Passenger accused of being drunk on plane
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: sydney
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Passenger accused of being drunk on plane
Passenger accused of being drunk on plane:
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ukp...uvys1mM4XNrHKQ
It is a crime in the uk to be drunk on a plane or in public?
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ukp...uvys1mM4XNrHKQ
It is a crime in the uk to be drunk on a plane or in public?
Lady Lexxington
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: The Manor House
Age: 43
Posts: 1,145
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It is against the ANO for a person to be drunk when entering or inside an aircraft, so basically yes. As for this pair of clowns, I hope they get the total bill for the delay and assosciated costs.
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: London
Posts: 165
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Lexxity is absolutely right. I've been on board or about to board aiurcraft of four ocasions in the last 30 years when someone has ben refused boarding or actually removed from the aircraft. On more than one occasion this was done as a result of other passengers complaining that they did not wish to fly with someone in that condition
This has generally brought cheers of approval from the other SLF!
This has generally brought cheers of approval from the other SLF!
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: London
Posts: 516
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just read this article and I wondered...
...if a passenger says to a flight attendant 'there is a bomb on board', does that trigger a certain SOP which must always be followed (i.e. inform the captain and then the whole aircraft is checked) even if you know said passenger is drunk and simply causing mischief?
If so, I really do sympathise with the professionals for having to deal with such numpties.
...if a passenger says to a flight attendant 'there is a bomb on board', does that trigger a certain SOP which must always be followed (i.e. inform the captain and then the whole aircraft is checked) even if you know said passenger is drunk and simply causing mischief?
If so, I really do sympathise with the professionals for having to deal with such numpties.
Guest
Posts: n/a
It is a crime in the uk to be drunk on a plane
Drunkenness in aircraft
75. —(1) A person shall not enter any aircraft when drunk, or be drunk in any aircraft.
(2) A person shall not, when acting as a member of the crew of any aircraft or being carried in any aircraft for the purpose of so acting, be under the influence of drink or a drug to such an extent as to impair his capacity so to act.
75. —(1) A person shall not enter any aircraft when drunk, or be drunk in any aircraft.
(2) A person shall not, when acting as a member of the crew of any aircraft or being carried in any aircraft for the purpose of so acting, be under the influence of drink or a drug to such an extent as to impair his capacity so to act.
In this instance, if as the article states, the passenger in question made a bomb threat to crew, then it seems reasonable for the police to have been involved.
If on the other hand, a passenger is drunk but is sitting in their seat and not causing any particular disruption, it would seem a little harsh for them to be deboarded. I would guess that this kind of thing happens rather often - the business meeting over a very long lunch followed by a taxi to the airport to get the plane home (I've been there myself !)
I haven't read the Highway code in a long time, but seem to recall that walking on a pavement while drunk is technically an offence. As far as I'm aware, if the police see someone walking home while drunk shortly after pub closing time and there are no other factors involved, they usually don't see the need to get involved.
If on the other hand, a passenger is drunk but is sitting in their seat and not causing any particular disruption, it would seem a little harsh for them to be deboarded. I would guess that this kind of thing happens rather often - the business meeting over a very long lunch followed by a taxi to the airport to get the plane home (I've been there myself !)
I haven't read the Highway code in a long time, but seem to recall that walking on a pavement while drunk is technically an offence. As far as I'm aware, if the police see someone walking home while drunk shortly after pub closing time and there are no other factors involved, they usually don't see the need to get involved.
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Outside the EU on a small Island
Age: 79
Posts: 529
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
@ davidjohnson6 ... it has a lot more to do with safety, and the fact that the drunk could block exits in case of an emergency, I suspect.
Being a placid drunk slumped in his seat is one thing. Being a stumbling obstacle during an evacuation is different.
Being a placid drunk slumped in his seat is one thing. Being a stumbling obstacle during an evacuation is different.
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 2,584
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
75. —(1) A person shall not enter any aircraft when drunk, or be drunk in any aircraft.
As to "quiet drunks" how does anyone judge;
If/whether he will remain quiet?
If/whether he will continue to drink his own duty free supplies which cannot be controlled?
If/whether he will go doolally with the effects of altitude?
If/whether he will piss or vomit over those next to him?
etc etc etc.
Sober and well behaved passengers (and crew) should not be subjected to that sort of lottery. Ever.
No, get the drunken sot off to sober up un terra firma, and then he can buy another ticket when sober.
Lady Lexxington
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: The Manor House
Age: 43
Posts: 1,145
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Agaricus - I agree that the ANO is very clear on the question of drunkenness. The ANO is in itself pretty strict as to what it prohibits generally. I suspect that this is largely to ensure that the captain has some sort of legal backing when having to make a decision, so as to know he/she won't get sued subsequently. The ANO has the potential to be used as a legal catch-all when it is dubious whether a different charge would be upheld in court. An example of such a catch-all was Al Capone being imprisoned for tax evasion rather than his more reprehensible mafia activities
Just because law gives a person or organisation legal authority to do something, doesn't mean it is necessarily a sensible thing for a person to act in such a way. A recent example, was local councils using terrorism legislation to check whether a child enrolled at a school was living within the formal catchment area. The council was entirely within its rights to do this - but there was a signiciant area of public opinion that held this to be over-reacting. In the same way, the police could round up large numbers of people walking around a town just after pubs close and lock them up for being drunk on the pavement. Entirely within their rights, but the police would be heavily condemened for over-reacting if they were to do so.
I suspect that in December every year, there are plenty of people all over Eruope who as an office Xmas party, fly off somewhere short haul, have a long boozy lunch and then fly home at the end of the day. As captain, you can refuse them permission to board the plane if you should so choose and be entirely within your legal rights. Problem is what to do if those same passengers happen to hold platinum airline loyalty cards and each spend tens of thousands with your airline every year and are likely to be very unhappy if refused their flight home. How would the police at the airport react if the captain orders 20 tipsy travellers be arrested on the grounds of being tipsy in a plane, knowing full well the airline serves free alcohol to its passengers ? What would the marketing dept say to the chief pilot's office if a large number of complaints of this nature were received every December ?
Is that really necessary ? Perhaps if someone is really drunk but not causing any other particular problem, ground staff could give the passenger a bottle of tap water and put them on waitlist for the next flight instead ?
My point is that a captain cannot operate in isolation. The ANO gives him/her legal backing to act, but also has to justify their actions within a company that exists to make a profit. And yes, there is a potential for conflict of interest
Just because law gives a person or organisation legal authority to do something, doesn't mean it is necessarily a sensible thing for a person to act in such a way. A recent example, was local councils using terrorism legislation to check whether a child enrolled at a school was living within the formal catchment area. The council was entirely within its rights to do this - but there was a signiciant area of public opinion that held this to be over-reacting. In the same way, the police could round up large numbers of people walking around a town just after pubs close and lock them up for being drunk on the pavement. Entirely within their rights, but the police would be heavily condemened for over-reacting if they were to do so.
I suspect that in December every year, there are plenty of people all over Eruope who as an office Xmas party, fly off somewhere short haul, have a long boozy lunch and then fly home at the end of the day. As captain, you can refuse them permission to board the plane if you should so choose and be entirely within your legal rights. Problem is what to do if those same passengers happen to hold platinum airline loyalty cards and each spend tens of thousands with your airline every year and are likely to be very unhappy if refused their flight home. How would the police at the airport react if the captain orders 20 tipsy travellers be arrested on the grounds of being tipsy in a plane, knowing full well the airline serves free alcohol to its passengers ? What would the marketing dept say to the chief pilot's office if a large number of complaints of this nature were received every December ?
No, get the drunken sot off to sober up un terra firma, and then he can buy another ticket when sober.
My point is that a captain cannot operate in isolation. The ANO gives him/her legal backing to act, but also has to justify their actions within a company that exists to make a profit. And yes, there is a potential for conflict of interest
Last edited by davidjohnson6; 23rd Jan 2010 at 20:18.
Brunel to Concorde
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Virtute et Industria, et Sumorsaete Ealle
Posts: 2,283
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's been a criminal offence in England and Wales (Scottish law is different to that of England and Wales but broadly similar in most cases) for generations to be found drunk on a highway, public place (can include a building) or licensed premises. The offence charged is 'found drunk', though often dealt with by way of caution or fixed penalty once sober, but the key thing for the police to take action is for the person to be incapable of looking after him/herself, hence the offence is usually called 'drunk and incapable'.
Police officers are often reluctant to arrest because there are many, many cases down the years of drunks dying in police cells either because they choked on vomit or had an underlying injury, often to the head, which was not apparent. Hospitals invariably won't take in people who are 'legless' so the unsatisfactory situation, for everyone, of the police cell being used as a refuge still obtains in many cases.
Typically, the police officer's evidence was, "I saw the defendant lying on the pavement. His eyes were glazed and his speech was slurred. His breath smelt strongly of intoxicating liquor. He was unable to stand without assistance."
If some-one was left lying on a pavement in such a condition and harm befell him, the police would be severely criticised and an officer could even find himself subject of a criminal offence. That's the dilemma that drunks can pose to law enforcement authorities.
There are other offences that people can commit whilst drunk in public such as behaving in a disorderly manner.
It's in no-one's interest for any person to be on an aircraft whilst drunk because such people's responses to the condition are so unpredictable, and can potentially involve danger to themselves and others, especially in an emergency situation.
Police officers are often reluctant to arrest because there are many, many cases down the years of drunks dying in police cells either because they choked on vomit or had an underlying injury, often to the head, which was not apparent. Hospitals invariably won't take in people who are 'legless' so the unsatisfactory situation, for everyone, of the police cell being used as a refuge still obtains in many cases.
Typically, the police officer's evidence was, "I saw the defendant lying on the pavement. His eyes were glazed and his speech was slurred. His breath smelt strongly of intoxicating liquor. He was unable to stand without assistance."
If some-one was left lying on a pavement in such a condition and harm befell him, the police would be severely criticised and an officer could even find himself subject of a criminal offence. That's the dilemma that drunks can pose to law enforcement authorities.
There are other offences that people can commit whilst drunk in public such as behaving in a disorderly manner.
It's in no-one's interest for any person to be on an aircraft whilst drunk because such people's responses to the condition are so unpredictable, and can potentially involve danger to themselves and others, especially in an emergency situation.
Guest
Posts: n/a
DavidJohnson6
A drunk person has no place on an aircraft.
I don't know if you have a pilot's licence, since you assert that the ANO is pretty strict generally, but if you do, you should understand the potential impact of the cabin altitude on the effects of alcohol.
As I suggested in an earlier thread, the way around this is to pull the airside passes of the people who let drunks on aircraft.
The message would soon get through.
Just because someone has a platinum FF card doesn't make them above the law.
Anyway, I can't remember the last time I saw a drunk in first or business, although no doubt there are some.
A drunk person has no place on an aircraft.
I don't know if you have a pilot's licence, since you assert that the ANO is pretty strict generally, but if you do, you should understand the potential impact of the cabin altitude on the effects of alcohol.
As I suggested in an earlier thread, the way around this is to pull the airside passes of the people who let drunks on aircraft.
The message would soon get through.
Just because someone has a platinum FF card doesn't make them above the law.
Anyway, I can't remember the last time I saw a drunk in first or business, although no doubt there are some.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: sydney
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
(2) A person shall not, when acting as a member of the crew of any aircraft or being carried in any aircraft for the purpose of so acting, be under the influence of drink or a drug to such an extent as to impair his capacity so to act.
So by impair his capacity so to act would mean someone who cannot walk, so you can't just take someone off the plane when they can walk without falling over etc.
The ANO doesn't say what the penalty for being drunk and not having the capacity to act is. If the police are taking that man to court then i guess it is a criminal penalty. Maybe a fine of $1000? Anyone know?
So by impair his capacity so to act would mean someone who cannot walk, so you can't just take someone off the plane when they can walk without falling over etc.
The ANO doesn't say what the penalty for being drunk and not having the capacity to act is. If the police are taking that man to court then i guess it is a criminal penalty. Maybe a fine of $1000? Anyone know?
Guest
Posts: n/a
So by impair his capacity so to act would mean someone who cannot walk, so you can't just take someone off the plane when they can walk without falling over etc.
Use the SEARCH function on here for examples.
Ryan, do you mind me asking, is the '14' in your title your age? If so, I'll give you a bit more information about flying planes safely and alcohol.
G'day Ryan,
I think you'll find the particular quote you used,
(2) A person shall not, when acting as a member of the crew of any aircraft or being carried in any aircraft for the purpose of so acting, be under the influence of drink or a drug to such an extent as to impair his capacity so to act.
relates to crew members specifically.
I'm not sure whether the second part of the quote relates just to drugs or drugs and drink, it seems to imply that you can be a bit pissed/drugged but if you can act unimpaired it's OK which I find at odds with other parts of the regulations.
Regards,
BH.
I think you'll find the particular quote you used,
(2) A person shall not, when acting as a member of the crew of any aircraft or being carried in any aircraft for the purpose of so acting, be under the influence of drink or a drug to such an extent as to impair his capacity so to act.
relates to crew members specifically.
I'm not sure whether the second part of the quote relates just to drugs or drugs and drink, it seems to imply that you can be a bit pissed/drugged but if you can act unimpaired it's OK which I find at odds with other parts of the regulations.
Regards,
BH.
I've been refused passage on a flight because the Capt thought I was too drunk to travel after the ground staff asked me if I wanted to travel on their earlier flight for which the gate was closed, this resulted in them "I presume" calling the aircraft saying there was one more passenger coming.
He obviously had got out of the bed on the wrong side, I can only hope that his flying observance and decision making were of a higher standard.
I had actually had two pints ten hours previously and had a reasonable kip on the previous seven hour flight.
After asking the FA how he had arrived at this conclusion and been given the official line "the capt thinks so" in full view of the passengers I retreated to the lounge and had a few pints while waiting on the next flight which was on the competition.
The ground staff were as mystified as I was annoyed.
The romance of flight.
He obviously had got out of the bed on the wrong side, I can only hope that his flying observance and decision making were of a higher standard.
I had actually had two pints ten hours previously and had a reasonable kip on the previous seven hour flight.
After asking the FA how he had arrived at this conclusion and been given the official line "the capt thinks so" in full view of the passengers I retreated to the lounge and had a few pints while waiting on the next flight which was on the competition.
The ground staff were as mystified as I was annoyed.
The romance of flight.
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 553
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Airports & aircraft should be total alcohol free zones. Problem solved.
If I can manage without a cigarette from enetring the terminal in one country to exiting at another I'm damn sure people can manage without alcohol.
It'll never happen though as there's too much money to be made by retaining the status quo.
