Passenger accused of being drunk on plane [Archive]

davidjohnson6

23rd Jan 2010, 16:35

In this instance, if as the article states, the passenger in question made a bomb threat to crew, then it seems reasonable for the police to have been involved.

If on the other hand, a passenger is drunk but is sitting in their seat and not causing any particular disruption, it would seem a little harsh for them to be deboarded. I would guess that this kind of thing happens rather often - the business meeting over a very long lunch followed by a taxi to the airport to get the plane home (I've been there myself !)

I haven't read the Highway code in a long time, but seem to recall that walking on a pavement while drunk is technically an offence. As far as I'm aware, if the police see someone walking home while drunk shortly after pub closing time and there are no other factors involved, they usually don't see the need to get involved.

Two-Tone-Blue

23rd Jan 2010, 17:00

@ davidjohnson6 ... it has a lot more to do with safety, and the fact that the drunk could block exits in case of an emergency, I suspect.

Being a placid drunk slumped in his seat is one thing. Being a stumbling obstacle during an evacuation is different. ;)

Agaricus bisporus

23rd Jan 2010, 18:27

75. —(1) A person shall not enter any aircraft when drunk, or be drunk in any aircraft.

I cant see why or how there is any discussion about this. Any infraction of this is a criminal offence against the Air Navigation Order. End of.

As to "quiet drunks" how does anyone judge;
If/whether he will remain quiet?
If/whether he will continue to drink his own duty free supplies which cannot be controlled?
If/whether he will go doolally with the effects of altitude?
If/whether he will piss or vomit over those next to him?
etc etc etc.
Sober and well behaved passengers (and crew) should not be subjected to that sort of lottery. Ever.

No, get the drunken sot off to sober up un terra firma, and then he can buy another ticket when sober.

lexxity

23rd Jan 2010, 18:55

Emirates "bomb" threat (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8450391.stm)

This is the incident in question.

davidjohnson6

23rd Jan 2010, 19:19

Agaricus - I agree that the ANO is very clear on the question of drunkenness. The ANO is in itself pretty strict as to what it prohibits generally. I suspect that this is largely to ensure that the captain has some sort of legal backing when having to make a decision, so as to know he/she won't get sued subsequently. The ANO has the potential to be used as a legal catch-all when it is dubious whether a different charge would be upheld in court. An example of such a catch-all was Al Capone being imprisoned for tax evasion rather than his more reprehensible mafia activities

Just because law gives a person or organisation legal authority to do something, doesn't mean it is necessarily a sensible thing for a person to act in such a way. A recent example, was local councils using terrorism legislation to check whether a child enrolled at a school was living within the formal catchment area. The council was entirely within its rights to do this - but there was a signiciant area of public opinion that held this to be over-reacting. In the same way, the police could round up large numbers of people walking around a town just after pubs close and lock them up for being drunk on the pavement. Entirely within their rights, but the police would be heavily condemened for over-reacting if they were to do so.

I suspect that in December every year, there are plenty of people all over Eruope who as an office Xmas party, fly off somewhere short haul, have a long boozy lunch and then fly home at the end of the day. As captain, you can refuse them permission to board the plane if you should so choose and be entirely within your legal rights. Problem is what to do if those same passengers happen to hold platinum airline loyalty cards and each spend tens of thousands with your airline every year and are likely to be very unhappy if refused their flight home. How would the police at the airport react if the captain orders 20 tipsy travellers be arrested on the grounds of being tipsy in a plane, knowing full well the airline serves free alcohol to its passengers ? What would the marketing dept say to the chief pilot's office if a large number of complaints of this nature were received every December ?

No, get the drunken sot off to sober up un terra firma, and then he can buy another ticket when sober.
Is that really necessary ? Perhaps if someone is really drunk but not causing any other particular problem, ground staff could give the passenger a bottle of tap water and put them on waitlist for the next flight instead ?

My point is that a captain cannot operate in isolation. The ANO gives him/her legal backing to act, but also has to justify their actions within a company that exists to make a profit. And yes, there is a potential for conflict of interest

MerchantVenturer

23rd Jan 2010, 19:27

It's been a criminal offence in England and Wales (Scottish law is different to that of England and Wales but broadly similar in most cases) for generations to be found drunk on a highway, public place (can include a building) or licensed premises. The offence charged is 'found drunk', though often dealt with by way of caution or fixed penalty once sober, but the key thing for the police to take action is for the person to be incapable of looking after him/herself, hence the offence is usually called 'drunk and incapable'.

Police officers are often reluctant to arrest because there are many, many cases down the years of drunks dying in police cells either because they choked on vomit or had an underlying injury, often to the head, which was not apparent. Hospitals invariably won't take in people who are 'legless' so the unsatisfactory situation, for everyone, of the police cell being used as a refuge still obtains in many cases.

Typically, the police officer's evidence was, "I saw the defendant lying on the pavement. His eyes were glazed and his speech was slurred. His breath smelt strongly of intoxicating liquor. He was unable to stand without assistance."

If some-one was left lying on a pavement in such a condition and harm befell him, the police would be severely criticised and an officer could even find himself subject of a criminal offence. That's the dilemma that drunks can pose to law enforcement authorities.

There are other offences that people can commit whilst drunk in public such as behaving in a disorderly manner.

It's in no-one's interest for any person to be on an aircraft whilst drunk because such people's responses to the condition are so unpredictable, and can potentially involve danger to themselves and others, especially in an emergency situation.

Tigh Wire

23rd Jan 2010, 21:10

Airports & aircraft should be total alcohol free zones. Problem solved.

Final 3 Greens

23rd Jan 2010, 22:16

DavidJohnson6

A drunk person has no place on an aircraft.

I don't know if you have a pilot's licence, since you assert that the ANO is pretty strict generally, but if you do, you should understand the potential impact of the cabin altitude on the effects of alcohol.

As I suggested in an earlier thread, the way around this is to pull the airside passes of the people who let drunks on aircraft.

The message would soon get through.

Just because someone has a platinum FF card doesn't make them above the law.

Anyway, I can't remember the last time I saw a drunk in first or business, although no doubt there are some.

Final 3 Greens

23rd Jan 2010, 22:19

Tigh Wire

I disagree completely.

This is a ludicrous idea, the vast majority of people manage their alcohol consumption sensibly.

I am so fed up of people like you trying to punish the innocent for the actions of the guilty.

ryan14

23rd Jan 2010, 23:43

(2) A person shall not, when acting as a member of the crew of any aircraft or being carried in any aircraft for the purpose of so acting, be under the influence of drink or a drug to such an extent as to impair his capacity so to act.

So by impair his capacity so to act would mean someone who cannot walk, so you can't just take someone off the plane when they can walk without falling over etc.

The ANO doesn't say what the penalty for being drunk and not having the capacity to act is. If the police are taking that man to court then i guess it is a criminal penalty. Maybe a fine of $1000? Anyone know?

Final 3 Greens

23rd Jan 2010, 23:55

So by impair his capacity so to act would mean someone who cannot walk, so you can't just take someone off the plane when they can walk without falling over etc.

Oh yes they can.....

Use the SEARCH function on here for examples.

Ryan, do you mind me asking, is the '14' in your title your age? If so, I'll give you a bit more information about flying planes safely and alcohol.

Bullethead

24th Jan 2010, 01:00

G'day Ryan,

I think you'll find the particular quote you used,

(2) A person shall not, when acting as a member of the crew of any aircraft or being carried in any aircraft for the purpose of so acting, be under the influence of drink or a drug to such an extent as to impair his capacity so to act.

relates to crew members specifically.

I'm not sure whether the second part of the quote relates just to drugs or drugs and drink, it seems to imply that you can be a bit pissed/drugged but if you can act unimpaired it's OK which I find at odds with other parts of the regulations.

Regards,
BH.

Solar

24th Jan 2010, 02:27

I've been refused passage on a flight because the Capt thought I was too drunk to travel after the ground staff asked me if I wanted to travel on their earlier flight for which the gate was closed, this resulted in them "I presume" calling the aircraft saying there was one more passenger coming.
He obviously had got out of the bed on the wrong side, I can only hope that his flying observance and decision making were of a higher standard.
I had actually had two pints ten hours previously and had a reasonable kip on the previous seven hour flight.
After asking the FA how he had arrived at this conclusion and been given the official line "the capt thinks so" in full view of the passengers I retreated to the lounge and had a few pints while waiting on the next flight which was on the competition.
The ground staff were as mystified as I was annoyed.
The romance of flight.

Ten West

24th Jan 2010, 03:38

Airports & aircraft should be total alcohol free zones. Problem solved.

Agree with you 100%. :ok:

If I can manage without a cigarette from enetring the terminal in one country to exiting at another I'm damn sure people can manage without alcohol.

It'll never happen though as there's too much money to be made by retaining the status quo. :rolleyes:

davidjohnson6

24th Jan 2010, 03:58

If I can manage without a cigarette from enetring the terminal in one country to exiting at another I'm damn sure people can manage without alcohol.Have you considered the possibility that the reason Singapore Air spends US$8 million per year on champagne and fine wine for its premium passengers, is because some passengers rather enjoy alcohol ? Orange juice made from concentrate just doesn't have the same aura as Dom Perignon !

Singapore Airlines Singapore Air keeps champagne budget to win first-class fliers - eTurboNews.com (http://www.eturbonews.com/13078/singapore-air-keeps-champagne-budget-win-first-class-fliers)

ZFT

24th Jan 2010, 04:16

Ten West,

If I can manage without a cigarette from enetring the terminal in one country to exiting at another I'm damn sure people can manage without alcohol.

Good for you but why should I?

Ten West

24th Jan 2010, 05:28

The same argument applies. I can't smoke on an aircraft because the effects of my disgusting habit will affect the safety and comfort of those around me. Fair call.

Drunks affect the safety and comfort of those around them as a result of their dependance on alcohol.

I "enjoy fine wines" too, but there's a time and a place for it, and inside a metal tube at 35,000ft and 500mph isn't one of them in my opinion.

What's the answer then? Breathalyse them at check-in and only permit boarding if they're below a certain level of intoxication? :confused:

Anyway, the financial argument will win out as it always does, so there's little point in me continuing to stick my two cents in. ;)

Final 3 Greens

24th Jan 2010, 07:19

The same argument applies. I can't smoke on an aircraft because the effects of my disgusting habit will affect the safety and comfort of those around me. Fair call.

Illogical argument.

Fact: being drunk is not the same as being alcoholic - alcoholics are drink dependent.

Fact: measuring alcohol content in the breath is not measuring intoxication, it is measuring against an allowable limit.

Smoking in a confined space causes passive smoking for others.

People drinking a glass of wine or two in a confined space has no effect on others.

People drunk on aircraft are committing a crime, therefore punish the minority, not the law abiding majority. Also sanction people who let drunks onto aircraft.

You sound as it you also need medical attention to remove that sliver of wood that is lodged in your upper body.

lowcostdolly

24th Jan 2010, 12:57

Hi Ryan The penalty for being drink on an aircraft is severe if a case is proved in court. A maximum fine of £5000 and/or 2 years in prison in the UK. That relates to the first part of the ANO. This would also apply to a crew member and on top of that we would loose our job and Pilot's would loose their licence

With regard to your question re Part 2 also picked up by Bullethead. Crew being able to walk in a straight line is not indicitive of our fitness to operate!! We are not allowed to be a "bit pissed or a bit drugged" despite what you may see on Mile High or read in Air Babylon :eek:

Drugs (the illegal kind) are a complete no go area. If we are on prescribed medication of any kind we have to flag this up to our medical dept who will decide whether we are fit to fly.

With regard to alchohol we can fly with a limit of 0.2mgs/ml. That is a quater of the drink drive limit. In addition we are not allowed to drink for a minimum number of hours before operating so the chances of us reaching this miniscule level are remote. We are also not allowed to drink on standby's and positioning flights.

Back to pax being drunk F3G makes a very interesting point stating he has never seen a drunk in business or first but still thinks there are some.

As crew we have no way of knowing if we have drunks on board until they cause a problem and that is in whatever class. Even in the rowdiest of stag parties there is usually one of them who is sober enough to know if they don't tone it down on boarding they won't fly.

I have a very simple approach to problems on the ground......they stay on the ground if either the ground staff or crew can identify them!

Unfortunatly if they don't show themselves until the cruise then it can become a real issue for everyone. Don't really know what the answer is on that one?

Nicholas49

24th Jan 2010, 13:32

Solar - your account does not make sense.

You say you were moved to an earlier flight. The captain was asked to wait for you. Then once onboard the cabin crew told you he thought you were drunk.

Sorry, have I missed something here? You must have done or said something to someone in this chain of events for him to reach the decision that you were to be kicked off the flight!

Ten West

24th Jan 2010, 23:30

...You sound as it you also need medical attention to remove that sliver of wood that is lodged in your upper body.

I feel quite strongly about it because it's a problem that directly affects my work in terms of diversions, delays, etc. I just can't for the life of me see why someone "Must" have an alcoholic drink during or immediately prior to their flight. It's only a few hours for ****'s sake!
We don't let our crew members fly with even a tiny amount of alcohol in their systems for safety reasons. What makes pax any different? If anything, a drunk crew member will be able to find their way out of a burning airframe easier than a drunk pax due to their familiarity with their surroundings.

Anyway, I should have known better than to attempt to engage in a debate on so thorny a subject because it will always degenerate into personal digs (as the above quote so ably demonstrates)

I'm off now to have that sliver of wood removed. ;)

G'Night all.

davidjohnson6

25th Jan 2010, 00:01

What makes pax any different?

Pax are the ones who are paying the salaries, while crew are being paid salaries

smudgiebottom

25th Jan 2010, 00:31

Pax are the ones who are paying the salaries, while crew are being paid salaries

Someone's trolling for a fight with a statement like that. Good grief, then let's just let pax do whatever they like... :ugh:

Please, let's just see sense and say that ideally, it would be nice (but never going to happen) if there was a way of ensuring that the blood alcohol levels of all boarding pax is limited to .02, and then crew can confidently serve a limit of x servings of alcohol per hour of flight, so as to ensure the flight remains safe for the entire length of the flight.

Too many times I've returned from mining areas and pax around me have gone berserk ordering repeat drinks to end up completely obliterated by the time they arrive.

I like a drink, but don't see the need to get hammered on a flight. The smoking argument is fair enough because when left in the control of pax, it DOES affect my enjoyment of the flight when I'm getting shouted at etc...

Matt

davidjohnson6

25th Jan 2010, 01:15

smudgie - perhaps I could have worded my last post a little better - didn't mean to wind you up.

Because passengers are paying rather than being paid for the duration of a flight, there will be an expectation that passengers have a greater degree of freedom in what they do compared to crew. An example being able to snooze whenever they like - whereas crew are generally encouraged to be awake for the duration of the time the aluminium tube is in the air.

Many airline marketing departments have in the past employed an advertising strategy which implicitly promises free alcohol to all passengers - the bit about 'we won't serve booze if we think you're drunk' has tended not be advertised at a pre-sales stage that much. Thus pax in all but the cheapest of seats have this expectation of getting free booze. I can't recall a safety demonstration ever saying 'Please try to stay sober enough that you would be able to use the emergency oxygen mask if you had to'

Yes, there are bounds beyond which passengers should not go. However, in my opinion, airlines also need to hold back a bit from using the offer of on-board alcohol as a marketing tool to sell tickets if drunkenness is viewed as a problem.

beebob2uk

25th Jan 2010, 09:46

Personally I do on occasion require a G&T on a plane just to calm my nerves as I can be a nervous flyer at times. I have no intention of drinking excessively, I would just have 1 in the airport before boarding and maybe another 1 during flight if required. I appreciate that smokers need cigarettes to calm their nerves, but unfortunately to offer the ability to smoke without disturbing any other customers is a lot more difficult than to offer the ability to have a calming drink. I would be more than happy to pay for a G&T on the flight if that would stop people from getting drunk on the plane, I don't particularly see any reason why alcohol should be provided for free in economy class if it's going to lead to problems with drunks.

HKPAX

25th Jan 2010, 12:20

I don't think economy pax have a monopoly on misbehaviour beebob2uk, but I do take your point. The way "having a few beers" is handled makes a big difference. I recall when I was on DragonDare back from Beijing after a hefty day's work I woz sinking more than a a few (business class) ales down, and when ordering another the hostie asked me with a bright smile and outstretched hand "how many fingers are there". Her point was made, I got my beer, but I didn't ask for any more. Very professional. Maybe down the back of the cabin they can't keep count.....

419

25th Jan 2010, 18:48

Airports & aircraft should be total alcohol free zones. Problem solved

Why stop at airports and aircraft?
Totally ban alcohol in the UK and you would stop all the drunk drivers, all the alcohol related injuries and deaths and the crime statistics would fall dramatically.

Or there is another option.
Simply use the existing laws and regulations already in place and refuse boarding to anyone who is or appears to be drunk, or if someone is found to be drunk when on board, prosecute them at a later date.

I fly a great deal, and when doing so I enjoy the odd beer or glass (or two) of wine. Why should I be forced to give this up simply because of a tiny percentage of pax who don't know when to stop.

manintheback

25th Jan 2010, 21:56

Drunks affect the safety and comfort of those around them as a result of their dependance on alcohol.

I "enjoy fine wines" too, but there's a time and a place for it, and inside a metal tube at 35,000ft and 500mph isn't one of them in my opinion.

Cant think of a better time and place to relax than 35000ft and a glass of fine wine. Well remember several glasses or more of fizzy at around 58,000ft on a certain pointy nose aircraft

You will find the problem person well lubed before they ever get on the plane

But in the period of my life where I flew over 100 times a year for around 5 years only once did I see someones behaviour should we say be somewhat worse for wear due to being under the influence - and a very well known person too.

Load Toad

25th Jan 2010, 22:17

Drunk on a 'plane?

I must have achieved that hundreds of times. Then again - once drunk I tend to fall into blissfull sleep so I don't bother anyone.

Chill out Ten West - pax are supposed to actually enjoy flying not be restrained and treated like Guantanamo inmates. If you want to refrain from alcohol that's up to you but don't force your uncivilized practices on the rest of us.

With regard passengers drinking and becoming abusive or such. Simple. Ban 'em. Any costs - charge 'em.

Solar

25th Jan 2010, 23:21

Nicolas49

Sorry if what I posted is unclear hopefully I can clear this up.

The flights in question were quite some time ago and were from LHR to BFS which you may remember were equally shared between the two predominate British airlines. These flights departed on alternate hours from the then Belfast lounge.

I arrived in the lounge at what I thought slightly too late for the earlier flight but as I was passing the check in desks the ground staff from the other airline (earlier flight) asked if I was going to Belfast (which was slightly ironic as that was the only destination from that lounge at that time) and would I like to go on their flight, I replied in the affirmative. After the usual examination of my ticket and questions about checked in luggage of which I had none they issued a boarding card.
Whilst this was going on another ground staff member was on the handheld radio to the aircraft appraising them of the situation ticket.

They then left me to walk across the apron to the aircraft which was about 50 yards away. This was in full view of the cockpit so I assume that the captain observed me walking across to the stairway and made the assumption that I was drunk based on the following.

I was late. I wasn’t but did he know why.
I was wearing only a tee shirt in the middle of January and it was fairly cold. I never carry a coat when traveling if I can help it.
I was unshaven. Having been traveling for 20/24 hours this would be fairly normal.
The fact that it was a Belfast flight may also be an influence with some of the preconceived notions there are about the Irish social habits.

I arrived at the top of the steps and the seating layout was such that there was no bulkhead on the aft side of the door so you are in full view of the assembled passengers when you step in the doorway. The cockpit door was open (You remember the good old days).and both pilots were looking into the passenger compartment.
I was in the process of showing the boarding card to the FA when she said the captain thinks you are too drunk to travel. As you can imagine I was somewhat taken aback and asked just how did he arrive at that conclusion? Her reply was something along the lines the captain thinks it so that’s that. I could see that I was getting nowhere particularly as the captain and first officer were listening to the exchange and offering no explanation or any help to the FA which I thought was somewhat cowardly. I know all the reasons for the flight crew not getting into arguments but this was on the ground. So as I was in no particular hurry anyway I told the captain (over the FA’s shoulder) that he was wrong and then went back to the terminal.

I have a lot of friends who are commercial pilots and I can’t think on any of them that would act in this way, if they did I doubt they would be friends of mine.

The captain was wrong for whatever reasons.

etrang

28th Jan 2010, 11:18

Does the ANO define the term "drunk"? If, for example they used the legal limit for driving in the UK, it would be quite possible to walk on the plane sober and by drinking only the drinks offered by the airline become drunk within a couple of hours.

lowcostdolly

1st Feb 2010, 14:17

etrang I think the ANO in the UK does indeed refer to our drink drive limit. I'm not sure re other countries but I would assume the same re their drink drive limits. The ANO's form part of the Tokyo Convention 1963 and around 170 contries have signed up to this.

Would you believe that as CC we are trained that we are not allowed to say somebody is "drunk" even if they plainly are. Only a doctor or a police officer can state this folllowing the relevant breathe/blood tests.

The police are generally called to the aircraft because we have behaviour likely to endanger an aircraft or person therein... Article 73. Quite often you can add in Article 77 to this regarding the Commanders authority. However at this stage we can only say we suspect drink is the underlying cause.

Once said yobs get carted off it is likely that they could be charged under all three sections of the ANO if they prove positive to tests.

I agree with your point below which is precisely why you are only allowed to drink airline alcohol not your own so we can monitor consumption and behaviour.

Of course responsibility works two ways. Some people are more suseptible to the affects of alcohol than others especially at altitude. If pax feel the affects of this they could always get a non alcoholic drink instead :ok:

It's not compulsery to drink everything the airline offers ;)