offloading pax
Thread Starter
offloading pax
Hello all,
Scenario:
You're mid cruise and the hostie calls up and says an obnoxious passenger squeezed her arse as she was walking past
Your destination is another hour and a half away, but there is a suitable field about 30minutes away.
She is adamant he is being a tool and wants him off ASAP.
What would you do? I was wondering if you diverted and asked for cops on arrival would you need a better reason than that? Or is it all just pilot discretion? Is there a CAR that would back you up, or is it just company specific SOPs?
Thanks in advance for the replys.
Scenario:
You're mid cruise and the hostie calls up and says an obnoxious passenger squeezed her arse as she was walking past
Your destination is another hour and a half away, but there is a suitable field about 30minutes away.
She is adamant he is being a tool and wants him off ASAP.
What would you do? I was wondering if you diverted and asked for cops on arrival would you need a better reason than that? Or is it all just pilot discretion? Is there a CAR that would back you up, or is it just company specific SOPs?
Thanks in advance for the replys.
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: under a rock
Posts: 144
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Get a tech crew to have a word with him regarding the federal police meeting him on arrival if he does not behave himself. Further escalation, a PIC may authorize the restrain of the passenger.
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: West of Point Byron!!!
Posts: 27
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If it's a QF hostie - he's a sick bastard
If it's a VA hostie - make sure he does it again
If it's a One * hostie - she'll probably charge him double for the scotch
If it's a Tiger hostie - he'll make the TV series 'Airways' 100%
If it's a VA hostie - make sure he does it again
If it's a One * hostie - she'll probably charge him double for the scotch
If it's a Tiger hostie - he'll make the TV series 'Airways' 100%
Nunc est bibendum
No F/A I've every flown with would want the passenger off the aeroplane ASAP if all the passenger did was grab their backside. Most would certainly want the wallopers there at the other end and even if they didn't, I'd get the wallopers out anyway. No bastard is going to lay a hand on one of my crew and not get the shock of their life when the aircraft door is opened.
If the passenger is sitting their quite calmly with no other signs of doing the wrong thing then we leave it until we get on the ground. If they're continuing to be a tool then we escalate it to the lowest level possible to ensure that the crew and the aircraft remain safe from harm. If that means the offender ends up in cuffs then that was their choice, not mine! If they're in cuffs, no need to divert.
If the passenger is sitting their quite calmly with no other signs of doing the wrong thing then we leave it until we get on the ground. If they're continuing to be a tool then we escalate it to the lowest level possible to ensure that the crew and the aircraft remain safe from harm. If that means the offender ends up in cuffs then that was their choice, not mine! If they're in cuffs, no need to divert.
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Present Position
Posts: 44
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hmmm. I think that the minimum response nescessary to ensure good order would be appropriate. Back in the day a good friend of mine suffered a bikie insurrection on board abeam Gualdelajara. He diverted, the Mexican policia performed the mobile **** storm all the way back to the prison. One of the three died, the other two were still there three years later.
I think the piñata would be a useful metaphor in the minds of your average douche bag who acts out on board, but how to evoke that particular image without causing undue offence?
I think the piñata would be a useful metaphor in the minds of your average douche bag who acts out on board, but how to evoke that particular image without causing undue offence?
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Back again.
Posts: 1,140
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No bastard is going to lay a hand on one of my crew and not get the shock of their life when the aircraft door is opened.
As with seemingly a lot of decisions required in flight, the wording by Johnny_56 makes it almost seem trivial. To make the decision a little easier...It's assault! From a US definition at:
assault legal definition of assault. assault synonyms by the Free Online Law Dictionary.
At Common Law, an intentional act by one person that creates an apprehension in another of an imminent harmful or offensive contact.
An assault is carried out by a threat of bodily harm coupled with an apparent, present ability to cause the harm. It is both a crime and a tort and, therefore, may result in either criminal or civil liability.
An assault is carried out by a threat of bodily harm coupled with an apparent, present ability to cause the harm. It is both a crime and a tort and, therefore, may result in either criminal or civil liability.
Last edited by Lodown; 24th Nov 2012 at 21:00.
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Darwin
Posts: 339
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
One of your fellow employees is being assaulted. As captain, you cannot ignore this crime. Follow the cabin supervisor's recommendations. Get the plane on the ground and have the police ready with the cuffs the second that cabin door is opened. Let the aircraft operator sort out the scheduling, cost and legal issues. That's not your job.
I would not divert for this situation. I would instruct the cabin crew to manage the situation as they are entrusted under MY legal authority to do.
I take information from cabin crew and decide accordingly. I do not take advice or instruction. I have the lives of many people to consider and a couple of hundred million dollars of company asset as well.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Back again.
Posts: 1,140
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Let me add a couple of small caveats What The...
...assuming the deversionary airport and the route are operational acceptable and the services available are those necessary to be able to prosecute the arrest.
...assuming the deversionary airport and the route are operational acceptable and the services available are those necessary to be able to prosecute the arrest.
Nunc est bibendum
I suspected this may occur. We were all going to get out of shape on this one given the paucity of information in the original question as well as respective past histories colouring our perception of what is going on. We also have very little information as to what happened in the immediate aftermath of the backside pinching. Did the F/A sound off or remonstrate with the pax? Did she resolve the situation? Is it an isolated incident? Has the pax been drinking? Does the pax appear intoxicated? These are all questions that determine the level of response.
Given the info in the original question provides no additional context to the back side pinching episode, were that all it is in isolation then a decision to divert- irrespective of what the F/A thinks- is premature. If it was more sinister- persistent, resistant to subsequent chats from the supervisor or CSM or being belligerent or non com-formative to instructions- then the decision making process will change.
So to Johnny_56, more info is required in order to make an accurate and appropriate decision. You've got some initial thoughts from people here as to some of the issues going through our minds but the real answer is 'it depends'.
Given the info in the original question provides no additional context to the back side pinching episode, were that all it is in isolation then a decision to divert- irrespective of what the F/A thinks- is premature. If it was more sinister- persistent, resistant to subsequent chats from the supervisor or CSM or being belligerent or non com-formative to instructions- then the decision making process will change.
So to Johnny_56, more info is required in order to make an accurate and appropriate decision. You've got some initial thoughts from people here as to some of the issues going through our minds but the real answer is 'it depends'.
If the cabin crew are unable to sort out a bottom pinching episode to a sensible conclusion what hope in a hijack?
I would not divert for this situation. I would instruct the cabin crew to manage the situation as they are entrusted under MY legal authority to do.
I take information from cabin crew and decide accordingly. I do not take advice or instruction. I have the lives of many people to consider and a couple of hundred million dollars of company asset as well.
I would not divert for this situation. I would instruct the cabin crew to manage the situation as they are entrusted under MY legal authority to do.
I take information from cabin crew and decide accordingly. I do not take advice or instruction. I have the lives of many people to consider and a couple of hundred million dollars of company asset as well.
I remember a case from around 10 years ago when a charter operator in the UK was flying some scumbag passengers back from somewhere in the Caribbean to Manchester. One passenger kicked off and started making advances towards the crew. The flightcrew finally got fed up with the behaviour and diverted to some tiny little ETOPS alternate in the middle of nowhere run by the American military. They detained the passenger and the aircraft carried on to the UK after a quick refuel. Passenger was immediately released upon sobering up only to find that there was no regular airservice to the island and that the next ship wouldn't be along for around 2 weeks. He arrived back in the UK around ten thousand pounds worse off and promptly set about suing the airline for his cost in getting back to the UK. Not only did he lose but the airline was awarded costs in the order of another fifteen thousand pounds and the said idiot was banned from the airline for life. I have now been waiting for around 10 years for the opportunity to do the same to some disruptive idiot and always keep in mind that if I am going to offload someone that the best sh*thole I can find will be my preference 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Australia
Posts: 1,414
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Air Nauru 727 flying Hong Kong to Taipei years ago. Pacific island seaman bush lawyer character kept feeling up the hosties as they walked past. Hostie called the captain who went down the back personally to sort out this idiot.
The captain advised the islander that if he had any more reports of this behaviour he would arrange for the Chinese security to meet the aircraft at Taipei and he would get tortured as punishment. No further problems.
The captain advised the islander that if he had any more reports of this behaviour he would arrange for the Chinese security to meet the aircraft at Taipei and he would get tortured as punishment. No further problems.
Hostie called the captain who went down the back personally to sort out this
idiot.
idiot.
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Australia
Age: 58
Posts: 423
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It is no longer advised that pilots go into the cabin to sort out a disruptive passenger. In the old days, the sight of a authority figuire in uniform with a hat may have been enough to get some miscreant to behave, but not nowdays
I would only divert if there was a safety reason to do so. If they are told to keep their hands to themselves and they don't comply, use the handcuffs. Diversion is an expensive exercise and there had better be some compeling reasons to do so.
There is also a duty of care issue: you can't just dump someone on the nearest rock and leave them there. For example; would you dump and Israeli citizen in Zamboanga? The legal process can have some funny twists and turns and you might find that YOU are on the wrong end of the law.
Sound advice. Call the cops too.
.
Whilst the CS is a valuable resource they are still not in command. Make up your own mind as whether to continue, return or divert, as you would in any other instance.
I would only divert if there was a safety reason to do so. If they are told to keep their hands to themselves and they don't comply, use the handcuffs. Diversion is an expensive exercise and there had better be some compeling reasons to do so.
There is also a duty of care issue: you can't just dump someone on the nearest rock and leave them there. For example; would you dump and Israeli citizen in Zamboanga? The legal process can have some funny twists and turns and you might find that YOU are on the wrong end of the law.
I would not divert for this situation. I would instruct the cabin crew to manage
the situation as they are entrusted under MY legal authority to do.
the situation as they are entrusted under MY legal authority to do.
Follow the cabin supervisor's recommendations
Whilst the CS is a valuable resource they are still not in command. Make up your own mind as whether to continue, return or divert, as you would in any other instance.
Last edited by Anthill; 25th Nov 2012 at 02:56.
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Surrounding the localizer
Posts: 2,200
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
1 Post
I remember a case from around 10 years ago when a charter operator in the UK was flying some scumbag passengers back from somewhere in the Caribbean to Manchester. One passenger kicked off and started making advances towards the crew. The flightcrew finally got fed up with the behaviour and diverted to some tiny little ETOPS alternate in the middle of nowhere run by the American military.
Info here
Last edited by haughtney1; 25th Nov 2012 at 06:51.
Thread Starter
Cheers for the replies,
I guess more what I was getting at was; if you do request police attendance on arrival do they need an adequate reason to come onto the aircraft and offload a pax, is it just at pilot discretion or does it need to be a case that could be proved as assault.
I appreciate the replies.
I guess more what I was getting at was; if you do request police attendance on arrival do they need an adequate reason to come onto the aircraft and offload a pax, is it just at pilot discretion or does it need to be a case that could be proved as assault.
I appreciate the replies.
Thread Starter
If its a clear cut thing where the harassment has been ongoing and persistent despite warnings then I imagine you wouldn't have an issue. The scenario was more if it's a marginal situation will the police come and offload on pilot say so
Not necessarily in a major airport too, but in a regional port with local cops not the Feds.
Not necessarily in a major airport too, but in a regional port with local cops not the Feds.
Bottums Up
As I see it, the AFP/Police will attend the aircraft on arrival if their presence is requested by the PIC.
I recently heard that they were becoming reluctant to attend if the air crew were not prepared to give statements and press charges. The giving of statements and pressing of charges takes time & effort, and in many cases crew members are reluctant to take that step, which leaves the coppers in limbo because without witnesses and statements and evidence, they can't do anything.
Imagine as PIC making the decision to divert, costing perhaps many thousands of dollars, not to mention inconvenience to other pax, and no one will give a statement.
I recently heard that they were becoming reluctant to attend if the air crew were not prepared to give statements and press charges. The giving of statements and pressing of charges takes time & effort, and in many cases crew members are reluctant to take that step, which leaves the coppers in limbo because without witnesses and statements and evidence, they can't do anything.
Imagine as PIC making the decision to divert, costing perhaps many thousands of dollars, not to mention inconvenience to other pax, and no one will give a statement.
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Downunder
Age: 74
Posts: 257
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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