Passengers & SLF (Self Loading Freight) If you are regularly a passenger on any airline then why not post your questions here?

Abusive pax

Old 28th Oct 2006, 21:11
  #21 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 310
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Letter sent off to Jet2...will let all you kind replyees know of the outcome...
perkin is offline  
Old 31st Oct 2006, 13:58
  #22 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: London
Posts: 20
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Confrontation at immigration

But what happens in that limbo world between the aircraft steps and the armed coppers hanging about on the public side of immigration?

Landing at Stansted recently, I joined the usual multiple lines queueing to present passports to immigration. In the next queue over were half a dozen beer-drinking football hooligans (Glasgow Rangers, apparently). One of them shouted something and I looked round. This, it seems, was enough to mark me out as a target. Now, before you jump to any conclusions, I'm a 41-year old woman travelling with my children, aged 3 and 7.
The smallest yob (why is it always the smallest ones?) had a look of pathological malevolence and began shouting and swearing and making threats at me and - astonishingly - at the children. The others joined in.

Can you guess what the hundreds of other passengers in the hall did as, without any kind of provocation, they set about abusing and threatening a mother and her children?

Yes, that's right - absolutely nothing. Look away... nothing to do with me guv... gosh is that the time?

Actually, it's not that I expected a man - or men - to intervene. I know you're mostly all big wusses really. It was the silence of the hundreds of other women that upset me most.

I was, as anyone might be, very frightened. But I was damned if I was going to let them see it. So in best 'mummy says' voice I confronted the tiny psycho (it may have helped that I was considerably taller than him) and told him that he could not talk to us in that way and I'd find a policeman to prove it.

To my absolute amazement, it worked! (Thank you Jo Frost!!)

Our blessing, too, on the immigration guy who, when I told him what had happened, pointed out the culprits (their queue was slower - there is justice!) and asked if we could be kept clear of them, acted straight away. I presume the yobs were 'delayed' somehow as we collected our bags without seeing any more of them.

Two morals:

Don't rely on fellow pax to do anything to help if you are set upon.

Don't be like me and scuttle off afterwards because the children are exhausted and your lift is waiting. Stay and see that they are arrested and charged! Wish now that I had.
wildweeble is offline  
Old 31st Oct 2006, 17:19
  #23 (permalink)  
Final 3 Greens
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
I know you're mostly all big wusses really.

No we are not, but there is little incentive to "have a go", as people who do that often get regarded as perps by the authorities.

You should ask yourself why there were no police around to deal with the problem immediately.
 
Old 31st Oct 2006, 21:53
  #24 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: London
Posts: 20
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Wusses?

Originally Posted by Final 3 Greens
I know you're mostly all big wusses really.

No we are not, but there is little incentive to "have a go", as people who do that often get regarded as perps by the authorities.

You should ask yourself why there were no police around to deal with the problem immediately.
Oh, I'm only teasing! I wasn't suggesting that a have-a-go hero was required. Just someone - anyone - to acknowledge what was happening. How many here would have stood by while a woman and her children were told for no reason at all that they needed - and would get - a slapping?

I did wonder why the police were not visible. Is it anything to do with jurisdiction within 'international' areas - ie, air side of the immigration desk? Only guessing - anyone here know?
wildweeble is offline  
Old 31st Oct 2006, 21:56
  #25 (permalink)  
SXB
Riding the Euro Gravy Plane
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Strasbourg
Posts: 455
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I know you're mostly all big wusses really
That may or may not be true but you took a risk confronting this guy like you did. Most drunken idiots may be harmless but you don't ever know how they will react. I have no idea who Jo Frost actually is but if he/she advises confronting drunken football fans they he/she is wrong. If I'd been in a immigration hall when such an incident took place I would have gone straight to the nearest booth and told the guy that some idiot was threatening a woman and two children. The Police would have attended within 30 seconds.

The police are paid to deal with such situations and they can do it a lot better than a fare paying passenger. Also, an experience with two police officers carrying machine guns accompanied by a large German Shepherd would probably be an interesting learning experience for the thug in question.
SXB is offline  
Old 31st Oct 2006, 22:06
  #26 (permalink)  
SXB
Riding the Euro Gravy Plane
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Strasbourg
Posts: 455
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I did wonder why the police were not visible. Is it anything to do with jurisdiction within 'international' areas - ie, air side of the immigration desk? Only guessing - anyone here know?
No, if you commit a crime airside you will prosecuted in a local Court, with some exceptions.

As for the police not being visible, the immigration hall is probably one of the most observed areas in an airport.
SXB is offline  
Old 31st Oct 2006, 23:12
  #27 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: London
Posts: 20
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
A shame more are not like you, SXB

Originally Posted by SXB
If I'd been in a immigration hall when such an incident took place I would have gone straight to the nearest booth and told the guy that some idiot was threatening a woman and two children. The Police would have attended within 30 seconds.
Well, I do wish someone like you had been there as none of the several hundred people in the hall lifted a finger. So I had to do it myself. When the yobbos saw that I would not be intimidated, they backed down.

Of course it was a risk - and I was petrified - but saying or doing nothing was a greater risk, because it would have failed to set a boundary before physical assault. I didn't think they'd risk striking me there and then because of the potential witnesses and lack of escape route - I was more worried about what might happen later in the scrum of the baggage hall if it was not nipped in the bud.

In my professional life I have now and again found myself in some deeply unsavoury situations and, yes, I've sweet-talked or bluffed a few angry gorrillas (of the human variety). I may be a bit out of practice, but what I did learn from all of my past life is that the key is to dominate the situation quickly, making the other person believe there may be more or greater consequences than they had anticipated - and from an authority more substantial than me!

Jo Frost, btw, is 'supernanny' - famous for her no-nonsense discipline with toddlers. My little joke.

In retrospect, I should have said nothing and immediately walked away with the children to the head of the queue at the immigration box and asked them to call the cops there and then.

However, the moral remains: don't rely on other pax helping you, because they won't.
wildweeble is offline  
Old 31st Oct 2006, 23:46
  #28 (permalink)  
SXB
Riding the Euro Gravy Plane
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Strasbourg
Posts: 455
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I'm glad the incident had a satisfactory ending. In many ways it's a sad indictment of society in the United Kingdom, a woman and two children threatened in a queue in a secured area within an airport.

I'm a UK citizen but I've lived elsewhere for a very long time, there are very few occasions where I feel I've made the wrong decision.
SXB is offline  
Old 1st Nov 2006, 02:59
  #29 (permalink)  
Grumpy
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: 35-21 South 149-06 East
Posts: 205
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Without wanting to get involve in the issues management discussion, I am surprised that an MP3 player cannot be used at any satge during flight - including takeoff and landing.

Since when did an MP3 player develop the capability to interview with flight or navigation controls.

Gee - next we will be asking people to switch off their pacemakers!

Barkly1992 is offline  
Old 1st Nov 2006, 10:15
  #30 (permalink)  
Too mean to buy a long personal title
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 1,968
Received 6 Likes on 4 Posts
Originally Posted by Barkly1992
Since when did an MP3 player develop the capability to interview with flight or navigation controls.
You obviously have no idea why there may be a problem with electronic devices, and hence why a precautionary approach is taken. MP3 players have clocks and radiate at RF. So they fall into they same category as everything else modern and electronic.
Globaliser is offline  
Old 1st Nov 2006, 10:42
  #31 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: London
Posts: 17
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
[QUOTEI am surprised that an MP3 player cannot be used at any satge during flight - including takeoff and landing.
][/QUOTE]
You should not be allowed to use any of this type of equipment on takeoff and landing. It is one of our SOP's that all headphones are removed for this stage of flight so that you would be able to hear any emegency anouncements, ie Brace or evacuate.
svw8700 is offline  
Old 1st Nov 2006, 19:38
  #32 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: here there and everywhere
Posts: 898
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Barkly1992
am surprised that an MP3 player cannot be used at any satge during flight - including takeoff and landing. Since when did an MP3 player develop the capability to interview with flight or navigation controls.
I hope you mean interfere...

Originally Posted by svw8700
You should not be allowed to use any of this type of equipment on takeoff and landing. It is one of our SOP's that all headphones are removed for this stage of flight so that you would be able to hear any emegency anouncements, ie Brace or evacuate.
Correct!!! And for everybody's info MP3 players are indeed allowed after the seatbelt signs go off after take off up until it's time to prepare the cabin for landing.

When passengers refuse to remove their headsets for landing/take off and become stroppy I do tend to dramatise the event of an evacuation a bit. It usually works and when it doesn't.........well, I call that Natural Selection...

FBW
flybywire is offline  
Old 2nd Nov 2006, 09:27
  #33 (permalink)  
Grumpy
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: 35-21 South 149-06 East
Posts: 205
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
OK - I acknowldge my typos - get over it. Its not the point.

I understand the need to hear briefings and emergency announcements and accept this in itself is a very important reason to ban the use of MP3 players during takeoff and landing - I hadn't thought of this. However, what happens during an emergency in cruise when they are permitted?

Also in every aircraft I have flown in as SLF the crew announcements overide the entertainment channels so headsets are not a problem.

But please forgive - MP3 players transmit RF!

To those who think or implied I know nothing - I have a very good idea about it - I used to be the manager of the safety promotion unit in the Oz CAA back in the dark ages 1980s and 1990s and spent a lot of time with technical and safety representatives of Qantas (and the then TAA) and Ansett trying to establish why the over reaction to such devices being used in the cabin years ago. The records do not show a problem. I suspect this requirement has been deemed neccessary by company lawyers.

In 30 years I am not become aware of any aircraft accident being caused by a bunch of kids in the cabin using portable game machines; idiots trying to use mobile phones; by the use of laptop; vibrators or allowing passengers with heart pacemakers.

I am aware that pilots have reported erratic cockpit nav and control indications from time to time - and when cabin crew have been asked whether anyone in the cabin is using an electronic device often the answer is yes - of course when you have 250 people behind you some kid will be playing with his gameboy - or nowadays his PSP2 - but what is cause and what is effect.

Maybe there was something in the wiring or in the hold - or the pilots fingers and/or attitude.

I understand (and I am no longer in the field) that no aviation safety authority has been able to duplicate control, nav or instrument deviation with non-transmitting devices being used in the cabin.

Its like saying are there any blondes in the cabin - yes. Then blondes guys cause intrument deviation.

I of course stand to be corrected - but MP3 players will not cause your aircraft to crash.

This will be caused by a human factor - usually by the pilot - but also could be engineering; ATC or company policy.

Barkly1992 is offline  
Old 2nd Nov 2006, 10:56
  #34 (permalink)  
Too mean to buy a long personal title
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 1,968
Received 6 Likes on 4 Posts
Originally Posted by Barkly1992
In 30 years I am not become aware of any aircraft accident being caused by a bunch of kids in the cabin using portable game machines; idiots trying to use mobile phones; by the use of laptop; vibrators or allowing passengers with heart pacemakers.
...
I understand (and I am no longer in the field) that no aviation safety authority has been able to duplicate control, nav or instrument deviation with non-transmitting devices being used in the cabin.
You should read the UK CAA's research, then.

There are broadly two schools of thought about this: A. There's a theoretical possibility, but it hasn't happened, so let's allow these devices to be used unless there is an accident that makes us change our minds. B. There's a theoretical possibility, and even though it hasn't happened we should take the precautionary approach to make sure there is never an accident.

You may fall into one of these camps rather than the other. But if you really were in the field, surely you must recognise the philosophy behind the rule, and that it is still a controversial subject? Your original question suggested that this took you by surprise.
Globaliser is offline  
Old 2nd Nov 2006, 11:42
  #35 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 512
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
To underline Globalisers points, NASA started out following point B for the Space Shuttle and over the years ended up following point A (well reported reasons and failures as to how they got there). Then one day it crashed.
manintheback is offline  
Old 2nd Nov 2006, 20:15
  #36 (permalink)  
SXB
Riding the Euro Gravy Plane
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Strasbourg
Posts: 455
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
In 30 years I am not become aware of any aircraft accident being caused by a bunch of kids in the cabin using portable game machines; idiots trying to use mobile phones; by the use of laptop; vibrators or allowing passengers with heart pacemakers.

I am aware that pilots have reported erratic cockpit nav and control indications from time to time - and when cabin crew have been asked whether anyone in the cabin is using an electronic device often the answer is yes - of course when you have 250 people behind you some kid will be playing with his gameboy - or nowadays his PSP2 - but what is cause and what is effect.

Maybe there was something in the wiring or in the hold - or the pilots fingers and/or attitude.

I understand (and I am no longer in the field) that no aviation safety authority has been able to duplicate control, nav or instrument deviation with non-transmitting devices being used in the cabin.

Its like saying are there any blondes in the cabin - yes. Then blondes guys cause intrument deviation.

I of course stand to be corrected - but MP3 players will not cause your aircraft to crash
Barkly

I think you fail to understand the basis of airline safety policy. Aircraft safety concepts are built on removing every conceivable factor that might have an influence, of some type, on the normal operation of a plane. It's probably true that MP3 players don't cause accidents, no-one really knows what effect an MP3 player has on aircraft(s) (remember there are hundreds of different types) on every conceivable landing situation. Furthermore, no-one knows what effect an electrical device being used in row 1a may have on elctrical device in 17b in a particular landing situation, say in an electrical storm, and no-one really knows if said devices would have an effect on instrumentation being used by the crew flying the plane. Remember, most accidents are caused by a chain of events and not one particular and obvious thing.

Your points about an emergency during cruise could be answered by saying that when at 11000m it would be probable that the crew may have more time to identify a problem, if they are 20m from the ground and about to land they may have less than a second to arrive at the correct conclusion and take decisive action.
SXB is offline  
Old 2nd Nov 2006, 21:55
  #37 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Manchester
Age: 73
Posts: 59
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
On the point of civilised behaviour in cabin I would refer back to safety training we once had, which basically boiled down to consider the safest course first and then do it!

Some people are a bit boisterous, but will accept a caution.

Some are downright unreasonable and often are also the best dressed, and apparently the last people from whom you would expect it.

As a pax - leave it to the crew. hopefully their training and authority will have the desired effect - if it doesnt the presence of some dark blue uniforms at their destination hopefully will.
TBirdFrank is offline  
Old 3rd Nov 2006, 03:34
  #38 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: south of Cirencester, north of Lyneham
Age: 76
Posts: 1,267
Likes: 0
Received 7 Likes on 2 Posts
Barkly,
I'm a radio engineer by profession (thus the title) - and have been for over 40 years. I've also been involved in the production of EMC (Electro Magnetic Compatibility) standards for radio comms equipment, and I am chairman of an international standards committee on certain types of radio. So I claim a certain amount of professional knowledge, and I will say that MP3 players (amongst other things) can radiate on all sorts of frequencies.
It's interesting that they never call for hearing aids to be switched off, though, and some of the more modern ones of those use radio. Admittedly the power level is so low and the frequencies so well defined that I have an email from the CAA on file in which they say they're OK.
radeng is offline  
Old 3rd Nov 2006, 04:54
  #39 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Bangkok, Thailand
Age: 63
Posts: 191
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
There would seem to be various categories of "abusive" being discussed here.

If an individual, or group, wish to behave like tossers, then in a free society, they should be able to do so, as long as their behaviour doesn't physically encroach on, or harm others. It is impossible to legislate against some people being unpleasant idiots, they can only be shown up for what they are. In the case of Wildweeble's unfortunate incident, then I think it is perfectly reasonable for the other pax to ignore her plight, as long as it remains only verbal. The best course of action has always been to ignore such outbursts and I would do the same thing. However, if she, or her children, came under physical attack, then it is a different matter and I am sure many people would feel constrained to intervene, myself included. There is a huge difference between verbal and physical assault.

As for someone who refuses to obey the instructions of cabin crew, then it is down to the cabin crew. Again, IMHO, it is unreasonable and indeed, undesirable, for other pax to get involved. If the cabin crew are unable to contain the situation and feel the need to ask for assistance, they can always ask either the police, or in extreme circumstances, other pax for assistance. I would be happy to assist cabin crew if requested by them, but I would feel very incomfortable getting involved unilaterally. As F3G pointed out, you then become part of the problem.
Bangkokeasy is offline  
Old 3rd Nov 2006, 07:43
  #40 (permalink)  
Grumpy
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: 35-21 South 149-06 East
Posts: 205
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Thanks Radeng

Is the letter from the CAA saying OK to MP3 players or hearing aids?

I agree that one shouldn't wait for the accident before discovering a problem I suppose I was trying to get some informed discussion going. I am amazed how each airline differs in the way they make the announcments.

I always pay attention to cabin crew briefings - always turn off any electronic devices before I even go anywhere near an aircraft and follow instuctions.

I am just wondering where this will stop - like you say hearing aids. I have read all of the rports produced by Oz ATSB (BASI)/CAA - UK CAA - US FAA on the test that have been done. It always seems that there is no definitive answer.

Be that as it may - I will continue to follow instructions and value the good job that the cabin crew do in 'herding' us SLF on and off and looking after us in flight.

Cheers

Barkly1992 is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.