Another Disruptive Passenger

[Herod]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-essex-48732642

Only a few thousand pounds of the defence budget gone.

[XV490]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-essex-48732642

Only a few thousand pounds of the defence budget gone.

A few? A hundred grand at least, surely? Plus a tanker reportedly involved. Makes my blood pressure soar well above its already unhealthy average level.

[PerPurumTonantes]

A few? A hundred grand at least, surely? Plus a tanker reportedly involved. Makes my blood pressure soar well above its already unhealthy average level.
You'd hope that if they weren't doing that, they'd be doing other great training exercises. So maybe net cost to uk defence budget negligible.

With you on the blood pressure though. Cost to everyone on the flight, wasted fuel, f/a stress of dealing with worse than the usual class of idiot.

Military escort suggests security issue, so perhaps stress to all pax and crew as well thinking that they might not make it home.

[wiggy]

You'd hope that if they weren't doing that, they'd be doing other great training exercises. So maybe net cost to uk defence budget negligible..

Best guess is you're probably right..if it is now as it was "back in the day" the crew ( ground and aircrew) would have been in the Q shed anyway, and they can possibly put ticks in a few training boxes and also get a few hours in towards the Wing Commander's DFC :ok: as a result of the scramble so I reckon the overall cost would be pretty small.

That said I'm still all for throwing the book and bookcase at the disruptive passenger.

[flybar]

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/9353607/jet2-flight-stansted-raf-fighter-jet-terror-hijack/

The Good Old British Press has now moved to hijack mode!!
When the Daily M--l gets it all passengers will have been doomed!

Appears to have been the Titan Airways A321 currently with Jet2

[PerPurumTonantes]

That said I'm still all for throwing the book and bookcase at the disruptive passenger.
They rarely seem to get the book thrown at them never mind the full bookcase, unfortunately. Does anyone know if the operators share a no-fly list of these tw#ts?

[Thaihawk]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-essex-48732642

Only a few thousand pounds of the defence budget gone.

.. Which if we had a government with cojones would be removed from the offending passenger's bank account or retrieved through asset confiscation forthwith.

[Herod]

"Why me? Why me?" Aw, poor diddums

[XV490]

There was a time when the Royal Air Force scrambled fighters to face real foes, not flying busloads of scr0tes.

Maybe I'll have calmed down in the morning, but I doubt it. I have visions of the culprit eventually dining out on her notoriety. 😬

[_drjim_]

Hello all long time lurker on the forum and nervous SLF rather than professional aviator. Work as A&E Doctor and have CRM type interests...

Can anyone explain why a fighter jet helps deal with an unruly passenger - according to daily mail she was restrained by 6 other passengers/crew, pictures show a smallish Lady on the floor. What does a fighter jet do to help?

[marchino61]

Hello all long time lurker on the forum and nervous SLF rather than professional aviator. Work as A&E Doctor and have CRM type interests...

Can anyone explain why a fighter jet helps deal with an unruly passenger - according to daily mail she was restrained by 6 other passengers/crew, pictures show a smallish Lady on the floor. What does a fighter jet do to help?

I believe they will shoot down the aircraft if it is judged to be a danger to people on the ground.

[PastTense]

I believe they will shoot down the aircraft if it is judged to be a danger to people on the ground.
Thus everyone on the plane ending up dead--so it's not obvious to me why a pilot would request this--unless it was something like a terrorist with a bomb...

[MENELAUS]

Hello all long time lurker on the forum and nervous SLF rather than professional aviator. Work as A&E Doctor and have CRM type interests...

Can anyone explain why a fighter jet helps deal with an unruly passenger - according to daily mail she was restrained by 6 other passengers/crew, pictures show a smallish Lady on the floor. What does a fighter jet do to help?

it doesn’t frankly. And more likely a government reaction. During 9/11 we were met by National Guard aircraft and escorted to Fairbanks AK. Which did nothing other than put the sh@ts up the pax. I’m pretty sure they’d have splashed us if we’d deviated in the slightest from their instructions. For good reason on that occasion. Can’t see how it helped with this other than peeing away more of the budget. ‘N

[rjtjrt]

Hello all long time lurker on the forum and nervous SLF rather than professional aviator. Work as A&E Doctor and have CRM type interests...

Can anyone explain why a fighter jet helps deal with an unruly passenger - according to daily mail she was restrained by 6 other passengers/crew, pictures show a smallish Lady on the floor. What does a fighter jet do to help?

Because they need to be sure it is not an attempt to hijack aircraft, rather than just an unruly passenger.
ATC were not to know the exact situation in cabin.
One report said pilot in radio message said “cockpit secure”, which presumably rather than reassure ATC made them feel cockpit breach had been attempted. Further reports say passenger rushed at cockpit door before restrained.
Not saying she attempted to hijack, but ATC are playing it safe.

[Final 3 Greens]

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/jet2-stansted-raf-jets-sonic-boom-typhoon-qra-a8970716.htm (https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/jet2-stansted-raf-jets-sonic-boom-typhoon-qra-a8970716.html)

Genuine question from a pax - how does a fighter escort help resolve a disruptive passenger situation?

[3Greens]

The security services on the ground don’t necessarily know that it’s just some chav whos had too much too drink.
They may well have to assume it’s an attempt at a breach of the flight deck, and since 9/11, do you really need it spelling out as to why the typhoons are there?

[rog747]

What is it with all these diversions for disruptive pax - ?
It's daily!!
Not just on flights to/from UK but it seems to be occurring all over.

In my aviation career from almost 50 years ago we never had one diversion for any such behaviour - Such pax would never have got to the aircraft door in my day, or if they got messy on board then the no. 1 CC held short shift with anyone misbehaving...

And I think we experienced maybe one medical diversion in all that time - now that too is a daily occurrence with sick pax

[Tay Cough]

Can anyone explain why a fighter jet helps deal with an unruly passenger - according to daily mail she was restrained by 6 other passengers/crew, pictures show a smallish Lady on the floor. What does a fighter jet do to help?

Kill it if it becomes a threat to people on the ground. It probably won’t but history suggests it could.

[beamer]

I'm guessing that the RAF wanted an excuse to test out their reaction time and had a word with air traffic for a heads up next time there was a minor incident such as yesterday,

I used to rely on gate staff, handling agents and cabin crew to screen these idiots from boarding. If there was any doubt then they would not be carried on my aircraft. Problem lies in the availability of booze 24/7 allied to the fact that the first thing the airlines do is offer passengers alcohol regardless of the time of day. I never had to divert for unruly pax but on numerous occasions I made sure that they were met with friendly local police whose modus operandi may not have been quite as politically correct as in the UK !

[Final 3 Greens]

The security services on the ground don’t necessarily know that it’s just some chav whos had too much too drink.
They may well have to assume it’s an attempt at a breach of the flight deck, and since 9/11, do you really need it spelling out as to why the typhoons are there?

Are you arguing that a disruptive passenger, acting alone, is going to be able to breach the reinforced flight deck door and gain access? Sorry, I don't buy that.

[Final 3 Greens]

I'm guessing that the RAF wanted an excuse to test out their reaction time and had a word with air traffic for a heads up next time there was a minor incident such as yesterday,

That sounds plausible, thanks for responding.

[Blackfriar]

I would rather the RAF were standing by to shoot it down and not needed than vice versa and it ends up in the City in a smoking hole. You don't know what was said and people quickly made the decision to be better safe than sorry.

[302szd55]

These occurences seem to come in waves. Back in the 90's I was involved in "having a word" with 2 idiots aggresively intimidating young female CC on 2 entirely separate flights. On both occasions alcohol was involved and after myself and other agrieved passengers explained that their behaviour was unacceptible and liable to end badly for them, they calmed down and there was no further problem. In the same decade I also witnessed a brawl between several scumbags, again fueled by alcohol, on a flight in the US. Since then, despite having made more flights than I care to mention, I have seen no real trouble at all.

[Out Of Trim]

Are you arguing that a disruptive passenger, acting alone, is going to be able to breach the reinforced flight deck door and gain access? Sorry, I don't buy that.

How do you predict that it might be just a lone disruptive passenger?

They might well be a part of a ploy to divert attention whilst others combine to take control of the aircraft.

I'm glad the RAF remains ready and able to deploy so quickly to defeat any such attempt to try a 9/11 type event in the UK. :D

[Hotel Tango]

How do you predict that it might be just a lone disruptive passenger?

They might well be a part of a ploy to divert attention whilst others combine to take control of the aircraft.

Exactly! And ATC have set procedures to follow in such and similar events.

[SMT Member]

The real question is as follows: Are the airlines and airports really intersted in doing something about this, or are they merely whinging at the front door whilst quietly counting the money in a back room? I have more than a sneaking suspicion it's the latter, in which case they may safely stuff their complaints where the sun doesn't shine.

If they were truly intended on rooting out this kind of behaviour, a few actions would have it stopped by tomorrow. They could start by breathalysing every single passenger, and if they blow more than x% they're off-loaded. Likewise, they could ban the sale and consumption of alcohol onboard; duty free bought onboard could be delivered at the very end of the trip, and passengers would not be allowed to bring any alcohol onboard they purchased on the ground.

But, as initially stated, that would interfere with their first, second and last priority: Making money.

[groundbum]

Airlines could change their contract with the ground agent so ground agent pays any costs related to a passenger they've boarded. Simples.

G

[etrang]

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/jet2-stansted-raf-jets-sonic-boom-typhoon-qra-a8970716.htm (https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/jet2-stansted-raf-jets-sonic-boom-typhoon-qra-a8970716.html)

Genuine question from a pax - how does a fighter escort help resolve a disruptive passenger situation?

It doesn't. But in a worst case scenario they can shoot the plane down. They can also monitor and provide independent reports of the aircraft activity. It also provides a good training exercise.

[Johnny F@rt Pants]

If they were truly intended on rooting out this kind of behaviour, a few actions would have it stopped by tomorrow. They could start by breathalysing every single passenger, and if they blow more than x% they're off-loaded. Likewise, they could ban the sale and consumption of alcohol onboard; duty free bought onboard could be delivered at the very end of the trip, and passengers would not be allowed to bring any alcohol onboard they purchased on the ground.


The airline involved here do much of what you have suggested. There isn’t time to breathalyse every single passenger, but facilities are available and have been used to breathalyse people suspected of being inebriated and they have been then prevented from flying. Sales of alcohol are restricted to a set time of the day, still early mind, and are monitored and restricted by the Cabin Crew (or should be, they are taught to do so). The airline has also been instrumental in some airports sealing duty free sales in tamper proof bags to try to eliminate people drinking this, not a perfect solution, but every little helps. It would be down to the airport to instigate a delivery service to the aeroplane like in the US, and there seems to be a reluctance to go down that route.

The airline involved here also prosecutes these imbeciles, and delivers the bill to them for the expense incurred. I’m sure this lady (if you can call her that) will end up in prison after this event, she won’t be the first that this airline has pursued and seen sentenced:D:D

[Out Of Trim]

Airlines could change their contract with the ground agent so ground agent pays any costs related to a passenger they've boarded. Simples.

G

Not quite so simple!

Ground agents are not bouncers. Some pax can seem fine passing through the gate but then kick off once on board. It's not always so obvious as to who should be denied boarding and would often require the Police in attendance to sort out those that then kick off at the gate! Who has the power to decide? :sad:

[etrang]

According to other pax on this flight she appeared perfectly normal until after take-off. Then she just went crazy, not drunk, just crazy.

[Final 3 Greens]

How do you predict that it might be just a lone disruptive passenger?

They might well be a part of a ploy to divert attention whilst others combine to take control of the aircraft.

I'm glad the RAF remains ready and able to deploy so quickly to defeat any such attempt to try a 9/11 type event in the UK. :D

Does it really matter if it is one or more people? It's not 2001, any longer. Procedures have changed and the access to the flight deck that the 9/11 criminals got has evaporated, reinforced doors, cameras, etc., to say nothing of the action by other pax.

I'm grateful for the efforts of all of our armed forces, they do a great job.

[barry lloyd]

What I find ridiculous in all this is that the media are not concentrating on the perpetrator or the potential conequences, rather on a big bang in Essex and associated counties, but then I suppose the same media are threatening world war at every opportunity, so perhaps it's not surprising after all when people hear a sonic boom these days.
The person concerned will be brought before the magistrates tomorrow (UK time) and doubtless will later have a plea of mitigation. Probably a poor childhood/just lost her job and/or boyfriend, or her favourite was voted off Love Island. These people make me sick.

[Shandy52]

The person concerned will be brought before the magistrates tomorrow (UK time) and doubtless will later have a plea of mitigation. Probably a poor childhood/just lost her job and/or boyfriend, or her favourite was voted off Love Island. These people make me sick.

Or just possibly she requires psychiatric treatment. We shall have to wait and see.

[SMT Member]

Airlines could change their contract with the ground agent so ground agent pays any costs related to a passenger they've boarded. Simples.

G

Good luck finding a handling agent willing to sign for that!

Besides, any lawyer worth their salt could easily make a case the buck stops at the door, and as the passengers walks onboard any further responsibility is on the airline.

[BEagle]

Or just possibly she requires psychiatric treatment. We shall have to wait and see.

The first sensible comment on this thread!

Allow airline terminal security goons to bully passengers who have to queue for ages (as at that dump known as Stansted), then cram them in to 30in pitch seats and if they suffer from a fear of flying or claustrophobia, some might well 'flip' and behave irrationally, particularly if they've had even half a wine gum after reaching the departure gate area.

Economy airline travel is a pretty stressful experience these days - although the behaviour of some passengers, such as the Vicky Pollard clones I saw waddling off to some flight from BHX to Oybeefa for a hen party the other week, is pretty disgusting.

[Capt Pit Bull]

You can't figure this out?

In case the initial report of a disruptive passenger turns out to be a terrorist attempt at a suicide hijacking 9-11 style.

[DaveReidUK]

The airline involved here do much of what you have suggested.

Are you referring to Titan, whose aircraft and (presumably) crew operated the flight, or Jet2, whose flight it was ?

[Airbanda]

Are you referring to Titan, whose aircraft and (presumably) crew operated the flight, or Jet2, whose flight it was ?

I think Jet 2 have a reputation for responding robustly to these sort of cases. I doubt fact that operation of this flight was subbed out to Titan makes any difference. Do Titan provide the CC or are they Jet 2.

[Joe_K]

What I find ridiculous in all this is that the media are not concentrating on the perpetrator or the potential conequences, rather on a big bang in Essex and associated counties

Seriously? From a journalism point of view that's what the story is: people in Essex and Cambridgeshire heard a loud bang and rang the police to complain. Just like they always complain when they hear a "sonic boom". People will undoubtedly be disappointed to read that the fighters were scrambled over a real security concern, if it was training they would be able to complain more. IIRC there was even a compensation claim filed with the MOD when they intercepted an Easyjet flight back in 2017, allegedly damage to a roof and windows. It seems to be a major preoccupation these days, complaining and claiming compensation...

[Lantern10]

The real question is as follows: Are the airlines and airports really intersted in doing something about this, or are they merely whinging at the front door whilst quietly counting the money in a back room? I have more than a sneaking suspicion it's the latter, in which case they may safely stuff their complaints where the sun doesn't shine.

If they were truly intended on rooting out this kind of behaviour, a few actions would have it stopped by tomorrow. They could start by breathalysing every single passenger, and if they blow more than x% they're off-loaded. Likewise, they could ban the sale and consumption of alcohol onboard; duty free bought onboard could be delivered at the very end of the trip, and passengers would not be allowed to bring any alcohol onboard they purchased on the ground.

But, as initially stated, that would interfere with their first, second and last priority: Making money.


Typical, punish everyone who likes a drink because of the actions of the few who can't hold it.

[homonculus]

Can someone explain to an ignorant rotary pilot, not used to a reinforced security door, how this disruption might have escalated to an intercept?
Presumably the pilots would have either been totally unaware, or they would have had a bang on the door, or they would have had an update from the CC.
Why would any of these circumstances lead them to believe there was a risk of loss of command? What might a professional crew state over the RT to lead to this?
Even if the woman was some dastardly diversion for a band of true hijackers - and the reason for a diversion escapes me - the door would have been secure and they would have subsequently learned of the escalation and be able to use RT and transponder....
Are we really letting the terrorists win by what appears at least to be an over reaction every time there is a bang on the door or the CC say a woman is being disruptive?
Straight questions looking for a straight answer please

[racedo]

Attempted breach of cockpit, pilot flags to ATC, ATC flags as IMMEDIATE security issue, RAF respond, Pilot flags cockpit secure which is exactly what someone holding a gun to someone's head would suggest you say. RAF jets escort plane into airport keeping a close eye that it doesn't speed up and head for London or elsewhere.

Over reaction ...........50-50 but it sends a message we will react first and think about it later.

[langleybaston]

Typical, punish everyone who likes a drink because of the actions of the few who can't hold it.

I like a drink but I can and do go without in situations where I feel vulnerable.

Sitting at 40,000 ft in a thin tube held up courtesy of anti-Newtons is vulnerable.

A swift couple on landing.

[deja vu]

You'd hope that if they weren't doing that, they'd be doing other great training exercises. So maybe net cost to uk defence budget negligible.

With you on the blood pressure though. Cost to everyone on the flight, wasted fuel, f/a stress of dealing with worse than the usual class of idiot.

Military escort suggests security issue, so perhaps stress to all pax and crew as well thinking that they might not make it home.

Not to drift too far, this talk about the cost to the military budget reminds me of the SAR of the late lone yachtsman, Tony Ballimore, deep in the Southern Ocean back a few years ago now. So much was made of the cost to the Australian taxpayer by the malevolent local press as they described him just another despised rich type living out his fantasies and risking the lives of our "boys".

It was a fantastic effort by the RAAF and the RAN and priceless experience for all involved. The truth is that all costs involved would have been spent on mind numbing training flights in any case. It made most Australians proud to see Tony come out of his overturned yacht and embrace his rescuers.

[Load Toad]

It doesn't. But in a worst case scenario they can shoot the plane down. They can also monitor and provide independent reports of the aircraft activity. It also provides a good training exercise.
- I just don't get the whole 'shoot it down' scenario - you kill everyone on board and anyone that gets hit by falling debris.

That's just nuts.

[sixchannel]

Seriously? From a journalism point of view that's what the story is: people in Essex and Cambridgeshire heard a loud bang and rang the police to complain. Just like they always complain when they hear a "sonic boom". People will undoubtedly be disappointed to read that the fighters were scrambled over a real security concern, if it was training they would be able to complain more. IIRC there was even a compensation claim filed with the MOD when they intercepted an Easyjet flight back in 2017, allegedly damage to a roof and windows. It seems to be a major preoccupation these days, complaining and claiming compensation...
Be careful then what you import from the USA. Ambulance Chasing is Big Business there. And here now.
"I wan Compo!!!"

[Flying Wild]

Can someone explain to an ignorant rotary pilot, not used to a reinforced security door, how this disruption might have escalated to an intercept?
Presumably the pilots would have either been totally unaware, or they would have had a bang on the door, or they would have had an update from the CC.
Why would any of these circumstances lead them to believe there was a risk of loss of command? What might a professional crew state over the RT to lead to this?

A professional crew would inform ATC of the facts. It's not about them believing there was a risk of loss of command, it's to do with someone trying to get in the door.

ICAO Disruptive Passenger levels
Level 1 — Disruptive behavior (verbal);
Level 2 — Physically abusive behavior;
Level 3 — Life-threatening behavior (or display of a weapon);
Level 4 — Attempted or actual breach of the flight crew compartment.

In this situation, I'm sure that ATC have a SOP which is put into play. The response that is mobilised isn't down to the crew.

[Flying Wild]

- I just don't get the whole 'shoot it down' scenario - you kill everyone on board and anyone that gets hit by falling debris.

That's just nuts.

It's that unfortunate situation of needs of the many vs needs of the few. What's 220ish pax, plus a handful on the ground, vs thousands in a built up area? It's a tough call to make, but that is the sad reality of today. Nobody wants another 9/11 scenario.

[Pali]

We had also sonic booms yesterday in Slovakia, some Italian Airbus bound to Charkov went out of comm with ATC and two Mig-29s intercepted her and escorted to Ukraine borders. No disruptive passenger though, I just wonder if the costs would be reimbursed to the airline.

[racedo]

We had also sonic booms yesterday in Slovakia, some Italian Airbus bound to Charkov went out of comm with ATC and two Mig-29s intercepted her and escorted to Ukraine borders. No disruptive passenger though, I just wonder if the costs would be reimbursed to the airline.

Pilots get to break Mach 1, they will not be complaining.

[Rwy in Sight]

Good luck finding a handling agent willing to sign for that!

Besides, any lawyer worth their salt could easily make a case the buck stops at the door, and as the passengers walks onboard any further responsibility is on the airline.

You will find plenty but they will add a clause that they can ban from flight any pax they don't like and all costs and issues created will be met by the airline.

Lantern10 nice point

[homonculus]

Thanks Racedo and flying Wild

You both refer to an attempted breach of the cockpit and I suspect nobody would argue with this were there repeated attempts to break down the door and or loss of communication with the cc. However one young lady who may have been inebriated or have mental health issues and who was restrained by passengers really doesnt constitute an attempted breach. The analogy is the drunk woman in Guildford high street who, faced with a handful of police states she is going to kill the lot of them. Their response is quite different than if a man with a gun who isnt drunk makes the same threat.

I fully appreciate that there is a need to 'play safe' but the door isnt going to give in with a couple of thumps even if the person on the other side is a six foot male. There was presumably contact with the cc at the back. Have we really got to the stage where each and every passenger disruption leads to this? What really made this different from every other Stansted flight with unruly drunks?

[racedo]

Thanks Racedo and flying Wild

You both refer to an attempted breach of the cockpit and I suspect nobody would argue with this were there repeated attempts to break down the door and or loss of communication with the cc. However one young lady who may have been inebriated or have mental health issues and who was restrained by passengers really doesnt constitute an attempted breach. The analogy is the drunk woman in Guildford high street who, faced with a handful of police states she is going to kill the lot of them. Their response is quite different than if a man with a gun who isnt drunk makes the same threat.

I fully appreciate that there is a need to 'play safe' but the door isnt going to give in with a couple of thumps even if the person on the other side is a six foot male. There was presumably contact with the cc at the back. Have we really got to the stage where each and every passenger disruption leads to this? What really made this different from every other Stansted flight with unruly drunks?

Lets not do anything with one young lady, sends message, so next time its one young lady but she a plant so when they drag her down the back there are 4 others who go after the door and yup it will eventually be broken through.

P.s. being 6ft and 100kgs doesn't mean you could break the door down, 5ft nothing tiny lady in high street took 6 police to subdue her and she knew how to fight, smashed door and window of cop car plus dosed on crack cocaine meant even a taser was SFA use, have a read of some of the US cop reports of subduing someone on PCP in the 90's.

Underestimate someone is easiest way to lose control.

[homonculus]

Not sure what benefit the plant provides. You might as well just let the 4 others do it on their own. And if a woman who is drunk or suffering from mental health issues can break down the door with her bare hands I suggest you redesign the door. I am assuming they arent redundant cruiser doors from New York.......

Anyway, thank you for engaging with my questions. Just off to book my train tickets :sad:

[Impress to inflate]

it's quite simple, pass the expense of getting a fighter airborne and all associated cost to the dim slapper who caused the incident to start with. Job done, tax payer back in pocket !! or am I missing something. ?

[Load Toad]

It's that unfortunate situation of needs of the many vs needs of the few. What's 220ish pax, plus a handful on the ground, vs thousands in a built up area? It's a tough call to make, but that is the sad reality of today. Nobody wants another 9/11 scenario.
And legally where does that work?

'We shot it down and killed everyone on board plus those down below in case the plane actually crashed and killed even more people because those innocents have greater value than those other innocents and we don't want another 9-11 because like we really knew then that the take over of those planes would result in 9-11...'


It's complete B/S to suggest shooting the plane down is an option.
- It's a win for terrorists straight away.

[vancouv]

'We didn't shoot it down because we didn't want to kill everyone on board plus those down below and we didn't think it was likely it was another 9/11 so the crash into central London which killed several thousand people rather then the 300 if we'd shot it down was unfortunate.....'

Load Toad - i get where you're coming from but it's a damned if you do, damned if you don't situation - before 9/11 it might have seemed impossible, sadly now that's no longer the case.

[Pilot DAR]

Let's focus the discussion on passenger conduct, and not discuss cockpit door systems. Those who need to know, already know, and that is sufficient.

[racedo]

Let's focus the discussion on passenger conduct, and not discuss cockpit door systems. Those who need to know, already know, and that is sufficient.

:D Completely agree

[wiggy]

You may not like what the mods have done, you may feel some questions were reasonable, but certainly some airlines (and some regulatory authorities) take a dim matter of airline staff engaging in discussions about certain aspects of the day job.

I saw some of the posts before they were deleted - I can understand why the mods took the action they did.

[Pilot DAR]

several quite reasonable posts, from myself and @DaveReidUK (surely a very well respected PPRuNe poster) have been silently deleted here, by people who clearly aren't open to rational debate.

I am the moderator who deleted the referenced posts. I am generally opened to rational debates, though I am not open to rational debates on all topics. I ask myself: "Is this discussion (or thread drift) useful and contributing to the topic, or pilots in general?" And; "Could this discussion take aviation somewhere it will regret being, with no beneficial value along the way?". Then, I will consider the following:

The PPRuNe guidance material includes the following statement:

Final arbitration always rests with the moderator and administration team. This team also retains the right to remove any post, any thread and/or any member for any reason or no reason at all.

Then, I may delete posts which I feel do not contribute, or are otherwise unhelpful.

I am a pilot with a lot of understanding of the factors of cockpit door use, design and operation. I have participated in post 9/11 cockpit door design standard development. I know that the necessary security information is available to the appropriate aviation industry people of any nationality or ethnic group. I know that if a concern or defect is found or suspected, there is an appropriate private communication path for pilots and maintainers to advance it. I know that discussion about that is not necessary on a public forum.

The discussion of unruly passengers does have merit here. Some of the things which unruly passengers may do could cross into an area where public discussion is no longer beneficial, and that discussion will not be welcomed on this forum. Moderators (including me) will judge that with their best skill, and benefit to the PPRuNe audience, and we'll leave it at that.

[SLF3]

I saw a lady run down the aisle and start hammering on the cockpit door. I’m sure she had a panic attack, and I’m sure once it was all over the crew knew that too. It was quite scary initially, and massively inconvenient for everyone on board, but I don’t think for a moment anyone thought she was either drunk or deserved jail time.

[pilotmike]

Let's focus the discussion on passenger conduct, and not discuss cockpit door systems. Those who need to know, already know, and that is sufficient.

I'm not sure what more could be added other than "... and those who DON'T need to know SHOULDN'T be told.", just to make it 100% clear for Paul852.

This naïve whining and bleating on about falling into the latter category rather than the former appears very much like a petulant child that isn't getting its own way.

[DaveReidUK]

Well obviously the anonymous people who run this site also agree since several quite reasonable posts, from myself and @DaveReidUK (surely a very well respected PPRUNE poster) have been silently deleted here, by people who clearly aren't open to rational debate.

For avoidance of doubt, I am certainly not advocating discussion of specific security measures on PPRuNe or any other public forum.

Equally, I do not dispute the authority of the mods to delete posts which overstep the mark (including, if they so wish, this one).

My point was a much more general one - that "security" (of any sort) that relies solely or mainly on some people knowing how something works while others (we hope) don't know, is built on a very shaky foundation.

[fjencl]

RAF fighters escorted Jet2 flight after ‘miscommunication’
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-48756189

[homonculus]

So now we know.

I owe an apology to the crew involved for suggesting they may have over reacted. They clearly did not.

I trust the security methodolgy we have been asked not to post about is robust enough at all airlines to ensure over reaction does not occur.

[Gipsy Queen]

For avoidance of doubt, I am certainly not advocating discussion of specific security measures on PPRuNe or any other public forum.

Equally, I do not dispute the authority of the mods to delete posts which overstep the mark (including, if they so wish, this one).

My point was a much more general one - that "security" (of any sort) that relies solely or mainly on some people knowing how something works while others (we hope) don't know, is built on a very shaky foundation.

Not sure that I understand the last bit. "Security", by definition requires knowledge to be held by some people whilst being withheld from others. What is "shaky" about that precept?

I'm often astonished by the information sometimes given on the forum and which clearly is of a confidential nature. I'm happy to recognise things as such and respect their supposed status but that may not apply to others. I think Pilot DAR's explanation is quite sufficient and should be accepted without quibble. To suggest that management of the forum is censorious is unfair - pop into Jet Blast to see how wide the latitudes of acceptability really are.

[Lord Farringdon]

'We didn't shoot it down because we didn't want to kill everyone on board plus those down below and we didn't think it was likely it was another 9/11 so the crash into central London which killed several thousand people rather then the 300 if we'd shot it down was unfortunate.....'

Load Toad - i get where you're coming from but it's a damned if you do, damned if you don't situation - before 9/11 it might have seemed impossible, sadly now that's no longer the case.


In that case, I'd much rather be dammed because I didn't. Ordering the shoot down of an aircraft and killing innocent people because if I don't the terrorist will kill them..and possibly some others on the ground, is an abhorrent strategy. By the way vancouv, another thing that's changed since 911 is that passengers no longer remain compliant and seated when airborne terrorist/unruly passenger situations occur. They fight to retake the aircraft or group to subdue the unruly one. Unless they get shot down by their own!!

[vancouv]

An awful situation either way, and I'm glad it's not a decision I will ever have to make.

[double_barrel]

Not sure that I understand the last bit. "Security", by definition requires knowledge to be held by some people whilst being withheld from others. What is "shaky" about that precept?

I'm often astonished by the information sometimes given on the forum and which clearly is of a confidential nature. I'm happy to recognise things as such and respect their supposed status but that may not apply to others. I think Pilot DAR's explanation is quite sufficient and should be accepted without quibble. To suggest that management of the forum is censorious is unfair - pop into Jet Blast to see how wide the latitudes of acceptability really are.


It's a maxim in the IT world that security by obscurity is no security and is dangerously delusional.


ie Things are either genuinely, protected, secrets or they are public knowledge. There is nothing usefully in between.

To take a silly example that cannot possibly exercise the admins, the idea that a certain transponder code can be usefully kept as an obscure fact, known to every pilot and everyone who has ever thought about flying, but not bad guys is, errm, not based in logic!

[Pjen26]

Having been on a Jet2 flight to Ibiza recently there is a dichotomy in the airline’s management of these issues.

While they have prominent policies to try to reduce problems, and don’t sell alcohol until 0800, they actively promote the sale and consumption of alcohol. The flight had a flight time of 2:50. Take off was at 0710 and from 0800 there was 3 alcoholic drinks services. There were announcements encouraging passengers to buy extra alcohol to consume on their onward transfers to the resorts. There was a 4th unofficial sale of alcohol to a drunken group as the trolley came back to the front of the plane. Luckily the group of boys involved just managed to keep to right side of exuberant, but it was on a knife edge. I would not have liked to see their reactions during an emergency exit.

Overall Jet2 is a well run airline and their staff are always professional and courteous. The problem is that of company policy.

Considering the options for airport drinking prior to boarding, 4 drinks services is irresponsible and not in keeping with the publicly expressed policies. The airlines do need to take some blame for drunk passengers too!

[bill fly]

Having been on a Jet2 flight to Ibiza recently there is a dichotomy in the airline’s management of these issues.

While they have prominent policies to try to reduce problems, and don’t sell alcohol until 0800, they actively promote the sale and consumption of alcohol. The flight had a flight time of 2:50. Take off was at 0710 and from 0800 there was 3 alcoholic drinks services. There were announcements encouraging passengers to buy extra alcohol to consume on their onward transfers to the resorts. There was a 4th unofficial sale of alcohol to a drunken group as the trolley came back to the front of the plane. Luckily the group of boys involved just managed to keep to right side of exuberant, but it was on a knife edge. I would not have liked to see their reactions during an emergency exit.

Overall Jet2 is a well run airline and their staff are always professional and courteous. The problem is that of company policy.

Considering the options for airport drinking prior to boarding, 4 drinks services is irresponsible and not in keeping with the publicly expressed policies. The airlines do need to take some blame for drunk passengers too!

Well, they banned smoking. What alcohol is doing in a high tech. safety related business can well be debated. Can’t we do without it for a few hours?

[vancouv]

Of course we can do without it for a few hours, but the people making big profits from it can't - that's the bottom line. If it was impossible to buy alcohol at an airport or on all flights people would still fly. But while it's there a small minority will continue to abuse it, and unfortunately this minority has a big effect on the rest of society, particularly in the confined area of a plane.

[bill fly]

Of course we can do without it for a few hours, but the people making big profits from it can't - that's the bottom line. If it was impossible to buy alcohol at an airport or on all flights people would still fly. But while it's there a small minority will continue to abuse it, and unfortunately this minority has a big effect on the rest of society, particularly in the confined area of a plane.

Yes, so once again it is profits versus safety. A shame there isn’t something like the Hippocratic oath for airlines - and manufacturers...

At least the crews are trying to keep it safe.

[racedo]

I saw a lady run down the aisle and start hammering on the cockpit door. I’m sure she had a panic attack, and I’m sure once it was all over the crew knew that too. It was quite scary initially, and massively inconvenient for everyone on board, but I don’t think for a moment anyone thought she was either drunk or deserved jail time.

Comes to it I believe many would have no issue is assisting crew in subduing said passenger. Great everything is ok afterwards but I want there to be an afterwards.

[capngrog]

Of course we can do without it for a few hours, but the people making big profits from it can't - that's the bottom line. If it was impossible to buy alcohol at an airport or on all flights people would still fly. But while it's there a small minority will continue to abuse it, and unfortunately this minority has a big effect on the rest of society, particularly in the confined area of a plane.

Vancouv;

I'm not singling out your post for criticism, because it succinctly outlines the problem; however, I am tired of the all too common attitude of many folks who do not hesitate to ban a legal activity, thus restricting one more freedom. It is much easier to ban an activity than it is to manage/regulate it, thus our 'rulers" (legislators etc.) often choose the easy way out with no consideration of individual freedoms. If any passenger willfully disregards the instruction of cabin crew, they should be dealt with firmly. I don't know about other areas, but here in the U.S.A., reports of unruly passengers being arrested for such an infraction are few and far between.

Cheers,
Grog

[crewmeal]

Cabin Crew will sell alcohol multipule times along with other duty free items to get commission to support in some cases their poor salaries. Ryanair have been known to haul you in and ask why you haven't achieved your targets if your sales are down.

[Pilot DAR]

Disruptive passenger jailed and fined the costs of the turn around...

https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/disruptive-passenger-fined-1.5202603

[bill fly]

Vancouv;

I'm not singling out your post for criticism, because it succinctly outlines the problem; however, I am tired of the all too common attitude of many folks who do not hesitate to ban a legal activity, thus restricting one more freedom. It is much easier to ban an activity than it is to manage/regulate it, thus our 'rulers" (legislators etc.) often choose the easy way out with no consideration of individual freedoms. If any passenger willfully disregards the instruction of cabin crew, they should be dealt with firmly. I don't know about other areas, but here in the U.S.A., reports of unruly passengers being arrested for such an infraction are few and far between.

Cheers,
Grog

In an ideal world... We have been trying to regulate alcohol on board for ever it seems - and it doesn’t work. The only way is to ban it on board - just like smoking - and incidentally save a bit of fuel.

Edit for afterthought - would also remove the source of free booze for crew streakers - for better or for worse...

[headflight]

Cheap flights, long security waiting times, a generation with short attention spans and an inflated sense of entitlement jammed together in a tiny uncomfortable space, what could go wrong? I suspect for the most part alcohol provides helpful entertainment and sedation. Yes, and profit. How about selling legalised marijuana items? Unlike drunks, stoned people are rarely violent and they can be sold munchies at a huge mark up before they fall asleep.