KL677 Amsterdam-Calgary agressive passenger
Thread Starter
KL677 Amsterdam-Calgary agressive passenger
Sadly, once more an unruly passenger forced a flight to divert, in this case returing to the departure airport after some 2,5 hours into the flight...
And they got the photo almost right: KLM, Boeing and 2 engines: https://calgary.ctvnews.ca/klm-fligh...nger-1.6329630
https://www.flightradar24.com/data/f...kl677#2fa8d516
And they got the photo almost right: KLM, Boeing and 2 engines: https://calgary.ctvnews.ca/klm-fligh...nger-1.6329630
https://www.flightradar24.com/data/f...kl677#2fa8d516
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: munich/frg
Posts: 54
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just out of curiosity: What other than weather might have been the reason for going back to ams instead of kicking the unruly out at Keflavik/Reykjavik? Would have been less waste of time for the other passengers.... (liked the remark on the almost perfect photo 
)
)
well if they were arrested on arrival then the crew might have to go back to Iceland for any trial - far better to hand them over to people you know, and where you speak the language
And KLM are more important at AMS than at Calgary or Iceland so it'll get more attention
And KLM are more important at AMS than at Calgary or Iceland so it'll get more attention
There might be some paperwork, the duty time passes, and you end up at home. Plus, the Koninklijke Marechaussee will know how to deal with him.
Tokyo convention issue:
From this Skybrary article.
If the captain wanted the passenger off the flight ASAP, a landing in Keflavik would have been an option. The chance of that passenger being prosecuted for their actions would have been nil though. Under the Tokyo convention, the actions of said passenger are seen as illegal under the laws of the state of registration, thereby preventing another state from prosecuting this passenger unless they closed this legislative gap in their own laws.
While the Tokyo Convention contains provisions for the prosecution and offloading of unruly passengers, it has a jurisdictional gap which does not automatically allow most states to prosecute a disruptive passenger who has been removed from an inbound foreign registered aircraft. The PIC can disembark an unruly passenger in any State without coordination with the local law enforcement authorities. In this case, the individual is unlikely to face prosecution in that State unless the State itself has enacted enabling legislation allowing it press charges for the offence.
If the captain wanted the passenger off the flight ASAP, a landing in Keflavik would have been an option. The chance of that passenger being prosecuted for their actions would have been nil though. Under the Tokyo convention, the actions of said passenger are seen as illegal under the laws of the state of registration, thereby preventing another state from prosecuting this passenger unless they closed this legislative gap in their own laws.
Tokyo convention issue:
From this Skybrary article.
If the captain wanted the passenger off the flight ASAP, a landing in Keflavik would have been an option. The chance of that passenger being prosecuted for their actions would have been nil though. Under the Tokyo convention, the actions of said passenger are seen as illegal under the laws of the state of registration, thereby preventing another state from prosecuting this passenger unless they closed this legislative gap in their own laws.
From this Skybrary article.
If the captain wanted the passenger off the flight ASAP, a landing in Keflavik would have been an option. The chance of that passenger being prosecuted for their actions would have been nil though. Under the Tokyo convention, the actions of said passenger are seen as illegal under the laws of the state of registration, thereby preventing another state from prosecuting this passenger unless they closed this legislative gap in their own laws.
"Couldn't the Dutch authorities have prosecuted the perp after they made it back home?"
but they may have been Canadian (or British or...) the article doesn't say
but they may have been Canadian (or British or...) the article doesn't say
They were also 2.5 hours into an 8.5 hours flight. The perp was restrained and, according to the Dutch news article, tied to the seat. I guess you want to minimise the time that he/she is in restraints.
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: munich/frg
Posts: 54
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Alternatively dump the perp in Keflavik, make a couple of calls to other operators there not to touch him with a bargepole and let him hitch hike home on a trawler
Not really an option I guess. If a country does not accept a passenger for entry into said country (and having just been kicked off a flight for unruly behaviour, your odds are not ideal), the airline that brought you there is responsible for transporting you back 'home'. As an airline, you are responsible for a passenger up to the point where that passenger has been allowed to enter a country, so just dumping a passenger somewhere is not the way to get rid of him/her.
Join Date: Sep 2018
Location: Yorkshire
Posts: 262
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Having a ticket booked on KL0677 later this year, I have taken a close interest in this!!
That appears to be exactly what happened.
While I would be very annoyed (with that troublesome pax!), I would be pleased with the outcome of this incident.
If it had diverted into KEF, it would have been grounded with the crew going out of duty hours. A replacement crew might have taken a long, long time to be positioned there to continue the flight (with additional ground handling problems?). Returning to AMS would have given plenty of time for a replacement crew (and aeroplane?) to be ready to be on the way back to YYC. As a pax, I would prefer what KLM have done.
I hope that the Dutch judicial system is suitably hard on the perpetrator. I also hope that KLM has a compensation claim against the perpetrator that results in a hugely disadvantaged financial future for that perpetrator. A good example needs to be set for pax that disrupting airlines, their passengers and their crew is a very, very, very bad idea.
(As a Pilot, cargo enjoys the distinct advantage of not having any of this problem! However, as a Pax I am pleased that airlines can respond the way KLM did to get people, eventually, to where they wanted to be.)
While I would be very annoyed (with that troublesome pax!), I would be pleased with the outcome of this incident.
If it had diverted into KEF, it would have been grounded with the crew going out of duty hours. A replacement crew might have taken a long, long time to be positioned there to continue the flight (with additional ground handling problems?). Returning to AMS would have given plenty of time for a replacement crew (and aeroplane?) to be ready to be on the way back to YYC. As a pax, I would prefer what KLM have done.
I hope that the Dutch judicial system is suitably hard on the perpetrator. I also hope that KLM has a compensation claim against the perpetrator that results in a hugely disadvantaged financial future for that perpetrator. A good example needs to be set for pax that disrupting airlines, their passengers and their crew is a very, very, very bad idea.
(As a Pilot, cargo enjoys the distinct advantage of not having any of this problem! However, as a Pax I am pleased that airlines can respond the way KLM did to get people, eventually, to where they wanted to be.)
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: malta
Posts: 201
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Even when KLM and Transavia, which are part of the same company, combined a blacklist, the process was riddled with regulations, problems and it took quite a while before they thought it was sufficiently legally covered to go ahead with it.
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: LHR
Posts: 556
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You want this guy to suffer to the maximum extent of the law.... whilst minimising the inconvenience to the passengers and the crew.
If you divert to Iceland he gets arrested, all the crew will have to make police statements and return at a later date to give evidence at his trial. KLM have no presence at KEF and the police procedures will take hours.... Still want to divert to KEF?
If you divert to Iceland he gets arrested, all the crew will have to make police statements and return at a later date to give evidence at his trial. KLM have no presence at KEF and the police procedures will take hours.... Still want to divert to KEF?
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: LHR
Posts: 556
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
@Jhieminga
Pretty much all countries will prosecute any offence occuring in an aircraft where that offence take place within their territorial airspace. Your statement to the police on landing should reflect that. Your assertion about the gap in the Tokyo convention is a moot point.
Pretty much all countries will prosecute any offence occuring in an aircraft where that offence take place within their territorial airspace. Your statement to the police on landing should reflect that. Your assertion about the gap in the Tokyo convention is a moot point.
Last edited by Pilot DAR; 29th Mar 2023 at 17:30. Reason: Removed reported portion....
