Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Flight Deck Forums > Rumours & News
Reload this Page >

Another Disruptive Passenger

Rumours & News Reporting Points that may affect our jobs or lives as professional pilots. Also, items that may be of interest to professional pilots.

Another Disruptive Passenger

Old 23rd Jun 2019, 23:20
  #41 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 70
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Originally Posted by SMT Member
The real question is as follows: Are the airlines and airports really intersted in doing something about this, or are they merely whinging at the front door whilst quietly counting the money in a back room? I have more than a sneaking suspicion it's the latter, in which case they may safely stuff their complaints where the sun doesn't shine.

If they were truly intended on rooting out this kind of behaviour, a few actions would have it stopped by tomorrow. They could start by breathalysing every single passenger, and if they blow more than x% they're off-loaded. Likewise, they could ban the sale and consumption of alcohol onboard; duty free bought onboard could be delivered at the very end of the trip, and passengers would not be allowed to bring any alcohol onboard they purchased on the ground.

But, as initially stated, that would interfere with their first, second and last priority: Making money.

Typical, punish everyone who likes a drink because of the actions of the few who can't hold it.
Lantern10 is offline  
Old 23rd Jun 2019, 23:36
  #42 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: london
Posts: 741
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Can someone explain to an ignorant rotary pilot, not used to a reinforced security door, how this disruption might have escalated to an intercept?
Presumably the pilots would have either been totally unaware, or they would have had a bang on the door, or they would have had an update from the CC.
Why would any of these circumstances lead them to believe there was a risk of loss of command? What might a professional crew state over the RT to lead to this?
Even if the woman was some dastardly diversion for a band of true hijackers - and the reason for a diversion escapes me - the door would have been secure and they would have subsequently learned of the escalation and be able to use RT and transponder....
Are we really letting the terrorists win by what appears at least to be an over reaction every time there is a bang on the door or the CC say a woman is being disruptive?
Straight questions looking for a straight answer please
homonculus is offline  
Old 24th Jun 2019, 00:16
  #43 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Exit stage right.
Posts: 289
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes on 2 Posts
Attempted breach of cockpit, pilot flags to ATC, ATC flags as IMMEDIATE security issue, RAF respond, Pilot flags cockpit secure which is exactly what someone holding a gun to someone's head would suggest you say. RAF jets escort plane into airport keeping a close eye that it doesn't speed up and head for London or elsewhere.

Over reaction ...........50-50 but it sends a message we will react first and think about it later.
racedo is offline  
Old 24th Jun 2019, 00:45
  #44 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Baston
Posts: 3,094
Received 328 Likes on 158 Posts
Originally Posted by Lantern10
Typical, punish everyone who likes a drink because of the actions of the few who can't hold it.
I like a drink but I can and do go without in situations where I feel vulnerable.

Sitting at 40,000 ft in a thin tube held up courtesy of anti-Newtons is vulnerable.

A swift couple on landing.

langleybaston is offline  
Old 24th Jun 2019, 03:04
  #45 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2019
Location: Aust
Posts: 386
Received 28 Likes on 13 Posts
Originally Posted by PerPurumTonantes
You'd hope that if they weren't doing that, they'd be doing other great training exercises. So maybe net cost to uk defence budget negligible.

With you on the blood pressure though. Cost to everyone on the flight, wasted fuel, f/a stress of dealing with worse than the usual class of idiot.

Military escort suggests security issue, so perhaps stress to all pax and crew as well thinking that they might not make it home.
Not to drift too far, this talk about the cost to the military budget reminds me of the SAR of the late lone yachtsman, Tony Ballimore, deep in the Southern Ocean back a few years ago now. So much was made of the cost to the Australian taxpayer by the malevolent local press as they described him just another despised rich type living out his fantasies and risking the lives of our "boys".

It was a fantastic effort by the RAAF and the RAN and priceless experience for all involved. The truth is that all costs involved would have been spent on mind numbing training flights in any case. It made most Australians proud to see Tony come out of his overturned yacht and embrace his rescuers.
deja vu is offline  
Old 24th Jun 2019, 03:36
  #46 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Hong Kong
Age: 56
Posts: 1,441
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Originally Posted by etrang
It doesn't. But in a worst case scenario they can shoot the plane down. They can also monitor and provide independent reports of the aircraft activity. It also provides a good training exercise.
- I just don't get the whole 'shoot it down' scenario - you kill everyone on board and anyone that gets hit by falling debris.

That's just nuts.
Load Toad is offline  
Old 24th Jun 2019, 08:40
  #47 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2018
Location: Wolverhampton
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Joe_K
Seriously? From a journalism point of view that's what the story is: people in Essex and Cambridgeshire heard a loud bang and rang the police to complain. Just like they always complain when they hear a "sonic boom". People will undoubtedly be disappointed to read that the fighters were scrambled over a real security concern, if it was training they would be able to complain more. IIRC there was even a compensation claim filed with the MOD when they intercepted an Easyjet flight back in 2017, allegedly damage to a roof and windows. It seems to be a major preoccupation these days, complaining and claiming compensation...
Be careful then what you import from the USA. Ambulance Chasing is Big Business there. And here now.
"I wan Compo!!!"
sixchannel is offline  
Old 24th Jun 2019, 10:18
  #48 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Out of a bag
Posts: 650
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by homonculus
Can someone explain to an ignorant rotary pilot, not used to a reinforced security door, how this disruption might have escalated to an intercept?
Presumably the pilots would have either been totally unaware, or they would have had a bang on the door, or they would have had an update from the CC.
Why would any of these circumstances lead them to believe there was a risk of loss of command? What might a professional crew state over the RT to lead to this?
A professional crew would inform ATC of the facts. It's not about them believing there was a risk of loss of command, it's to do with someone trying to get in the door.

ICAO Disruptive Passenger levels
Level 1 Disruptive behavior (verbal);
Level 2 Physically abusive behavior;
Level 3 Life-threatening behavior (or display of a weapon);
Level 4 Attempted or actual breach of the flight crew compartment.

In this situation, I'm sure that ATC have a SOP which is put into play. The response that is mobilised isn't down to the crew.
Flying Wild is offline  
Old 24th Jun 2019, 10:20
  #49 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Out of a bag
Posts: 650
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Load Toad
- I just don't get the whole 'shoot it down' scenario - you kill everyone on board and anyone that gets hit by falling debris.

That's just nuts.
It's that unfortunate situation of needs of the many vs needs of the few. What's 220ish pax, plus a handful on the ground, vs thousands in a built up area? It's a tough call to make, but that is the sad reality of today. Nobody wants another 9/11 scenario.
Flying Wild is offline  
Old 24th Jun 2019, 10:27
  #50 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Slovakia
Age: 58
Posts: 259
Received 159 Likes on 27 Posts
We had also sonic booms yesterday in Slovakia, some Italian Airbus bound to Charkov went out of comm with ATC and two Mig-29s intercepted her and escorted to Ukraine borders. No disruptive passenger though, I just wonder if the costs would be reimbursed to the airline.
Pali is offline  
Old 24th Jun 2019, 11:18
  #51 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Exit stage right.
Posts: 289
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes on 2 Posts
Originally Posted by Pali
We had also sonic booms yesterday in Slovakia, some Italian Airbus bound to Charkov went out of comm with ATC and two Mig-29s intercepted her and escorted to Ukraine borders. No disruptive passenger though, I just wonder if the costs would be reimbursed to the airline.
Pilots get to break Mach 1, they will not be complaining.
racedo is offline  
Old 24th Jun 2019, 11:30
  #52 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Europe
Posts: 1,197
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by SMT Member
Good luck finding a handling agent willing to sign for that!

Besides, any lawyer worth their salt could easily make a case the buck stops at the door, and as the passengers walks onboard any further responsibility is on the airline.
You will find plenty but they will add a clause that they can ban from flight any pax they don't like and all costs and issues created will be met by the airline.

Lantern10 nice point

Rwy in Sight is offline  
Old 24th Jun 2019, 13:25
  #53 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: london
Posts: 741
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Thanks Racedo and flying Wild

You both refer to an attempted breach of the cockpit and I suspect nobody would argue with this were there repeated attempts to break down the door and or loss of communication with the cc. However one young lady who may have been inebriated or have mental health issues and who was restrained by passengers really doesnt constitute an attempted breach. The analogy is the drunk woman in Guildford high street who, faced with a handful of police states she is going to kill the lot of them. Their response is quite different than if a man with a gun who isnt drunk makes the same threat.

I fully appreciate that there is a need to 'play safe' but the door isnt going to give in with a couple of thumps even if the person on the other side is a six foot male. There was presumably contact with the cc at the back. Have we really got to the stage where each and every passenger disruption leads to this? What really made this different from every other Stansted flight with unruly drunks?
homonculus is offline  
Old 24th Jun 2019, 13:49
  #54 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Exit stage right.
Posts: 289
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes on 2 Posts
Originally Posted by homonculus
Thanks Racedo and flying Wild

You both refer to an attempted breach of the cockpit and I suspect nobody would argue with this were there repeated attempts to break down the door and or loss of communication with the cc. However one young lady who may have been inebriated or have mental health issues and who was restrained by passengers really doesnt constitute an attempted breach. The analogy is the drunk woman in Guildford high street who, faced with a handful of police states she is going to kill the lot of them. Their response is quite different than if a man with a gun who isnt drunk makes the same threat.

I fully appreciate that there is a need to 'play safe' but the door isnt going to give in with a couple of thumps even if the person on the other side is a six foot male. There was presumably contact with the cc at the back. Have we really got to the stage where each and every passenger disruption leads to this? What really made this different from every other Stansted flight with unruly drunks?
Lets not do anything with one young lady, sends message, so next time its one young lady but she a plant so when they drag her down the back there are 4 others who go after the door and yup it will eventually be broken through.

P.s. being 6ft and 100kgs doesn't mean you could break the door down, 5ft nothing tiny lady in high street took 6 police to subdue her and she knew how to fight, smashed door and window of cop car plus dosed on crack cocaine meant even a taser was SFA use, have a read of some of the US cop reports of subduing someone on PCP in the 90's.

Underestimate someone is easiest way to lose control.

racedo is offline  
Old 24th Jun 2019, 16:52
  #55 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: london
Posts: 741
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Not sure what benefit the plant provides. You might as well just let the 4 others do it on their own. And if a woman who is drunk or suffering from mental health issues can break down the door with her bare hands I suggest you redesign the door. I am assuming they arent redundant cruiser doors from New York.......

Anyway, thank you for engaging with my questions. Just off to book my train tickets
homonculus is offline  
Old 25th Jun 2019, 05:26
  #56 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Somewhere very sunny !
Age: 52
Posts: 335
Received 2 Likes on 2 Posts
it's quite simple, pass the expense of getting a fighter airborne and all associated cost to the dim slapper who caused the incident to start with. Job done, tax payer back in pocket !! or am I missing something. ?
Impress to inflate is offline  
Old 25th Jun 2019, 08:28
  #57 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Hong Kong
Age: 56
Posts: 1,441
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Originally Posted by Flying Wild
It's that unfortunate situation of needs of the many vs needs of the few. What's 220ish pax, plus a handful on the ground, vs thousands in a built up area? It's a tough call to make, but that is the sad reality of today. Nobody wants another 9/11 scenario.
And legally where does that work?

'We shot it down and killed everyone on board plus those down below in case the plane actually crashed and killed even more people because those innocents have greater value than those other innocents and we don't want another 9-11 because like we really knew then that the take over of those planes would result in 9-11...'


It's complete B/S to suggest shooting the plane down is an option.
- It's a win for terrorists straight away.
Load Toad is offline  
Old 25th Jun 2019, 10:47
  #58 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: uk
Posts: 314
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
'We didn't shoot it down because we didn't want to kill everyone on board plus those down below and we didn't think it was likely it was another 9/11 so the crash into central London which killed several thousand people rather then the 300 if we'd shot it down was unfortunate.....'

Load Toad - i get where you're coming from but it's a damned if you do, damned if you don't situation - before 9/11 it might have seemed impossible, sadly now that's no longer the case.
vancouv is offline  
Old 25th Jun 2019, 15:32
  #59 (permalink)  
Moderator
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Ontario, Canada
Age: 62
Posts: 5,538
Received 49 Likes on 34 Posts
Let's focus the discussion on passenger conduct, and not discuss cockpit door systems. Those who need to know, already know, and that is sufficient.
Pilot DAR is offline  
Old 25th Jun 2019, 15:57
  #60 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Exit stage right.
Posts: 289
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes on 2 Posts
Originally Posted by Pilot DAR
Let's focus the discussion on passenger conduct, and not discuss cockpit door systems. Those who need to know, already know, and that is sufficient.
Completely agree
racedo is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell or Share My Personal Information

Copyright © 2023 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.