737 diverted to CWL

[ajamieson]

Running on the wires...

POLICE RUSH TO JET ALERT
By PA News Reporters
A passenger jet was forced to land at Cardiff International Airport today after crew reported a disturbance on board, police said.
A South Wales Police spokesman said officers had been sent to the airport following reports of public disorder.
mf At one point, the RAF was alerted about the disturbance.
A spokesman for the RAF confirmed that two helicopters from the base at Kinloss in Scotland were scrambled shortly after 3pm.
He said: “Our aircraft were scrambled in response to a mayday call from a 737 aircraft.
“It was diverted to Cardiff and is now believed to have landed safely.”
He added that the two helicopters were later stood down.
mfl The airline involved was the British holiday carrier Astreus. The flight was bound for Glasgow from Santiago in northern Spain.
A South Wales Police spokesman said: “We received a report that there was public disorder aboard a plane.
“It landed at Cardiff International Airport. We believe it was diverted and did not intend to land at Cardiff Airport.”
He added: “The incident is at a relatively early stage. We have sent officers to the scene.”
The crew is understood to have reported the disturbance at 3pm and had elected to divert to Cardiff.
mf

[Look_Up]

Early coverage of this story on BBC News website (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/2573741.stm)

[ajamieson]

Celtic fans?

4 AIR Alert 16:12GMT
Vincent Rey, sales and marketing manager for Cardiff International Airport, said the captain requested permission to land at Cardiff because of a situation on board which involved a flight attendant and “unruly passengers”.
Mr Rey said 148 passengers had been on board the inbound flight from Santiago in Spain to Glasgow.
The plane landed in Cardiff at about 3.17pm.
He said: “The police have boarded the aircraft and are taking statements from the attendant involved and the passengers involved. The passengers and police are on board.”
The plane is run by Spanish airline Astraeus and the flight number is AEU308.
mfl

[rupetime]

Good to hear the airport authority think Astraeus is spanish !

[Roundouthigh]

I wonder if Danny was flying?

[StillTaxying]

I wonder what they were planning to do with the Sea Kings they dispatched. :rolleyes:

[ajamieson]

4 AIR Alert Substitute 16:48GMT
Astraeus commercial director Jonathan Hinkles told Sky News he understood that a flight attendant had been punched on the arm during the incident while trying to calm passengers who had become unruly.
He added that police were interviewing passengers and crew.
“The incident arose literally within one hour of take off from Santiago in northern Spain,” he said.
mfl

[Curious Pax]

Perhaps Capt P ran out of signed copies of 'Flyer' before all 148 pax had received theirs?

Joking apart, hope it wasn't too traumatic for the crew - must have been pretty serious to divert.

[lardy]

but Capt Bruce instead, I hear...

[MarkD]

as a Celtic fan, all I can say is: "you Naughty People".

[subject to the full story in the fullness of time :D ]

Edited for inappropriate language

[ajamieson]

A spokeswoman for Celtic Football Club said: “We are extremely concerned about the reports that we are receiving both about the seriousness of events and about the safety of our supporters.
She added: “We currently understand that the flight is not an official Celtic charter.”
The spokeswoman said that the club had the power to ban fans from the Celtic ground if any allegations against any individuals were proved.
But on the issue of sanctions against fans she said: “It is impossible to say until we know more. We cannot speculate about the outcome of any investigation.”
mfl

MarkD, the bhoys are not amused :)

[lardy]

ajamieson, any truth in the rumours re the identity of the pilot?

[ajamieson]

PA SNAP
(reopens)
Six passengers were arrested after a serious outbreak of public disorder on board a flight carrying Celtic football fans returning home from Spain, South Wales Police said.
mfl

Sorry, cannot get confirmation of the pilot's identity.

[CrashDive]

Certainly given the circumstances, and I'm sure that you will understand why, it's not the policy of this airline to divulge the names of the crews involved - but suffice to say, neither of the two people referred to above were onboard at the time of the incident ( not that it would have made any difference to the events which have occurred, imho ).

That said, some of the things being reported in the press are factually incorrect, but we’re confident that they will be correctly reported at some later time - once all the facts are fully known.

So, watch this space.........

[Mister Geezer]

BBC 6 O'Clock news said that it was an Air Europa 737 that was involved! :rolleyes:

[chiglet]

BBC "News" @1803 Quote, "The 'Air Europa' plane" etc, camera pans to an Astreus B737. BUT at least the helicopters were scrmbled from Chivenor, and not Kinloss. Why? has not been explained.:rolleyes:
we aim to please, it keeps the cleaners happy

[msmorley]

BBC 6 O'Clock news said that it was an Air Europa 737 that was involved!

... whilst showing pictures of the Astraeus 737... hmmm... perhaps there is something in this journo-bashing, after all... :rolleyes:

[Konkordski]

Perhaps it was chartered by Air Europa -- in which case the journos aren't THAT far off, given that it's unlikely they're experts in the ins-and-outs of aircraft leasing.

Remember their job is to communicate to a public which, unfortunately, is pretty thick and doesn't need to be overburdened with complexities, even if technically it would make the story more accurate.

[fritz]

It would never have happened with the teddy bears.

[skyrabbit]

It was an Astraeus aircraft operating on an Air Europa callsign. May have been a sub charter??

[Nightmale]

I don't know what speed a Sea King cruises at but I suspect it might be less than a 737's minimum approach speed, so what is the point of sending 2 helicopters?, even if they could keepup with it what do they do then?

[EGPFlyer]

fritz, grow up.

skyrabbit, AEU is the Astraeus prefix. Air Europa's is AEA.

[ratsarrse]

Quote from pasenger on bbc website:

"After that, there was a discussion between one of the passengers and the cabin crew - it was a little bit heated but not too bad," he said.

"One of the passengers leaned over and tapped one of the cabin crew on the shoulder.

"The next thing, we were descending at a rapid rate and heading to Cardiff.


Now, is this a classic example of the art of understatement? Or do his ideas of 'a little bit heated' and 'tapping on the shoulder' differ widely from most other people?

[Smoketoomuch]

Helicopters scrambled? Perhaps it was all they had servicable? Next time it might be the staish's Ford Mondeo :)

Be interesting to see how this works out, from some reports it sounds very much like neither 'side' in this incident behaved very wisely.

[EH8]

As a Scotsman I am thoroughly ashamed by the behaviour of these so called football fans, unfortunately that is the mentality of these people, which is borne out by the comments made by Fritz.

BBC news report two f/a have been injured let’s hope not seriously, must have been two taps on the shoulder then!!!!!

[Out Of Trim]

I would deduce from what I saw on the TV News; the reason for RAF Seaking helicopters being scrambled, was entirely due to the Astraeus Captain declaring a mayday, and if the aircraft had subsequently ditched in the Bristol Channel, they would have been used for SAR operations.. Not sure about the Kinloss link there though.. certainly the Chivenor based aircraft would have been on scene pretty quickly.

With reference to the "Air Europa 737" statement; it would appear to be merely a mix up with AEU and AEA prefixs.

However, I bet the six arrested are now very much regretting their alleged actions! :rolleyes:

[In trim]

If (as it appears but subject to confirmation) there was significant disruption on board, I hope Astraeus push it as hard as they can in terms of legal action. There must be a number of Civil and Criminal offences which apply.

These serious incedents need to get high profile penalties to make people realise that abuse and disruption on board is simply NOT acceptable, and not worth it. We are seeing an increasing number of (minor) disruptive incidents in our outfit. Anything to raise the profile is welcome.

In trim.

[MarkD]

as for the tap on the shoulder - well known Glaswegian understatement me thinks. Such as a "Glasgow kiss" :D

anyone got a link to the BBC site where the SLF is going on?

as for the scramble - I'm glad only SKs could be mustered. What if a Rangers fan was seated in an F3 or other responding aircraft with AAM aboard? could have decided to take the plane out "to be on the safe side" :D :D :D

[CHIVILCOY]

Well done to the captain for calling a mayday and diverting, some might say he overreacted, but I can imagine having a few aggresive people acting like lunatics on a plane could effect the safety of the flight. the situation could have got worse had he not done so.
I wonder if the airline involved will be offering its services for the Stuttgart trip????? Don't think so!!!!

[chiglet]

In" Clarification",
Beeb teletext said a/c div'd to EGFF, and Seakings scrambled from Kinloss.:rolleyes: I am [still] at a loss [sic] as to why?:confused:
we aim to please, it keeps the claners happy

[BEagle]

Given the reported behaviour of his so-called passengers, personally I feel that the Captain did absolutely the right thing in order to protect his crew and aeroplane.

The calibre of some people who travel in airliners these days leaves much to be desired. It's about time that those who cannot behave in a civilsed manner aboard an aircraft were charged and sentenced with the utmost vigour.

[The Sweeney]

perhaps some "canny" Scot thought he could have a cigerette on Ashtrays R Us.

[Astound Mars]

Mayday mayday!! when the dust settles this will be No1, In aviation folklaw under heading OVERKILL.

[flower]

AstoundMars ,
bearing in mind that you were not onboard the flight, and none of us here so far have been privey to what really happened ,to say it was overkill to call mayday may well be a little premature.

If as was reported on the local BBC and ITV news there was a massive fight on board and there was believed to be a threat to the safety of the aircraft it was not inappropriate.

This is where the difference between ATCOs and Pilots always shows , we would rather give overkill with regards to emergencies than be left with a horrible mess to clear up

[CHIVILCOY]

flower:

Well said!!;)

[Hamrah]

Ok guys and girls, head up for the true story.

I have just returned from Cardiff having being briefed by the Crew and the Police.

A small group of passengers on board our flight from Santaigo to Glasgow,became seriously disruptive, abusive, and a member of Cabin Crew was assaulted.

The Captain was briefed by a very distressed Senior Cabin Crew member from the real galley, and had no option but to declare a Mayday and land in Cardiff based on the information available to him.

The flight was met by Police and 6 people have been detained. The remainder of the passengers have returned to Glasgow by bus.

Having been briefed by the police, I can assure you that actions taken by both the Flight and Cabin crew were entirely appropriate. We will be assisting the South Wales police in ensuring that appropriate charges are laid against the individuals in custody tonight in Cardiff.

I think you will find that the activation of Rescue Helicopters and Police levels is tied to new procedures put in place regarding any security type incident involving aircraft.

The injured Cabin Crew member was treated by ambulance on site and all crew and aircraft have now returned to Gatwick.

I have taken the liberty of deleting or editing the highly inappropriate comments made on this thread about supporters of a particular football club. This is not the place for such blatent racist remarks, and will not be tolerated on this board. Take it elsewhere please.

H

[Earthmover]

Thank you Hamrah for the truth, and BEagle, as always, for being absolutely spot-on.

I have watched this thread with growing dismay and astonishment at the judgemental remarks made by people who were not there.

Folks, if you haven't been involved in this sort of incident then you have no concept of how ugly and threatening it can be. I have had two, and I really, really don't want a third. A fight on an aeroplane is like a fire on an aeroplane - it can spread horribly quickly and the only thing to do is get it on the ground - as this, obviously thoroughly wise, Captain did.

[srs what?]

The report I heard was that the Sea Kings were on Exercise in the Bristol Channel anyway. Don't know if anyone can confirm...

[tailscrape]

Hamrah,

Nicely put. Whatever the situation, the final say rests with the aircraft Commander when the aircraft is under his/her control.

So, for all the knockers out there who would have done it differently....... tell us when you have done it successfully and safely. Until then, I can see no need for tales of "OVERKILL".

You should have heard what Sheila Fogarty said on BBC Radio 5 live "Drive"......until Peter Allen slapped her down on air! Nice one Peter. Talk about a woman being misinformed on this occasion.....

[TightSlot]

I'm surprised and saddened by this. I took celtic fans to VLC a little while ago (as english cabin crew). They were boisterous and drunk, despite losing, but unlike other fans I've carried, weren't violent or looking for trouble. Their main contribution to the flight on the way home was in bodily fluids, not aggression, which believe it or not, is an improvement on many english clubs. In short, while I might not have chosen this flight from a pick list, it could have been much worse, and might have been with an english club. That said, 757 pax at doors 2 had to wade out when disembarking - and there were no diced carrots at all in the catering when it went in!

Celtic seemed to have their own "police", a sort of hard core of supporters wearing suits and lapel pins whose job it was to provide "guidance" to others. The system seems to have failed on this occasion.

Sympathies to the Astraeus crew involved. I bet that if those in the commercial department who set up the contract actually had to work with what they'd hired, there would be one hell of a lot less of this kind of work around. I'm sure that they were in a nice warm bed at the time... :cool:

[Blue Boy]

Tight Slot,

As a Glasgow Rangers fan and as a Scotsman, your comments are welcome.

However, maybe it's time that 'The Sweeney' woke uo and realised that this is the first recorded time that Scots' fans have cause trouble abroad.

What about you English lot? The Scots', Welsh & Irish are tired of being grouped with you lot!

Edited once again for unnecessary language

[MOL]

As a Celtic season ticket holder I thought you might like to see a mail from a Celtic mailing list which gives another viewpoint.........



My pal was on the flight and the story, from his point of view, is this ....

Two mincing male stewards were really pissed off at having the pish ripped
oot of them when they were doing the safety demo at the start of the flight.

Some idiot was caught smoking in the toilet and a "heated" argument started.

Nothing else was said but the stewards obviously over reacted with the story
that's been passed to the pilot. No announcement was made and suddenly the
seatbelt signs came on and the flight descended into Cardiff.

Dozens of cops in the airport then came on the flight where they were met by
every passenger sitting doon and wondering what the **** was happening.

Not quite the "riot" headlines and "major incident" every ****er seems to
want to make this out to be.

More like a seriously inexperienced airline crew.

[Hamrah]

MOL,

Interesting, and somewhat insulting perspective. I suppose once again that degenerating into abuse is deemed ok, and is indicitave of the sort of attitude that our crew had to deal with. The facts are that it was the female Senior Cabin Crew Member who was assaulted and who reported the status to the captain. The South Wales police, and the ambulence team who treated the Cabin Crew member concerned have filed their reports. Our view, as a company, stands. Neither our crew, nor the remaining passengers should have been put into this dangerous situation by the behaviour of a small mindless group. They will, I'm sure, receive the punishment they deserve.

Tightslot,

Our commercial department did a superb job tonight to look after our customers. We have operated a significant number of football charters since we started in April, and will operate many more. The view of our Commercial Department, shared by the rest of us in the company, is that we will not punish the vast majority of football fans who want an enjoyable trip away supporting their club, just because of the mindless few who we experienced tonight.

H

[Earthmover]

MOL you just don't get it do you? Smoking in the toilet is seriously bloody dangerous - aircraft are not coaches my friend, they cannot be just stopped and disembarked if it all starts going wrong - and how would your 'friends' have reacted if, having ignored the safety demonstration in favour of a little laugh at the flight attendants expense, they had to evacuate in a hurry - don't tell me the answer .. I already know it.

We in the airline industy are heartily sick of the childish, brainless oiks who think it's funny to 'mix it' a little and as a consequence threaten safety and frighten the wits out of proper passengers.

Grow up or walk there - we don't want you.

[MOL]

Hamrah & Earthmover -

If you read my post carefully I was forwarding a diferent view - supposedly from a passenger and I clearly said this. I never gave my opinion.

For what its worth if anybody smoked or caused hassle they should be justly punished. I was imply trying to make you aware that there is a totally different story doing the rounds.
My on view is that the truth may lie somewhere in the middle. Hassle and trouble - yes - with perhaps some over-reaction.

And Earthmover I found your post quite insulting.

[Hamrah]

MOL,

Thanks for the clarification. In future if you use the Quotes facility, we will be able to determine which bits of your post are your opinions and which are not.

Notwithstanding the above, my view, and that of my airline, my fellow directors, my crew , and the South Wales Police is that this was a serious incident. If it was as suggested by whoever sent you the message you quote, I wonder why 6 people are in custody tonight in Cardiff. I should'nt have to show the photographic evidence of our crew members' injury (taken for evidence by the police) to prove the seriousness of the assault.

Not much middle ground I'm afraid.

H

[Fast Erect]

I'm sorry MOL, but airing that sort of opinion here will do you no good at all. You say that it isn't your opinion, but it surely seems so to me........and many others.
The Astraeus Captain did what HE thought was the correct thing, at the correct time, according to what was happening on HIS aeroplane.PERIOD.
If you don't agree, button it.

Good night.:mad:

[Earthmover]

MOL, Look, I don't want to get into one of the slanging matches that go on here so often, neither do I want to be 'insulting' - but people have to realise that there is no such thing as 'over-reacting' to any threat - or potential threat - on an airliner. You may think an incident is 'minor', but we don't - and neither does the legislation. As the events of last year showed, airliners are very, very vulnerable and the law of the air now takes any unruliness, abuse or threat terribly seriously. You probably haven't, as I have, been encased in an aluminium tube with a bunch of really nasty individuals, bent on making life hell for all on board. I include in my description of 'brainless oiks' (for which I don't apologise) a group of medical Doctors on a weekend spree who, to the utter shame of their profession, sexually harrassed the Cabin Crew, petrified the other passengers and junked the interior of our aircraft - it cost £3000 to restore. (They had to find their own way home by sea - no other carrier would take them)

Flying is a serious business - we have moved into a new era where if people want to fly, then they must behave properly or go to jail. We won't tolerate safety being compromised in any way whatever - end of story.

[arcniz]

Flying is a serious business - we have moved into a new era where if people want to fly, then they must behave properly or go to jail. We won't tolerate safety being compromised in any way whatever - end of story.


Spot on, Earthmover. Ought to put this in large print at every portal.

[DX Wombat]

Chiglet and Out of Trim , all SAR, irrespective of location, is coordinated from ARCC based at RAF Kinloss hence the references

[Devils Advocate]

W.r.t the comment above, i.e.. 'A seriously inexperienced crew'..........

It would be interesting to compare the crew’s level of aeronautical experience ( one would imagine that it’s 'years' ) with that of the folks involved in this 'fracas' and / or of those making comments of this nature.

For all manner of reasons Captains are typically loathe to shout “Mayday”, however when they do it’s usually because they genuinely believe that the vessel requires immediate assistance as the occupants therein are in peril of their lives. :eek:
Accordingly, whatever happened onboard flight AEU308 must indeed have been pretty bad that it required this level of urgency.

Of course one can be quite sure that, once parked upon the ramp at Cardiff airport, the perpetrators were only to keen to suggest that there had been ‘an over-reaction’ – after all, as a result of their actions one would imagine that they’re almost certainly looking at jail sentences – and so perhaps it’s very much a case of “Well, they would say that, wouldn’t they !” :rolleyes:

Verbal or physical assaults upon the crew of any public transport vehicle are completely repugnant and as such we can be thankful that our judiciary are stamping down hard on the perpetrators.


Ps. Earthmover, w.r.t. 'Flying is a serious business...' - well said !

[Reheat On]

The morning news is still carrying this. It seems given a 140 supporters the captain was left with litle option. His worst case scenario was that this situation erupted further. Better to have cards in hand than be seeking a fast deal.

I am sure that the various support agencies welcomed the opportunity to live-time no-notice evaluate the new measures [police, airfield fire and rescue, SAR, media etc] on an incident like this [no loss of life or equipment] rather than find problems win an incident where it was more critical.

The wash up I should have thought will praise the crew.

[slj]

MOL

Of course your friend 's views are interesting.

However, the informed report from a senior member of management of the airline, who had spoken with crew and police seems a little more reliable. Don't you think.

Afterthough. As a new poster you may not know who Hamrah is. Worth you finding out.

[one four sick]

I can't believe that there is ANYONE at all that doubts that this was a justified emergency, or even mentioning the words Over-Reaction.
Is there a captain amongst you that wouldn't have landed immediately if there was just a hint of World War 3 behind your door?
Grow up doubters. When you're a captain you see things differently because your ass is so much more sensitive than anyone else's.

one four sick

[MOL]

They've just had a number of interviews ith Celtic fhns who were on the plane on Talksport this morning. Every one of them said that there was NO sign of any disturbance on the plane but that somebody did smoke in the loo. They said the staf were ignorant on th eplane. they had engine trouble on the way out (2 hr delay) and on the way back they had to eave the plane because of problems. One fella siad he heard that somebody had poked a hostess in the back with his finger. There was no announcement and they were still eating with tables down when
staff started running around trying to clear tables. They suddenly went downwards to land.
The police were there and took statements. The police also said to some of them that they were embarrassed at the statements because the passangers were all saying that nothing had happened on the plane.

There have been a number of people on Talksport 1089 mw (or go to www.talksport.net). It will be on for another couple of hours - and all are saying the same thing. Talksport are now saying that the fans stories appear to be correct and very little had happened - certainly no fighting of any sort.

At this stage I have heard a number of live interviews with articulate passengers and they are all saying the same thing.
There is something not adding up in all this.

Finally to the poster who said I should find out who Hamrah is - why ? Am I not allowed post a different viewpoint?

[Capt H Peacock]

I think I’m safe in proposing that most decent civilised passengers have no difficulty with the concept of safety and security on board an aircraft, and the duty and responsibility of the Captain to demand reasonable behaviour with the full backing of HM Government.

For those who think this is a bit of an over reaction, and what’s wrong with a few lads getting a bit tasty for a bit of a laugh, I shall refer you to the points of UK legislation that you are about to breach. The UK Air Navigation Order (2000) states:


Article 63
A person shall not recklessly or negligently act in a manner likely to endanger an aircraft, or any person therein.

Article 65
A person shall not enter any aircraft when drunk, or be drunk in any aircraft.

Article 66
A person shall not smoke in any compartment of an aircraft registered in the UK at a time when smoking is prohibited in that compartment by a notice to that effect exhibited by or on behalf of the commander of the aircraft. (Can only be committed on a UK registered aircraft.)

Article 67
Every person in an aircraft registered in the UK shall obey all lawful commands which the commander of that aircraft may give for the purpose of securing the safety of the aircraft and of persons or property carried therein, or the safety, efficiency or regularity of air navigation.

Article 68
No person shall while in an aircraft:
Use any threatening, abusive or insulting words towards a member of the crew of the aircraft;
Behave in a threatening, abusive, insulting or disorderly manner towards a member of the crew of an aircraft; or
Intentionally interfere with the performance, by a member of crew of the aircraft, of his duties.

I can’t believe that anyone would even have to study the finer points of law to adjust their behaviour on board, suffice to say that if you were on my aeroplane I would have done precisely the same as my professional peer did yesterday. I fully support his actions to protect the safety of his aircraft and the safety of its occupants. If I were to have done anything differently, I would have diverted to France, where the CRS have a different way of dealing with hooligans.

[MOL]

The following is from somebody who was on the flight - surely even you guys can see something is not right here :-


Hello

Wanting to put this on as many sites as possible - to let people know
the truth.

First of all, having just got back home within the last 10 minutes I am
disgusted and what the papers are printing regarding this.

The average age on the plane was probably mid forties, a few kids,
women, OAPs - this was not a plane load of young hardmen.

On leaving Glasgow on Thursday morning we were all sitting on the plane,
engines going, leaving the stand. The engines stopped and we were taken
back to the stand - we were told there was a slight techinical problem
with one of the engines. Engineers etc came on and off the plane and
after about an hour be were told the plane was ready to go.

Engines going, leavign the stand, the engines stopped and we were taken
back to the stand again - told there was a slight techinical problem
with one of the engines. Engineers etc came on and off the plane and
after about an hour we were told the plane was ready to go.

Uneventful flight - bit of banter with cabin crew, all smiles nae
problems.

Friday morning - we were all sitting on the plane, engines going,
leaving the stand. The engines stopped and we were taken back to the
stand - we were told there was a slight techinical problem with one of
the engines. Engineers etc came on and off the plane and we were told to
get off the plane. No probems and after about two hours be were told the
plane was ready to go, everyone got back on the plane - again no
problems.

Given that we had now suffered three "engine failures" everyone was a
bit nervous about getting back on the plane but eventually we took off.
There was no drink on the plane and a few people had had a few beers
during the two hour delay but nobody was drunk.

I've been on loads of these charters and, given the result, I can say
that in terms of singing and shouting this was one of the quietest
charters I have ever been on. General atmosphere was summed up by a
rendition of YMCA when the cabin crew were doing the safety announcement
- cabin crew laughed, we laughed nae hassle.

About one hour into the flight the pilot announced that someone had been
smoking in the toilets and that the police had been called and we would
all be detained at Glasgow until the person owned up. A young boy,
probably about 18, was accused of being responsible - two guys sitting
across the aisle said he should grow up and take responsibility. A few
voices were raised but NOBODY left their seat - the argument lasted
about 3 minutes and nobody (cabin crew etc included) interveined. The
two guys who argued with the young boy were later arrested and as I was
sitting behind them I would be willing to stand up in court and say they
did nothing more than raise their voice - because that is the truth.

During this the cabin crew were collecting the trays from lunch - a
woman, probably in her 40/50s, there with her daughter asked one of the
stewardesses if anyone had owned up to the smoking as she didn't want to
be delayed at Glasgow Airport. The stewardess, pointing her finger at
the woman said that an attitude like hers would lead her to get arrested
as well. A guy, sitting behind the woman then tapped the stewardesses
shoulder and said that there was no need for that sort of threats the
woman was only asking a question.

Then all hell broke lose - one of the stewards went running into the
pilots cabin, came running back out and then, in a blind panic, started
frantically collecting the remaining trays. The cabin crew were running
about the plane with trollies etc nearly hysterical. AT ON POINT DURING
ALL THIS DID THE PILOT LEAVE HIS CABIN AND COMEOUT AND SEE WHAT WAS
HAPPENING - I was sitting in row 3 so had a pretty good view of the
cabin door and can ensure you he never even put his head round the door.


Given the previous 3 engine failures, the hysteria from the cabin crew
and the fact we were only half way through the flight time it became
pretty clear to everyone on the plane we has some sort of difficulty and
were in trouble. The plane plunged from the sky (that is not an
exageration) and banked steeply and the majority of people assumed the
engine had failed and we were crash landing. By this time the cabin crew
were in there seats, nearly crying. There was sort of a quiet hysteria
on the plane at this point - I openly admit I was absolutely terrified
and thought we were going to crash - but NOBODY left their seats and
there was no abuse, just genuine concern.

Don't know how long this went on for but eventually we landed somewhere
(Cardiff, but we didn't know) and the plane was immediately surrounded
by armed police with dogs, fire brigade and ambulances.

Eventually, probably after about an hour we were taken off the plane one
row at a time. This is when I saw the guys sitting in front of me being
arrested.

We were then made to sit in a room, surrounded by armed police for six
hours - had to be escorted to the toilet etc etc - every person on the
plane gave a statement and I am 100% sure they will not differ from
mine.

To be fair to the Cardiff police - they were very good - friendly,
organised food etc etc.

Then eventually, at 2200 last night, we were put on buses and driven the
nine hours to Glasgow. The astonishing thing being that the 144
"rioters" from the plane were put on buses which were told to stop at
two service stations where there was absolutely no police precense.

The six guys arrested -
two in front of me, who I know did nothing
one guy who was loud, since when did being loud become a crime
the guy who touched the stewardesses shoulder to get her attention
and two guys who caused such a rumpuss I cannot tell you where they were
or what they did

if you think that constitutes a riot then fair enough but I don't and
cannot believe what has happened.

[IcePack]

Think you will find that it is very rare for a pilot to come into the cabin to sort out an agrevated problem as too many of us have been hit. (Not good trying to land plane with concussion even monitoring the other guy) My company frowns on that idea. Also we now have kevlar cockpit doors to ensure pilots are protected from undesirables. Flying the plane is the important bit off the ground. Gravity rules are hard. If my cabin crew were unable to "maintain good order and discipline on board" it is my job to ensure the safety of the aircraft. I would have been on the ground soonest letting the police sort it out.
As for engine starts giving problems or whatever that is NOT an engine failure!:o

[Hamrah]

Ok, I am happy to keep running with this.



There was no drink on the plane and a few people had had a few beers

A significant amount of alcohol was found hidden in the last six rows of the aircrfat after landing in Cardiff. This was detailed and taken away by the police.



A guy, sitting behind the woman then tapped the stewardesses shoulder

The "Tap" required medical treatment, documented by the police.



AT ON (sic)POINT DURING
ALL THIS DID THE PILOT LEAVE HIS CABIN AND COMEOUT AND SEE WHAT WAS HAPPENING

Good, or he would have been in serious breach of the guidlines recently by the Department of Transport and the CAA





I was sitting in row 3 so had a pretty good view of the cabin door

If this gentleman was sitting in row 3 he could not have been aware of what was happening in the back of the aircraft where the disturbance took place



The astonishing thing being that the 144 "rioters" from the plane were put on buses which were told to stop at
two service stations where there was absolutely no police precense.


but 6 passengers who have been charged with offences who remained in Cardiff.

There is no doubt that the majority of passengers on this flight were good humoured fans enjoying their day out to support their team. Unfortunately, as mentioned above, a small group of passengers broke the law, endangered an aircraft, and are being dealt with accordingly.

H

[MOL]

Icepack -
I think the point is whether there was disorder. All reports this morning from passengers are stating that there was not.
If somebody smoked in the toilet, I presume the aircraft is not immediately diverted - am I correct? From what I can gather the idiot should be dealt with on landing at the destination - in this case Glasgow. The 'riotous behaviour' from all the reports I have heard involved raised voices at the stupid idiot who smoked - from other passengers. It cannot be that all the passengers on board are wrong on this and surely an internal company inquiry should now take place and the result publicised.
I will agree, however, that the captain may have been misinformed as to the situation and reacted in the correct way - from his point of view.
I think it is only fair to listen to the views of the passengers as well in all this and from what I can hear the accounts given to the police from the passengers do not tally with that given by the cabin crew. We shall see as the media are now beginning to give the other side and the company involved have had to issue a statement this morning.

[sky9]

The post 911 locked cockpit door has contributed to this. The general feeling in the past was that the sight of the Captain or F/O generally managed to quieten things down. Now it is down to the Cabin Staff to sort it out on their own and the action of any Captain faced with disorder in the cabin is land as soon as possible.
Footie fans are going to have to adapt to the new way of dealing with their behaviour. An aircraft is not the same as Sauchiehall St on a Saturday lunchtime.
Some years ago I had a group of Liverpool fans going to Rome jumping up and down in unison at the back of a 737. Thought it was a laugh until they spent the next couple of days in a Rome jail ( No interviews and statements in Italy).

[Unwell_Raptor]

It's just as well that this will be sorted out in the calm atmosphere of a courtroom with all parties giving their evidence. The two accounts are so far apart that there can be no alternative.

But, whatever emerges, there is not the slightest doubt that the Captain has a duty to safeguard his aircraft crew and passengers as he sees fit at the time.

[Officedesk]

MOL

The fact that there was a rendition of YMCA during the safety briefing would tell any crew member that their passengers do not want to take their safety seriously and that there could be further problems. The crews laughter was probably through nerves.

There may (and I emphasise the word may) have been different ways of approaching this situation along with certain de-escalation and conflict management techniques that could have been employed by the cabin crew. However, It takes a very special person to consider these fully and use them with conviction. The cabin crew have a very difficult job under these particular circumstances. Stop for a moment and try to think if you would like your daughter to have to handle a plane full of rowdy Celtic fans who are being disrespectful to her efforts to carry out her duties.

Of course the pilot is not going to enter the cabin. I can't believe that the person writing this article actually sounds incredulous at that fact. His duty is simply to get that aircraft back on to the ground as quickly and safely as possible before a situation like this gets out of control. Along with that is recent (post 9/11) changes in legislation that legally restrict the flight deck access.

I fully support the actions of the flight crew. There have been many changes in awareness to this sort of behaviour post 9/11 and a zero tolerance policy along with more restrictive procedures must be adopted by airlines. For the sake of their own safety there must be a respect for this policy by passengers.

Again Earthmovers quote was spot on!

Flying an aircraft through the sky is a much more volatile process than one imagines. Technology, modern comforts and conveniences have lulled some of the travelling public into thinking they can behave like they were on a bus. Well it is not a bus - it is a very fast moving and heavy missile! The message is wait until you get on Terra Firma then - and only then - behave as you want.

[LRdriver]

I think what MOL is saying is that we have to watch out we don't turn this into a witch-hunt. Its a bit hypocritical that we scream about the injustice of the very trigger-happy security folks at the airports that will arrest and deport you after rectal-probing you if they even suspect you of anything. Yet we are happy to accept the crews version without knowing all the facts.
YES, the captain took a decision as he has no firsthand view of events,Only what he is told by somebody. Good call by him.

YES, the behaviour by some passengers these days does beggar belief and the CC do NOT deserve to be abused verbally or physically. Anybody who thinks they are above the law/CC should be grounded and blacklisted by all carriers.

Thanks MOL for evening up the balance.

[TightSlot]

Hamrah

No doubt you have your hands full today dealing with this and supporting your staff, so my apologies for taking you to task. You said...
The view of our Commercial Department, shared by the rest of us in the company, is that we will not punish the vast majority of football fans who want an enjoyable trip away supporting their club, just because of the mindless few who we experienced tonight

Very laudable, very high minded, but I think this may read better framed, on the boardroom wall, than it does here. If it sounds familiar to many people, it is because it is depressingly similar to the statements that we hear again and again on the news from the FA/Government/Supporters Clubs every time there is a football incident. Meanwhile, the body count (so to speak) rises inexorably.

Charter airlines operate supporter flights during the winter because of commercial necessity, not out of any particular desire to spread joy and happiness amongst supporters. Cabin crew operate supporter flights because they are rostered to do so, and have no choice. Nobody "likes" doing supporter flights, although if an overseas daystop is involved, this can sugar the pill. Granted nowadays they are better than they used to be, but that still doesn't make them easy, or pleasant. I've been doing supporter flights or over 20 years: During that time, my cabin crew have been threatened, pushed over, spat at, verbally and sexually abused, vomited on, asked to clean faeces and urine from aisle carpets. I cannot count how many I have spoken to in the galley, who were in tears or other distress. If you really still believe that your cabin crew actually enjoy doing these flights for the high principles that you quoted, then it may be that you need to spend more time talking with them.

For the future, here is my advice for your supporter flights, gained from hard earned experience. Disregard it if you wish (you may already have some/all/none of these procedures in place).

1. A uniformed member of the airline security staff should travel on every supporter flight. They don't have to do anything, just be visible.

2. A hot meal on every sector. Some supporters may not have had a hot meal in days - the meal fills time, slows them up, soaks up and makes people feel better. Don't serve booze on board.

3. Every passenger should be handed a "behaviour guide" card at check in, and sign a tear-off conditions of carriage and hand to the gate staff. It doesn't have to be a complicated document, just a reminder. Supporter are mates: It will be very difficult to get anybody to testify against anybody else when it all goes wrong.

4. Theme the flight. If you have a "greatest goals" video for that team, play it. Put a club logo or scarf in the cabin. Do anything that helps create the impression that the crew are on the same side.

5. Finally, most importantly, hand pick the crew - don't just roster it like any other duty. We all have strengths and weaknesses in different areas.

[Astound Mars]

Hamrah, perhaps you can tell us what the 6 have been charged with? I dont believe they have been charged at all?
further to my post yesterday re OVERKILL, I think The "Riot "has been Downgraded a few hundred Notches to a disturbance? I also note That the RAF are now asking whether this incident warrented a Mayday? not to mention this afternoons Media who are beggining to use the words " over reaction". It will be interesting to see Exactly what the Charges Will be if any?

[ajamieson]

General atmosphere was summed up by a
rendition of YMCA when the cabin crew were doing the safety announcement

Oh well, that's alright then. As long as they can replicate the appropriate dance movements during a real emergency. :rolleyes: :mad:

As for charges, the six may simply be bailed to reappear later while the incident is investigated. One question, though: can Astreus recover the costs of the diversion if there is no successful prosecution?

[litkid_2000]

Another witness account:
Found here (http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/page.cfm?objectid=12452992&method=full&siteid=89488)

Architect David McKenna, 40, from Clydebank, was on the flight with his brother Jim. He said: "Apparently someone was smoking in the toilets and that caused trouble with the staff.

"I believe there was also an argument between one of the fans, who is a lawyer, and a stewardess. It's been claimed he put his hands on her and that's what triggered the pilot to divert to Cardiff.

"As far as I'm concerned there was no trouble or rowdiness, just happy banter.

"Even after the alleged incidents the staff didn't seem to be panicked at all.

"I think the pilot's reaction was excessive, it's incredible we were grounded.

"The police boarded when we touched down and immediately one of the fans had to be carried off because he had taken a panic attack.

"No one felt threatened at any time. There was no fracas and I'm amazed this has happened.

"There was no alcohol served on the flight and everyone was sober, except for some who had a few drinks before they got on. But everyone was in a good mood and there was no hint of trouble."

He added that police refused to tell the fans when they would be released or how they would get back to Glasgow.

Another passenger, Steve Prince, said: "There was no alcohol on the flight. No one was drinking their own alcohol."

A spokesman for the jet's owner Astraeus said: "The incident involved a passenger smoking. The captain told them this was not acceptable.

"A fight ensued and at least one flight attendant was hit on the arm.

"The plane landed safely at 3.30pm. We are currently investigating whether there were any injuries to crew or passengers, or any damage to the plane.

[Officedesk]

I am incredulous that people still believe this to be overkill.

It is possible that no charges will be levelled if there is no evidence of a crime being committed. Crews are not mind readers, however, and cannot tell how much a situation like this is going to escalate. Whilst I am sure that these people were not intending to hijack this aircraft, the aircraft could easily become a big flying bomb if it gets out of control. Without armoured flight deck doors (and I assume Astraeus hasn't gone phase 2 yet) then a breach of the flight deck could have disastrous consequences. If a drunken fan decided to "talk" to the captain then there is not a lot the cabin crew could do to stop him - do I really need to put the dangers of that into words?

There is no other action than the one taken!

[JonathanH]

Having interviewed the flight and cabin crew, and spoken at some length with the Police, we now have a clear picture of the events that caused the Captain to make the decision to divert flight AEU 308 (Santiago to Glasgow, 13 12 2002) to Cardiff. The safety of the passengers and crew is at all times his and Astraeus' absolute priority, and we support his decision.

There were two disturbances on the aircraft. One, at the front, involved a passenger smoking. A senior cabin crew member pointed out that it was against air travel regulations to smoke on the aircraft.

The second incident occurred at the rear of the aircraft cabin, after the Captain made a public address announcement stating that the behaviour encountered at the front of the aircraft would not be tolerated, and, in line with procedures adopted by ourselves and most other UK airlines, the offender would, as a matter of course, be met by police officers on arrival at Glasgow.

A number of passengers at the rear of the aircraft objected strongly and loudly, one female passenger becoming particularly agitated. At least ten other passengers became involved, and in the ensuing fracas the cabin crew member was struck on the arm. She was examined by paramedics on arrival at Cardiff, but no hospital treatment was required. It has become apparent from our debriefing of cabin crew that passengers in the forward and centre of the cabin may not have been aware of the second disturbance.

At that stage, a cabin crew member contacted the Captain, making clear that the cabin crew felt matters were threatening the safety of the aircraft, and the Captain made the decision to divert to Cardiff. No confrontation of any magnitude is acceptable on a passenger aircraft.

We believe alcohol consumed by some of the passengers was an influence. Alcohol was categorically forbidden on this flight and was not sold. However, a number of passengers carried alcohol on board, some as legitimate "duty-free" take-home purchases, but some opened containers and drank the contents.

Their actions were in direct breach of the UK Air Navigation Order 2000 (in other words, they broke the law)

Police and airline staff discovered approximately 20 empty alcoholic drinks containers of various sizes secreted at the rear of the aircraft when it was examined at Cardiff.

It was also logged that on the outbound flight from Glasgow to Santiago that cabin crew had to confiscate alcohol that passengers had brought on board.

The Captain and his crew were extremely shaken by events. The Captain has 25 years flying experience, with, amongst other airlines, Airtours and Cathay Pacific. The senior cabin crew member joined Astraeus at the beginning of the year. She was previously a senior cabin crew member with British Airways. All Astraeus cabin crew receive extensive conflict management training before they join operational crews.

Finally, there is an allegation of an engine problem with the aircraft. This is not true. A warning indictor relating to the starting procedure of one engine delayed departure. A relatively minor matter, some airlines may elect to fly in such circumstances, we will not. As the safety of passengers and crew is of paramount importance, this had to be checked by an engineer who subsequently discovered it was an indicator fault, not a fault with the engine. The aircraft is serviced and maintained in line with Boeing recommendations by the world's leading aircraft maintenance company.
----------

I leave the above statement to speak for itself but would clarify a small number of other points.

Firstly, we do serve a hot meal on all flights where there is sufficient flight time to do so; and one was served on this flight.

Secondly, service of alcohol was not undertaken on board.

Thirdly, Astraeus has operated a number of other football charters including those with Newcastle, Liverpool and Malaga FC supporters on board. We have never experienced problems of this nature on any of those flights and I would stress that it appears as though a small number of passengers were responsible for this disturbance.

Fourthly, Astraeus has treated this serious incident as a disturbance and has never referred to this as a "riot". This was a term which I believe was used in certain quarters of the media and not one initiated or approved by us.

[Astound Mars]

"The Captain and his crew were extremely shaken by events."

Think I would of left this bit out of damage limitation exersise!

[MOL]

Have a look at Sky News on the hour for an alternative view from passengers.

[tango85]

The dust is starting to settle.

Whilst PPRUNE regulars may be willing to give more points for the crew version, ANY court of law is going to take into account the statements from 144 passengers.

Smoking in the toilet is not a fire hazard - it is the disposal of lighted butts in the paper bin which is the problem. Once the smoke has been detected (the smoke alarm ?) and the problem interdicted, it is no longer a problem. Whether the airline wants to take summary action against the offender (it is not an arrestable offence) is a matter for the airline - but an emergency descent would only be called for IF a fire had broken out, AND neither the sprinkler nor available fire extinguishers put it out.

As for unruly passengers - my reading of it was that the cabin crew panicked. This was not a convict flight. There would have been sufficient assistance from uninvolved passengers had things really got out of hand.

By commencing an emergency descent in the manner he did, the captain used his aircraft as a weapon against mainly innocent passengers - and for that he must be held accountable.

[The Southend King]

Those last two posts are fascinating...wonder what colour the sky is on their planets.

Maybe I can summarise what I've read and seen so far...

1. There was a disturbance on this flight (I think everyone agrees on that)

2. Some passengers broke the law ( smoking...disobeying the instructions of the crew)

3. A Cabin Crew member was assaulted (police evidence)

4. Passengers were drinking their own booze

5. The Captain declared an emergency and landed.

6. 6 People were detained by police pending charges (police statement)

Now, taking all the "passion" and "journo-speak out of the reporting ( Riots...etc), I don't see what the issue really is. The crew did what they were trained to do. The Captain landed ASAP.
The courts will decide how "guilty" the offenders were.

Everything else is crap. The debate on whether a Mayday was appropriate or not is of no consequence, and will almost certianly be held between the professional Captains who may have to face similar situations (anyone want to check back on the news networl on the last three or four similar such instances, including the couple of US diversions recently?), and other pseudo-experts on this forum.

Of course there will be two "sides" to any story, and no doubt there will be vigourous defence of both sides. My view, as an experienced Captain, is that the Crew made the right decision in the circumstances.

The media will have their day......

[Pilot Pete]

Southend,

You beat me to it. Smoking is a fire hazard and the ANO was broken (see previous posts for the relevant article), this makes it an arrestable offence. Tango85's view is somewhat flawed in the reality department. It's like saying that having a bomb on board is ok, it's just setting it off that is dangerous! Additionally, would he like to see procedures that require the airline to rely on other passengers helping out in these situations? Don't be rediculous. Any offer of help can be taken into consideration at the time, but procedures are written for the lowest common denominator - No help. The safety of the flight is in the hands of the crew. The Captain used the aircraft as a weapon against the innocent? The option not to fly is available to everyone. If you put your trust in the crew before you flew then you made that choice TO fly, so now you have to accept that they are best placed to decide on the actions appropriate in any given situation. If you don't accept that then be rational about it and don't get on board in the first place. You have a choice.

PP

[Astound Mars]

If my door was being kicked down by armed terrorists, or both engines flamed out, for example I would call mayday, but I have lost count of the times a pax has had a crafty fag in the toilets, it happens every day! I have to my recollection performed two or three rapid descents (outside the sim) both due to decompression, the last one going into dallas a few years ago.

Southend King: There is a difference between declaring an emergency and calling Mayday. I think an enquiry is on The cards.

[tango85]

Southend King

1 & 2 agreed. But did it call for a frightening emergency descent ?

3 - There is no such thing as "police evidence". The police only record what they are told.

4. Big deal. So long as they are allowed to take it on board, you cannot really stop them from drinking it.

5. The captain is entitled to declare an emergency - but he also has to be held accountable for it.

6. Yes, on the evidence of the crew. They will get seriously screwed if it transpires they exaggerated events.

9/11 has brought out a good deal of paranoia in the industry - and I think this will prove to be one good example of it.

p.s. I live on planet earth.

[ghost-rider]

MOL,

Out of interest, seeing as you appear to be in support of the pax ...

... if you were the Capt - what would you have done ?

[Astound Mars]

Ghost rider I would of sent my f/o out to assess the situation.

[tango85]

Pilot Pete

Smoking where prohibited on an aircraft is a SUMMARY offence in most juristictions including Canada and UK - see here

http://www.tc.gc.ca/aviation/regserv/enforce/Tp13734/english/law.htm

It is a fire hazard if lighted butts are placed in the paper bin - that is the reason for the total ban on smoking. I made the point because too many people react without knowing what the hazard actually is (you obviously included). In fact practiced illicit smokers know to cover the smoke alarm and flush their butts down the basin.

Your analogy with an explosive device is ridiculous.

Finally, the captain has a lot of authority on an aircraft, but he is still subject to both criminal and civil law, and cannot act as he pleases without fear of rebuke or censure. In this case, he needs to prove that he genuinely believed the aircraft was endangered, to justify his actions. From the evidence of the passengers, the flight recorder would give up some useful information as well.

[Georgeablelovehowindia]

I have watched the interview on Sky News with the MD of the tour operator which chartered the aircraft. As MOL says, it certainly presents an "alternative viewpoint"!! In short it is a rant against the actions of the crew and the captain in particular.
I hope this MD gentleman comes to realise that his remarks, at this stage of the proceedings, are inflammatory, ill-advised and bordering on actionable.

My airline has long advised that in the event of serious cabin disruption whilst airborne, flight deck crews must not intervene in the cabin but concentrate on landing the aircraft safely and sorting it out on the ground. This advice followed a serious incident when a Britannia Airways captain was stabbed and incapacitated, leaving the first officer alone to fly and land the aircraft.

[Crosswind Limits]

Whether the crew over-reacted or not may well be debatable but I do think the locked door policy makes it more difficult for flight crew to correctly assess any situation in the cabin. Clearly, however, aboard an aircraft the captain has the final word on safety issues and if he’s in any doubt, it is far better to be cautious than cavalier. Some passengers must understand that anti-social, abusive and violent behaviour will not be tolerated. After all there are other passengers who may well be intimidated and frightened by such behaviour and in the close confines of a pressurised cabin have nowhere to escape. Passengers are often stressed by the thought of flying and when you combine some of the above elements, the flight can quickly become a living nightmare! Perhaps the service of alcohol on such flights needs to be looked at. It will always be the case that certain individuals, when in a group or by themselves, cannot control their outbursts following alcohol intake.

Perhaps it is about time passengers were made specifically aware of the requisite articles of the ANO that apply to them. Perhaps this could be done as part of the safety briefing, whereby each passenger has in the back of his seat brief details of the ANO that apply to him. During the general safety briefing given by cabin crew, passengers could be referred to the ANO card and informed of the consequences of any breach.

Unfortunately selfish and ill-disciplined behaviour is all too common in certain parts of British society today. Moral standards have declined and many people have a very self-centred attitude, where the world seems to revolve around them. Whilst these people still constitute a minority in society, they can be a very vocal and disruptive one!

In some areas of the country social and community responsibility struggles to exist. The rot has been setting in for some time and it seems that very few people in government seem to want to grasp the nettle and deal with the problem. If parents can’t instil decent values in their children, because they themselves don’t possess them, then perhaps it’s time that the government (through schools) take up that mantle. Criminal and anti-social behaviour must be dealt with severely by the police and courts and from a personal standpoint, I would like to see the introduction of consecutive prison sentences for certain serious offences. There is very little room for political correctness in these matters.

As for the tabloid media, the less said the better. Am I right in saying that the Sun is the most widely read newspaper in Britain? Frightening really!

[Devils Advocate]

Astound Mars - w.r.t. There is a difference between declaring an emergency and calling Mayday sorry mate, but you are WRONG !!!

The correct terminology is either Mayday, or Pan, or Securite ( not many folks know about that last one ) dependent upon the level of urgency - any one of which can be downgraded or upgraded as required - and using anything else is non-standard RT ( and who else remembers the jet which crashed when it ran out fuel as result of the pilots being reluctant to declare a Mayday, i.e. just what the heck is a "fuel emergency" ?! )

And w.r.t. sending your FO outside - given the circumstances, that's got to be the stupidest thing I think I've ever read on PPRuNe.

[Hans-Uhlrich]

Tango 85

You may come rom "planet earth", but you certainly don't seem to have any idea of "evidence"

To say there is no such thing as "police evidence" is utter bull. This aircraf, had it landed at the original destination would have landed in Glasgow and dealt with under Scottish Criminal Law.Had the fans for example been drinking, the police would mention it in their report to the prosecutor (Procurator Fiscal).The main evidence here is likely to be eye witness ie the crew on board

Police are "witnesses", in Scotland with very special powers with respect to the public .If they give evidence in court eg eye witness "evidence", this is POLICE evidence.

[Astound Mars]

advocate

1.perhaps you being a skilled aviator and authority on procedure could enlighten me on the given circumstances?

2. you are WRONG in differences between pan securite and mayday.

3.your answer supercedes the stupidest thing you have ever seen on prune

4 presuming you are a captain, what would you have done to get to get accurate information.

[Capt H Peacock]

Absolutely not, Mr Mars! The flight crew are the only ones who can fly the aircraft. What are you going to do if he gets his lights punched out and you have a coronary with the stress? Your job is to protect the aircraft and its passengers long enough to get it on the ground where the problem can be sorted out by law enforcement, with whom one imagines, these individuals are used to dealing.

I’m incredulous as to what some of our readers regard as acceptable behaviour. I don’t expect to enter into a dialogue over Company procedures and relevant legislation with my passengers, and I don’t expect them to tell me which parts they consider trivial or not relevant, neither to I expect to ask which parts of the Law they will be complying with today.

The Law has been clarified post September 11th to rightfully put the weight of legislation behind the crews and groundstaff so that they may operate the aircraft safely and unhindered without fear of contradiction or threat. I can only imagine what liberties these groups might take with other public amenities. Their behaviour, however acceptable they may consider it to be, would not be tolerated in MacDonalds or on the bus. How then they consider it acceptable in an aircraft beggars belief.

The very great majority of the passengers I fly are decent, respectable individuals who know how to conduct themselves in public and adjust their behaviour in such a way that they cause as little impact on the comfort of others as possible. Hence as a group they are a pleasure to look after, and are welcomed back again and again. My crew have the right to be treated with dignity and respect, they are not there as sex toys or galley slaves, and considering their prime purpose on board, you would have thought that the protagonists in this incident might have been more compliant.

The fact that otherwise normal citizens can put on a football shirt, get lagered up, and then wander round like packs of marauding Vikings would, you might imagine, be problem enough for the forces of law and order. The fact that some of these people wish to travel on a public transport aeroplane is concerning indeed. I would be extremely circumspect in judging which of these individuals was likely to be under the influence, or likely to cause a threat to the safety and good order and discipline on board, reason enough to deny them boarding. We might well ask ourselves if it is wise to offer such groups transportation by air.

I can easily enjoy a flight without upsetting anyone, being courteous to the crew and my travelling companions, enjoying the service offered, and leave the aircraft at my planned destination without having transgressed the law or abused my welcome in any way. Why do a very small minority find this such a challenge?

[tango85]

Hans

Evidence comes from witnesses. Anything else is hearsay. In certain circumstances police may give expert testimony - but that no longer extends to observations about drunkeness. Medical evidence is required.

Since there were no police onboard, they are not witnesses to the events. The most evidence they can give is to say that the crew were "distressed".

The point I was originally rebutting was the suggestion that <the police evidence> was somehow a higher truth which made the passengers guilty.

ps - the Law of England and Wales applies to this case.

[Devils Advocate]

Astound M, wr.t.

1). The circumstances where senior member of your crew reports to you that a serious disturbance is occuring in the cabin, and where he/she themselves reports having been assaulted.

2). Actually I'm right, and I suggest that you have a read of the UK CAA CAP413 RT Manual 2002 / Chapter 9 / Sections 2.2 ( a & b ), section 4.2, and section 11 ( amongst others )

3). See answers to 1 and 2.

4). Invidious as it might seem ( because it is ) I would have to rely on the information being relayed to me by my professional colleagues in the cabin - they deal with the general public a lot more than I do, and as such they're probably better placed to assess the true situation than I am.
Also, aside from the new rules w.r.t. flight crew leaving the flight deck, it would be very stupid to attempt to assess the situation ( in circumstances described in 1 above ) only to find oneself embroiled in a melee and / or at risk of injury to oneself such that - as a critical member of the crew - you find yourself unable to operate in your normal capacity.

[Rollingthunder]

Oops,

Missed out Scotland.

Highly entertaining, so far.

One Hot Topic.

[Georgeablelovehowindia]

Hmmm... Interesting to note that Sky News are now broadcasting a considerably shortened version of Mr Hynds' interview!

[ghost-rider]

Astound Mars,

Good ol' delegation eh ?? ;)

[Astound Mars]

Yes ghost, best policy!! keeps nose intact!.

[slj]

Very wise of Sky to cut the later version of the travel agents post interview outburst that went so close to getting himself and Sky in trouble.

I wonder what the gentleman travel agent would have been saying if the captain had decided to fly on and God forbid, an accident had happended.

I bet the comment would then have been why didn't he land somewhere as a precaution.

[ghost-rider]

I see four out of the "Astraeus Six" :rolleyes: have been released !

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/2575913.stm

[Hans-Uhlrich]

Tango

I know the point that you were trying to make, and of course the law of England and Wales applies, but only because the a/c landed there.

I was niffed that you made reference to a sweeping statement there was no such thing as "police evidence"
-as 10,000 police officers in Scotland might disagree with you.

Evidence "all legal means exclusive of mere argument which tend to prove or disprove the subject under judicial examination"

Obviously you have knowledge of the workings of the law, there are many others here with a good background in jurisprudence.

[Unwell_Raptor]

Ghostrider:

Released yes, but on (presumably) police bail. That means that they will have to go back to the police station at a future date.

So that is not the same as released without charge.

[MOL]

What would I have done ? I would have assessed the situation thoroughly before calling a Mayday. I would like to know what information was given to the captain that ensured such a critical call. Sure the captain may have had no alternative but he must have been under the impression that there was turmoil on the plane to do what he did. It is clear that there was no turmoil or riot and the company should take its head out of the sand and listen to all the comments from passengers. There should be an inquiry with the result made public. Perhaps we could be told the reasons for all the problems with the aircraft on both trips as well.

As to the TraveL Agent's comments on Sky he was quite clear on the views of the passengers. The reason the repeat interview was shortened was because the original live interview wasabout 5 of 6 minutes long.

My own solution to prevent further 'misunderstnadings' would be to have cameras installed so that the crew can always see what's happeninfrom the cockpit - but then again that would cost money.

[ajamieson]

Unwell Raptor is correct.

3 AIR Alert Substitute 14:59GMT 14DEC02
Meanwhile, four men arrested yesterday after the incident have been released on bail, police said this afternoon.
A spokesman for South Wales Police said the four had been released on police bail pending further inquiries but that two other men continued to be questioned.
mfl

[wallup]

MOL

Assessed the situation thoroughly? How exactly?

Do you think the crew diverted because they felt like it?

Has your "friend" told you that the Police had to be called in at Santiago Airport to deal with these passengers?

That there was smoking and drinking on board?

How far would you let it go in your "assessment"?

[ghost-rider]

MOL,

You say you would have assessed the situation thoroughly before declaring a 'mayday'. I should hope so !

What evidence is there that the AEU skipper did not do just that ? He gets my vote !

I just love it when the hindsight brigade get involved. :(

Public enquiry ?!?! oh please ! :rolleyes: ( There's more important things going on in the world at the moment ! Like 'Cheriegate' for example ! :eek: )

This makes me cringe to read the posts slagging off the 'over-reaction' by the crew after loads of previous occassions with disruptive pax where we all scream for criminal action and justice against the offenders and go ape when nothing is done.

So what's the difference here ?!?!?! **** all if you ask me !

[MOL]

The police were not called to Santiago Airport - they were already there and if you care to read todays Scottish papers you will see that the club are being urged to protest against the masked Spanish police who beat the hell out of one of the Director's of Celtic's 14 year old son.

If you can't be open minded about this fine. Air companies who are quite happy to take a great deal of money from football supporters travelling to support their clubs in Europe, should
reinvest some of their profits in training their staff in how to tell the difference between good natured rumbustuousnous and a potential riot situation. In the cases of the crimes of smoking and sneaking a swig from a can, a quiet word would have been imeasurably more effective.

As far as any court case is concerned I would be surprised if those in court don't call over 100+ witnesses in support of themselves. In fact I'd go so far as to say I'll be surprised if there is a conviction in this case - unlike many who post here who seem to have made their judgements of guilt already.

[flower]

MOL,
I am interested in what your credentials are , although of course it makes no difference in posting comments here. Are you in the business ?
As I have said before as an ATCO we much prefer to overcall an incident than undercall it. It is far better to have too many emergency services on standby than not to have enough.

Mayday calls are classified as a distress message ie:

A condition of being threatened by serious and/or imminent danger.

a Pan call is classified as an urgency message ie:

A condition concerning the safety of an aircraft or of some person on board which does not require immediate assistance.

In the view of the crew on board the aircraft required immediate assistance thus by definition they made the correct call.

[ghost-rider]

MOL,

So when does a quiet word not become a viable option then ?

Do crews just ignore blatent disregarding of the safety announcements because it was a laugh to hear them sing YMCA ?

But what about Mrs Bloggs who is a bit deaf and couldn't hear a thing due to the row. A problem arises necessitating an evec and Mrs Bloggs hasn't a clue what to do - neither has anyone else for that matter !

Or how about a smile and a calming 'please return to your seat sir' to Mohammad Atta ?

As an earlier post quite clearly defined - the ANO is the law ! Period ! Endex !

- unless of course you think that disobeying the law good-naturedly, ie assaulting the crew or smoking on-board or using a mobile really were an issue ?!

Now IF - and it's a big 'IF' by all accounts - a jury clears all involved of any wrong-doing (assuming it ever gets that far ) then OK. But as stated before, at the time, the Capt obviously believed there was a genuine problem and acted accordingly ! He cannot be blamed for that !!!

Remember who caused the problem in the first place ! Certainly wasn't the crew. They weren't assaulting each other or smoking and drinking on-board !

So the pax only have themselves to blame ! ( and the majority of innocents only have the guilty few to blame ! )

[FlapsOne]

This travel agent bloke has just said on Sky that if the Captain had thought there was a serious problem he should have left the cockpit to sort it out!!!!!!!!!

Where has this guy been for the last 15 months!! Not selling tickets on flights I'll bet!

I have tried to read through much of this thread, but it's a challenge. There is a lot of reference to 'an emergency descent'.
Is this an acknowledged fact or just speculation? Was this an emergency landing or, as I believe, a precautionary landing to prevent a bad situation getting worse?

Is it really any surprise that the other football ''supporters'' are now saying it was an over-reaction by the crew? They are hardly likely to be over-joyed are they?

Whatever the specific circumstances, the Captain made absolutely the right decsion to get the aircraft, crew and pax on the ground in a safe and expeditious manner.

FL350 is no place for any sort of disagreement.

Leave it now to others to sort out.

MOL

Were you on board? You know so much about it, surely you haven't got all that from the Scottish Newspapers. I bet the Spanish and Welsh newspapers have other views.

Which should we believe?

[slingsby]

On the point on whether a mayday call was correct or not.

Having one incident which required a P/A to all persons on board would have heightened his alertness to a potential situation, but then to hear of a fracas at the rear of his aircraft which involved a number of pax becoming unruly and abusive, also with a cabin crew member being reportedly injured or incapacitated would have made the flight unsafe (IMHO). The thought of several pax possibly intoxicated and very potentially abusive coming forward to protest their fellow supporters innocence may well have swayed his decision to discontinue the cruise and commence a descent to the nearest alternative airfield. To initiate an immediate safe and controlled rapid descent, a mayday is the best and only appropriate call to make as this would serve to alert ATC to a potential problem, allowing them to clear potential traffic conflicts and alert SAR if required. A pan call may not have belied the seriousness of the incident so the captain made the best call he thought was appropriate at the time. his company and authorities are behind him, so am I.

[D McQuire]

MOL,

I don´t think I´m alone in thinking that you are talking out of your rear end. You seemed to have backed yourself into a corner which is clearly the wrong corner. Implementation of emergency procedures are not based on Sky News reports, Celtic supporters views or an irate travel agent view.

Having the read actual accounts from Astraeus it is clear the senior cabin crew member obviously felt a situation had developed or was developing that was getting out of hand. I don´t think the captain had any choice in the matter, he had to get that aircraft on the ground as soon as possible.

In short MOL, give up. You are recycling rubbish written by journalists who as usual know absolutely nothing about aviation.

[PaperTiger]

It is a fire hazard if lighted butts are placed in the paper bin - that is the reason for the total ban on smoking. I made the point because too many people react without knowing what the hazard actually is (you obviously included). In fact practiced illicit smokers know to cover the smoke alarm and flush their butts down the basin.

The reason for the smoking ban is because it is no longer socially acceptable to do so in a 'public place' (and keeps the cabin cleaner as a by-product). The fire hazard argument is a revisionist justification for the ban, not that one is really needed. We've had this debate many times before. But it is the law and those ignoring it need to be punished.

Actually just had a thought, is it 'the law' on charters ?

[wideman]

It would be nice if everything were black or white, clear-cut or not, but that's rarely the case.

There don't seem to be all that many facts in dispute: some passengers were carrying on during the safety demo, one or more was smoking in the loo, some had brought and been drinking booze on the flight, and there was inappropriate physical contact between one or more passengers and a FA. At this time, it isn't public knowledge whether that contact was closer to a finger in the ribs, a left hook to the jaw, or a slap on the bottom.

The bottom line is whether there was reasonable cause for the flight crew, based on the information available to them, to believe that a diversion and Mayday call were warranted.

I'd want to have a great deal more information before making an evaluation. The passengers involved, especially those detained, have a vested interest in convincing people that no reasonable cause existed. The flight crew and cabin crew have a vested interest in convincing people that reasonable cause to divert did, indeed, exist.

I'd have the most confidence in those who would first hear and evaluate both sides before leaping to a judgement and conclusion.

[Mr Softie]

I find it quite amazing that anybody can try to justify and defend the manhandling of cabin crew (minimal or not).

When a flight is boarded and indeed at all other times throughout the flight, the cabin crew are there for YOUR safety and to act at all times in YOUR interests. They are paid and trained to do this but at the end of the day they are there because they have a love of the job and people in particular.

At NO TIME should they ever be put in a position whereby they are the slightest bit concerned for their own, the aircraft and the passengers' safety. Whether it be a 'minor' altercation or a major incident, what gives ANYBODY the right to verbally abuse, manhandle or even simply raise their voice to a cabin crew attendent.

The situation here may, in some eyes, have been an over-reaction but I'm sorry to say that this is entirely brought on by the behaviour of a few people who clearly have no regard for common decency, manners and respect, let alone the more serious matter of what is the law.

For christ sake, this was an aeroplane not a pub on a Saturday night. I would have thought that after September 11th, the one lesson everyone would have learned was that aeroplanes are dangerous things to be on when an incident occurs on board.

The crew are just normal human beings earning a living and I for one feel that they were FULLY JUSTIFIED if, as is clearly evident, they felt that the aircraft and other passengers safety and well being was at risk.

If there had been an emergency on board and the flight had to be evacuated, then who are the ones there saving everyone else's necks.

And as for Harry Hynds and his nonesense spouted out on Sky news today. If it wasn't so serious it would be laughable !

[Remmington]

Its interesting that the debate is a chance for Flight Deck & Trolly Dollies to vent their self opinionated ideas that somehow they are a breed of their own and have some mental superiority over other humans. Their attitude stinks from the moment you check in, to the destination exit. The sooner they recognise that its no big deal to qualify to drive an aircraft or be a waitress, and they should recognise that the cargo that pays there wages should be treated with some respect and might even have superior intellect.
No doubt if you had a poll for:
"Should all passengers be shackled to their seats, gagged and have bags over their heads" it would be 99% in favour

[150Aerobat]

I don't understand why the captain carrying out a diversion and landing is such a big deal to so many people! It's not like he ditched the aircraft. As a passenger, if I'm on an aircraft and the captain states he's diverting to an alternate, frankly I don't need a reason. The fact that he/she wants to is good enough for me.

You just can't win can you. Captain receives information, makes a decision and actions it safely. Some pax have to take a bus to the original destination. In the name of flight safety, how can you possibly fault this outcome???

[IcePack]

Remmington I guess you did'nt make the grade then! Pratt:rolleyes:

[Caslance]

A news bulletin on BBC Radio 5 (at 19:30L) has just announced that the 6 people who were detained have been "released without charge".

I can't help wondering how some of the more "lurid" accounts of what took place during the flight hold up in the light of this.:confused:

[The Southend King]

The reports say they were released on Bail.

That means charges are still pending...

Interesting to read This report (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/2071826.stm) about an individual causing a diversion....and This report (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/1647359.stm) about a couple of mindless idiots.

Or how about this Emergency Diversion (http://www.thestate.com/mld/thestate/news/local/4581466.htm) or this example of Interference with a cabin Crew member (http://www.zwire.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=6107140&BRD=2212&PAG=461&dept_id=465812&rfi=6)

Looks like nothing new here, then. A couple of mindless idiots causing a diversion and (hopefully) paying the price.

[kippa]

Ice pack.... Correct!...

Rimmer shows profile of lapsed PPL (AIR RACER)!!!!!!


Loser..

[View From The Ground]

Well no one should be suprised that some people on this thread are trying to support the indefensible. It is a well known trait of many followers of the 'beautiful' game. One only needs to see Mr Venebles failing to condemn absolutely the actions of Lee Bowyer against Malaga to realise that it is football and those involved who often see themselves as a cut above everyone else, i.e. exempt for the rules applying to the normal populace, not flight deck or cabin crew.
Having had my rant about football and some of its supporters I would just like to come out in support of the crew and whatever action they took. Those of us who were not working the flight should not attempt to second guess the actions of those who were.
I believe that if the Captain had simply diverted and not declared Mayday there would be little debate on these pages. Who can say that the Mayday was overkill since the end result was the safe arrival at their final destination of everyone on board!
One last thing I think that Astraeus have been admirable in their support of the crew on board this flight. Wonder if all companies would have been so supportive in the glare of the inevitable media frenzy!

[ajamieson]

5 AIR Alert Substitute 19:03GMT 14DEC02
(reopens)
The remaining two Celtic fans arrested after an alleged disturbance on a 737 jet were on their way back to Glasgow, police said tonight.
But further arrests could still be made among the 140 fans bussed back to Scotland last night, south Wales police warned.
Two men were freed on police bail this evening following the release of four others earlier in the afternoon.
All six will have to return to south Wales to report back to police.
Supt Colin Jones, speaking from Barry police station, said detectives continued to treat the incident as “extremely serious”.
He also revealed that a stewardess at the centre of alleged assault allegations was treated by paramedics for a badly bruised arm after the plane touched down.
Supt Jones said tonight: “Nothing has come to my attention to scale down this incident, indeed the opposite is true.
“The word riot is emotive and was certainly not used by me.
“But there was a disturbance on the plane of a serious enough nature to warrant an experienced pilot to put out a May Day call.
“A stewardess was treated for bruising on one of her arms by paramedics at Cardiff International Airport and the flight crew has since returned to Gatwick Airport suffering from shock.
“We continue to treat this incident as serious and we will be making further inquiries in the Glasgow area as well as re-interviewing the cabin crew.
“There is the potential for further arrests.”
mfl

[BELHold]

I recently witnessed a confrontation between disembarking pax and cabin crew whilst on the airbridge, over remarks made about the attire of one of the pax.

This was escalating until the Capt appeared out of the flight deck and as if by magic the mood changed.

I do think that the four bars command a sense of respect in most people and to be honest defused the situation in this case. (Someone ate humble pie)

I was taught that " Courtesy is an essential quality, and one that will smooth many a path" maybe this sort of attitude should be adopted by more people in order to avoid this sort of situation.

[Devils Advocate]

BELHold..... on the other hand, I've seen a uniformed police officer beaten black and blue by yobs - and there was certainly NO sense of respect displayed in that instance by the yobs towards that officer and / or his office.

I'd similarly be very wary that one might be shown any respect just because you're in a pilots uniform.... indeed I remember a very close shave when a friend was nearly duffed-up in a pub due to certain people thinking that he was actually an off-duty copper ( he was wearing a similar uniform shirt, albeit that he had his epaulets in his breast pocket )...... because these people just do NOT understand respect.

[Mr Softie]

One other thing.

Those hard done by individuals who feel let down by the airline's supposed bad handling of the situation, I wonder what your own view would be given the following scenario :-

You own a restaraunt.

I turn up at said venue and have no regard for the rules on non-smoking, I then proceed to drink my own booze which again is against your policy.

When I am challenged by your staff I verbally abuse them and manhandle one of them to the extent that they need medical treatment.

Given those facts, I would expect to be ejected from your restaraunt and face police charges.

The fact this happened on an aeroplane makes this a 1,000 times more serious.

Man alive ! When will people wake up and smell the coffee.

You do as you are told on an aircraft, at all times !!!!

There is NO negotiation on this matter. It's simply NOT UP FOR DISCUSSION.

[BELHold]

Devils Advocate.....OK fair enough, but what you describe is a slightly different scenario.

What I am trying to say is that the "Good old days", Capt strolling down the aisle Dean Martin style gave confidence to uneasy pax.

I fully understand that the society we now live in has its fair share of d...kheads that have absolutely no respect for anyone or anything.....I was at the blunt end for many years, but I still feel that discretion is sometimes overlooked.

If I where in a position where I was told by a professional seasoned colleague that the safety of my AC was jeopardised I would take the same action that was taken in this case.

[chiglet]

MOL,
"Smoking" or "Taking a 'swig' from a Can" IS ILLEGAL
You don't like it, then GO BY BOAT :mad:
IF You travel by Air, [or Coach, or Ferry or Eurostar] then you abide by "certain" rules....AKA "Common Sense" or "Conforming to the Social 'Norm'".
Most "civilised" sections of our "Society" have NOT a problem with this. BUT If you have a "problem" with this, the I suggest that you STAY AT HOME :p :p
we aim to please, it keeps the cleaners happy

[ADC]

So, let's have a quick look at the police statement shall we?

But further arrests could still be made among the 140 fans bussed back to Scotland last night, south Wales police warned.

...so those who were telling Sky News today that nothing happened on board the aircraft may yet get a visit from the Old Bill.


Supt Colin Jones, speaking from Barry police station, said detectives continued to treat the incident as “extremely serious”.
He also revealed that a stewardess at the centre of alleged assault allegations was treated by paramedics for a badly bruised arm after the plane touched down.
Supt Jones said tonight: “Nothing has come to my attention to scale down this incident, indeed the opposite is true.

The Capitals are mine....doesn't sound like he is tending to take much heed of the protestations of innocence then. I wouldn't have thought a "tap on the shoulder" would result in being "treated by paramedics for a badly bruised arm"

I note with interest his view that he thinks the situation is tending towards being more serious than originally thought.

Well, here is a professional Police Officer, having taken account of the evidence reported to him , the interviews carried out of passengers and crew, and reports of evidence found on the aircraft by his officers.

Maybe MOL and his fellow apologists for drunken yobs endangering aircraft will now shut up.

Somehow I suspect not .

[cargo boy]

I believe that the complaining Celtic supporters may be being somewhat reluctant about shedding any real light on their behaviour during the flight which some reports say was starting to cause some concern on the tarmac in Spain before the flight even departed for Glasgow.

A Scottish regional newspaper has reported:SIX BAILED AFTER FRACAS SPARKED FLIGHT MAYDAY
Charles Lavery, Jamie Macaskill And Lynn Mcpherson

SIX Celtic fans arrested by armed police at Cardiff Airport were freed on bail yesterday after being accused of provoking a mid-air alert.

The men were released without charge pending further inquiries as more details emerged of the trouble at 30,000ft that prompted their pilot to make an emergency landing in Wales.

The six were among the 148 Celtic fans returning from Spain whose plane was met by armed officers after the pilot issued a Mayday alert.

They were held in Barry Police Station on Friday night but released yesterday on condition they returned to Wales in March.

The rest of the fans on board the plane had returned to Glasgow in a convoy of three coaches arriving in the city at 6.30am yesterday, with most claiming the air crew had over-reacted.

But the sudden diversion to Cardiff came after a stewardess called the pilot in the cockpit claiming: "Some of the passengers have gone berserk. I have lost the cabin."

The full details of the trouble aboard flight AEU308 emerged yesterday as police in Wales released the six men.

After take-off, the 737 climbed to 30,000ft and turned towards Britain.

By then the passengers had settled down and were being served hot meals. Alcohol was not being served but some passengers had smuggled booze on board and started drinking.

An emergency alarm then alerted the crew that someone had been smoking in the plane forward toilet - highly dangerous and illegal.

The captain announced police would meet them in Glasgow and all passengers would have to stay on board until the smoker was found.

A number of passengers started to complain loudly and a row developed between a woman and one stewardess.

Then a stewardess was struck heavily on the arm by a passenger. Within seconds the rows of rear seats on the 737 had erupted as at least 10 passengers began yelling and swearing.

It was then the pilot decided the situation was grave enough to make a Mayday call.

Source: Sunday Mail (http://www.sundaymail.co.uk/news/page.cfm?objectid=12454981&method=full&siteid=86024)

[MOL]

I'm amazed by the attitudes on here.
Six people have been released on bail 'WITHOUT CHARGE'.
Anybody who knows anything about law will tell you that this means that the case is by no means solid. Yet I'm still reading here that I'm an apologist for 'drunken yobs'. I think some of you guys should try to look beyond 'the company' and 'the job'.
Can you not understand that it is quite possible that the cabin crew made a total arse of all of this and left the captain in a dreadful position ? I am also amazed that the aircraft problems - outward and homeward - have got very little mention in all of this.

My own view now is that the cabin crew put the pilot in an awkward position. He was given information which he could not check out and reacted.

And if you think this couldn't happen please check the post below on the 'cabin crew' forum of this site. There are nearly 90 replies on this thread !! Sad stuff, I know, but perhaps some of these people should work elsewhere.

___________________________________________________

From the cabin crew forum on this website................

What do you find most annoying about our job???

Well.... where shall we start....

1 - When someone asks for a gin and tonic for example which you give to them and then their partner says 'i will have the same'.... Why the hell can't they ask for 2!!!!

2 - When someone calls you 'mate'.... In reply I tell them ' I am NOT your mate'!!!!

3 - When a group of pax come on and shows you their boarding cards, upside down and thumb over the seat number....

4 - When you have been away on a weeks trip and the idiots ask you what the weather is like at home....

5 - When flying over a city for example at night and they ask you 'where is that'?.... How the hell should I know.... I squeeze tea bags for a living....

6 - Hearing the unfastening of seat belts as soon as the wheels touch the runway after landing....

7 - Walking through the cabin with your hands full and someone tries to hand you their meal tray.... I am NOT an octopus!!!!

8 - Asking a question eg Tea???? when they have got their headphones on and they can't hear you.... Why oh why do they not take the bloody things off instead of looking at you gormlessly as if you are speaking swahili.... It is not rocket science....

I can go and on unfortunately I have to puit up with all of the above tonight so must foxtrot oscar now.... I look forward to hearing your favourites....

[Miller]

ADC says

Well, here is a professional Police Officer, having taken account of the evidence reported to him , the interviews carried out of passengers and crew, and reports of evidence found on the aircraft by his officers.

Maybe MOL and his fellow apologists for drunken yobs endangering aircraft will now shut up.


Well, if we were to follow your reasoning, there would be no need for a judicial system, and culprits could be locked up on the say-so of a suitably professional policeman.

I doubt that the likes of Paul Burrell would share your high regard for police professionalism, and I suspect that Celtic fans may be less than enamoured with policemen after their run-ins with the police in Spain which are going to be the subject of a club complaint and were also sufficiently serious for the BBC commentator at the game to pen an article in the Scottish press.

Still, the policeman in this instance says that “Nothing has come to my attention to scale down this incident, indeed the opposite is true.”

Now I don't know what the cabin crew have said to the police.

But what the airline has said is this.

"A number of passengers at the rear of the aircraft objected strongly and loudly, one female passenger becoming particularly agitated. At least ten other passengers became involved, and in the ensuing fracas the cabin crew member was struck on the arm."

Now that suggests to me that quite a fracas took place on this plane. I assume we can all agree on that.

And one Scottish newspaper reports that 'the sudden diversion to Cardiff came after a stewardess called the pilot in the cockpit claiming: "Some of the passengers have gone berserk. I have lost the cabin."

Again that seems pretty serious.

So can we all agree then that so far this sounds like a major incident in what is a very confined space. The airline remember says the passengers involved 'objected strongly and loudly.'

Well that seems like that then.

Except that there's only one thing that nags with me and it's contained in the airline's statement which says -

"It has become apparent from our debriefing of cabin crew that passengers in the forward and centre of the cabin may not have been aware of the second disturbance."

Well that might be so but this second disturbance was the one where, in the words of the airline -

"A number of passengers at the rear of the aircraft objected strongly and loudly, one female passenger becoming particularly agitated. At least ten other passengers became involved, and in the ensuing fracas the cabin crew member was struck on the arm."

And yet the airline can say that passengers in the middle and front parts of the aircraft may not have been aware of what was going on. I just find that part hard to understand, and I can only think that either this was rather a subdued fracas or else the rest of the passengers were stone deaf.

[ajamieson]

posted by MOL: Six people have been released on bail 'WITHOUT CHARGE'. Anybody who knows anything about law will tell you that this means that the case is by no means solid.

Nonsense; this is a completely invalid argument.

By law in England and Wales there must be a basis for engaging police bail - a basis which can be subject to the scrutiny of a magistrate at any time. Furthermore, it is obvious that further inquiries will have to be made into this incident which will take longer than the time period allowed by officers for questioning (36 hours under the legislation in this case). You can draw no conclusions either way about the validity of a prosecution case from the fact that a suspect is released on police bail.

[Danny]

MOL, I doubt very much you work in the industry. I certainly would have doubts that you are a pilot on a commercial aircraft as part of a team that includes cabin crew. Just because someone has posted those comments on the Cabin Crew forum on PPRuNe about certain aspects of their job doesn't mean you can associate that with the crew on the Astraeus flight under discussion here.

What does come across is your disdain for cabin crew. I can assure you that the training the Astraeus cabin crew receive and those of every airline I have worked for is primarily focused on safety and the standards of training are very high. Add to that the accumulated experience that they have and I know that whenever I get a report from the crew about anything going on behind the flight deck door it is reliable. If any of us on the flight deck have a query about a report from a cabin crew member then we make it and get an update on any situation and then make the appropriate decisions on what actions to take.

MOL, if you were a pilot and had that much trust and that kind of attitude to your fellow crew members then I would be very worried and would suggest a review of your CRM training. In this case it would appear that the media created the monster about the 'riot' by believing their own hype but the decisions made by the captain were based on facts that he had and not based your prejudices about a part of your crew who you obviously believe are of a lesser status than you.

As has been stated already, it is much better to deal with a situation where more than one pax is being unruly, when on the ground with the appropriate authorities available rather than at high altitude. Having seen how 'mob' mentality can sweep through a tribal group such as football supporters I am not surprised that the captain made the decision that he did. The current media reports showing some of the fans being meek and apparently 'victimised' reminds me of those fly-on-the-wall TV documentaries that follow police chasing thugs and criminals. You invariably see the the thug pleading innocence and even blubbing for his mum as soon as he is caught and not in a position to bully any more victims. How tunes change when they realise it has all gone wrong.

I am quite saddened by some of the contributors to this thread if they really are flight crew and prepared to criticise the actions of a fellow professional who was faced with a difficult decision regarding disruptive pax. I thought we were all agreed that there would be no tolerance whatsoever of disruptive behaviour by pax and that the full weight of the law should be used to achieve prosecutions and yet I fear that some of the contributors to this thread believe that there should somehow be exceptions to this rule.

[McIce]

If there was a disturbance on the ground at Spain which involved the police being called and if passengers were so unruly during the take off safety brief one would have to ask why the aircraft took off in the first place.

[Ranger One]

Just a couple of thoughts...

First, the debate about whether the mayday & divert was the correct response... we don't *need* to know the details: IMHO this is one of those safety calls where the old maxim, 'The Captain Is Always Right' applies, even when with hindsight some might try to argue that s/he was, on some level, 'wrong'.

Second, MOL has posted the following alleged account:

'About one hour into the flight the pilot announced that someone had been smoking in the toilets and that the police had been called and we would all be detained at Glasgow until the person owned up... ...a woman, probably in her 40/50s, there with her daughter asked one of the stewardesses if anyone had owned up to the smoking as she didn't want to be delayed at Glasgow Airport. The stewardess, pointing her finger at the woman said that an attitude like hers would lead her to get arrested
as well'

The idea of a 'collective punishment' indefinite detention of all the pax until the culprit owned up is repugnant to me and of, at best, dubious legality IMHO. If I were a pax on a flight where such an announcement were made, I would be somewhat annoyed to put it mildly.

If we take MOLs account at face value, the cabin crew threatening the female pax with arrest for asking what seems a reasonable and polite question is appalling, in any circumstances, and particularly on that flight in those circumstances - talk about pouring petrol on a fire! How would you feel if you were that pax?!

*IF* MOL's account is accurate, that is. Still a big 'if'. He may be limited in what he can say, perhaps Hamrah can shed some light on whether this part of MOLs account bears any relation to the facts?

R1

[Hamrah]

The account of events as related by MOL, supposedly from a friend of a passenger who was on the aircraft has significant inaccuracies.

Let em just re-iterate what we have said:-

A passenger was smoking on the aircraft. As per our and other airlines procedures, the Captain made an announcement that this was an offence and that police would meet the aircraft on arrival.

A heated discussion started between passengers about the smoking incident ensued, which rapidly deteriorated. During this "fracas" the cabin crew were abused, one of them physically. They reported this outbreak to the Captain who diverted. A significant quantity of alcohol bottles and cans were found secreted around the seats of the passengers involved , which they had taken on themselves.

You say, Ranger One, that there is a reported circumstances on board this aircraft which would have "annoyed" you. Annoyed you sufficiently to strike a female crew member??

I will emphasise this one last time. We are proud of the conduct of our entire crew in handling this very difficult situation. We have had detailed reports from all of them, and have had a briefing from the police on what they found.

As far as Astraeus is concerned, any further development on this incident rest fully with the South Wales Police.

H

[MOL]

Quote : (from Danny)
____________________________________________________

" but the decisions made by the captain were based on facts that he had and not based your prejudices about a part of your crew who you obviously believe are of a lesser status than you".
____________________________________________________

My point throughout has been that the captain may have acted based on false information. How do you know it was 'fact' ? In my opinion the decisions made by the captain may have been based on facts he thought he had.
The second half of the above quote does not deserve comment. Another assumption on your part.

Interesting the way 140+ passengers views, opinions and comments mean absolutely nothing to you. Then again perhaps they are of a lesser status than you.

All for one and one for all.

[Danny]

Interesting the way 140+ passengers views, opinions and comments mean absolutely nothing to you.[list=1] Having watched the interviews on TV with the returning fans and their total lack of credibility when it comes to understanding what is involved in maintaining the safety of an aircraft in flight.
AND having watched their own admission that there were indeed at least two seperate disturbances involving smoking, verbal and physical abuse.
AND having watched over the years the mob mentality of football supporters who, when inebriated can act in a sort of mass hysteria with savage thuggery followed with their embarrasment and pleas of innocence when, after sobering up they realise that they are now in trouble with the law.
AND being a pilot who relies on the observations of my cabin crew who are more than capable of assessing the seriousness of a disruptive passenger (or in this case several)[/list=1]
You can see which opinions and comments mean more to me. But, my opinion is not the one that will determine the outcome of any prosecution that may follow in due course. What my opinion means, on this website which is primarily aimed at pilots and crew, is that comments and statements made by people who obviously have very little idea what our profession is really about are shown what the primary considerations are, from a crew point of view. Trying to defend the actions of ANY passenger who has been disruptive AND has broken the law, is in my opinion, as a pilot disgusting and shows a lack of understanding of the seriousness of some of these Celtic fans actions.

As always, it is a minority who manage to tarnish the majority through their behaviour. When it comes to defending those who may be charged with offences in this incident I would prefer it to be by their lawyers in a court and not on here by Flight Sim 'experts'. I would hope that all airlines would back their crews as this crew has been backed here.

[Ranger One]

Hamrah,

Don't get me wrong - perhaps on reflection I should have added a comment to clarify my earlier post, to the effect that none of the foregoing should be taken as in any way sympathising with drunken yobbos or cretinous toilet-smokers. I'm not disputing that a serious incident took place. I hope the guilty receive strict justice, and the crew appropriate support.

Concerning:

'You say, Ranger One, that there is a reported circumstances on board this aircraft which would have "annoyed" you. Annoyed you sufficiently to strike a female crew member??'

- with respect, don't be silly. It would depend in what capacity I was on board the aircraft. It might have caused me to make appropriate remarks to the crew member at the time, more likely I would have kept my peace in the heated situation, and taken no action until after arrival.

I simply wished to comment that the threat of arrest allegedly made to the female pax was, literally, incredible as described by MOL - thus my 'IF' to the MOLs account. IF MOLs account were precisely true and complete on this point, I stand by my position that the actions of this member of the crew would be open to considerable question.

Come now, IS it credible that a crew member would threaten a pax with arrest for expressing concern about the possibility of delay, and asking whether or not the smoker(s) had been identified? I hope not.

R1

[tonyt]

well said Danny

as an ex scottish police officer now serving cabin crew I agree 100% with ur comments.

the words 'mincing cabin crew' I find offensive - and as an ex pc who ended up in extensive care courtesy of celtic supporters - well guys - if you haven;t faced it don't try to defend it.

Well done the Capt, CRM at its best surely. And if you think this lot were all innocent, did any of you see the press pictures of the guys on the coaches ? Didn't look like sober, innocent liittle darlings to me.

[Bovey]

I have said my peice in reply to MOL already, but would just add that it is a pleasure to hear how Astraeus is standing by it's crew's actions. Well done to them, it would have been easy to not take such a fine stance, other airlines don't for fear of bad publicity.

Well done once again.

PP

[tango85]

Danny

I hope you do not think the few posts made by me do not belong here merely because I questioned current logic. (Surely contrary views are welcome in any debate?)

I agree with you that a mob can be dangerous, and a captain cannot take any chances with his own and passengers lives. He also has to the make the final decision on what to do, and his company ought to defend his actions, unless they are proven to be erroneous by the subsequent investigation.

As has been mentioned here many times, a debate in advance of the verdict helps pilots to assess alternative courses of action should similar circumstances arise in the meantime. There is no requirement surely to toady a particular party line ?

Whilst it might be sop for UK airlines to call the police for smoking passengers - they cannot be arrested for it. Normally their name and address will be taken and they will recieve a summons through the post. The talk here suggests that it is viewed along the lines of attempted murder. This type of response shows of course that pilots can - er - get emotional too, and I fear that this whole case was an emotional - not a professional response to a percieved danger rather than a real one. The apparent actions of the crew in announcing a group punishment also show they were taking a hard line on ALL the pax and putting them into one category.

As for the fracas down the back, I can well imagine that the cabin crew were ill equipped to deal with drunks showing off to their friends. But if they were merely loud and obnoxious, this was hardly an emergency situation. Likewise, failing to obey the cabin attendants instruction, whilst an offence - it will not result in passengers being marched off to a gulag. They can be summonsed later. "Losing control of the cabin" is a very emotional way to say "the pax will not do what they are told"! I will eat my words if it turns out that they were engaging in an activity which DID endager the aircraft (sawing through the bulkhead ?)

As for the drink - if the airline is serious about enforcement then it should not allow duty free on board. Afterall they cannot hide booze in their shoes.

Second last point - According to some of the pax - the descent was very rapid and steep. What was the immediate danger in the pilot's mind that required this ? there were many inoccent passengers aboard. Was the pilot ANGRY perhaps ?

Having said all that, it was unfair that the airline expected a few cabin attendants to deal with this type of group - given the POTENTIAL for trouble. In future, soccer clubs should be made to send their own marshalls with the flight.

[PaperTiger]

The captain announced police would meet them in Glasgow and all passengers would have to stay on board until the smoker was found.
Damn' right if I'd been on that flight, not smoking or otherwise misbehaving, and heard that announcement I would have been more than a little annoyed. (Shades of GO in Italy).

Keeping the whole 'form' in because one (or more) have done something wrong doesn't belong in kindergarten, let alone on an airliner. OK I wouldn't have punched the CC, but why make such an announcement prior to landing ? At the risk of incurring the wrath of the Astraeans here, a less draconian PA might have curbed the smoking without enraging the rest of the load.

Perhaps some changes to be made when emotions have cooled ? Fire at will.

[PRB44]

HAMRAH
I think your crew did exacly the right thing,and how anyone can say the opposite is beyond me.
The reason I have come on is to say that air rage is not just
with football fans.No,I am not a Celtic fan,and not an avid football
fan.We followed you with 180 Celtic fans to GLA and the cabin
crew said how much fun they were and caused no problems at all.
And for the sad people on this forum,we had both male and female crew on our flight,and both were treated with respect.
I do feel that whether you are coming back from Spain,Greece or
wherever,any threat to the cabin crew should be taken very seriously,and any airline that does not is one I would not like to fly with.
My main point is to add to your comments that it is only the few that mess things up,and Celtic club can't be accountable for that,as the vast majority were well behaved and just enjoying themselves.
Well done to your crew,as far as I am concerned any of our crew
would have taken the same action facing the same situation,and
for other comments regarding the charters for football fans,we
have never had any problems and I hope you continue to do them.We certainly will!!

Bi for now

[Ranger One]

The captain announced police would meet them in Glasgow and all passengers would have to stay on board until the smoker was found.

Damn' right if I'd been on that flight, not smoking or otherwise misbehaving, and heard that announcement I would have been more than a little annoyed. (Shades of GO in Italy).

My point exactly. I'd forgotten about the GO case.

Another thing to bear in mind WRT this PA announcement is that this situation would have taken place on the ramp in Scotland. I remember my barracks-room lawyer training from student days (in Glasgow, as it happens!) - Scots law is different from English law; in England you are under arrest from the moment you are informed you are under arrest. In Scotland you are under arrest any time you're not free to go about your lawful business, you don't need to BE formally arrested.

The possible unlawful arrest of the ~130+/- innocent pax could have had very serious legal consequences for the Captain.

Leave the detention to the local authorities - they're paid to do such things, we're paid to fly, not to use kindergarten techniques to try to flush out lawbreakers.

Having said all that, we have NO confirmation that this PA was ever made - it's mentioned in MOLs accounts, but Hamrah has only stated that it was announced that police would meet the flight, there is ZERO confirmation that the alleged threat to detain the pax indefinitely until the smoker confessed was ever made.

Again don't get me wrong; the crew clearly had a nasty situation on their hands. Kudos to them for resolving it with nothing worse that a bruised arm. That doesn't mean the entire incident is exempt from analysis, from which we can all learn something. There are points to ponder here, that's what I'm doing. NOT taking potshots at the Astraeus crew.

R1

[PaperTiger]

we have NO confirmation that this PA was ever made - it's mentioned in MOLs accounts and the Mail on Sunday story. Of course we don't know where they got it from.

[The Southend King]

I see Harry Hynd's interview getting some prominence in the Mail on Sunday this morning. I wonder if his suggestion of an alternative motive worthy of review by the airlines lawyers :)

I am also highly amused at the old Tabloid journalism version of flying. It appears there is only two types of aircraft descent, A PLUNGE (fairly normal descent), or a TERRIFYING PLUNGE ( probably used some speed brakes along the way).

Suppose I should check my QRH for the TERRIFYING PLUNGE PROCEDURE before my next sim check ;)

[Tom the Tenor]

The aircraft involved had gone tech a few times in Glasgow and Santiago. What aircraft was she - a classic or NG 737? Why did the aeroplane go tech and is she in service today or in a hangar for work?

[Devils Advocate]

A friend of mine has told me it was a B737-300 (G-STRB).

The fault reported was to do with an engine start over-temp indication, i.e. where the EGT gauge flashes at you when you’re starting the engine because it thinks that some start-up parameter has been exceeded.

So one could imagine that the crew commenced starting the engines and saw the EGT gauge flashing at them. So they shutdown the engine and called on engineering to have a look at it.
The engineer(s) do their stuff and report that it should be ok now.
The crew once again start the engine, and guess what ? Yep, the EGT gauge still flashes at them, so they shut the engine down and call the engineer back.
Whilst somewhat of an iterative approach, they keep going at this ( and how else can you prove that it's ok ? ) wherein, after a number of start attempts, it's finally determined to be a fault with the 'start monitoring system' and not the actual engine itself.
So the flight crew check the QRH & the MEL and determine what procedure applies ( if any ), get the techlog signed off by the appropriately licensed engineer and away they go.

Aside from which, a fault in the engine start over temp system is really no big deal, once you’ve had it assessed as such - but prudence is always the watchword of professional aviators !

Overall, I’m sure that we’re all aware that all things mechanical occasionally go wrong, e.g. bicycles, cars, coaches, boats, ships, trains. Concord’s, space shuttles, and Boeing 737's do indeed sometimes go tech - and when they do we fix'em, and in the case of things which convey one either into the air or onto the sea one tends to be a bit more pedantic about having it working properly before venturing forth........ and I’ve yet to meet a flight crew that would take an un-airworthy aircraft into the air, if only for the protection of their own wellbeing, never mind risking pax and cabin crew, etc. - so any suggestion of shoddy practice in this instance is pure codswallop and or mishief making.

It sounds to me like the Astraeus flight crew did it by the book, and there’s nothing wrong with that !

[javelin]

Most people who travel on aeroplanes are basically normal, ordinary people. Unfortunately, cicumstances can change the mood of a group, espescially when stress, alcohol, nicotine deprivation or general excitement are present. I spent my time in the right hand seat watching experienced skippers deal with a variety of situations, some well, some not so well. Now it has been my turn for over 6 years and I take with me the experiences I had over the previous years. One thing I always do on the smaller aircraft is to front the passengers to welcome them on board if time permits. At times I am very direct and let the passengers know in a friendly but firm manner that we need their cooperation and expect appropriate behavior during the flight. This is particularly important on special flights such as charters or Friday night IBZ flights. I take pride in the fact that so far ( touch wood ), I have never had trouble on a flight and my sympathy goes to the skipper on this flight who seemed to be caught between a rock and a hard place. All professional pilots attend regular CRM courses, perhaps with events such as this and more importantly, the added stresses of locked flight deck doors, we are seeing that the alledged advantage to a locked door can sometimes be far outweighed by the difficulty in comunication between senior Cabin Staff and Flight Deck as a situation is developing. I am not advocating that a Flight Deck member should leave the cockpit, we have seen the result of that before. It would be interesting to find out from the crew involved if they felt that the locked door was a hinderance ?

[MOL]

It will be interesting to see the charges and court case that follow all of this. I suspect there will be none.

Riot claim used to justify faulty plane risk, say fans

By Neil Mackay, Home Affairs Editor


The Celtic fans on board the flight from Spain which made an emergency landing in Cardiff after its pilot made a mayday distress call are intending to sue the airline Astraeus over its claims that rioting occurred on the plane.

The pilot and cabin crew on board flight AEU308, which was taking the group of mostly professional, middle-class fans back to Glasgow from Santiago de Compostela, say a stewardess was attacked after complaining about a passenger smoking in the plane's toilet. As a result, the Boeing 737 and its 150 passengers were diverted to Cardiff as the pilot issued the emergency call. RAF helicopters were scrambled and the plane was greeted by armed police backed up by teams of firefighters and paramedics.

Six passengers were arrested for public order offences and after several hours of interviews the rest were bussed to Scotland. All six have now been released on bail pending further inquiries. At first it looked like another bad day for Scottish football with Celtic fans fighting mid-air. But does the Astraeus version of events stand up to scrutiny? The fans say no.

While they admit they were 'boisterous and noisy', they also insist that there was absolutely no violence and no aggression shown to the crew. In an attempt to understand why they were diverted, the fans have come up with a few conspiracy theories themselves. Chief among these is the claim that the plane was suffering from a mechanical fault and Astraeus used fans' rowdy behaviour as an excuse to set the plane down early.

Pat Coogan, a 50-year-old council official and grandfather who was sitting at the front of the flight, said: 'There were problems on take-off on Thursday morning before we left.
'The same thing happened on the Friday when we were flying back. We were on board and then they disembarked us ... We got back on board about two hours later and the pilot told us the engines had been tested.
'We were a bunch of football fans so there was obviously some singing and a bit of crack, but nothing threatening. The pilot made an announcement that someone had been smoking in the toilet. He said it was dangerous and illegal and that the police would be waiting for us in Glasgow.
' A few minutes later there was an announcement that the cabin crew should take up their positions for landing.
'There was a sudden dip and the plane plummeted. The lady opposite me was having a panic attack and praying .
'I was terrified. We'd already had two delays over the engines and now we were plummeting out of the sky. We thought the plane was in trouble. We were scared out of our wits.
'There was no riot. People were having a laugh and a joke. I saw no-one standing up. I saw no-one fighting. I saw no damage to the plane. I was told that when a stewardess was speaking at the back of the plane to passengers about smoking in the toilet, someone tapped her on the shoulder to ask her a question. Is that what they're interpreting as an assault?
'What they are saying about a riot is a piece of nonsense.
'When paramedics came on board in Cardiff they asked where the
casualties were and were shocked that no-one was injured. The only riot that took place was in the imagination of the crew.'

One passenger did have to be taken off because they suffered a panic attack due to the tense landing.
'This was a total farce and the crew made a mountain out of a molehill. It certainly crossed my mind that using a riot might be a way of getting around landing with engine problems.'

David McKenna, a 40-year-old architect from Glasgow who was sitting at the back of the plane, said: 'When we heard someone had been smoking we all agreed it was wrong . We were told that if the culprit didn't own up that we'd be kept on the plane in Glasgow until police spoke to us.

'A Glasgow lawyer then called over a stewardess and told her she
couldn't keep innocent people on a plane and there was a bit of
finger-waving. The guy was just making it clear he knew his rights. She seemed to take umbrage at this and ran like a crazy woman to the back of the plane in tears. I was astonished.

'She called the pilot and said she'd been assaulted -- but she hadn't been. That's when we veered off course and nose-dived thousands of feet. We were all frantic.

'No-one was drinking on this flight and only a handful of people had one or two beers before they boarded. More than 140 people don't all tell the same lie -- and everyone on board, apart from the crew, say there was no disturbance.

' We have to set the record straight. People will see us as hooligans and it will do Celtic damage unless we make it clear we did nothing wrong. We're planning a group action against Astraeus for distress and negligence.'

Harry Hynds, the travel agent who arranged the trip, backed up the fans and attacked Astraeus, saying: 'Everyone who was on that plane knows what really happened and it is nothing like what is being portrayed by the airline.'

Iain Macauley, a spokesman for Gatwick-based Astraeus, defended the firm, saying a 'passenger objected to being asked to extinguish his cigarette' by a cabin crew member.

He said that after an announcement from the captain stating such
behaviour would not be tolerated 'a number of passengers at the rear objected strongly and loudly '.

Macauley added: 'In the ensuing fracas the cabin crew member was struck on the arm.' He said she did not require hospital treatment and claimed that despite alcohol being banned some drinks containers were found later.

Macauley also said that a 'warning indicator relating to the starting procedure of one engine delayed departure'.

Superintendent Colin Jones of South Wales police, which dealt with the incident, said it was 'somewhat unusual' that the pilot made a mayday call.

[liquidhockey]

I think her Reg is G-STRB.

Its always going tech that one much to the deleight of us loaders! lol

Dave

[Devils Advocate]

MOL, thanks for that ( though one hopes that what you've posted is not copyrighted material from a newspaper and / or that you have persmission to cut / paste it ? ) as gives me something to do, on a dreary cold Sunday avo, by way of picking out the huge holes in it..........so here we go:

W.r.t. ‘Celtic fans ...... intending to sue the airline Astraeus over its claims that rioting occurred on the plane’ – Now correct me if I'm wrong, but I think that if one reads the press releases / statements from Astraeus they have made NO mention of 'a riot', indeed the tone of their announcements have been very conservative, preferring to deal in fact rather than emotion or hearsay. Indeed I think you will find that it is the press ( and press alone ) that have used the word 'riot' ( it reads better, and so sells more papers ! )

W.r.t 'It certainly crossed my mind that using a riot might be a way of getting around landing with engine problems.' :rolleyes: Just who thinks this stuff up ?!
Indeed it hardly adds up does it, e.g. having delayed the departure to ensure that all was well with the aicraft, the crew would hardly be likely to have then diverted due to a mechanical fault and not informed the passengers of it - especially so as they declared a Mayday and in it stated that it was due to a disturbance in the cabin, and which is something that they might not wish to wish to broadcast into the cabin, lest it makes matters worse !
Also, following the diversion to Cardiff, I think that you’ll find that the aircraft was subsequently then flown directly back to Gatwick – without need for any engineering work to be done to it prior to that journey. Like I say, it doesn’t add up.

W.r.t. 'Pat Coogan, a 50-year-old council official and grandfather who was sitting at the front of the flight, said: 'There were problems on take-off on Thursday morning before we left.' - There were not problems on takeoff - maybe BEFORE takeoff during the push-back / engine start; one must accurately report what has happened as it makes a lot of difference (imho).

W.r.t. ‘'There was no riot’ – Indeed, and to my knowledge nobody at the Astraeus has used that phrase, those upset by this can thank (blame) the press for that one.

W.r.t. ’People were having a laugh and a joke. I saw no-one standing up. I saw no-one fighting. I saw no damage to the plane.’ - Indeed he might not have seen anything, he was after all reported as sitting in the front of the aircraft, more than likely facing forwards, and very probably not privy to what was happening at the rear of the cabin and similarly unlikely to be able to see any damage - that HE didn't see anything does not mean that nothing happened ( additionally, please read the explanation provided by 'rai' - on the next page (http://www.pprune.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=75278&perpage=15&pagenumber=11) - as to why this might be so )

W.r.t. ‘I was told that when a stewardess was speaking at the back of the plane to passengers about smoking in the toilet, someone tapped her on the shoulder to ask her a question. Is that what they're interpreting as an assault?’ – Ah, so he’s passing on second-hand / hearsay information – is this another fine example of accuracy in journalism ?!

W.r.t. 'obviously some singing and a bit of crack, but nothing threatening' - Really ? They might think that it's all "just a larf !" but to some it might well indeed seem VERY threatening !

W.r.t. ''The same thing happened on the Friday when we were flying back. We were on board and then they disembarked us ... We got back on board about two hours later and the pilot told us the engines had been tested.' - Well at least he got that bit right, i.e. the pilots were making sure that the aircraft was as safe as possible - and rather than have the pax stuck on the aircraft for what might have been a lengthy wait, they ( the crew ) arranged for the pax to be taken off the aircraft so that they ( the pax ) might be more comfortable and be better able to take advantages of the facilities within the airport ( no doubt to drink and smoke )

W.r.t. ‘She called the pilot and said she'd been assaulted -- but she hadn't been.’ – Firstly define assault ? Secondly how does he know that she wasn’t assaulted ?

W.r.t. 'No-one was drinking on this flight….’ – How does he know that ? And how come the police found empty liquor containers in the rear of the pax cabin ? ( unless…. of course ! duh, oh silly me for not having seen it sooner, the crew must have planted it ! It’s all so obvious now. :rolleyes: )

W.r.t. ‘….. and everyone on board, apart from the crew, say there was no disturbance’ – which is no doubt why a cabin crew member has bruising on her arm, there is damage to the aircraft, the police have bailed some of the passengers to return at a later date and / or that more of the pax could be looking at arrest w.r.t the events they might have been party too onboard.

So, given the rather obvious gaping holes in his version of events, one might say that Mr.Coogan’s credibility might not be quite as rock solid as some might hope and / or be reading in the press today.

Ps. Liquidhockey – please define what you mean by ‘always going tech’ – i.e. provide us with some facts and figures please, lest we assume that what you write is just hearsay or invention too ?

PPs. Do journo’s have special dictionaries from which they swap ordinary words like ‘descend’ with ones line ‘plummet’ ?

[BOTFOJ]

I think one thing the AEU commercial team have found out the hard way is that all football/sports charters are NOT the same. There is a huge gulf between the well organised 'official' flights and the unofficial flight they operated last week. Official flights tend to carry supporters club members on club charters, where one sniff of trouble and you have a life ban, plus the security on board is usually club security, plus well known fans who command respect of their peers plus generally some police spotters thrown in. The unofficial lot tend in my experience have had little or none of the above and fans can buy their flight out of the back pages of the local rag with no verification of who they are etc, typically if theres a match ticket in the price it is not unknown for that ticket to be in the wrong end of the ground. I would hope the AEU buys do their homework in future and dont just pick up any old work that comes by the door, even in these hard times you can still be brave enough to be choosy if you want.

[Cornish Jack]

Seems to me we have a real problem here - a dichotomy as to how these things should be handled. On one hand the Captain (who has signed for, and has responsibility for, the complete operation from boarding to disembarkation) and on the other the (for want of a better word) passengers. Since we're a democracy (allegedly), obviously the resolution of these matters should be left to the vote. "All those in favour of an immediate diversion to Cardiff say aye, or yachidaa, those who want to carry on having a free-for-all, hit someone!" :p
The rib-tickling antics of our (i.e. British) footie fans could never be interpreted as offering a threat to anyone (Did Anthony Carn ever get anywhere with his request for an ironic smilie?) and they would, naturally, feel mortified at any suggestion to the contrary. As suggested elsewhere, the lead offered by that bastion (I think that's the word I want? :rolleyes: ) of professional footie, Terry V in defending the application of football studs to an opponent's face is par for the course.
All this being so, I can only offer the suggestion made by a contributor to a thread on a similar topic some time ago - Use three crew aircraft for this task. Employ LARGE FEs and issue them with a six cell Maglite. At the first hint of standard passenger idiocy, have him take a cabin stroll examining the cabin fittings by torchlight. I venture to suggest that peace will reign pretty quickly. ;)
Should this prove to be unacceptable to the ubiquitous bean counters, hand these charters over to their correct environment - the freighters. Careful with the straw on the floor though - some of these characters haven't had to deal with such luxurious surroundings. :mad:
One final thought - The staunch defender of the rights of the common (and I use the word advisedly) man. MOL, lists his "from" as Dublin .......... MOL/Dublin ????? No, couldn't be ..... surely not ..... no, no .,.. there must be LOTS of MOLs in Dublin :D

[BDiONU]

Having read all the posts in this thread I want to give my professional opinion as an ex-D&D controller at the Scottish ATCC.

Firstly there has been debate as to whether the Captain should or should not have called a mayday and whether he'll be held accountable;
There are two states of emergency (see CAA document CAP413 here http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/33/CAP413.pdf) Distress A condition of being threatened by serious and/or imminent danger and of requiring immediate assistance, for which the RT call is Mayday. and Urgency A condition concerning the safety of an aircraft or other vehicle, or of some other person on board or within sight, but does not require immediate assistance, the RT call is Pan.
There are posts in here from people who have spoken directly to the crew and there is doubt that the pilot felt in need of immediate assistance. So which distress call to make was a no-brainer, it had to be a Mayday (I don't see the relevance of a comment posted in here about a police superindent thinking it was unusual, this is outside of his professional competence).
I cannot envisage, given the circumstances described, that there will be any 'blame' attaching to the captain for over reaction (if indeed hindsight shows that it was an over reaction). Every controller that I know would much rather pilots reported emergencies accurately. Yes it is no problem to upgrade a pan to a mayday, but by the same token it is easy to downgrade. If you come in with a cautious pan, because you fear the repercussions of a mayday, then it is possible that it may work against you. The time interval between pan then mayday could be wasted because that time can be used to launch the rescue choppers and get them heading toward you. No-one in ATC would EVER castigate a pilot for declaring an emergency.

Secondly; Kinloss is mentioned because thats where the Air Rescue Coordination Centre is based (there are no rescue choppers there, although some are along the coast at Lossiemouth). The choppers are scrambled almost by routine, irrespective of the location of the aircraft in distress, because in the event of a catastrophe in addition to rescue they will be used to ferry the injured to hospital. There is a whole rescue organisation equipped, trained, willing and in fact just waiting around to come to your aid when you feel you need them.

Thirdly; In my professional opinion (irrespective of the opposing views posted in this thread about what actually happened on board) the captain reacted in an exemplary and professional manner to an undoubted threat to his aircraft and its occupants (whether real or perceived) and is to be congratulated.

Altercations on an aircraft in flight cannot be resolved whilst still in the air because the captain has an aircraft which has to be flown. They can be debated safely on the ground. When all is said and done what was lost by the aircraft diverting? Everyone got home in one piece and that may not have been the case otherwise.

[Remmington]

Have a look at http://www.flyastraeus.com/ for more conflicting events.
Interesting to read the bio's and "what if " policies

(Edited by PPRuNe dispatcher : URL corrected)

[scroggs]

There seems to be some fundamental failure of understanding amongst those who would suggest that the Captain of this flight overreacted. An aircraft is no place to have any kind of argument which has become physical. There is no 'acceptable' level of violence or passenger disruption. In a 737 there are only four or so flight attendants, who control the cabin with the consent and co-operation of the passengers. If that consent or co-operation is withdrawn, for whatever reason, then the senior F/A is quite right to state that she has 'lost' the cabin. As the potential consequences of this loss of control of, in this case, a violent situation are injury or worse to both crew and innocent passengers, the Captain has no choice but to land immediately and have the source of the trouble removed and dealt with by the appropriate authority.

There is also no time to conduct some kind of slow-time pro-and-con assessment of what the right course of action might be. Perhaps some of those arguing against this crew's actions would like to suggest at what time they would have regarded this situation as serious enough to require immediate landing? Broken cabin furniture? Use of objects as weapons? Individuals with broken limbs or open injuries? Or would they accept that the end result, where everyone was returned to the ground safely, although in some bad grace, should be regarded as a successful outcome of a potentially very dangerous (and actually very frightening) situation. You can't just open the door and throw the idiots out!

As has been said in many stuations in aviation, it's better to be on the ground wishing you were in the air than in the air wishing you were on the ground.

[rai]

Miller says:

And yet the airline can say that passengers in the middle and front parts of the aircraft may not have been aware of what was going on. I just find that part hard to understand, and I can only think that either this was rather a subdued fracas or else the rest of the passengers were stone deaf.

Having recently worked a stint as a member of cabin crew i am confident that it would be possible for there to be some sort of disturbance at the rear of the aircraft of which passengers at the front and centre of the aircraft would not be aware of.

Aside from the obvious fact that an aircraft cabin in the cruise is a relatively noisy environment you also have to take into account that passengers are facing forward and are virtually enclosed by the seats in front of them, the backs of their own seats and the side wall of the fuselage. All of these factors significantly reduce the passengers visibility and ability to hear things (any cabin crew member who has had to repeat the question "what would you like to drink sir/madam?" three or four times will understand what i mean - of course the same applies to passengers who have to repeat their requests several times to crew who cant quite catch what they are saying).

In fact, when i myself have been positioning on a flight in a passenger seat i always notice how different a passengers viewpoint of a cabin is to that of the crew. Its almost like you're in a different place and you have little awareness of whats happening more than a row ahead or behind you. The statements we've heard so far seem to indicate that no passengers were standing up which re-inforces the probability that it would be very hard for passengers in the centre and front of the cabin to hear, see or accurately deduce what was happening at the rear of the cabin. As a result i wouldnt be very surprised if the majority of the passengers didnt see a disturbance that is later proved to have been quite serious and said as much in their statements to the police and the press.

[Ray Ban]

I wonder how many of the so-called witnesses travelling as fans were suitably inebriated during the incident? Some football supporters must understand that behaviour that "may" be acceptable in a pub in town on a Saturday afternoon is just NOT acceptable in an aircraft at altitude.

Someone on here said that most of the fans were "middle class professional people". Well for their information, some of the worst hooligans in the Chelsea Headhunters and ICF are city bankers and stockbrokers. All they are is mindless yobs dressed in Armani suits.

I doubt if any of the voices here suggesting that the crew over-reacted to a very minor incident are professional pilots.

Finally, well done to the crew for dealing with the situation and getting the aircraft safely on the ground.

P.S. I wish football was not the national game - it brings nothing but embarrassment and shame to these shores!

[Miller]

rai said


Having recently worked a stint as a member of cabin crew i am confident that it would be possible for there to be some sort of disturbance at the rear of the aircraft of which passengers at the front and centre of the aircraft would not be aware of.


I appreciate your experience but according to the airline this is not some sort of disturbance. Again to quote what they say

"A number of passengers at the rear of the aircraft objected strongly and loudly, one female passenger becoming particularly agitated. At least ten other passengers became involved, and in the ensuing fracas the cabin crew member was struck on the arm."

And having said that I cannot understand how the airline can go on to say how passengers in the front and middle of the aircraft may not have heard what went on. So, as I said earlier, I can only conclude that this was a relatively subdued fracas (which differed little in tone from the ordinary background noise to be expected) or else the passengers were stone deaf. I appreciate though that you're trying tell me how it could come about, so thank you for that.

Whatever, accounts in the Scottish media today have one couple
on that aircraft saying goodbye to each other, convinced, in their minds at least, that they were falling to their deaths. I find accounts like that disturbing.

Similarly I would have trouble with any announcement (has anyone confirmed its veracity?) that the passengers were informed that they would be detained at Glasgow till the person or persons smoking cigarettes owned up. In common with others on this board a situation like that would raise immediate questions in my mind of false imprisonment. I am not sure of the legal position on this but an announcement like that, to my mind at least turns an aircraft from being a mode of transport into a means of confinement. Again I must stress though that I have no idea whether this announcement was in fact made.

Finally, the pilot took the only course of action option to him with the information available to him. I have some nagging doubts expressed above as the accuracy of the information conveyed to him, but his decision to divert seems like the only one open to him.

[ratsarrse]

Incidents of 'air rage' seem to be increasingly common these days. I am curious to know why this is the case - the accepted wisdom is that the availability of alcohol is a primary cause. For me, it is no coincidence that reported incidents have increased in parallel with the complete ban on smoking and the increasing availability of cheap flights. Combined with cramped seating in economy and large numbers of people that suffer with mild claustrophobia and may well have mild anxiety about flying anyway then it isn't surprising that incidents occur.
I'm generally very relaxed (some people might say that I tend towards the horizontal ;) ) but I was verging on the irritable after a recent transatlantic flight. I can easily imagine how someone would become aggressive.
I honestly believe that the smoking ban is a mistake - for some passengers it is the straw that breaks the camel's back - and it is the cabin crew that have to deal with it. I have nothing but respect for cabin crew - I wouldn't do their job for all the tea in China.
I also understand that football fans can be intimidating - people behave abnormally in large groups. That is part of the enjoyment of going to a football match, or even a concert or a comedy show. It taps into something primal. However, trapped in a metal tube with such a group of people when a few people are becoming unruly is always going to be unnerving. In all probability there is some exaggeration/understatement from both sides, but as I wasn't there I am not in a position to comment.
What can be done? We cannot stop people from becoming angry and aggressive. No amount of training will eliminate that. My humble suggestion is one that I don't see happening for commercial reasons, but might go some way to reducing the number of people that do find themselves behaving irrationally. Simply - more space. Lower density seating with more legroom. Oh, and let me have a fag!

[Grantm]

Ray Ban;
I wonder how many of the so-called witnesses travelling as fans were suitably inebriated during the incident?

Indeed, you wonder. You don't know, you weren't there.

Ray Ban;
Someone on here said that most of the fans were "middle class professional people". Well for their information, some of the worst hooligans in the Chelsea Headhunters and ICF are city bankers and stockbrokers.

This isn't Chelsea. Now you are just comparing apples and oranges (no, not that kind of orange.)

None of us were there. We don't know what happened. So stop trying to make out this was a plane full of drunken ICF.

The pilot decided to land, no-one will argue with that. As for the information he based this on from the crew, well it looks like it will be an interesting trial if it ever gets that far.

[pancho]

Hamrah, Danny, any chance you could close this thread now ? I think the crew concerned have had a long few days, a little protection would be good just now. The "know it all" fools have had their say, now lets move on.;)

[PaperTiger]

announcement (has anyone confirmed its veracity?)The wording from Astraeus' website is at odds with what passengers say they heard. Believe whom you will.

[MOL]

Good man Pancho - call posters who give another viewpoint 'know it all fools' and then censor them all.

I suppose the couple who, with many other passengers thought they were crashing and said goodbye to each other may have had a long few days as well. But don't worry about the public or, as some people have referred to them on here, the common people, the yobos, the drunks etc etc.
I am looking forward to any court case that takes place because it will show people like you that there is another side to all of this.

I can assure you that the passengers are not letting this go and will be bombarding the club from tomorrow to take up their case. This will not go away.

Now, censor away.......

[JonathanH]

I totally refute any suggestion that technical problems were responsible for the diversion to Cardiff. The aircraft was serviceable when it left Santiago, remained so throughout the flight and was serviceable when it arrived at Cardiff. There was a minor technical fault which was attended by engineers at Santiago that did delay the flight's departure but the technical fault was resolved fully before departure. The diversion to Cardiff was made solely as a direct result of passenger action aboard the flight.

Suggestions by certain parties on this bulletin board indicate reports that they dispute the injuries sustained by one of the cabin crew members aboard the flight. These suggestions are factually inaccurate. A cabin crew member was struck in the arm with sufficient severity to cause swelling which has now developed into extensive bruising. The cabin crew member received medical attention airside at Cardiff after landing on Friday and her injuries form part of the police investigation.

There were three stewards (nb as opposed to Cabin Crew) placed by the charterer on the flight. In as far as we are aware, they did not intervene and were not involved in the disturbance in any way.

Celtic FC has a scheme to approve fans attending or travelling to matches. We are assured that all of the passengers on this flight were accredited to Celtic FC and there is no suggestion that this was an "unofficial" or "back-street" flight as one correspondent here has claimed. It is also worthwhile noting that another flight operated by a different [major] UK charter airline followed the Astraeus aircraft. This was arranged via exactly the same charterer and broker and was completely trouble-free. I believe one of the crew members of that flight has made a posting on this BB to affirm this.

The Celtic FC management have clearly stated that any fan convicted as a result of the events on Friday's flight will be banned from the Club. This stance is welcomed by Astraeus.

Astraeus cabin crew receive extensive training during their careers with the company on conflict management. The primary aim of that training - conducted by Securicare which also undertakes training for other UK airlines such as Air 2000 - is to de-fuse situations such as this if they cannot be averted. I have the utmost confidence that any of our crew members - including those on Friday's flight - would act in accordance with their training in the event of a disturbance occurring whilst in flight.

The consumption of passengers' own alcohol during the flight is prohibited by Astraeus. I believe this policy is also employed by all other UK airlines. Evidence collected from the aircraft on Friday after landing at Cardiff suggests that a number of passengers had ignored this rule by consuming their own alcohol on the flight. We recognise that this may well have been a contributory factor in the incident which took place on board.

I stress that a disturbance of any magnitude aboard an aircraft constitutes unacceptable behaviour on the part of the initiator(s). I reiterate that there is no place within the confines of an aircraft cabin at 33,000ft for the type of rowdy or unruly behaviour to which many people may turn a blind eye at 23.30 on a Friday evening outside a bar or public house. Astraeus and its employees will take action to protect the safety, security and wellbeing of other passengers and crew members in the event of any such behaviour, whether a football flight or a routine charter service.

The crew members on Friday's flight have the full, unequivocal support of myself and my fellow directors and they are to be commended for their prompt action taken to ensure that a difficult situation did not degenerate to the point where it became a threat to the safety of the aircraft and its occupants.

Jonathan Hinkles
Commercial Director
Astraeus

15 December 2002

[Mr Softie]

An idiot's guide to air travel

1) Check-in at the airport and wait for your flight to be called

2) Board the flight when called and take your seat, with the help of the cabin crew if required.

3) Relax and wait for the aircraft to start taxi procedure. Maybe have a flick thorugh the inflight magazine and take a peek out the window.

4) Fasten your seatbelts when called and enjoy the thrill of the take off

5) When allowed to do so, unfasten your seatbelts and have a drink (non alcoholic) from the bar and maybe have a chat with the cabin crew if they have time

6) Have a pleasant meal and maybe a cup of coffee of two

7) Exchange pleasantries with the passengers near you or read a book

8) When called to put on your seatbelts then return to your seats and wait for further instruction.

9) Prepare for landing when advised to do so and maybe take a view of the countryside below as you commence your descent.

10) Disemebark the aircraft when allowed to do so and stroll through to baggage reclaim where you are reunited with your baggage before proceeding through to the arrivals area where you are met by friends and loved ones before being driven home to your warm abode in good time to relax and reflect on an enjoyable trip abroad.


There, wasn't too difficult was it.

[Max Tow]

Well said JH, though I'd counsel against going into too much detail on this forum if there is to be follow up action elsewhere.
It's inevitable and unfortunate that in any such event there will be a vast majority of innocent customers highly inconvenienced by the malice or stupidity of the one or two - this is no different from the bomb hoaxer or gate no-show who causes a missed slot and thereby disrupts the journey of hundreds on board whilst a security baggage search is conducted. I guess the PR skill required is to ensure that the justified mass anger of fellow passengers is directed against the miscreant rather than the airline, as well as to send out a wider message as to where the line is to be drawn. I think that you've already achieved the latter, for which well done. The former is made more difficult by the fact that you have an affinity group who will close ranks and are unlikely to condemn their own, rather than a planeload of random individuals who might have been more objective about the true cause of their regrettable experience.
Good luck!

[DX Wombat]

The Southend King has said much of what I would have said but I would like to add a comment or two from a passenger's (not on this flight) point of view.
1 Any action which gets me safely back on the ground in a nasty situation is fine by me.
2 It is perfectly possible to have a fracas taking place a few rows away and not know anything about it at the time. It has happened to me and I have very good hearing. If you add in dulled senses from imbibing alcohol and / or the use of headphones to listen to the inflight entertainment then perception is lessened even further.
I would like to pose a question; who is responsible for ensuring that anyone who is drunk does not board an aircraft? Is it the check-in staff, the staff at the gate, the cabin crew at the aircraft door or the passenger him(her) self?
I must say that television programmes about commercial aviation do tend to give the impression that a person under the influence of alcohol can board an aircraft unless they are particularly offensive or legless and this impression can only be to the detriment of the crew and other passengers.
What, if any training is given to staff at all stages in the recognition of a person suffering from the effects of alcohol? Don't laugh, it is not always as straightforward as you may think.
A suggestion: when tickets are being sold for a flight which is likely to be carrying fans to a football match why not include a notice stating in plain, simple English, that the passenger will be refused boarding if under the influence of alcohol, that no alcohol may be taken on board and that smoking is banned. It might also be an idea to have a tear-off strip which the passengers have to sign to say they have read and understood and hand in at check-in. Maybe a note to the effect that some sort of nicotine replacement may be an idea for heavy smokers particularly on the longer flights.
Mr Softie I find that recipe works very well with the addition of a nap or two on long haul flights.:D

[Web-Footed Flyer]

Maybe someone from Aestres can say something.

1) What was the PA announcement concerning the smoking SLF ?


2) Was the lady who asked a polite question really threated to
be arrested ?


In the event that the answer to both above questions is
afirmative:

Then 1) Someone is up to be sued for unlawfull
detainment.

2) Is it really what we want to have CC
that have such dangerous power
espcially during a hight stress moment ?

;) ;) ;)

[MOL]

Max Tow - do you see the irony in this quotation from your post ?:

................................by the fact that you have an affinity group who will close ranks and are unlikely to condemn their own.........

I certainly do.

[BDiONU]

I would respectfully suggest that the questions you ask are sub-judice and are to be answered in the courts.

Max Tow:
It's inevitable and unfortunate that in any such event there will be a vast majority of innocent customers highly inconvenienced by the malice or stupidity of the one or two
Highly inconvenienced are perhaps the key two words in this whole affair. Some passengers were highly inconvenienced but ALL on the flight are alive and uninjured, with the exception of one member of crew.

Oh and MOL.
You have irritated others in this thread and you are starting to irritate me, so perhaps you are a troll, I don't know. What I'd like to know is what are your qualifications to be entering into a debate on a subject in which you appear to only have knowledge which you have garnered from the media? And please, no picking and choosing which questions you will and won't answer, as previously in this thread. A straight answer to a simple question.

[MOL]

MP demands Celtic aircraft inquiry
by Eleanor Cowie and Mark Macaskill



AN MP yesterday demanded an inquiry into the cost of deploying an RAF helicopter and riot police after an aircraft carrying Celtic fans was forced to make an emergency landing.
A Boeing 737 destined for Glasgow, carrying about 140 football supporters, was forced to land at Cardiff on Friday afternoon after a member of the cabin crew was allegedly assaulted.

Following early reports of a riot on board and a Mayday distress call from the pilot, about 60 armed police, more than 30 firefighters and eight ambulance teams were deployed to Cardiff airport. An RAF Sea King helicopter was also diverted from training over the Bristol Channel to assist.

Although the cost of the operation has yet to be calculated, it is estimated that it will run into thousands of pounds.

Yesterday six men arrested by South Wales police were released on bail without charge.

Julie Morgan, MP for Cardiff North, called for an immediate investigation. “Clearly there needs to be a report as the aircraft had to make an emergency landing,” she said.

“On the surface, it looks as if the pilot made an unnecessary landing but people are more nervous now and his first concern would be for the safety of the passengers.”

According to Astraeus, the airline, there were two disturbances on the aircraft. The first took place at the front of the plane and involved a passenger smoking in the lavatories. The second incident occurred at the rear of the aircraft, after the captain had appealed to passengers for calm, stating that the behaviour at the front of the aircraft would not be tolerated.

According to the airline, an air hostess was struck on the arm. She was examined by paramedics on arrival at Cardiff but did not require hospital treatment.

Last night a spokesman for the airline stood by its pilot’s decision to divert the flight.

Jim McGahan, a Celtic supporter who was on the plane, said that tensions began to rise after the captain announced that a man was suspected of smoking in the lavatory.

“That’s when people began asking questions but there wasn’t any indication of a disturbance,” he said. “Within 10 minutes one of the stewards rushed into the cockpit. The seat-belt light came on and the plane banked sharply right. There was no warning, no announcement from the captain and there was a lot of anxiety from the passengers.”

[flower]

MOL,
I don't know what axe you have to grind against the aviation community but please would you go and do it elsewhere.
The way you keep having ago at Astraeus suggests to me an ulterior motive .
Has the Guv managed to find his way back in

[CHIVILCOY]

Although i applauded the captains decision to divert, I believe this incident has certainly got blown totally out of all proportion.

At least eight charters left from Santiago and Vigo that evening and the following day, and all those flights completed their journeys without any trouble at all.

Lets not paint everyone with the same brush, I think all the fans on those flights deserve some credit for their good behaviour, as did the majority on the diverted flight.

[MOL]

Well Flower, you would be totally wrong.

I have no axe to grind, I have simply put the other point of view.

It is amazing that I am now being insulted by a number of posters for simply doing this.

[Pat Pong]

Nevertheless MOL, you still keep bucking the question:

What do you do for a living and what are (if any) your professional aviation qualifications?

Not an unreasonable ask IMHO.

[Banana99]

BDiONU said
"I would respectfully suggest that the questions you ask are sub-judice and are to be answered in the courts. "

No-one's been charged yet so it can't be subjudice. I suggest you do as you suggest others do and keep to what you what you consider yourself an expert on :)

[Techman]

With all due respect to ATCO's and 'system specialists' and other non-aircrew, very few people know exactly what occured on this particular flight, and only if you have experienced really unruly passengers will you have any idea of what went through the minds of the cabincrew. You will also know that after the event it will be quite difficult to give an exact account of what took place, such as who did what and when.

So before people start demanding the CV of posters, it might be a good idea to have a look at one self first.

[Miller]

Web-Footed Flyer said

Maybe someone from Aestres can say something.

1) What was the PA announcement concerning the smoking SLF ?


Yes, that would be good. I am puzzled by this because the airline's account gives me the impression that the culprit had been identified by cabin crew and would be met by police at Glasgow whereas the passengers' version has the captain demanding that the culprit own up failing which all passengers would be held at Glasgow pending the arrival of the police.

Depending on which one is true I think we have two different situations. In the first instance it would be a case of passengers reacting badly to the news that an identified passenger would be met by police at Glasgow. The second situation is much different and would have involved an aircrew holding passengers against their will on an aircraft. The question then would be whether they had sufficient reason to do so.

[ajamieson]

No-one's been charged yet so it can't be subjudice.
Absolutely correct. Having said that, any attempt to recover costs through the civil courts might be compromised by discussion of the circumstances so AEU would be ill-advised to say much more than they have.

I'm saying nothing about the diversion, but the way AEU has handled this issue and supported its crew has been absolutely fantastic IMHO.

[Danny]

Please leave the moderating to the moderators. MOL is welcome to ask the questions he has been asking even if he doesn't realise that he too is insulting some of us with his insinuations. What he doesn't seem to realise is that when it comes to the technical explanations of what we, as professional crew base our decisions on is fact and what the passengers seem to base theirs on is their 'perceptions' of what we do when we are at work.

We have already had the company's backing of the crew and an explanation based on their report. We have also had the interviews of some of the passengers which have shown to me at least and probably most of the others who frequent this forum and are in the business, that their stories are conflicting and a lot of their understanding of what a crew does when confronted with disruptive passengers is painfully inadequate.

Now we have an MP wanting an inquiry. Well, I am sure that the MOR, the police report and the subsequent court cases will provide some answers. Do MPs always call for an inquiry when some police are called out to cover an incident involving football hooligans? :rolleyes:

At least here on PPRuNe we are able to correct some of the wilder presumptions and inaccurate speculation made by those who are not 'in the job'. By allowing posters such as MOL to make their insinuations we are able to see where the distortions are coming from.

[Grantm]

What qualifications do you need to take part in this discussion?:(

I really can't see what MOL's insinuations are. He is asking questions based on the reports from people onboard. Yes, these reports are conflicting, but the reports of the crew also seem to conflict with a lot of people as well.

[Bof]

DX Wombat and others

I see we are now on the 12th page already on this subject. I find the most interesting point is the large number of non-aircrew posts on this subject and the huge furore that it has caused. Many people returning to the fray repeating themselves and getting a bit more of the action.

My take on the incident is that the current yob culture present in a minority of air travellers is to be deplored. Unfortunately it is getting worse. Obviously I was not on the subject aircraft and cannot comment on the severity of some passengers behaviour, BUT it seems that the smoking incident did take place, and it seems that a stewardess was struck and the flight crew were advised of a deteriorating situation.

From that point on, it was the Captain's call. Whether or not a Mayday was justified is completely immaterial. We were'nt there! He played it as he saw fit, and that is what he's paid to do.

Incidentally DX, how are you going to stop alcohol coming on board. Ban duty free sales at the airports? Or confiscate the lot as people come on board? Not Hardly! as John Wayne would say.

Lastly, does this incident add anything to the debate on the locked cockpit door policy?

Now can we talk about something else!

[14 loop]

Just read JH's statement.

I'm afraid that general behaviour is declining throughout society and it is now hitting the airlines / airports with increasing frequency. I'm an Operations Manager for a large swaithe of London Undergound (the yellow, pink and purple / burgundy lines) and have witnessed, first hand, the sorts of behaviour which to the casual onlooker are minor disturbances but are in fact serious situations which make the lives of customer facing staff hell. (LU have finally started running an ad campaign about workplace stress following staff assaults).

There seems to be something in the current physche that says someone in a position of authority (and basically there for passenger safety) is a jobsworth and must be challenged. Much of this behaviour is alcohol-fuelled and is not restricted to to the 'usual suspects'. My own brother (a fellow LU Manager) was physically assaulated by the grandson of a rather famous British actress (who's day job is that of a city stockbroker) following a racist verbal assault on a member of his staff whom he was trying to protect. Thankfully the Transport Police tracked him down and he was convicted, £400 damages was awarded to my brother.

My advice to the airline industry would be not to let standards decline...everyday public transport has let that happen such that this sort of behaviour is now the norm. The important thing to remember is that a fracas at FL330 could result in a much bigger tragedy than one on the inner rail platfrom at Euston Square!

Reading some of the earlier comments (no name, no pack drill) I can't believe some of the contributors thoughts given the changed situation post September 11th.

rgds

14 loop...by the cemetery!

[RatherBeFlying]

Having stopped an assault on a woman in a subway car three years ago and given evidence in court the week before last, it was interesting to hear the accused describing the pummelling, albeit mild, that I witnessed as his mannerly remonstration against her shoving by him at the subway turnstile:rolleyes:

I do not in any way minimise the distress felt by this cabin crew, but as this case will eventually show in court, different people located in close quarters can render completely different accounts of the same incident.

It will be an interesting trial.

[hostie]

Before I start I would also like to reiterate that as I was not onboard I cannot comment on this particular situation and expect that it will all be sorted out officially by those with ALL the information available.

I would like to clarify some of the many points raised and answer some of the questions asked.

I would also like to add the point of view of someone who has had to deal with this sort of incident before.

Paper Tiger - I think you'll find that any aircraft registered in the UK complies with the same CAA / JAR-Ops regulations including charters
I believe the following to be true (wrt UK reg a/c) please (and I know you will!) correct me if I'm wrong

It is an offense to be drunk on board an a/c

It is an offense to smoke on board an a/c

It is an offense to not comply with the instructions of the crew


Scroggs - CAA regs state that there is a min req of 1 cc member per 50 seats (seats not pax), as most 737s are under 150 seats this means there could have been as few as 3 crew on board.

with this ratio of 1 - 50 it can be an incredibly frightening situation if any size group takes on 'pack' or 'mob' mentality and all the relevant conflict management training in the world cannot prepare you for or predict individual reactions.

Crew are at the end of the day still human beings that are allowed to react as any other human is allowed to react when they feel threatened.

This said it is also true that their prime reason for being on board is for the safety of the pax
This is always upmost in their minds and if they believe that there is a threat to themselves, their pax or the a/c then they are to act accordingly.

If this is the case then they should (and thankfully did this time) receive the full backing of their management

You would expect them to receive the back up of the general flying public and the other pax on board

I have been involved in a similar incident and luckily received the full backing of all the other pax on board, who were offering to restrain pax for me, I was lucky and this was not required and I would have preferred not to take those pax up on their offers, but it was encouraging to know their support was there.
(The matter did go to court)

I feel sorry for the crew in this incident if they did not have that support

My recommendation to the crew would be to write a clear and comprehensive report of what happened (for themselves in addition to co procedures) as by the time it gets to court memories can fade. (allegedly those released on bail aren't due to return until March at the earliest)

This type of incident can be very traumatic and I sincerely wish all the crew well and hope that this does not diminish their view of what can be very enjoyable (hard) work
Please accept all offers of support and 'get back on the horse' as soon as you comfortably can.

Hostie

[paulc]

As a passenger, with no involvement in aviation (other than a general interest) , when I get on an aircraft I am putting my life in the hands of professional, trained flight deck and cabin crew. If they feel that there is a situation onboard which warrants a diversion then I have to trust their opinion and experience. I would rather arrive late and safe than not get there at all.

[rupetime]

Im not sure if its been asked in the previous 13 pages of drivvle
but why the sudden dive into CWL - would a diversion to Gatwick
not of made the situation easier for Astraeus as this is base.

rt

[2lo4zero]

The flight was endangered and the requirement was to get on the ground as soon and as safely as possible. I do not know where it was geographically when the decision was made to divert but given the circumstances I would speculate that Cardiff was the nearest suitable aerodrome.

P.S. Sudden dive is rather an emotive phrase, are you a journo or learning to be one? :rolleyes:

[Capt Pit Bull]

Watch out folks,

Next time you have a problem, be prepared to be sued for 'flying the aircraft in a peculiar way', and after landing please send a copy of your ASR to your local MP to make sure they are in the loop.

CPB

[Final 3 Greens]

As a passenger with a minor involvement in aviation (PPL), I endorse paulc's comments.

It's the captain's call, not the Monday morning quarterbacks.

[Wizofoz]

Rule one in Aviation:-

IT'S BETTER TO BE DOWN HERE WISHING YOU WERE UP THERE, THAN UP THERE WISHING YOU WERE DOWN HERE!!!

If there is a problem on board and a strip of tarmac nearby, USE IT!!

Then present an extended middle finger to anyone who wants to second guess you...

[Remmington]

A thought while all you super humans are sitting back watching the VDU's and thinking of the fag and bar ahead.
What if the "armed sky marshal" was sitting in the back watching to scene unfold........?

[rupetime]

2lo4zero

no im not and never have any intention of being one -

[flower]

Just to reply to comments made about MP Julie Morgan asking for an enquiry into the incident .
Let me assure you this is not news to those of us who live in Cardiff.

For her not to ask for an enquiry is a news story!!!

As for the most suitable Aerodrome, a number of factors would be taken into account, but many of the Astraeus pilots are familiar with Cardiff as they have recently trained here, and there have also been recent charter flights from the Airport. When you are dealing with an emergency situation, a familiar airfield and approach make excellent sense. It takes some of the pressure away from the crew in a tense situation

[McIce]

A Sky Marshall (Aircraft Bouncer) would at least have taken the flak off the Flight Attendants on the aircraft, probably have been the one assaulted and both sides of the fence involved would probably quite happily 'Hang this Person Out to dry'. Maybe they are not a bad idea after all.

May I add to what Grantm has said
Whilst I do not agree with a lot of what MOL has stated, in my opinion he is putting forward a different point of view which he has chosen to stand by and defend. I can not see where his opinion is offensive in anyway, it just differs from the majority, which does not make him wrong. If we only had one point of view the forum would make very pretty reading and everybody could slap each others back and say how good the aviation industry is.

I have also listened to this subject being debated on the radio where general members of the public have viewed their opinion and MOL is not alone in his line of thinking.

[BDiONU]

Yes MOL is not alone in his line of thinking amongst general members of the public who have no conception of the requirements nor the responsibilities of captaining an aircraft. It is that lack of comprehension and understanding which, I believe, has upset the professionals on this website, not to mention the unwarranted attacks on the integrity and intentions of all flight crew.

Interesting to note that South Wales police are travelling up to Scotland to conduct more interviews with passengers:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/2581099.stm

[ADC]

I don't think MOL is actually presenting an alternative "view" as much as printing and quoting selective newspaper reports. It is apparent that he is not aircrew, and his views will be judged accordingly I suppose.

I wonder did he see the article in the Times this morning , where the Police Chief in South Wales is quoted as saying the individuals bailed on Saturday may face up to 10 years in jail, and further arrests were likely.

I suppose that also is an alternative view.

I also understand that the police around Cardiff have a plan which they put into place anytime someone sayt the words "Football Fans" and "Disturbance" in the same sentence. Comes from some experience with Cardiff FC and various hostings of the FA cup and Worthington cup. But I have no doubt they will explain this to a certain MP.

[In trim]

Let us all ignore MOL and his views.

The pilot saw the safety of his aircraft compromised, and he decided to get it down first and ask questions later. That is the right thing to do.

JH and team....I truly hope you will "throw the book at them" if you are given the opportunity. There are an increasing number of 'disruptive passenger' reports, and one of these days 'mob mentality' will truly get out of control with disastrous consequences. In a case like this the perpetrators must be hung out to dry to set an example for others.

Regards,

In trim.

[Remmington]

Nows theres interesting....what makes you think that South Wales police command any more respect than an aircrew when it comes to cover ups and justifing their "gut feeling" actions?

Why not make a note in your diaries to re-address this subject in three months time when passengers-v-crew stories are verified one way or another.

[PaperTiger]

(from the BBC link)the captain made an announcement that the behaviour at the front of the aircraft would not be tolerated. Hmm, version 3 of the PA. The spin seems to be working.

[Remmington]

IN TRIMS attitude typifies what MOL & myself are trying to get over to you, "atitude" that all passengers should be treated as trash unless you are crew related and blagging a seat in First Class.
Its a two way process and how about the "trash" demanding at check in to see a "breath test" - crews logbooks & medicals, aircraft maintenance records etc. before boarding the a/c

[Miller]

The pilot saw the safety of his aircraft compromised, and he decided to get it down first and ask questions later. That is the right thing to do.

Indeed.


JH and team....I truly hope you will "throw the book at them" if you are given the opportunity.

That part is interesting. I suspect much of it will depend on the announcement that was made to the passengers that seems to have led to the 'fracas/difficult situation at the back of the aircraft. If it was merely the case that the captain informed passengers that an person had been identified as smoking, and would be handed over to police at Glasgow then I have no problems at all, and yes, the book should be thrown at the passengers involved.

However, if the culprit had not been identified, and if, as the passengers accounts claim, they were told that they would be kept on the plane at Glasgow (until the police arrived?) unless someone owned up, then like others on this board I would have a problem with that.

It would be nice then to know what was said to the passengers. I appreciate though that for one reason or another this may not be possible.

Perhaps though I could ask this question which might serve just as well - was the person identified as smoking handed over to the police on arrival at Cardiff?

[ADC]

Remmington,

you do make me laugh.

If it comes down to believing Aircrew, Police or Football fans, I think I'll lean towards the "professionals". After all, everytyhing they say will be subject to absolute scrutiny, whereas the football fans who enjoyed their 2 minutes of glory with a reporter don't have to account to anybody.

Mind you, same might apply to journo's who seemed to be quoted here . Wonder how Harry Hynd will fare when the Astraeus Captain takes him to court for defamation of character.

This thread is now getting washed out . Time to move it some elsewhere else maybe?? Jet Blast would be a great place to thrash it out :)

[Ray Ban]

Remmington - please stop being a pr@t now just for the sake of it! The majority of pax are no problem at all but there's always a few who spoil it for the rest.

In your persistent efforts to put forward an alternative opinion you are sounding increasingly stupid!

[Mr Softie]

Contrary to one or two posts on this forum, this is not an airline v football fans debate.

I, myself, am a football fan who has travelled away to matches for over 25 years now and I know how badly over the years the general football supporter has been treated ( to the extent that we have, in my opinion, been tarnsiehed somewhat unfairly with the same brush).

However, this is not about an airline brandishing the red card so to speak because the passengers happened to be football fans.

The fact remains that a member of cabin crew was manhandled and injured seemingly in an altercation with a small minority of pax on a flight. Other matters also came to light that drinking and smoking (against airline policy and the law) took place.

I think that the thing that sticks in the throat the most about all this and has prompted me to post again is the fact that nobody amongst the pax seems to realise the severity of an altercation, mid-flight, with the crew. It's a serious matter and not a right of reply in my humble opinion.

We do live in a society now where we seem to know a lot more about our rights and a lot less about our responsibilities.

I do, honestly, feel sorry for those caught up in this that are of course innocent and they are the vast majority but somewhere on that aircraft, someone almost certainly took the law into their own hands.

The captain may not have handled the situation exactly perfectly in everyone's eyes but if I were in charge and one of my staff was injured and sounded distressed I would have supported them and taken the best course of action open to me at that time. I'm sure anyone would have.

The bottom line, as I have said before, is that this would not have happened had ALL passengers simply behaved themselves.

I sincerely hope that it doesn't take a very serious incident involving loss of life before the travelling public realise that this type of behaviour on an aircraft just cannot be acceptable.

If nothing else, maybe this episode will result in other potential situations being diffused with the words from other passengers "We better behave otherwise we will end up with another situation like that time they had to be diverted to Cardiff".

I know there are two sides to every story but in cases where aircrew (or any person going about their daily business come to that) are injured and distressed then I know where my heart lies.

[MOL]

ADC -

I don't think that anything is perfectly clear at this stage and litigation is being talked about by many many people.

I am not in the least surprised that police will be going to Scotland to conduct interviews as this is to be expected. What is still unknown is whether any case(s) will ensue.

Whatever happens there are lessons to be learned even for "the professionals" on this forum. There is no doubt that the lack of visual contact between the cockpit and the main aircraft contributed to the misunderstandings that took place on the Santiago Glasgow flight. No matter what anybody says - there was never a riot, mayhem or a dangerous situation. Only today a woman was in court in Ireland and fined for striking a cabin crew member on a NY Shannon flight yesterday. There was no diversion of the aircraft and no panic from the airline staff. The correct proceedures took place. You may say that's very well to know in hindsight - but surely it is reasonable that a captain be given the correct information - e.g. (if true) "a passenger struck me" rather than information that indicated that a major physical battle was happening on board - which it clearly was not.

I realise H. has been admirably protective of his staff but surely he must take account of what also went wrong - on his own side. Perhaps he is doing so but can say very little. I think it is only fair that the passengers on this flight be given the respect and courtesy they deserve and if errors have been made they should be made public. I also find it ridiculous that people can just totally ignore the views of so many members of the public and label the whole aircraft as 'football yobs, hooligans, common people etc etc " as has been done on this forum. It belittles your reputations as professional people to come out with such terminology particularly as it has always been very clear that nearly everbody on flight acted correctly.

At this stage there is very little more to say on the subject. We will await the court case (if any) and the actions of the passengers campaign for the truth which is now being actively supported by Talksport Radio - I know, ordinary people, but then again most of us are. We shall see.

[ADC]

MOL,

Do you ever read the stuff you write before pressing the "submit reply" button?

I also read the incident involving ONE woman on the Aer Lingus flight. Maybe Shannon was the closest airport. Not that many options mid -Atlantic. Few more crew on board as well. And I bet she claimed she only "touched the cabin crew member to get her attention".






there was never a riot, mayhem or a dangerous situation

How the F*** would you know? Who decides what a Dangerous situation is? The passenger in row 12 who thought a quick ciggie in the toilet is OK?



I think it is only fair that the passengers on this flight be given the respect and courtesy they deserve

Who says they havn't ? Apart from those interviewed by the police. On the other hand, how much "respect" did they give the crew? Let me quote one of those "respectable" passengers

Two mincing male stewards

Respect eh?


or what about


They said the staf were ignorant on th eplane


or try this

General atmosphere was summed up by a rendition of YMCA when the cabin crew were doing the safety announcement

This is the point. The very people who you are quoting as deserving of respect are showing by their very statements that they do NOT deserve respect, as they hadn't the courtesy to show respect to the crew that were on board to KEEP THEM SAFE!!!

Why do you mentio H. in the same paragraph as

label the whole aircraft as 'football yobs, hooligans, common people etc etc

I believe he said that 95% of the passengers were just enjoying their flight. I'm afraid most of the condemnation of the passengers on the aircraft is coming from the Press ( after all, they started the RIOT theme).

I don't think it takes TalkSPort RAdio to campaign for truth. Whether you accept it or not, everyone is after the same thing....and that includes the airline, the crew, the police AND the passengers.



:mad: :mad:

[Horatio]

MOL & Remmington

The pair of you are getting very boring now; lots of repitition in what you have both said over these numerous pages.

To me, the bottom line is that it is an offence under the ANO for any passenger to disobey the 'lawful instructions of the Commander'. If, and I say 'IF', there is any question that the commanders instructions were unlawful, then there are established proceedures to follow through. I like the vast majority here doubt that very much. As for wanting to inspect crew records, licences, maintenance records, geez; suggest you go by boat next time and save a lot of people a lot of grief. No airline needs your few bob that much!

I hope you mean what you have said, MOL, that there is no more to say on the subject and please spare us the valuable bandwidth.

I hope it won't be that long before there is a national database that would prohibit all irresponsible, suspected or convicted thugs from ever setting foot on another public transport flight in their lives. They are a danger to everyone, not least of all to themselves.

What's the betting that MOL didn't really mean what he said, when he said there was no more to say on the subject. We can live in hope, I guess.

By the way; hats off to the crew, equally to their bosses and all those rational, level-headed folk that support wise decisions.

[london-flyer]

I have been cabin crew for over 8 years, and no nthing about this flight, ie people on board etc, however 3 years ago I was on board an aircraft when a married couple started to have a heated debate, nothing physical or even that loud, the capt asked if I wanted him to come out and talk to them ( in the days when the door was not locked due to sept 11 th ) I declined, within 2 minutes of that conversation I had a crew member, who just happened to walk passed the passengers on the floor lossing pints of blood from a gash to the back of her head.

Flying is becoming more and more dangerous, and although many people have valid comments, you many were not on board, those that were did not see that much, trust me, when your sat down with a chair in front, one to the side, and one behind you, you are limited to what you can see going on, even on a small aircraft.
Cabin Crew are on board for safety, we are fully aware of the costs etc involved in diverting an aircraft, and what that means not only to you, but to the airline, they must have felt very un easy to even suggest it. And remember, sept 11th has changed this job forever, its no longer about tea and coffe, its about looking after everyone on boards life. And its very hard to know the outcome of a simple argument, I wish I had diverted, or had the capt come and have a eord, my collegue may not now be scared for life.

Its very easy to sit a judge, but lets remember, they did what they decided at the time was best in the situation, the last thing they wanted, was a .....hr delay, pages and pages of paper work etc, and most importantly, they did it for your, and their own safety, maybe ( not saying they did ) someone overacted, well maybe people made them feel that uneasy that they felt they had no other option.
Its just a shame for the other 14o pax who were well behaved and just enjoying them self.
But if it had gone wrong up their, and you were all dead, everyone would have been saying they should have diverted as soon as it kicked off. Would you risk your life for 8000 a year!!!!

I just hope everyone is ok now.

[Alty Meter]

As Danny said, MOL is entitled to put the 'other side' argument. He's no worse than some having a go at him. It's human nature to be more sympathetic to the group you belong to, pilot or Celtic fan. But I can't see how anybody can claim the Captain did anything except in the interest in the safety of his flight. That's just plain stupid.
There's only one thing I think was a bit odd.
The trouble started after the PA about smoking. That's the only thing both 'sides' agree on.
The passenger's version is "About one hour into the flight the pilot announced that someone had been smoking in the toilets and that the police had been called and we would all be detained at Glasgow until the person owned up." IF that's true, way over the top IMHO.
The company statement is a bit different "The Captain made a public address announcement stating that the behaviour encountered at the front of the aircraft (smoking in front toilets) would not be tolerated, and the offender would be met by police officers on arrival at Glasgow. A number of passengers at the rear of the aircraft objected strongly and loudly."
I still think that's OTT and not surprised some of the passengers got wound up. Different if he'd kept smoking after being told to stop.
Yes I know it's an offence but if a crowd of soccer fans are not causing any other trouble, I think warning if there was any more smoking police would be called on landing would have been wiser.

MOL
You don't need qualifications to post on Prune, but your not in a position to comment on what the Captain decided. That's what irritates people. The Captain would have made a decision on what he was told by the CC. I've never had it happen to me but if I was told there was a disturbance on board, I'd land asap. Whatever happened or didn't happen down the back, on what he was told, the Captain made 100% the right decision.
Think about it. Even if you're right and the CC over-reacted the Captain can't do anything except make a decision on wha he's told. It would be stupid for one of the pilots to go into the cabin just in case it was a serious disturbance and he was assaulted. At the very least he'd be shaken up, maybe worse. You have two pilots because you need two pilots, not just in case one of them gets incapacitated.

And we don't like being diverted any more than passengers!

[Flightrider]

This debate is beginning to miss the point and is becoming a general "passengers versus airline" slanging match.

Surely the key question here is the actions of the small minority of passengers who caused great inconvenience to their fellow passengers and to the airline? I would have thought it would be more appropriate for the [alleged] miscreants to answer for their actions to the police on behalf of those other passengers and the airline. Instead, MOL et al seem to be trying to force Astraeus to justify the diversion and claiming that it was unnecessary. Do they deny the fact that there was a problem? It is almost as if they are citing that the airline is somehow guilty rather than the troublemakers.

I don't think anyone here is trying to suggest that everyone on board was involved and for MOL and Remmington to defend the reputations of the innocent is commendable to a point. But there you have to draw the line - in defending the reputations of the innocent, you cannot afford to overlook or in any way trivialise the allegations facing the accused.

As a matter of course, airlines don't tend to regard smoking, drinking own alcohol, assault on cabin crew and threatening behaviour as acceptable forms of conduct on board, whether exercised individually or jointly.

The questions of what happened after the decision to divert was made are largely irrelevant - by that point, the disturbance had taken place and the crew had taken what I think to be an extremely sensible decision to get the aircraft down on the ground. If you are aware that one of the cabin crew has been assaulted, you don't hang around at FL350 to see if someone has another go.

It's just extremely sad that the actions of a few have led to so much inconvenience for so many but there are virtually no other ways to deal with problems of this nature other than the one chosen chosen by the Astraeus crew.

[Mr Softie]

http://www.talksport.net/


I love my football but I can't listen to the 'no nonesense sports breakfast' because Mike Parry is on it. Anyone who has ever listened to the show will know what I mean.

[Gin Slinger]

Ohh dear...

My BBC buddy tells me that the colloquial name in the industry for this particular radio station is Talk****e - very apt!

From http://www.talksport.net/

Free the Glasgow Six

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

talkSPORT has joined the campaign to free the Glasgow Six. The six Celtic fans were arrested following disturbances on board a plane en route to Glasgow from Northern Spain last week.

The Free The Glasgow Six campaign believes that it was the fault of the air-crew and of course the fan who had a smoke but that the over-reaction was ridiculous. Since launching the campaign talkSPORT has received a particularly detailed e-mail from one of the female passengers on board who says that it was a panicking air-hostess who was at the centre of the problems. She says that the air crew over –reacted.

Says Mike Parry, Co-host of the No Nonsense Sports Breakfast “We've already had a fantastic response towards the campaign. We’ve been inundated with people who had been on the plane and who were outraged at being branded louts.We've also received a huge number of messages from Rangers fans supporting the Celtic boys."

"This is about football fans being treated in the usual shabby manner by authorities. Everyone knows that the Scottish fans are some of the best and friendliest in the World”

The full e-mail transcript from the female passenger is available here. talkSPORT listeners wanting to get behind the campaign should send support to [email protected].

A FREE THE GLASGOW SIX committee has now been formed by Peter Jordan. Jordan told talkSPORT listeners on Monday morning that he is “planning to organise a white-hanky protest at the next Celtic game and to start involving MSP's MP's and even Euro MP's.” He mentioned in particular that he is hoping that George Galloway, his constituency MP will be getting involved.

PS - remember to send your comments on the 'Free the Glasgow 6' campaign to [email protected]

Let's give them some interesting comments to read out on air tomorrow morning.

[SLF3]

Whatever the truth as to what was happening in the cabin, the Captain obviously had to divert based on the information available to him. Equally, it would be pretty silly for one of the two guys responsible for flying the plane to get involved in a brawl down the back.

After that, it all gets more interesting, and subjective. It's sad that the debate is so polarised:
- All football supporters are irrational, drunken yobs.
- All cabin crew are peerless professionals with unimpeachable credentials.

Not much room for compromise there! None of the people here were actually on the plane. The people closest to the incident (Astraeus management) have spoken to the crew and clearly cannot be regarded as independent. Apologists for the supporters have only spoken to passengers, and clearly are not exactly independent either.

For what it is worth, I have seen unreasonable behaviour by passengers on planes. (Stood between cabin crew and passenger in one such incident.) But I have also seen cabin crew react in a totally irrational manner to perfectly reasonable questions, and threaten legal sanctions against the passenger who asked. (I gave my name and address as a witness to a passenger threatened in this manner by one crew, but never heard any more about it.) I have heard cabin crew threaten legal sanctions against a passenger who, in my view as a disinterested observer in the next seat, had experienced behaviour so extreme that I was surprised he didn't lash out. I have seen cabin crew whose behaviour I, as a heterosexual male, found extremely off putting (offensive is too strong, but off-putting not strong enough).

One of the most depressing features of this website is the thinly veiled contempt that many of the aviation professionals seem to have for the people they carry.

Again, I was not on the flight. Maybe the passengers misbehaved, maybe the cabin crew over reacted. I don't know. But this thread seems to be more about prejudice (on both sides) than about what happened! Shouldn't the police decide if there is a case to answer, and the courts decide who is to be believed?

[ADC]

Amen,

Don't agree with everything you say, but your last paragraph sums it up.
I think all the other matters have been thrashed.

I like the idea of the PPRuNeRs letting talksport know what they think. Don't suppose they'll broadcast it though.

[MikeGranby]

One thing that worries me about all this... There have been several reports of pax who were terrified by the emergency decent to Cardiff, and in particular by what they thought to be a steep decent and a sudden bank. Whatever the rights and wrongs of the diversion, surely the capt. should at least have made an announcement about the diversion, and reassured any pax who might be concerned? It is agreed that the vast majority of the pax were innocent in this matter, and to show some concerns for their piece of mind would have cost nothing, and would have made the whole situation a lot more tolerable. I know several very nervous pax who start preying whenever they even hear a change in engine note, and I can only imagine how they would respond to a decent like this!

[Out Of Trim]

Oh Dear, How Sad, Never Mind!

Why not frighten them in such circumstances, If they're scared they won't misbehave anymore!:)

[Ranger One]

One thing that worries me about all this... There have been several reports of pax who were terrified by the emergency decent to Cardiff, and in particular by what they thought to be a steep decent and a sudden bank. Whatever the rights and wrongs of the diversion, surely the capt. should at least have made an announcement about the diversion, and reassured any pax who might be concerned?

Aviate. Navigate. Communicate.

Any PPL knows this. Sorting out an unexpected night diversion to CWL, they had their hands full. It's the job of the cabin crew to brief the pax.

R1

[MikeGranby]

I am a PPL, so I know all about aviate, navigate, communicate, thank you, but this wasn't so sudden a diversion than they had no time to talk to the pax. I also know that before I back-off the power for a decent, I warn any new flyers so they don't think anything is a miss! Okay, not the same deal and I am not fit to lick this chaps flying boots, but given the earlier dispatch problems, the sensitivities of nervous flyers surely might have been taken into consideration.

As to the other posters who indicate that it was somehow okay to avoidably scare the paying public, well, either you're joking, or I'll be finding myself surpised to say that perhaps those here who suggested the existence of a form of contempt for the pax -- be it in general or just in the case of football fans -- have a point! I can accept the capt. was busy; I can accept he felt he had no choice but to divert; but even if he believed World War III had broken out in his airplane, he had inocents in his care, too. End of story.

[ADC]

Mike,

A question

You have reason to believe that a group of disruptive passengers in the back of your aircraft are out of control, that they have been smoking and have assaulted one of your cabin crew. You need to land as soon as possible. What do you think the effect would be on those passengers if you now anounce that you are taking them to Cardiff??

I suspect it could have made a bad situation potentially worse.

Furthermore, as I'm sure someone mentioned earlier, there are are only two types of aircraft descents , as described by Journos, a plummet, and a terrifying plummet.

[scanscanscan]

IMHO....
This captain and crew will reflect on this incident and consider if they could have done anything differently, this reflection is a habit for pilots ducking the slings and arrows of a flying career.
When a captain makes his decision the outcome must be fail safe
least dead, least aircraft bent.
This captains decision when it came was fire proof, it was a safe decision.
Haveing declared an emergency, an emergency descent was a logical option.
Hopefully also reflecting will be the loo smoker and the passengers drinking their own booze onboard and thoes singing ymca to drown out the emergency briefings.
Obviously these passengers had no idea what was acceptable conduct flying onboard an aircraft and if their conduct is so out of line they must be instructed what is required of them.
This conduct should be agreed at the point of charter or travel made on something less critical than an aircraft.
Clearly companies that allow ground staff to load passengers who have been drinking can expect such diversions.
It is difficult to remain employed as a captain if you cancell the flight at the sight of the first drunken boarding passenger that ground staff hoist on the crew.
It is similarly difficult to remain employed if you return to the ramp when your charterers singing drowns out the emergency brief.
Just where you draw the line and divert if you have compromised your proffessional instincts several times in the interests of getting everyone safely home is a very fine line.
This captain recieved positive information that the cabin attendent had been assulted and control of the cabin had been lost.
This was positive information that the captain needed that the line had been crossed and this situation could not now ignored as possibly other prevoius logged warning bells.
The captain quite rightly now declared a may day and landed ansap.
Such diversions will continue until companies the CAA and security get their combined acts together to protect crews and
educate passengers.
A good crm lesson in communications problems from which everyone can learn that booze and passengers and delays are an explosive mixture.

[Final 3 Greens]

Mike G

I'm not knocking your point which demonstrates a thoughtful approach, but the primary responsibility of an aircraft commander is for the safety of the aircraft and souls on board.

As a fellow PPL, who has been fortunate enough to benefit from mixing with a number of professional pilots, it has always struck me that it is not necessarily their handling skills that are better than ours (although they are usually far more current and more consistent), but their decision making capability is at a far higher level given the relative complexity of the respective environments and the rigorous continuous training regimes operated by airlines.

If this capt didn't make a PA, I believe that it is because his professional training and experience lead him to focus on other activities that were more important - after all, a mayday had been called.

At the end of the day, the a/c arrived safely at CWL and the appropriate authorities were able to attend.

[Ray Ban]

There seems to be a big gulf of knowledge between both parties to this debate, about what should happen during a flight given the circumstances of this incident. Everyone down to the cat and dog seems to have an opinion about what should and shouldn't have happened. In this respect, aviation is a victim of its own success, where everyone seems to know something or the other about airline flying and what pilots do, but not necessarily very much. Of course it would be impossible to educate everyone to a level whereby they would always understand and therefore sadly I think these misunderstandings will keep recurring. :(

At the end of the day everyone got home safely and lived to fly/fight another day!

[Flying Lawyer]

I agree Ray Ban.
"Everyone seems to know something or the other about airline flying and what pilots do, but not necessarily very much."
Now you professional pilots know how we feel when the armchair-experts/barrack-room lawyers go on about how lawyers and judges get it all wrong! ;)

It's inevitable there'll be conflicting versions when there are several accounts of an incident like this, and I can understand how experienced passengers might feel (rightly or wrongly) entitled to comment about what happened in the cabin. But, how people who are not airline pilots feel able to give opinions on the Captain's decision to divert is beyond me. I'm not surprised; it happens to lawyers all the time. :D

Alty Meter made an interesting point re the 'smoking' PA turning a relatively minor incident into a drama. Any professionals agree with him that letting it go with a warning might have been the wiser option?

[Caledonian]

I am afraid from what l have seen they made the wrong decision and the fans will be acquitted and quite rightly,

1. one pax smoked in the toilet and it was extinguished right?? right so sit them down warn them off and end of story

2. abusive CC the way the woman was spoken too about possibly being late at Glasgow was wrong

3. I agree the pilots can only go by the information given by CC but it smacks of naiveity all round

I dont want to get at Astreaus because thats wrong it could have been any airline at the end of the day but what l will say is if there was a Glasgow crew using an Air 2000 aircraft for example this incident would never have happened.

l just believe a simple warning would have been suffice.

Though l think we can safely say Astreaus will not be asked to operate anymore football charters for any scottish club.

Sorry if this goes against the grain folks.

[Web-Footed Flyer]

As a point of interest to many I am sure. can anyone inform this forum as to: Is it mandatory following a May day call to have the CVR and FDR, removed from the aircraft upon landing in order to settled quite a few arguments that may arise from said call.

[split throttle]

HHmmmmmmm, interesting.....

I take it Caledonian is a ball boy at park head then!!

His ignorance with airline safety is astonishing!!

The actions of the crew were made with only one thing in mind........the safety of EVERYBODY onboard.

Try not to believe the thoughts of ignorant passengers who know nothing of airline & a/c operations, remember their are two sides to every story!!!

[Techman]

You are quite right split throttle, there are two sides to every story.

Worth remembering, even for you.

[RatherBeFlying]

As it seems the cabin announcement about the smoker(s) may have played a key role in this incident, I am sure that the defense lawyers will be intensely interested in the CVR, especially as there seems to be conflicting accounts as to just what was said.

If the CVR was not secured or can not be made available because of legal restrictions, we can be assured that the defense lawyers will parade scores of witnesses as to just what they heard.

[PaperTiger]

If the CVR was not secured or can not be made available because of legal restrictions, we can be assured that the defense lawyers will parade scores of witnesses as to just what they heard. You haven't been paying attention RBF, the testimony of 142 passengers counts for nothing when set against the testimony of the crew :rolleyes:

[ADC]

"Your Honour,

My client contends that the Public Address from the Captain incited him and caused him to raise his voice."

"and did your client verbally abuse the crew member?",

" No your Honour, it was just a bit of friendly banter"

" I see, and did your client assault the crew member ?"

"No your honour, he just tapped her on the shoulder to state how upset he was about the Public Address"

"but this tap required first aid treatment after the aircraft landed"

"Yes your honour, sometimes my client does not know his own strength"

"But you accept that your client was drinking on board,seeing as empty alcohol beverages were found in his seat pocket"

"Well, your honour, he was thirsty after all the cheering for his sides victory, perfectly understandable really"

"And you admit that two of your other clients did smoke on board the aircraft"

"Well, yes your honour, but they are nervous passengers"

"Well, seems straightforward, by your own admission your client is guilty of a number of offences under the Air NAvigation Order, and I sentence him to 6 months in jail and fine him £2000"



I don't think the defence of " The captain upset me with his Public Address announcment" is going to be much of a defense.

A bit like..." The barman upset me by refusing me drink, saying I had too much, so I hit him"

:)

[Miller]

I don't think the defence of " The captain upset me with his Public Address announcment" is going to be much of a defense.


Well, it depends what is said. And here the airline and passengers appear to give different accounts.

According to the airline the Captain announces that the person responsible for smoking will be handed over to police on arrival at Glasgow,

According to the passengers the Captain says that unless someone owns up to smoking then the passengers will be kept on the ground at Glasgow (pending the arrival of the police?).

As I have said earlier I have no problem with the airline version. If, however, the passenger version is correct then I would have great problems. You simply cannot hold innocent people without good reason. Does one or more persons smoking fall into that category. In addition why make such an announcement in mid-air?

Now, along with others I have asked what exactly was said by the Captain to the passengers to clear this up. I also accepted though that this might not be possible so I asked another question - was the person identified as smoking handed over to police at Cardiff.

Why is this relevant? Because if you accept the airline account it seems clear that someone was identified as an offender. The passengers on the other hand say that the captain wanted someone to own up failing which they would all be kept on the ground at Glasgow. To my mind such an announcement turns an aircraft from a means of transport into a means of confinement.
I have a problem with that and in common with others I think a court would have problems with that.

[DamienB]

Flying Lawyer (edit - whose post has now disappeared!) - a threat to unlawfully imprison a plane load of people would get even the most well behaved bunch of passengers protesting loudly, and if this turns out to be the case isn't there something in law about prevention of a greater crime being a sufficient reason to commit a smaller one? I'm thinking of the women protestors who broke into BAe and smashed up some Hawks for instance.

Naturally the majority here are believing without question the cabin crew account but faced with a large number of people testifying to the opposite, you really think any conviction could be gained?

The earlier remarks in this thread about "photographic evidence of our crew members' injury (taken for evidence by the police) to prove the seriousness of the assault" made me think open wounds, gushing blood, broken bones etc. and now it turns out to be a bruise that needed no medical attention. Lacking video evidence and in the face of multiple eye witnesses saying otherwise, do you seriously think a prosecution for assault would stand a chance?

Yes, it IS a serious assault in that no one on the aircraft should expect any injury of any sort from another person but overblowing the injury doesn't help the media scrum or the general belief among most of the public that this incident was effectively caused by poor decision making by the cabin crew rather than rioting football hooligans as was initially publicised. The talksport thing shows just how this is being played out to the public at large.

The industry will never manage to educate passengers as to acceptable behaviour if it persists with the holier than thou attitude displayed on this thread, no matter how legally correct that attitude is.

As a passenger, I've seen FAs react quite nastily to innocuous questions and I can well imagine how such responses could take a situation well past the point of safety and into headline territory - something happening with the people management training? Had I been on the flight, I'd have been delighted to be on the ground at Cardiff in one bit if there was even the slightest doubt at the aircraft's continued safety, but I would not be in the least surprised to find the rest of the cabin in uproar about it.

[Remmington]

Dont say some web guru has a sense of humour to place the Police recruitment ad. at bottom of page 16 with a Welsh translation?

[Flying Lawyer]

Remmington
Don't bother reading this post. You'll find it very boring

RatherBeFlying
It would be difficult (not necessarily impossible) to argue that what the Captain said or didn't say in his PA about smoking is relevant to guilt or not of any offence(s).
The question for the Court at that stage will be: Has the prosecution proved the defendant's guilt of the offence(s) charged? Not: Why did he behave in that way?

The second question is relevant to punishment if he is convicted but, even if the passengers' version is correct, it's a very tricky argument to advance. 'The defendant only behaved as he did because he thought the crew applied the law re smoking too strictly? Or because he didn't like what the Captain intended to do on arrival at Glasgow?
I can't see a Court regarding that as mitigation if anyone is convicted of threatening / assaulting Cabin Crew responsible for the safety an airliner full of passengers!

Miller
You might, repeat might just about have an arguable point if the incident had taken place after the aircraft had landed at Glasgow, and if the passengers had been detained. But it didn't. It took place during flight when nobody was being detained unlawfully. What can a defendant say if he used threats or force? I only used reasonable force to try to escape so that I wouldn't be unlawfully detained at Glasgow? At 35,000'? If anyone felt aggrieved, the proper course was take it up with the airline later, not take it out on the Cabin Crew during the flight.


In summary, the issues for a court to decide will be:
(1) Are we satisfied, on the evidence presented, that the defendant did what the prosecution say he did?
If not, that's the end of the matter.
If yes,
(2) Does what he did amount to the offence charged?
If no, defendant acquitted. If yes, conviction and appropriate punishment.

[Miller]

You might, repeat might just about have an arguable point if the incident had taken place after the aircraft had landed at Glasgow, and if the passengers had been detained. But it didn't.


First thank you for replying. I appreciate your view.

The point though is when the detention begins. Your argument seems to assume to that it begins once the plane lands on the ground. My argument is that the detention begins once the person realises that they are under constraint. In this instance that begins at the moment the pilot made his announcement (if I stress and I must stress, if, the passenger account is correct).


What can a defendant say if he used threats or force?

There are no excuses for threats or force. Again the accounts from the passengers and airline seem to vary wildly.

Though in case this causes any debate let me stress that the Captain had no alternative but to divert.


I only used reasonable force to try to escape so that I wouldn't be unlawfully detained at Glasgow? At 35,000'? Be sensible. If anyone felt aggrieved, the proper course was take it up with the airline later, not take it out on the Cabin Crew during the flight.


No, but it would be entirely proper to point out the inappropriate nature of the captain's announcement (if as I stress yet again again the passenger account is correct).

We seem to agree on this much though - that nothing will be of much use to any passenger who issues threats to or inflicts violence on cabin crew though as I said earlier the airline and passenger accounts are at odds with each other.

[Horatio]

ADC summed up the situation admirably.

Whatever the Captain said and in whatever form he said it is largely irrelevant to the core issue here.

Threatening or abusive behaviour is unacceptable onboard an aircraft, in a confined space, where it could lead to catastrophic effects that would endager the aircraft and ALL of it's occupants.
Cast your minds back to the tragedy at Hillsborough all those years ago. A ruckus started; what then ensued, due sheer panic, ultimately became an uncontrollable disaster in which so many lives were tragically lost (everyone there had their feet planted firmly on the ground, not like an airlane!).

That is a call that the crew on site have to make at the time. Easy for all the armchair critics to analyze from the comfort of their stress free environment and with no time limitation on arriving at their decision. By it's very nature, sometimes it might transpire that the crew member concerned might handle the situation in a slightly different way if the same scenario happened again, with the benefit of hindsight and with the benefit of 'sleeping on it'. Aircrew are rarely afforded that luxury. They have to make that decision on the spot. Their primary and overriding responsibility is the safety of the aircraft and it's occupants. Occupants means everybody onboard (crew and passengers alike); when there is a smoking rubble every life is as important as the next.

Regardless of how much training and simulation crews are given (and it is significant), no one situation will ever match the situation you are faced with on the day. That's sod's law and that is why the crews devote so much personal energy and dedication into their job. How many times have we all said things that either get misconstrued or came over in a way that they weren't intended? That happens every day of the week to all of us. With some people (e.g. my wife), it doesn't matter how carefully you address a situation; if she's in a mind to, she'll take it in the wrong way every damn time!

My point is; the Captain is the supreme authority onboard an aircraft in flight (those powers are invested to him under the ANO); his crew have his delegated authority and that gives them the same delagated powers. Refusal to comply is a lawful offence, like it or not.

I support the Captain and his crew in what I have seen. Even if it transpires later that he did 'threaten to imprison' all of the passengers onboard on arrival, as has been suggested, until the guilty party owned up (which I doubt, but who knows?) there are still no legitimate grounds for any passenger to become threatening, abusive or give grounds for the crew to believe they could be in a potentialy perilous position.

Facts are that, in contravention of the Captain's lawful commands;

1. Minimum of one passenger was smoking onboard
2. An unidentified number of passengers were drinking alcohol.
3. A crew memeber suffered a physical assault by a passenger, requiring medical attention.
4. A number of passengers gave the impression that the safety of the aircraft was compromised.

There maybe more, but the above is enough for the Captain to take the appropriate action he considered necessary to meet his primary obligation to 'ensure the safety of the aircraft and it's occupants'. That is his responsibility and one that he can be held liable for in a court of law, if he failed to do so. Like it or lump it!

Lucky for those passengers involved that the aircraft wasn't inbound to Spain, Greece or Turkey. The law inforcers there act, then ask questions later. The culprits here got away lightly, imho. Those guilty will hopefuly be pursued by the courts here. Thank their lucky stars they didn't get a hiding to nothing down route as well.

Moral of the story is; think very carefully before you get onboard an airplane, be prepared to obey all commands given; if that is unpalatable or inconcongruous with the £100+ you paid for your ticket, consider an alternative means of transport and hope they will tolerate your unacceptable behaviour. Otherwise, stay at home, get pissed infront of the TV and save the whole world a lot of grief!

[Flying Lawyer]

DamienB
(I inadvertently deleted my post when editing. I had a copy and it's now reinstated.)

Your first point:
No, that is not the law. The jury in the case you mention decided the women didn't commit a criminal offence, not even a small one. :rolleyes: Read my exchange with Miller for the correct legal position. If you want a fuller explanation of the law, you'll have to pay. :)

Your second point: "you really think any conviction could be gained?"
Yes, a conviction could be gained, for the reasons I explained in my earlier post. It depends upon what the court makes of the witnesses called by both sides. Lots of supporting witnesses for one side or the other obviously helps that side, but quality of evidence is more important than quantity.
I am not in a position to offer an opinion either way on whether a conviction or convictions is likely. I wasn't on the flight, I don't know precisely what the prosecution will allege, I don't know the quality of the witnesses for either side, and I don't know what the defence(s) will be. I responded only to the suggestion that what the Captain actually said might provide a defence to anyone prosecuted.

If any passenger is proved to have assaulted a flight attendant then, in my view, they deserve to be punished severely regardless of what the Captain said in his PA, and regardless of whether the F/A was in their opinion behaving unreasonably.

"Naturally the majority here are believing without question the cabin crew account."
Naturally. We're guests on a professional pilots' forum. I don't know if Celtic have a forum, but I think I can guess what the majority are saying if they have. :D

Is it really so surprising that professional pilots with years of experience as airline pilots have become frustrated/irritated when the armchair experts criticise the Captain for diverting?
I haven't got MS FlightSim or whatever it's called, so I don't know if a disturbance in the cabin is one of the features.

[Devils Advocate]

ADC + Horatio = WELL SAID !!!

Ps. ( hence the edit ) and TO / Flying Lawyer too ( a top bloke ) !

[Crosswind Limits]

Flying Lawyer,

Quote:
_______________________________________________
Read my exchange with Miller for the correct legal position.
If you want a fuller explanation of the law, you'll have to pay.
_______________________________________________

Spoken like a true barrister! ;)

[virgin]

I liked FL's last line as well! :D :D :D

[PaperTiger]

Threatening or abusive behaviour is unacceptable onboard an aircraft Does it make a difference who utters those (alleged) threats ?

[Tom the Tenor]

Sixteen pages now on this topic!! A couple of Christmases ago a Cubana DC-10 went off the runway at Guatemala and many people lost their lives and on PPRuNe the subject warranted just a handful of posts. What values there? Okay, if a passenger on the Astraeus aircraft was smoking let them be prosecuted and if hands were laid on a flight attendant let the police and the CPS decide what to do next. By the way, the terrorists who carried out the September 11th attacks in America were neither football supporters or smokers on an aircraft returning from a football match. The length of this topic now suggests to me there is an element of power tripping going on by some pilots as if they would relish the idea of having to emergency land an aeroplane because of any kind out of the ordinary cabin disturbance just to show that they have the authority to do so. Have to concede though that the power thing is now all pervasive in aviation and at airports with the likes of the Bottom Fondling Failed Wheel-clamper Brigade and some check in type people wearing epaulettes and behaving like little Hitlers in their treatment of crews, airport users and passengers.

[Devils Advocate]

Paper Tiger - yes it does, e.g Bush versus Sadam, maybe?!

Tom the Tenor - Most pilots would much rather simply go to work, fly from A to B and back to A, get off and go home - where Mayday's, for any reason, they can do without - but per the saying, "Needs must when the Devil drives !" :D

[Roghead]

I have followed the posts on this subject with great interest and have enjoyed, although not always agreed with,the points made by all contributors.
Firstly and most importantly,congratulations to the Captain and crew for their(ultimately) expeditious and safe conclusion to an uncomfortable in flight situation.Whether it should ever have been allowed to develop into a Mayday scenario,however,is another matter.

Before I propose my own thoughts on the subject I realise that to combat the highly defensive attitude of SOME of the Captains it seems necessary to establish credentials.
19 years RAF Navigator on defensive/offensive strike /attack combat aircraft-more commonly referred to as talking ballast..
3 years passing on my "wisdom" and training Operations Officers of a friendly foreign Air Force,albeit as a mercenary.
13 years flying as both navigator and F/O on Mil jets and Bizz jets respectively,plus latterly managing the Operations Room of the Flying task.

This was NOT a Mayday situation.However on the information available to the Captain a diversion at the earliest SAFEST opportunity was appropriate.There was no requirement to alert the SAR team at Kinloss.I've only seen one obvious contribution from ATC and he supports the call but I suspect many more would agree wth me that a request to divert with assistance as required would have met the bill(no pun intended) without alerting the media rat pack.
Therin lies the problem which has developed.The whole largely uninformed B****y world "knows" what has happened and they intend to get their pound of flesh.They probably will!
The underlying problem,well discussed in this forum and by those considerably more articulate than me,is one between aircrew with the knowledge and SLF without.What an appalling term to call the people who pay your wages.Yes ,I was talking ballast once but that was not a problem 'cos the thikko driver needed me to get him to his target and back home again.We called it banter-remember.A thing between equals.Your SLF don't have a voice or at least not till now and in aircrew terms are not equal.
I have flown with many Captains over the last 30+ years and like every other professional some were good some were not as Captains,or Managers.They were,however, all highly proficient at their primary task of pilots.Being a good pilot will not automatically grant powers of leadership, man management ,PR skills or crisis control unfortunately, and with an arrogant lack of respect for seemingly everyone except other pilots I'm feared you make your own beds in which to lie.
What else is to blame?Has CRM totally failed-possibly.Do you all hold yourseves in such high regard that communication with those without the knowlege is out of the question?
Perhaps that is the key-COMMUNICATION.
By and large if the general public have at least the feeling that they have been told the "truth" and "have been kept in the picture" many of the heartaches may be spared.

I've much more I could say,based on experiences,but perhaps another day,anyway my secretary says she has to go and cook the meal and clean the house so I'd have to do my own typing.
By the way I had thought of calling myself OKWhiskyCharlie but as that was to clever I stuck to my "soodonim"

[dicksynormous]

Nice one roghead. Too often captains make decisions that are deemed to be unquestionable because of the "commanders perogotive, I'm in command ,This is my aircraft" type of philosophy.
None of the above absolves an individual from being answerable or censurable if the reaction was innappropiate. The current uk pro pilot attitude of overkill is imho a result of not being properly versed in the overall affect of the use of certain alert calls.
In general in non airworthy situations a request for priority may suffice. I believe an atco would be of assistance in order not to clog up his airspace. failure to get the necessary would entitle and upgrade to pan and so on.

Managing non urgent (as in airworthy) situations with the highest priority overkill as a blanket reaction, indicates equal measures of rushed decision making and dare i say it lack of professionalism not bucket loads of it.
After all if flite didnt think their decisions were sacrosanct to outsiders (ie public, mangement and cabin crew) we woudnt need crm would we!!

No patronising replies please, i am one of you just not as arrogant as some.

I'll be in my office.

[McIce]

Flying Lawer

How do you 'prove' beyond all reasonable doubt the guy in the toilet was actually smoking?

Surley the door was closed. No eye witnesses and a smoke alarm cant testify in court.

If you cant prove this what happened next may not have happened and both sets of parties involved would appear to be arguing over nothing.

Just a thought
:)

[[email protected]]

The most interesting parts of this saga are, to me, the points that the vocal passengers and posters seem to think are significant.

Specifically, we've seen pax making much of the mech issues at pushback. We've seen dramatic accounts of "nose diving" 737s. We've seen weird arguments about legality of detaining people.

Now, all of those issues are totally irrelevant. What UNDENIABLY happened was a number of offences against ANOs, specifically the smoking and drinking (unless someone smuggled empty containers on board...) The rest of the "explanations" by passengers seem to amount to an attempt to justify or rationalize various instances and types of misconduct.

I'm particularly perplexed by the emphasis the accounts placed on the "nose diving" and the cabin crew rushing around, as if that amounts to even a small pile of beans. By the that time, the damage was done, the commander had decided to get on the ground ASAP, had declared an emergency, and was presumably busy connecting the dots between an airliner at FL350 and a runway...

Further, I'm not sure of the significance of the mechanical issues at push-back. If they occurred as described, then one might conclude that the pax may have been nervous at the idea of faults and/or irritated at the delay. In either case, the pax would have been (psychologically) primed to a "fight or flight" instinct, which would escalate any negative stimulus more rapidly than would have been the case without the priming. And if that were the situation on board the a/c, the risk of losing control of civilived behavior in the cabin was certainly elevated, and an experienced and wise crew may well have *correctly* called the situation as being critical to the safety-of-flight. Which is not, I believe, what the pax were trying to suggest...

[ I'm dismissing out of hand the conspiracy theory of mechanical problems in the air. Had it a grain of truth, the paper trail would have been problematic: *someone* would have had to sign-off on the alleged emergency repairs made at CWL, and the actual repairs in Glasgow and Spain. Plus, of course, even if he were attempting to conceal a severe problem from the pax, the captain is unlikely to have tried to conceal it from the people on the ground upon whom he might depend for his life (had there been a problem) ]

Moreover, it may seem obvious to most people, but suboptimal conduct on the part of the airline (if it existed) is no excuse for suboptimal conduct by anyone else. Perhaps the best way to make this point is to suggest an extrapolation: if a female ground staffer announces a departure delay, would be OK to rape her?

Of course not... yet there's much being made about the alleged illegal detention in Glasgow.

BUT... kids, and this is kinda important, that detention hadn't occurred, and no-one knows whether it ever would have done. Certainly, the alleged lawyer and the woman who supposedly asked about the delays *hadn't* been detained, and no-one has even suggested that the detainer would have been the cabin crew.

So why do so many posters seem to think this at all relevant? If the pax had arrived at Glasgow and had been detained, then they MIGHT have had a case against whoever detained them (which would, I believe, have been the Police making inquiries...) But they didn't get to Glasgow, and no-one detained them.

Certainly, no-one seems to dispute the fact that some of the pax discussed the potential detention with the cabin crew, and embarked on discussions of the legalities thereof. But why? No matter what the "aggrieved" passengers say, I have to wonder at the state of mind of people who start lecturing a woman about the problems with doing something that hasn't happened, might not happen, and even if it did happen, wouldn't involve her!

And once you accept the obvious irrationality of those passengers, one has to start wondering what else they had got up to...

I'm also curious as to what interactions, if any, the police in Spain had with this choice group of people. Someone (possibly MOL) made much of the fact that the police were not, as alleged, called... because THEY WERE ALREADY THERE. OK, but what did they say or do? Even the most pro-pax accounts acknowlege pre-departure drinking...

[ Oh, and as to that irrelevant red herring about "police evidence": the police evidence in this case will include evidence as to the empty alcohol containers and the injuries sustained by the crew member. That is police evidence. Enjoy! ]

Malc.

[MikeGranby]

I'll make one further comment on my point, because the thread has already moved on...
You have reason to believe that a group of disruptive passengers in the back of your aircraft are out of control, that they have been smoking and have assaulted one of your cabin crew. You need to land as soon as possible. What do you think the effect would be on those passengers if you now anounce that you are taking them to Cardiff??
Well, this one can be argued either way. They might react badly, or they might sit down, realizing that Plod will be waiting for them in a short time.

I guess my issue with this is not a piloting one, but a customer service one. From the reports, we have various people terrified to the point of saying goodbye to their loved ones. If these reports are correct (and they may not be, of course) then I am just asking if there is not something to be learned in turns of how information is passed to the cabin.

Also, a few posts in this thread have given the impression, rightly or wrongly, that "pax is pax", and that everyone should suffer for the sins of a small number of people. This is unacceptable from a moral point of view, but perhaps more importantly, from a customer service point of view! Airlines need passengers. Scaring them off is a bad thing, and if that happened, lessons need to be learned.

[Grantm]

The two press releases relating to this incident are now gone from Astraeus' website.

[RatherBeFlying]

According to some reports, the cabin announcement triggered vigorous expression of complaints from certain passengers which sadly deteriorated into an altercation where a cabin crew member suffered injury.

Doubtless the legal meter will be running as the court determines where the line lies between disputatious behavior and interfering with the crew's performance of their duties.

Flying Lawyer, my interest in the cabin announcement is that it might add legitimacy to the passengers' sense of grievance -- perhaps more in the public mind than in court as you have pointed out.

[idgas]

This has to be one of the most interesting/emotive/controversial and annoying threads in many a long year. Well here goes....

As Cabin Crew with some 24years experience I would like to make the following observations.

The Captain was right. He is the Commander of the Aeroplane. If in any doubt put it on the ground. It's the safest place to be for all. Crew and pax. A decision was made on the information received. The possibility of a group of passengers becoming uncontrollable is enough in my book.

Think back to the EMA accident where, I believe, the Captain did not listen to the Cabin Crew?

The threat of physical/verbal abuse towards crew or passengers must not be/is not to be tolerated.

Intimidation or "taking the p%ss" is akin to bullying. Bullying is no longer tolerated in the workplace. Why should it accepted on an aeroplane?

If the safety briefing is ignored It should be stopped and then repeated until such time those not prepared to listen at least give others the chance to do so.

Smoking in the toilet is ….. well words fail me. Prosecute.

As Cabin Crew, charters of this nature are not welcome. They have in my experience been confrontational and led to my crew being abused both verbally and physically resulting in pax being refused return travel. However volunteers with the necessary experience and skills can go along way to solving this one. Captains have to be “checked” into certain airfields, why not Cabin Crew “checked” on certain flights?

To managers and those in commercial departments, come along and see for yourself. You would be very upset and annoyed if you were subjected the same abuse.

The travelling public MUST learn that the "ANO" MUST be adhered to. It is the law.

Cheers, :cool: :mad: