United GRU-ORD Divert to MIA to Offload Purser
Warning Toxic!
Disgusted of Tunbridge
Disgusted of Tunbridge
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Hampshire, UK
Posts: 4,011
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I've no idea! Nobody knows how the internal procedure at United will work out. The case is not clear cut. The fact remains, he did nothing wrong. He was the commander of the aircraft and he took a safety decision. Not really a disciplinary offence such as misloading weights and tailstriking as happened to a sandpit crew. It seems to be a distinction that has passed some people by.
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Georgia
Posts: 169
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Can't we close discussion on this until the United wheels have turned, and cityfan comes back to tell us the closing? The whole thread was fast asleep until a couple of days ago.
He is type-rated for 727s, 747s, 757s, and 767s, among others, so almost certainly very senior at UAL.
Saturn V - On a point of detail, and to avoid any Anti Airbus conspiracy claims, Cityfan said on another thread that he was posting "As a middle aged Captain, typed on the 737, 757, 767, and A320 family, plus a few thousands cycles in a 727...."
Absolutely no argument with the latter part of your quotation!
Jack
Saturn V - On a point of detail, and to avoid any Anti Airbus conspiracy claims, Cityfan said on another thread that he was posting "As a middle aged Captain, typed on the 737, 757, 767, and A320 family, plus a few thousands cycles in a 727...."
Absolutely no argument with the latter part of your quotation!
Jack
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: USA
Posts: 54
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
MU3001A: Yes, that Captain was a female.
Les Shore: (last answer )Yes, it was the initial, completely disrespectful, response to the request for the GenDec that precipitated the entire event. Sadly, it is all too easy to believe what was said and done, being as it was a United flight. Had the initial response been more respectful and explanatory, things probably would have evolve very differently. Unfortunately, the response is one that is heard all too often at UAL, and this particular Captain tried to remind the Purser who was in charge, but the Purser was having none of it! Ergo, an incident that should have been avoided, but sadly could not be.
All: I will update this thread when I hear of the conclusion. Hopefully, it will not be too long, although for the Captain's sake, I hope he enjoys an extended summer break on the company's dime!
Les Shore: (last answer )Yes, it was the initial, completely disrespectful, response to the request for the GenDec that precipitated the entire event. Sadly, it is all too easy to believe what was said and done, being as it was a United flight. Had the initial response been more respectful and explanatory, things probably would have evolve very differently. Unfortunately, the response is one that is heard all too often at UAL, and this particular Captain tried to remind the Purser who was in charge, but the Purser was having none of it! Ergo, an incident that should have been avoided, but sadly could not be.
All: I will update this thread when I hear of the conclusion. Hopefully, it will not be too long, although for the Captain's sake, I hope he enjoys an extended summer break on the company's dime!
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: us
Posts: 694
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Union Jack, the certificate, assuming I read the correct certificate and I am quite sure the one I read fits, included type ratings for the 320, but not the 737. But as you said, a point of detail. The captain is a very experienced aviator.
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: US
Posts: 497
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Some days flight attendants can puo as much as your wife can. We have all probably wanted to drop our wife off anywhere and drive home in peace. Maybe this gen dec thing was the last straw for him that night. By itself unlikely. Must have been something leading up to it. Some day we may know.
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: usa
Posts: 55
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
... an incident that should have been avoided but sadly could not be.
If the captain had been "cool" and simply flown on to Chicago wouldn't that have forestalled such a situation? Unfortunately this event developed into a real-life actual test of the captain's decision making under pressure and that is what UA and various authorities are now judging. I hope nobody gets marked up because I feel it wasn't that big a deal.
If the captain had been "cool" and simply flown on to Chicago wouldn't that have forestalled such a situation? Unfortunately this event developed into a real-life actual test of the captain's decision making under pressure and that is what UA and various authorities are now judging. I hope nobody gets marked up because I feel it wasn't that big a deal.
Guest
Posts: n/a
and this particular Captain tried to remind the Purser who was in charge, but the Purser was having none of it! Ergo
The principle or the point that he was reinforcing when he dropped this purser off was that you can only have one Captain on board for the good and safety of all.
I wish this Captain all the best for his future.
Was his decision the best course of action? No alternatives?
I know nothing about the culture at UA and my next proposal is a supposition.
If a situation pertained in the company where a senior pilot in that company felt that his position was being undermined by a culture of insubordination and lack of respect within that company then maybe he chose to confront that head on. Within that context I would say, within his own rights, this Captain made the most valid decision he could.
If this was the case then surely the Captain was justified in taking the action that he did?
If this was the case he was justified in disciplining or off-loading the person in question, but as captain he was also required to take into consideration the financial cost of the unscheduled landing and the inconvenience of the passengers. He had a responsability to consider alternative courses of action and to choose the best one.
Warning Toxic!
Disgusted of Tunbridge
Disgusted of Tunbridge
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Hampshire, UK
Posts: 4,011
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
He is evidently of the opinion he did!
So if there was virtual mutiny or complete disregard for the authority of the Captain, you are suggesting henceforth the Captain shuts up and just carries on, in all situations? He was the one on the ground, so to speak, and felt that dealing strongly with the situation was the best option.
Airlines have been turning a blind eye to this sort of situation developing amongst certain characters, and the captain's authority being significantly diminished. They had a responsibility to deal with it and they left it to the crews to handle as best they could. As a result, the CRM situation has at times developed into an ugly situation. This guy was left with the result. You can't make him captain, leave him totally responsible for everything to do with the flight, then start taking his authority away, brick by brick. He was well experienced, knew what he was doing, and presumably handling the situation the way he felt it needed handling. He got no patience from most of you here! But I assume there is a point to be made- the captain is responsible for the flight, only the captain is boss. When someone else starts disrespecting that authority, then it's time to hand the keys back and say 'you fly it then'. I suspect ALPA will be giving him full support. But how this has gone from being the actions of someone 'mental' (to some of you) to possibly having a justifiable basis. Nobody was exposed to any danger, the delay was insignificant. The situation was handled. It's up to United.
If the captain had been "cool" and simply flown on to Chicago wouldn't that have forestalled such a situation?
Airlines have been turning a blind eye to this sort of situation developing amongst certain characters, and the captain's authority being significantly diminished. They had a responsibility to deal with it and they left it to the crews to handle as best they could. As a result, the CRM situation has at times developed into an ugly situation. This guy was left with the result. You can't make him captain, leave him totally responsible for everything to do with the flight, then start taking his authority away, brick by brick. He was well experienced, knew what he was doing, and presumably handling the situation the way he felt it needed handling. He got no patience from most of you here! But I assume there is a point to be made- the captain is responsible for the flight, only the captain is boss. When someone else starts disrespecting that authority, then it's time to hand the keys back and say 'you fly it then'. I suspect ALPA will be giving him full support. But how this has gone from being the actions of someone 'mental' (to some of you) to possibly having a justifiable basis. Nobody was exposed to any danger, the delay was insignificant. The situation was handled. It's up to United.
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Canada
Posts: 445
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Rainboe
"The delay was insignificant" is not your call as you weren't inconvenienced and a subjective opinion anyway.
I agree he is within his rights to divert, now it is up to UAL and whether they also agree that his decision, as any decision, is justifiable.
"The delay was insignificant" is not your call as you weren't inconvenienced and a subjective opinion anyway.
I agree he is within his rights to divert, now it is up to UAL and whether they also agree that his decision, as any decision, is justifiable.
Warning Toxic!
Disgusted of Tunbridge
Disgusted of Tunbridge
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Hampshire, UK
Posts: 4,011
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It was his call! And he, being commander, made it, as he had every legal right to do so. So, I repeat, despite it 'not being my call':
Nobody was exposed to any danger, the delay was insignificant. The situation was handled. It's up to United.
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: us
Posts: 694
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The captain was recently victimized and harassed by United [management, presumably]. [cityfan's account, favorable to the captain]
On returning to flight status from a medical leave of several months, apparently for a knee operation, the captain encounters a purser who does not promptly provide him a requested customs document. [account(s) favorable to the purser]
This then escalates into further disrespect of the captain's authority, including insubordination, by the purser and perhaps other members of the cabin crew [cityfan's account].
At some point in this incident, the captain hears the purser threaten to tamper with his crew meal. [cityfan's account, stating that the captain heard this "first-hand"; i.e., the captain directly hears the purser make such a threat].
Cityfan then hypothesizes that perhaps the captain felt the purser and perhaps other cabin crew members knew of his having been recently victimized and harassed by United, and were now deliberately engaging in disrespectful and insubordinate conduct to see what might happen.
Given at least one action done by the purser that was not to the captain's liking (purser's account) and several actions of insubordination and one threat (cityfan's account) the captain chooses to divert the flight to Miami, and off-load the purser.
At the gate, the purser is met by police with guns drawn. and questioned. The captain is also questioned, and allegedy describes the purser as a 'terrorist'. [purser's account]
The flight is soon released by United dispatch (on the ground at Miami for about an hour) and continues to its original destination, Chicago. Authorities at Miami airport quickly let the purser go on her way, and United puts her on the next available (non-United) flight to Chicago. [purser's account].
There is a disconnect in the above narrative, and it is this:
If the purser represented such a threat to the continued safe operation of the flight (after all, she allegedly threatened to tamper with his meal, presumably for the purpose of incapacitating him in some way), then the flight should not have been released by United; the purser should have been taken into custody for further questioning; and the authorities in Miami should have taken statements from the captain and all other members of the crew with respect to the purser's conduct, with the idea of possibly prosecuting her. The taking of the statements would have delayed dispatch of the flight by some hours, quite possibly requiring United to fly in a new crew to fly the plane to Chicago.
"Section 46504 of Title 49, United States Code (formerly section 1472(j) of Title 49 Appendix) sets forth the offense of interference with a flight crew member or flight attendant within the special aircraft jurisdiction of the United States, which is defined in 49 U.S.C. § 46501(2). The statute applies to any "individual on an aircraft in the special aircraft jurisdiction of the United States who, by assaulting or intimidating a flight crew member or flight attendant of the aircraft, interferes with the performance of the duties of the member or attendant or lessens the ability of the member or attendant to perform those duties." The statute provides for up to 20 years imprisonment, and further provides for imprisonment for any term of years or life if a dangerous weapon is used. Interference with a flight crew member or attendant is a general intent crime, and does not require a specific intent either to intimidate the flight crew member or attendant or to interfere with the performance of his or her duties."
Instructions to U.S. Attorneys by the Department of Justice.
On returning to flight status from a medical leave of several months, apparently for a knee operation, the captain encounters a purser who does not promptly provide him a requested customs document. [account(s) favorable to the purser]
This then escalates into further disrespect of the captain's authority, including insubordination, by the purser and perhaps other members of the cabin crew [cityfan's account].
At some point in this incident, the captain hears the purser threaten to tamper with his crew meal. [cityfan's account, stating that the captain heard this "first-hand"; i.e., the captain directly hears the purser make such a threat].
Cityfan then hypothesizes that perhaps the captain felt the purser and perhaps other cabin crew members knew of his having been recently victimized and harassed by United, and were now deliberately engaging in disrespectful and insubordinate conduct to see what might happen.
Given at least one action done by the purser that was not to the captain's liking (purser's account) and several actions of insubordination and one threat (cityfan's account) the captain chooses to divert the flight to Miami, and off-load the purser.
At the gate, the purser is met by police with guns drawn. and questioned. The captain is also questioned, and allegedy describes the purser as a 'terrorist'. [purser's account]
The flight is soon released by United dispatch (on the ground at Miami for about an hour) and continues to its original destination, Chicago. Authorities at Miami airport quickly let the purser go on her way, and United puts her on the next available (non-United) flight to Chicago. [purser's account].
There is a disconnect in the above narrative, and it is this:
If the purser represented such a threat to the continued safe operation of the flight (after all, she allegedly threatened to tamper with his meal, presumably for the purpose of incapacitating him in some way), then the flight should not have been released by United; the purser should have been taken into custody for further questioning; and the authorities in Miami should have taken statements from the captain and all other members of the crew with respect to the purser's conduct, with the idea of possibly prosecuting her. The taking of the statements would have delayed dispatch of the flight by some hours, quite possibly requiring United to fly in a new crew to fly the plane to Chicago.
"Section 46504 of Title 49, United States Code (formerly section 1472(j) of Title 49 Appendix) sets forth the offense of interference with a flight crew member or flight attendant within the special aircraft jurisdiction of the United States, which is defined in 49 U.S.C. § 46501(2). The statute applies to any "individual on an aircraft in the special aircraft jurisdiction of the United States who, by assaulting or intimidating a flight crew member or flight attendant of the aircraft, interferes with the performance of the duties of the member or attendant or lessens the ability of the member or attendant to perform those duties." The statute provides for up to 20 years imprisonment, and further provides for imprisonment for any term of years or life if a dangerous weapon is used. Interference with a flight crew member or attendant is a general intent crime, and does not require a specific intent either to intimidate the flight crew member or attendant or to interfere with the performance of his or her duties."
Instructions to U.S. Attorneys by the Department of Justice.
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Georgia
Posts: 169
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There is no "disconnect" and you are applying binary (on/off, yes/no) rules and logic to a totally analogue situation
A bland statement of fact? yes. also a threat? perhaps - In context, I would say yes. Power to arrest or detain. This is not binary.. this is totally analogue. In all jurisdictions of the United States, you can be taken into full custodial arrest for ANY traffic infraction. The officer has discretionary powers to cite, ticket or arrest. Similarly, in many cases after aresst, the judge/magistrate has the ability to set bail at various levels or even NO BAIL (release on own recognizance ) Binary: viewed in absolute terms either one way or another.
Many times, police, customs, different LEO ( Law Enforcement Organizations) give jurisdictional deference to certain things, for instance the police may say, "this is not our dispute, its a 'civil matter'...or..'this is an internal airline disciplinary matter' oft because they cant be arsed to take up a long laborious paper work exercise . Your first flaw is "If the purser represented such a threat to the continued safe operation of the flight (after all, she allegedly threatened to tamper with his meal, presumably for the purpose of incapacitating him in some way), then the flight should not have been released by United;" .. the purser was already evicted in MIA so she was no longer an issue.
I dont believe Cityfan alleges that particular chain of events. However, I read his posts, so I may have a different perspective.
1. "Threat to Captains meal" top of scale: "I am -at a time of my choosing, perhaps even now, introduce something to your meal that may cause you incapacitating harm or even death" Lower end of scale: Tone of voice. "I prepare the meal,sight unseen, that YOU eat"
A threat to poison or tamper with food is a terrorist threat. It introduces terror/fear not only in meals not eaten but food eaten prior.
Cityfan then hypothesizes that perhaps the captain felt the purser and perhaps other cabin crew members knew of his having been recently victimized and harassed by United, and were now deliberately engaging in disrespectful and insubordinate conduct to see what might happen.
Captain: "Prepare the passengers for a crash landing" CC: "Why?" Captain: excuse me? CC: "I was already back there,giving them meals Why go all the way back there? cant you just turn on the Seat Belt Sign?" Captain:We ingested two birds and... CC: "wont be the first time you 'ingested two birds" what is that,some kind of sexual reference?? I'm all over you Mr Capitan (no pn intended) I'll be writing a complaint to HR as soon as we land, in fact, now! (reaches over and grabs pen out of captain's shirt pocket) ELECTRONIC VOICE: TERRAIN -PULL UP ....weeks later Puzzled NTSB investigator: "Cant figure out this last remark: 'How did you like that 'mayonnaise', sir??
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 18,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ah well - since the usual protagonists are all intent on dragging this out, I'll have another go!
1) I have applied 'Occam's Razor' to 'cityfan' and his posts - I'm sure you can all work that out for yourselves.
2) IF, as stated by CF, there was an overheard threat to 'interfere with crew food', surely commonsense dictates that it would not be prudent to continue the flight from MIA in case said purser (the 'terrorist'?) HAD interfered with the crew provisions - as Saturn says?
3)
- and what does the helicopter pilot construe from cityfan's arrival on the scene?
1) I have applied 'Occam's Razor' to 'cityfan' and his posts - I'm sure you can all work that out for yourselves.
2) IF, as stated by CF, there was an overheard threat to 'interfere with crew food', surely commonsense dictates that it would not be prudent to continue the flight from MIA in case said purser (the 'terrorist'?) HAD interfered with the crew provisions - as Saturn says?
3)
Originally Posted by heliport
At one point it looked as if we were getting some facts and then it turned out that the (newly registered) poster who claimed to be a F/A on the flight and claimed to be giving the 'facts' was (ab)using PPRuNe to pursue a grudge against the captain.
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: us
Posts: 694
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
cessnapuppy, I'll put aside a tangential romp in the realm of American jurisprudence.
cityfan, who appears to have great knowledge of the whole affair from the captain's perspective, categorizes United's investigation as a "flight safety" investigation.
cityfan also states that if it had been him, he might have had the purser arrested in Miami for interference with the crew. And cityfan also posits that after the diversion to Miami was made known, the purser "DEFINITELY DID interfere with the crew".
So, IMO, from the captain's standpoint, the situation on board had deteriorated to the extent that, in his judgment, flight safety was being compromised or potentially compromised, and a diversion to Miami was necessary and appropriate. That is the crux of the issue, and presumably the focus of United's investigation. There is little disagreeing that the captain had the authority to do what he did, and the issue seems to be whether he had a well-founded basis (flight safety) for exercising that authority.
cityfan, who appears to have great knowledge of the whole affair from the captain's perspective, categorizes United's investigation as a "flight safety" investigation.
cityfan also states that if it had been him, he might have had the purser arrested in Miami for interference with the crew. And cityfan also posits that after the diversion to Miami was made known, the purser "DEFINITELY DID interfere with the crew".
So, IMO, from the captain's standpoint, the situation on board had deteriorated to the extent that, in his judgment, flight safety was being compromised or potentially compromised, and a diversion to Miami was necessary and appropriate. That is the crux of the issue, and presumably the focus of United's investigation. There is little disagreeing that the captain had the authority to do what he did, and the issue seems to be whether he had a well-founded basis (flight safety) for exercising that authority.
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: us
Posts: 694
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BOAC and captins, a United pilot posted in another forum around the end of July that the story going around United operations was that the purser had allegedly threatened to tamper with the crew meal, and this pilot suggested that such a threat would make a decision to divert perhaps more understandable.
I surmised that the captain sitting in the cockpit had heard of the threat either second or thirdhand, but cityfan corrected my erroneous presumption by stating the captain knew firsthand. So either the purser told him directly that she was considering/planning doing this, or he was present within earshot when she voiced the threat.
Whether the captain repeated the tampering threat to the authorities at the gate in Miami, or discussed it with dispatch has not been made public. But if he had done either, one would think the purser would not have so quickly been sent on her way by the authorities and United both.
I surmised that the captain sitting in the cockpit had heard of the threat either second or thirdhand, but cityfan corrected my erroneous presumption by stating the captain knew firsthand. So either the purser told him directly that she was considering/planning doing this, or he was present within earshot when she voiced the threat.
Whether the captain repeated the tampering threat to the authorities at the gate in Miami, or discussed it with dispatch has not been made public. But if he had done either, one would think the purser would not have so quickly been sent on her way by the authorities and United both.
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Canada
Posts: 35
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
food poisoning
Since the threat to food has become a key aspect of this discussion and has been posed an understandable rationale for the Captain's unusual action, the following may be useful since eye drops are considered to be a likely source of food contamination. (Yes, Rainboe it was an unusual action because no other Captain has come forward to say he/she ever had to undertake this type of diversion (cost estimate roughly $10,000) to deal with an unruly crew member. In fact several have said they haven't ever heard of a fellow Captain doing so.)
However. Drinking or otherwise taking eye drops (active ingredient tetrahydrozoline) internally can lead to blurred vision, low body temperature, an elevated then sharply dropped blood pressure, nausea and vomiting. If enough has been ingested, the person can experience seizures, tremors or even slip into a coma. Anyone who would even consider doing this to someone else, especially someone entrusted with their safety, is an absolute idiot.
Those who have supposedly suffered the runs from eyedrops and see this as confirmation of food tampering as a regular occurance may have to consider another cause.
While the side effects of ingesting eye drops may be dire, one of them is not a bout of diarrhea.... according to the myth busting site |Snopes.com
Those who have supposedly suffered the runs from eyedrops and see this as confirmation of food tampering as a regular occurance may have to consider another cause.
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Texas, like a whole other country
Posts: 444
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
1 Post
Those who have supposedly suffered the runs from eyedrops and see this as confirmation of food tampering as a regular occurance may have to consider another cause.
However, as the remainder of your post shows, the results of ingesting Visine can be dire. Idiot or not, any threat that someone might resort to such trickery should not be taken lightly.