigarette. .. .The reason this all got out of hand is that he then started trying to talk to the flight attendants. Because he was so drunk and because his English is not good he said something which the Cabin crew thought had a similar meaning to him wanting to “kill all Americans” (note that the cabin crew admit that they are not sure what he said but that they think it had this meaning). The defendant said that he was talking about the fact that he had to pay employees at his company called “Cleaning of America”.. .. .Isn’t it quite obvious what happened? He was drunk on an aeroplane (possibly foolish but not a crime), he smoked in the toilet (an offence, but not one that endangered the aeroplane) and then for a short time he wouldn’t say where he put his cigarette (again foolish but not a crime). Then, because he couldn’t speak properly, and because the cabin crew heard him talking about cleaning America, and lets face it this is the sort of thing Hitler used to say about Germany, the cabin crew over-reacted to a man that probably could barely stand up and the flight was escorted to the ground at great cost to the taxpayer and the airline.. .. .When was the last time somebody got two years and nine months for smoking in an aeroplane toilet? And let's face it, this is his only crime.. .. .The question for debate is not what he did wrong, this is clear, it is whether two years and nine months in prison is an excessive punishment for smoking in an aeroplane toilet.. .. .When you think about this situation you need, unlike the cabin crew, to try to forget about shoe bombs and the WTC and concentrate on the facts. <img border="0" title="" alt="[Roll Eyes]" src="rolleyes.gif" />

PaperTiger

26th Mar 2002, 23:41

There are two ways to approach this problem.. .1) Let it happen, charge the perp and then bang him/her up for a long period (the blame approach),. .2) Prevent the offence in the first place (the prevention approach).. .. .Number 2 costs nothing. You can work out for yourselves the expense associated with number 1. . .. .For those who misinterpreted my post as supporting, absolving or advocating leniency, let me be quite clear. This character has not received sufficient punishment IMO. I simply agreed with the lawyer's statement that it could and should have been prevented, IF he was visibly intoxicated prior to boarding. Got it now ? . .. .Being drunk on an airplane may not be a crime per se (would need a legal opinion), but since this incident occurred in the US it is a violation of 2 FARs. 14 CFR 91.11 is the general regulation and <a href="http://www.risingup.com/fars/info/part121-575-FAR.shtml" target="_blank">14 CFR 121.575</a> that which applies to air transport operations (see para 3c). . .. .There is no point having these regs, or the airlines reiterating them in their CofC, if they are going to be routinely ignored.

FO Walrus

27th Mar 2002, 22:29

I would suggest that the flight attendant/s who let the guy on the plane in the first place, should now also be behind bars for endangering the crew, pax and whoever he might have crashed the plane into. .. .God damn - I iwsh I was in America, maybe I could also sue the airline for endangering my life and causing untold stress and suffering as at the time of this incident I was in a high rise building and therefore was put at risk. Should be worth a few million at least.

PaperTiger

27th Mar 2002, 22:52

It must be remembered that we only have the lawyer's word for it that the pax was obviously drunk pre-departure. Distinct possibility he is simply er.. dissembling (they do that don't they ?). I would have expected the crew, gate agents, other passengers etc. to have been subpœned to support this assertion if true.. .. .But I think FO Walrus is correct that some day soon a lawsuit will be filed against an airline/pilot/crew for allowing and abetting drunks on airplanes. Sadly it may be that's what it will take to get the message <img border="0" title="" alt="[Frown]" src="frown.gif" />

Flying Lawyer

27th Mar 2002, 23:26

<blockquote>quote:<hr />It must be remembered that we only have the lawyer's word for it that the pax was obviously drunk pre-departure. Distinct possibility he is simply er.. dissembling (they do that don't they ?)<hr /></blockquote>No. We don't have the lawyer's word for it - we have what his client told him. The lawyer wasn't on the flight. . .Or perhaps you assume I've always believed the accounts my pilot clients have told me when I defend them against the wrath of the CAA. <img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="wink.gif" />. . . . [ 27 March 2002, 19:33: Message edited by: Flying Lawyer ]

flapsforty

28th Mar 2002, 01:35

PaperTiger, not sure what you are retired from, but you certainly have a strong opinion on what CC could/should do.. .You also seem to be one of those ppruners who thinks he knows all there is to know about the work of CC, while making it patently obvious by his posts that he really does not have much of a clue at all.. .Do you think CC let drunk pax onboard on purpose? Because we enjoy being stuck in a metal tube at 35.000 ft with an aggressive, unreasonable possibly violent, possibly vomiting/delirious passenger? Do you think we don't give a damn? Or perhaps we are just stupid and masochistic? . .What is it you think PaperTiger? And you too Walrus?. .As far as I'm concerned it's time for a reality check gentlemen.. .See if you read the following and have a think about it with an open mind.. .. .Aircraft on the ground cost money.. .Companies try to keep turn-around times as short as possible.. .For a 747 with our mob it's usually an hour and a half. In that time the cleaners have to muck out the pigsty, the ground engineers have to do their bit and the catering has to offload and on-load 2 times 400 meals.. .In the ideal (pretty unusual) scenario, the aircraft is ready for the cabin crew to board and start their pre flight activities about 55 minutes befor departure. This leaves them with 10 minutes before the pax arrive.. .In those 10 minutes they have to. .<ul type="square"> stow handluggage in a place where it does not bother the pax and where it's fairly safe from thieving fingers</li> do the pre flight checklist</li> report any deficiencies on paper to the Purser</li> check the catering, report any deficiencies to the Purser</li> find and set out all the items that the pax will be handed after boarding and before take off</li> make the mis-en-place for the drink service and the coffee service</li> de-aerate the coffee brewers, load them and start them. .</li>[/list]10 minutes is not a lot of time to accomplish the above. Even harder when, as is often the case, the cabin is still crawling with cleaning and catering staff. (either because the ac was late incoming, or because the outsourced-due-to-cheapness cleaners and caterers are understaffed) So often it's less than 10 mins, and in an antheap of people.. .Well then, boarding time comes round.. .FA's take their boarding positions, most in the cabin, and if their is enough space, 2 at each door.. .So what happens during boarding?. .Do the FA's at the door have ample time to carefully observe each boarding passenger? Have a wee chat with each individual to ascertain their state of mind and body? Carefully look over each pax to form a sensible opinion as to their fitness to come on board? Enough time to eyeball each and every one and make a judgement as to their mental stability?. .You know what? We try!. .Yup, we are dedicated enough to try and do all that, despite the odds being against all of the above happening.. .Not only because that's part of our job, but also because if any unsuitable pax manages to come aboard we are the ones that will have to deal with him/her first and foremost, and for quite a few hours usually.. .And guess what PaperTiger and Walruss, dealing with the drunk, the violent, the mentally unstable and the aggressive is NOT all that much fun. In fact it is often frightening, disgusting, nerve racking and plain dangerous.. .. .So the pax come streaming in and we stand at the door and spread out through the cabin. What happens during a normal boarding procedure?. .. .<ul type="square"> Handicapped pax, where do we put the wheel chair? While we figure that out, an x-number of people boards whom we do not eyball.</li> Parents with umpteen kids and handluggage and strollers. Find an FA to help them. x-number of pax...........</li> Pax with double seating, get in touch with the ground staff to sort it out. x-number................</li> FA comes and reports a catering shortfall. Get in touch with catering. x-number.......</li> Captain calls to say that we have a tight slot, please make sure we board promptly.</li> No 5 toilet doesn't flush, try and get a GE back on board. x-number...........</li> pax tries to board with handluggage the size of Fort Knox. Try and politely take it off him for stowage in the belly. Try and explain to spitting mad pax that no it's got nothing to do with the fact that you don't understand that it's a family heirloom, but that it does NOT fit anywhere safe in the cabin. While trying to calm him and the wife, surprise surprise, an x-number of pax boards unobserved.</li> Get in contact with the load master to get the heirloom stowed somewhere safe in the belly.</li> Pax returns to the door because he refuses to sit next to that couple with the baby/the indian guy/the jewish guy/the lady with the dog/the fat man/the bloke with the turban round his head etc etc etc. Calm him down, find FA to sort it out.. .</li>[/list]I could go on, but you get the idea I trust?. .So what about the FA's in the cabin? Shouldn't they have noticed the drunk? Well now, let's see what they are doing............ .<ul type="square"> Stop pax from stowing their eternally overflowing handluggage in places forbidden due to flight safety</li> Try and help the family of 6 who are spread out throughout the whole AC to sit together since the groundstaff told them "not to worry, the FA's on board will sort it out for you"</li> Get a glass of water for the lady who needs to take her pills</li> Point the waverers in the direction of their seat as mentioned on their boarding card. Yes, 43c Madam, the number of your seat is on the luggage bin. Oh, you only speak Urdu? well, let me show you.</li> Help all the delightfull old biddies who are fit enouhg to travel with a mountain of luggage but not for the life of them can carry their own handluggage one step past the door of the AC. Let alone stow it in the overhead luggage bin. Mind your back Dear, it's a bit heavy.</li> Yes Sir, as soon as I have a moment I will check if we have your special meal aboard.</li> Oh, you asked for a window seat and you refuse to sit in an aisle seat? Let me see what I can do for you Madam.</li> The Now York times? Let me go and see if I can find it for you.</li> A nappy for the baby because it said in the add that we have babysupplies on board? And the baby needs a hot bottle right now? Certainly, I'll heat it up for you. Some toys for the bigger kids? Of course.</li> You have diabetes and you need to eat something right this very minute and you didn't bring anything? Let me go and find something for you.</li> Yes Madam, I will put the smoked herring for your cousin in Bogota in my fridge, what is your seat number please?</li> Do we have a space for your wedding dress so it doesn't crush? Of course we do, leave it to me. .</li>[/list]Again I could go on, but........................?. .The way I see it, it's amazing that we manage to filter out anyone at all.. .I refuse on average 2 passengers a month. Not fun, because they usually have luggage in the belly. Which needs to be off-loaded. Which takes time and man-power, both commodities in perennial short supply.. .So often subtle pressure is brought to bear, especially when a delay might endanger the slot. . .Surely you girls are capable of dealing with him? Are you sure he is that drunk? Honey, don't you think he'll fall asleep? Give him some coffee? Come on, maybe his speech is slurred because he's tired. . .You have to be pretty damn sure of the drunkenness of your pax and of your own judgement to witstand the pressure, and to believe that endangering the connecting flights of many pax is worth the offloading of 1 drunk.. .. .But hey, that's what we get paid for right? . .We try, we manage partly, it usually goes sort of OK but looking at it soberly, keeping out everyone who should be kept out is plain . .impossible.. .. .Give us more time, more training and more able bodies, we might catch all of them.. .But that would make the whole enterprise comercially unfeasible according to the bean counters.. .So we juggle on, trying to do the best we can under fairly impossible circumstances.. .It's far from perfect, and we have bad days too.. .There are smart FA's and there are stupid FA's. . .But we all have a survival instinct just like the rest of you, and not ONE of us will happily allow a drunk into the cabin.. .. .And for some of you on this board, people who are supposed to have at least a modicum of knowledge about the realities of commercial aviation, to suggest that FA's willfully ignore the rules and procedures regarding drunk passengers, beggars belief!. .. .Time to wake up and smell the bl**dy coffee!

flyblue

28th Mar 2002, 01:53

...And on top of what Flaps so admirably explains, let me tell you I would be rich if I had a cent for every time (not in my present company) I argued with a Captain that didn't want to disembark a passenger because that was "not commercial". The very last time it was a drunk pax that I suggested should be disembarked and the Captain refused because "he's so knocked out he will get asleep and don't bother you". Yeah, and even if he would, what if he starts being sick while sleeping and choke? Or fall into a coma? or wake up and decide to be p****d off?. . . . [ 27 March 2002, 21:54: Message edited by: flyblue ]

Xenia

28th Mar 2002, 02:15

Well explained Flaps & Flyblue <img border="0" title="" alt="[Big Grin]" src="biggrin.gif" />. . . . [ 27 March 2002, 22:17: Message edited by: Xenia ]

PaperTiger

28th Mar 2002, 02:53

I appear to have touched a nerve there flaps, so I'll let the personal stuff pass if that's OK with you.. .. .Since more than one respondent has read more into my posts than was there or was intended, obviously I have not been sufficently clear. Let's start again.. .. .According to the article, Naghani's lawyer Flier said Monday that his client was "completely intoxicated" when he boarded the plane and that light attendants were aware of his condition.This may be true, based on what his client told him (assuming Naghani's memory was unaffected by being "completely intoxicated" ), or it may have been simply a courtroom ruse.. .. .Assuming it was true, then according to the FARs he should not be allowed to board (I assume other countries have similar regulations). Responsibility for compliance lies with the carrier, which is why there's a separate FAR in part 121. (Beside the point, but for non-carrier operations it's up to the pilot (part 91)).. .. .Now you wrote. . <blockquote>quote:<hr />Give us more time, more training and more able bodies, we might catch all of them.. .But that would make the whole enterprise comercially unfeasible according to the bean counters.. .So we juggle on, trying to do the best we can under fairly impossible circumstances.<hr /></blockquote>and I agree that it's the 'system' which fails. How to keep drunks out is a recurring theme - there was another thread a month or so ago in which the pressures put on CC to do this were acknowleged, discussed and generally deprecated. But little seems to get done by way of amelioration, which lead to my comment (and that of Walrus if I may speak for him) that it may take a lawsuit to get through to the airlines. That includes bean counters, gate agents, crew and pilots and anyone else directly or even peripherally involved.. .. .I do believe everyone is responsible for his/her actions, passengers included. I also believe that where there is an opportunity to pre-empt such actions, it should be taken. The courts may hold that it is indeed a duty - bartenders have been found negligent for allowing their patrons to drive drunk. I do not want the people at the sharp end of the airline business to be put in a similar position, they are busy enough like you say, but it doesn't stretch my imagination too much to see it happening one day. Unless a better way can be found before then.. . . . [ 27 March 2002, 22:54: Message edited by: PaperTiger ]

slj

28th Mar 2002, 11:40

Flaps and Flyblue. .. .We all accept that cabin staff are busy people but an intoxicated passenger often stands out a mile and should be also be obvious to the ground staff boarding the flight. The less obviously intoxicated are more difficult to spot and might only be a problem on board. . .. .In this case the lawyer representing the accused (yes Flying Lawyer we do realise the lawyer wasn't actuallly there but is a mouthpiece for the accused) made a statement that I, Mr Tiger and others accept might or might not represent the true facts.. .. .If the statement made by the lawyer represented the true facts then work load or not the airline or / and its boarding agents must accept some blame.. .. .The story recounted by Flyblue is no doubt a common one, especially if the customer is a high yield revenue for the company. It can probably be replicated by many other PPRune members. All it does is to reinforce the original point made by Mr Tiger.. . . . [ 28 March 2002, 07:42: Message edited by: slj ]

HotDog

28th Mar 2002, 12:18

Duncan2;. .. . "he smoked in the toilet (an offence, but not one that endangered the aeroplane) and then for a short time he wouldn’t say where he put his cigarette (again foolish but not a crime)." . .. .Have you ever seen a fire in the trashcan of an aircraft toilet? I have, because I had to fire a bottle of extinguisher to put it out. I hope you or I are never on board in case of a cabin fire. This idiot fully desreves the punishment he got and if he is so drunk as to lose reason with an alcohol level of 0.2, he shouldn't be drinking at all.

flapsforty

28th Mar 2002, 13:43

Yes PaperTiger, your 2 sentences. .. ......... the CC knew he was smashed. What part of keep drunks off the plane don't they get ? . .. .and. .. .......... There is no point having these regs, or the airlines reiterating them in their CofC, if they are going to be routinely ignored. . .. . did rather lead me to believe that you doubted the professionalism of the "Cofffe Crew" involved. . .Perhaps I need to take some English lessons? <img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="wink.gif" /> . .. .As for your last post: <img src="http://www.stopstart.fsnet.co.uk/smilie/thumbs.gif" alt="" />

Check 6

28th Mar 2002, 20:54

People who drink to excess and then commit offenses MUST BE HELD RESPONSIBLE FOR THEIR ACTIONS, PERIOD!!. .. .Anyone who implies that the FA's are responsible in this case needs to wake up and smell the coffee.. .. .FA's have a strong vested interest in not letting intoxicated pax on their flights. This is a no brainer.. .. .I repeat, YOU DO THE CRIME, YOU DO THE TIME.. .. .Well said Flaps and Flyblue.. . . . [ 29 March 2002, 14:08: Message edited by: Check 6 ]

PaperTiger

28th Mar 2002, 21:48

It's true I have strong opinions on this which may have caused me to misplace the emphasis in my original comment. Is this better (same words, different bolding) ?. . <blockquote>quote:<hr />. .I rarely agree with defence lawyers. This time I do if as alleged, the CC knew he was smashed. What part of keep drunks off the plane don't they get ?<hr /></blockquote>

Duncan2

28th Mar 2002, 22:43

HotDog,. .. .When smoking is allowed on airliners (which is the case with many airlines of countries where smoking has not yet become politically incorrect), are smoking flights in considerably more danger than non-smoking flights as a result of smoking being allowed? To resolve our difference of opinion maybe we need the answer to the following question:. .. .Q “Why is smoking being prohibited with airlines in certain parts of the world?”. .. .Answer one: “For the same reason as elsewhere – because it is becoming unfashionable to smoke in certain parts of the world and smoking causes non-smokers (the majority in these parts of the world) discomfort”. .. .Or…... .. .Answer two: “Because it endangers flights and the lives of passengers”. .. .You seem to think the answer is A2, I think it is fairly obvious that the answer is A1.

Check 6

28th Mar 2002, 23:53

Duncan2 you miss the point. It is potentially dangerous to smoke in the lavs, because the culprits place their still smoldering cigarette butts in the trash container, starting a fire. DUH! <img border="0" title="" alt="[Frown]" src="frown.gif" /> <img border="0" title="" alt="[Frown]" src="frown.gif" /> <img border="0" title="" alt="[Frown]" src="frown.gif" /> <img border="0" title="" alt="[Frown]" src="frown.gif" />

No Mode Charlie

28th Mar 2002, 23:55

Duncan2,. .. .Ever done a CRM course? Ever seen the videos on IDIOTS who smoke in the lav. and chuck their cigarette in the bin where the rest of the pax just throw their papertowels. . .. .Lets go further back, ever been to school and if yes do you maybe vaguely remember physics? Come on, think hard, what happens when you put fire close to paper? <img border="0" title="" alt="[Confused]" src="confused.gif" /> IT BURNS YOU ***! . .. .Now next question: What do you do when you get a fire that you don't want? Good answer, you call the fire brigade! When is the last time you saw a fire truck with a ladder that went up to FL300? And if you did, could it drive along at 300knots? Answer: NO, have never seen one yet <img border="0" title="" alt="[Embarrassed]" src="redface.gif" /> Next question, what happens when planes burn? PEOPLE DIE. . .. .So I think you are wright dear duncan2, smoking is unfashionable must be the right answer <img border="0" title="" alt="[Embarrassed]" src="redface.gif" />. . . . [ 28 March 2002, 20:01: Message edited by: No Mode Charlie ]

Tom the Tenor

29th Mar 2002, 13:57

Flapsforty, your detailed post on Page 1 on how it is on your side of the flight deck door is at the same time informative as well as entertaining. I enjoyed reading it. Thank you.

Duncan2

29th Mar 2002, 15:15

No Mode Charlie,. .. .No I haven’t done a CRM course. I have been to school and I am aware that paper burns when you put fire close to it. The question we were trying to answer is . .. .Q “Why is smoking being prohibited with airlines in certain parts of the world?”. .. .Answer one: “For the same reason as elsewhere – because it is becoming unfashionable to smoke in certain parts of the world and smoking causes non-smokers (the majority in these parts of the world) discomfort”. .. .Or…... .. .Answer two: “Because it endangers flights and the lives of passengers”. .. .You argued that the answer was A2. Perhaps you had better send your warnings to the following airlines (to name but a few) which apparently allowed smoking on at least some of their flights in 2000 and as far as I am aware still do. . .. .Adria Airways . .Aero Costa Rica. .Aeroflot Russian International Airlines. .Aerolineas Argentinas. .Aeromexico. .Air Aruba. .Air Austral (Reunion Islands) . .Air California . .Air Holland now permits smoking on all CHARTER flights. .Air India permits smoking on EVERY flight. .Air Inter (France) allow smoking on their routes to Morocco and Tunisia only.. .Air Malta has a timetable of smoking/non-smoking flights available on request.. .Air Pacific permit smoking only on flights between Nadi, Fiji and Tokyo, Japan.. .Alitalia Airlines (Italian International Service). . .All Nippon Airways permits smoking on its Europe-to-Japan flights.. .American Airlines. Allegedly, American allows smoking on some flights to Mexico and S.A. . .Austrian Airlines permits smoking on its flights from the U.S. to Austria. .Olympic Airlines. .. .(From <a href="http://w3.one.net/~banks/airlines.htm#A)" target="_blank">http://w3.one.net/~banks/airlines.htm#A)</a>. .. .To further support my argument I quote the following:. .. .Aeroflot said Monday that smoking will be banned on all flights as of March, a decision that marks an abrupt turnabout for an airline that was just months ago fiercely defending smoking. "This decision is dictated by the wish of passengers to buy tickets for nonsmoking flights and also by global tendencies in service," Aeroflot said in a statement. Aeroflot intends to slap the ban on flights of less than five hours to 93 destinations as of Nov. 15 and make longer flights, such as those to the United States, smoke-free starting March 30.. .. .Middle East Airlines will ban smoking on all flights on May 31 in support of the national anti-smoking program organized by the Health Ministry and the World Health Organization. MEA issued a letter expressing its support for the program. ³We support your efforts for a healthy country,² said the letter, ³We are keen on making this day a success by our active and serious participation Š no smoking will be permitted on any of our flights on that day.² The letter also expressed its support for the programΉs efforts to reduce the risks caused by smoking as well as second-hand smoke. . .. .EMIRATES will introduce a total no-smoking policy on all its flights starting from August 1. The smoking ban includes both daily flights from Bahrain to the Dubai International Airport, the airlines hub. Chairman Shaikh Ahmed bin Saeed Al Maktoum said the decision was taken in response to customer requests and in-flight surveys. The overwhelming majority of our customers continue to indicate to us that they prefer no-smoking flights and I have now decided to change the companys long-standing smoking policy, he said. At present, the airline offers smoking seats on most flights but has introduced non-smoking flights in some sectors in response to passenger demand. These include Dubai-Manchester, some flights between Dubai and London Heathrow and flights between Dubai and Melbourne and Sydney, the airlines destinations in Australia. Arrival This policy will remain unchanged until July 31. All flights departing on July 31 from any point will offer smoking seats, even if their arrival times at destination fall on August 1. However, all flights departing after midnight on August 1 will be completely non-smoking.. .. .The last three quotes from <a href="http://www.tobacco.org/Resources/travel.html" target="_blank">http://www.tobacco.org/Resources/travel.html</a>. .. .Notice that none of these statements by airlines banning smoking mentions the aviation-safety implications of smoking, only the discomfort etc of other passengers.. .. .Do you still think the answer is ‘answer 2'?

flyblue

30th Mar 2002, 14:23

Alitalia completely banned smoking on its flights years ago.. .Air Inter doesn't exist any more: it merged with AF some years ago.. .Unreliable source!. .. .I believe that what you state is in fact true the opposite way: if some airlines still allow smoking on board it is only because of the commercial pressure, especially from Tour Operators.

No Mode Charlie

31st Mar 2002, 20:36

Hey Duncan2, to argue the point, Yes, I do!

Fair enough, there are an ever-reducing number of airlines that still allow smoking. On these airlines, pax. smoke in their seat and use an ashtray. Still not the best situation and not as safe as not smoking at all. There is however a BIG problem when people are on no smoking flights and insist that they are gonna smoke anyway. They start doing STUPID stuff, disabling smoke alarms, throwing ash in bins and trying to hide the evidence. That is STUPID, DANGEROUS and definitely an offence that endangers an aeroplane! Furthermore, being drunk on an aircraft is a crime, check the law books! I do agree that therefore the guy shouldn’t have been there, but he was and should serve his time. There seems to be a big following of people who are just trying to pass the blame. Nobody stopped him so therefore everybody who didn’t stop him is to blame? I don’t think so. He did it, He is being punished, serves him right. It’s a crime, if he doesn’t like the punishment then he should have refrained from drinking and smoking!

Now next question: Why would none of these airlines mention safety do we think. Because it would be bad PR? They can’t exactly admit that it has anything to do with safety because if it is then why didn’t they change it years ago?

HotDog

31st Mar 2002, 22:59

Duncan2, judging by the replies, I feel my point has been proven. You however don't seem to get the point at all. Like it has been said, smoking in the cabin with proper ashtrays provided, however unsociable that may be, is not a danger to flight, as you rightly point out. Smoking furtively in a toilet, blocking the smoke detector, disposing of your fag end in the trashcan is illegal and bloody dangerous. End of story!