Another Disruptive Passenger
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.
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.
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
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
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.
Over reaction ...........50-50 but it sends a message we will react first and think about it later.
Sitting at 40,000 ft in a thin tube held up courtesy of anti-Newtons is vulnerable.
A swift couple on landing.
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.
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.
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.
That's just nuts.
Join Date: Feb 2018
Location: Wolverhampton
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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...
"I wan Compo!!!"
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Out of a bag
Posts: 656
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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?
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?
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.
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Out of a bag
Posts: 656
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Lantern10 nice point
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?
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?
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?
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?
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.
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
Anyway, thank you for engaging with my questions. Just off to book my train tickets
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. ?
'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.
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.
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.
Moderator
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