offloading pax

[*Lancer*]

Q1a - I'm sorry, was that a question?
Q1b - The same qualification I applied for the XXX other passengers.
Q1c - No.

Johnny, if you call the police they will come, but it is the authority of the PIC (or airport duty manager) to offload a pax... not the cops. Alternatively they might be called for an alleged theft or an assault not witnessed by anyone, in which case it gets sorted out after disembarking. In any case, the response needs to be proportional to the threat.

[Traffic_Is_Er_Was]

I take information from cabin crew and decide accordingly. I do not take advice or instruction

Quote that little gem and see what a complete tosser you come across as.

[RENURPP]

One thing that would have me worried was if the PIC chose not to divert after the bottom pinching episode and later in the flight the same pax did something more inappropriate causing actual injury to crew or another passenger.

You can just imagine the passengers (crews) barrister to the PIC on the witness stand..

Q. Did you have any idea that the passenger was unruly or prone to bad behaviour ?

A. Yes, But I thought it was going to be OK

Q. Well, since the passenger subsequently did *insert bad things here * obviously your judgement was wrong ?

What's your next response ?

A1. No my judgement was correct
Q1a. Well obviously it wasn't, the passenger had previously assaulted a crew member on your flight in front of 200 witnesses and he did it again.
Q1b. What qualifications did you have to be able to judge his mental state, are you a registered psychiatrist ?
Q1c. Does your company prohibit you from diverting if a passenger assaults a member of the crew or a fellow passenger ?

OR

A2. Yes, My judgement was incorrect, and as a result of that *insert bad thing* happened

Ever been on the receiving end of a tongue-lashing from a switched on barrister ?

Let me tell you, there's no right answers to the questions they ask !

CYA !

S_T

How about the beak that allows a drunk driver off with a warning and subsequently drives drunk again and this time kills some one?

How about a person who is a little rude whilst boarding, we all hear them, mabe running late or something similar, should we throw them off just in case they get more aggressive later in the flight and it becomes an issue where someone gets hurt?

You make a sensible decision you can justify based on the current and likely circumstances. That's he best we can do, leave the lawyers to fight the rest out at a later date.

[HowMuchFurther]

How about reminding both the Cabin Crew member and Mr. Wandering Hands of the consequences of breaching CAA24:
"Interference with crew or aircraft
(1) A person commits an offence if:
(a) the person does an act; and
(b) the act:
(i) interferes with a crew member of an aircraft in the course of the performance of his or her duties as such a crew member; or
(ii) threatens the safety of an aircraft or of persons on board an aircraft.
Penalty: Imprisonment for 2 years."

I like this rule, as there is no option for the beak!!
If he continues with his behaviour, call the AFP on arrival. I agree with previous posts - you MUST lodge a formal complaint for legal action to proceed.

[SpannerTwister]

Originally Posted by RENURPP

You make a sensible decision you can justify based on the current and likely circumstances. That's he best we can do, leave the lawyers to fight the rest out at a later date.

Totally agree, but it's just that given the "current" circumstances are that a passenger has, to be totally blunt, technically assaulted a crew member, I wouldn't like to be the one on the witness stand trying to justify my position.

There are several law firms now that will fight for the plaintiff on a no-win, no-fee proposal.

If the passenger retains one of these ambulance-chasers to sue the PIC personally, as a civil matter, the passenger has got nothing to loose by trying and I can guarantee that the PIC will have $10,000 of legal fees before seeing the inside of a courtroom !

Again, as PIC what you do is your decision and responsibility, but the law applies a "reasonable person" test in many cases, and while your decision not to divert may of seemed reasonable to you at 40,000 feet, in the cool light of the court-room, will twelve men good and true (who are NOT your flying peers) agree that to not get rid of (by the barristers words) the violent, raging maniac who had already assulted your crew member was a good decision ?

You don't have to justify it to me, or PPRuNe or even yourself (always the easiest ) but one day you may need to justify it to a jury sympathetic to (as the barrister described the 30-something passenger) the little old lady who was (as the barrister described the bruised arm and scraped shin) so viscously and callously attacked with no provocation, causing her PTSD, migraines and an inability to sleep.

S_T

[kalavo]

Actually a lot of our regulations come from maritime law where the safety of the vessel is the first priority and the commanders decision is final - there is no reasonable person test and the airlines are not public transport.

The passenger may be removed, detained, placed under restraint or taken in to custody and may be arrested without warrant for committing, suspected of committing, attempting to commit or being about to commit an offence under the act or regulations.

You can try suing the airlines for costs incurred by their failure to provide a service, but expect to be counter-sued for the cost of the diversion. Most companies would have a policy on how they expect their crew to react to this particular circumstance, but don't expect an easy time in the courts as a passenger provoking the crew.

[Traffic_Is_Er_Was]

The quote is from a pilot, not a passenger.

[wiggy]

northern hemisphere POV - do you guys carry a formal warning letter that you can issue (similar to to soccer yellow card) to the alleged offender?

In the scenario described I'd be inclined to get a suitably built cabin crew member to "issue the card", or in it's absence a warning, and if the assaulted cabin crew member was willing to give a statement get the feds to meet the flight at destination.

Obviously in case of escalation it's the cuffs...diversion, IMHO is the last resort.

Just my two cents worth

[Mach E Avelli]

Much easier if this happens on an international flight. Tee up Customs to quietly take the miscreant aside for a full body search - the rubber glove treatment.....

[Checkboard]

Diversion is an expensive exercise and there had better be some compeling reasons to do so.

Actually, in Europe at least, landing fees are only charged at destination and weather alternates. Fees are never charged for safety diversions - so the cost is simply the fuel and extra flying time.

If you are working for any operator who can't afford a descent and landing (in terms of fuel and time) as a completely incidental expense, then I hope you have been desperately sending out resumes because they are about to go under!

In short - the cost for a safety diversion is such a low expense in terms of operating costs, it doesn't even enter the equation.

----

Having said that - the police will always attend an airliner diversion. The Captain has the absolute authority to offload any passenger (and doesn't have to provide a reason).

Once a passenger is in the hands of the police, it is up to them whether to proceed with an arrest etc. That would depend on the severity of the assault, and the quality of the evidence. In the case cited, they probably wouldn't do anything other than offer a warning.

What would I do? I would get the FA involved into the cockpit, sit them on the jumpseat, and go through the event with them. If after that, they are still insistent that the passenger is an ongoing threat - yes I would divert. If, after discussion, I find I can separate them (get the FA to work another section) - and that the FA agrees that the passenger isn't an escalating threat - then I would have the police meet on arrival, rather than divert.