737 diverted to CWL
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 49
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Remmington,
you do make me laugh.
If it comes down to believing Aircrew, Police or Football fans, I think I'll lean towards the "professionals". After all, everytyhing they say will be subject to absolute scrutiny, whereas the football fans who enjoyed their 2 minutes of glory with a reporter don't have to account to anybody.
Mind you, same might apply to journo's who seemed to be quoted here . Wonder how Harry Hynd will fare when the Astraeus Captain takes him to court for defamation of character.
This thread is now getting washed out . Time to move it some elsewhere else maybe?? Jet Blast would be a great place to thrash it out
you do make me laugh.
If it comes down to believing Aircrew, Police or Football fans, I think I'll lean towards the "professionals". After all, everytyhing they say will be subject to absolute scrutiny, whereas the football fans who enjoyed their 2 minutes of glory with a reporter don't have to account to anybody.
Mind you, same might apply to journo's who seemed to be quoted here . Wonder how Harry Hynd will fare when the Astraeus Captain takes him to court for defamation of character.
This thread is now getting washed out . Time to move it some elsewhere else maybe?? Jet Blast would be a great place to thrash it out
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Midlands, UK
Posts: 128
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Remmington - please stop being a pr@t now just for the sake of it! The majority of pax are no problem at all but there's always a few who spoil it for the rest.
In your persistent efforts to put forward an alternative opinion you are sounding increasingly stupid!
In your persistent efforts to put forward an alternative opinion you are sounding increasingly stupid!
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Venezuala
Posts: 7
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Contrary to one or two posts on this forum, this is not an airline v football fans debate.
I, myself, am a football fan who has travelled away to matches for over 25 years now and I know how badly over the years the general football supporter has been treated ( to the extent that we have, in my opinion, been tarnsiehed somewhat unfairly with the same brush).
However, this is not about an airline brandishing the red card so to speak because the passengers happened to be football fans.
The fact remains that a member of cabin crew was manhandled and injured seemingly in an altercation with a small minority of pax on a flight. Other matters also came to light that drinking and smoking (against airline policy and the law) took place.
I think that the thing that sticks in the throat the most about all this and has prompted me to post again is the fact that nobody amongst the pax seems to realise the severity of an altercation, mid-flight, with the crew. It's a serious matter and not a right of reply in my humble opinion.
We do live in a society now where we seem to know a lot more about our rights and a lot less about our responsibilities.
I do, honestly, feel sorry for those caught up in this that are of course innocent and they are the vast majority but somewhere on that aircraft, someone almost certainly took the law into their own hands.
The captain may not have handled the situation exactly perfectly in everyone's eyes but if I were in charge and one of my staff was injured and sounded distressed I would have supported them and taken the best course of action open to me at that time. I'm sure anyone would have.
The bottom line, as I have said before, is that this would not have happened had ALL passengers simply behaved themselves.
I sincerely hope that it doesn't take a very serious incident involving loss of life before the travelling public realise that this type of behaviour on an aircraft just cannot be acceptable.
If nothing else, maybe this episode will result in other potential situations being diffused with the words from other passengers "We better behave otherwise we will end up with another situation like that time they had to be diverted to Cardiff".
I know there are two sides to every story but in cases where aircrew (or any person going about their daily business come to that) are injured and distressed then I know where my heart lies.
I, myself, am a football fan who has travelled away to matches for over 25 years now and I know how badly over the years the general football supporter has been treated ( to the extent that we have, in my opinion, been tarnsiehed somewhat unfairly with the same brush).
However, this is not about an airline brandishing the red card so to speak because the passengers happened to be football fans.
The fact remains that a member of cabin crew was manhandled and injured seemingly in an altercation with a small minority of pax on a flight. Other matters also came to light that drinking and smoking (against airline policy and the law) took place.
I think that the thing that sticks in the throat the most about all this and has prompted me to post again is the fact that nobody amongst the pax seems to realise the severity of an altercation, mid-flight, with the crew. It's a serious matter and not a right of reply in my humble opinion.
We do live in a society now where we seem to know a lot more about our rights and a lot less about our responsibilities.
I do, honestly, feel sorry for those caught up in this that are of course innocent and they are the vast majority but somewhere on that aircraft, someone almost certainly took the law into their own hands.
The captain may not have handled the situation exactly perfectly in everyone's eyes but if I were in charge and one of my staff was injured and sounded distressed I would have supported them and taken the best course of action open to me at that time. I'm sure anyone would have.
The bottom line, as I have said before, is that this would not have happened had ALL passengers simply behaved themselves.
I sincerely hope that it doesn't take a very serious incident involving loss of life before the travelling public realise that this type of behaviour on an aircraft just cannot be acceptable.
If nothing else, maybe this episode will result in other potential situations being diffused with the words from other passengers "We better behave otherwise we will end up with another situation like that time they had to be diverted to Cardiff".
I know there are two sides to every story but in cases where aircrew (or any person going about their daily business come to that) are injured and distressed then I know where my heart lies.
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Dublin
Posts: 23
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ADC -
I don't think that anything is perfectly clear at this stage and litigation is being talked about by many many people.
I am not in the least surprised that police will be going to Scotland to conduct interviews as this is to be expected. What is still unknown is whether any case(s) will ensue.
Whatever happens there are lessons to be learned even for "the professionals" on this forum. There is no doubt that the lack of visual contact between the cockpit and the main aircraft contributed to the misunderstandings that took place on the Santiago Glasgow flight. No matter what anybody says - there was never a riot, mayhem or a dangerous situation. Only today a woman was in court in Ireland and fined for striking a cabin crew member on a NY Shannon flight yesterday. There was no diversion of the aircraft and no panic from the airline staff. The correct proceedures took place. You may say that's very well to know in hindsight - but surely it is reasonable that a captain be given the correct information - e.g. (if true) "a passenger struck me" rather than information that indicated that a major physical battle was happening on board - which it clearly was not.
I realise H. has been admirably protective of his staff but surely he must take account of what also went wrong - on his own side. Perhaps he is doing so but can say very little. I think it is only fair that the passengers on this flight be given the respect and courtesy they deserve and if errors have been made they should be made public. I also find it ridiculous that people can just totally ignore the views of so many members of the public and label the whole aircraft as 'football yobs, hooligans, common people etc etc " as has been done on this forum. It belittles your reputations as professional people to come out with such terminology particularly as it has always been very clear that nearly everbody on flight acted correctly.
At this stage there is very little more to say on the subject. We will await the court case (if any) and the actions of the passengers campaign for the truth which is now being actively supported by Talksport Radio - I know, ordinary people, but then again most of us are. We shall see.
I don't think that anything is perfectly clear at this stage and litigation is being talked about by many many people.
I am not in the least surprised that police will be going to Scotland to conduct interviews as this is to be expected. What is still unknown is whether any case(s) will ensue.
Whatever happens there are lessons to be learned even for "the professionals" on this forum. There is no doubt that the lack of visual contact between the cockpit and the main aircraft contributed to the misunderstandings that took place on the Santiago Glasgow flight. No matter what anybody says - there was never a riot, mayhem or a dangerous situation. Only today a woman was in court in Ireland and fined for striking a cabin crew member on a NY Shannon flight yesterday. There was no diversion of the aircraft and no panic from the airline staff. The correct proceedures took place. You may say that's very well to know in hindsight - but surely it is reasonable that a captain be given the correct information - e.g. (if true) "a passenger struck me" rather than information that indicated that a major physical battle was happening on board - which it clearly was not.
I realise H. has been admirably protective of his staff but surely he must take account of what also went wrong - on his own side. Perhaps he is doing so but can say very little. I think it is only fair that the passengers on this flight be given the respect and courtesy they deserve and if errors have been made they should be made public. I also find it ridiculous that people can just totally ignore the views of so many members of the public and label the whole aircraft as 'football yobs, hooligans, common people etc etc " as has been done on this forum. It belittles your reputations as professional people to come out with such terminology particularly as it has always been very clear that nearly everbody on flight acted correctly.
At this stage there is very little more to say on the subject. We will await the court case (if any) and the actions of the passengers campaign for the truth which is now being actively supported by Talksport Radio - I know, ordinary people, but then again most of us are. We shall see.
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 49
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
MOL,
Do you ever read the stuff you write before pressing the "submit reply" button?
I also read the incident involving ONE woman on the Aer Lingus flight. Maybe Shannon was the closest airport. Not that many options mid -Atlantic. Few more crew on board as well. And I bet she claimed she only "touched the cabin crew member to get her attention".
How the F*** would you know? Who decides what a Dangerous situation is? The passenger in row 12 who thought a quick ciggie in the toilet is OK?
Who says they havn't ? Apart from those interviewed by the police. On the other hand, how much "respect" did they give the crew? Let me quote one of those "respectable" passengers
Respect eh?
or what about
or try this
This is the point. The very people who you are quoting as deserving of respect are showing by their very statements that they do NOT deserve respect, as they hadn't the courtesy to show respect to the crew that were on board to KEEP THEM SAFE!!!
Why do you mentio H. in the same paragraph as
I believe he said that 95% of the passengers were just enjoying their flight. I'm afraid most of the condemnation of the passengers on the aircraft is coming from the Press ( after all, they started the RIOT theme).
I don't think it takes TalkSPort RAdio to campaign for truth. Whether you accept it or not, everyone is after the same thing....and that includes the airline, the crew, the police AND the passengers.
Do you ever read the stuff you write before pressing the "submit reply" button?
I also read the incident involving ONE woman on the Aer Lingus flight. Maybe Shannon was the closest airport. Not that many options mid -Atlantic. Few more crew on board as well. And I bet she claimed she only "touched the cabin crew member to get her attention".
there was never a riot, mayhem or a dangerous situation
I think it is only fair that the passengers on this flight be given the respect and courtesy they deserve
Two mincing male stewards
or what about
They said the staf were ignorant on th eplane
or try this
General atmosphere was summed up by a rendition of YMCA when the cabin crew were doing the safety announcement
Why do you mentio H. in the same paragraph as
label the whole aircraft as 'football yobs, hooligans, common people etc etc
I don't think it takes TalkSPort RAdio to campaign for truth. Whether you accept it or not, everyone is after the same thing....and that includes the airline, the crew, the police AND the passengers.
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: England
Posts: 86
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
MOL & Remmington
The pair of you are getting very boring now; lots of repitition in what you have both said over these numerous pages.
To me, the bottom line is that it is an offence under the ANO for any passenger to disobey the 'lawful instructions of the Commander'. If, and I say 'IF', there is any question that the commanders instructions were unlawful, then there are established proceedures to follow through. I like the vast majority here doubt that very much. As for wanting to inspect crew records, licences, maintenance records, geez; suggest you go by boat next time and save a lot of people a lot of grief. No airline needs your few bob that much!
I hope you mean what you have said, MOL, that there is no more to say on the subject and please spare us the valuable bandwidth.
I hope it won't be that long before there is a national database that would prohibit all irresponsible, suspected or convicted thugs from ever setting foot on another public transport flight in their lives. They are a danger to everyone, not least of all to themselves.
What's the betting that MOL didn't really mean what he said, when he said there was no more to say on the subject. We can live in hope, I guess.
By the way; hats off to the crew, equally to their bosses and all those rational, level-headed folk that support wise decisions.
The pair of you are getting very boring now; lots of repitition in what you have both said over these numerous pages.
To me, the bottom line is that it is an offence under the ANO for any passenger to disobey the 'lawful instructions of the Commander'. If, and I say 'IF', there is any question that the commanders instructions were unlawful, then there are established proceedures to follow through. I like the vast majority here doubt that very much. As for wanting to inspect crew records, licences, maintenance records, geez; suggest you go by boat next time and save a lot of people a lot of grief. No airline needs your few bob that much!
I hope you mean what you have said, MOL, that there is no more to say on the subject and please spare us the valuable bandwidth.
I hope it won't be that long before there is a national database that would prohibit all irresponsible, suspected or convicted thugs from ever setting foot on another public transport flight in their lives. They are a danger to everyone, not least of all to themselves.
What's the betting that MOL didn't really mean what he said, when he said there was no more to say on the subject. We can live in hope, I guess.
By the way; hats off to the crew, equally to their bosses and all those rational, level-headed folk that support wise decisions.
Guest
Posts: n/a
My two pence worth
I have been cabin crew for over 8 years, and no nthing about this flight, ie people on board etc, however 3 years ago I was on board an aircraft when a married couple started to have a heated debate, nothing physical or even that loud, the capt asked if I wanted him to come out and talk to them ( in the days when the door was not locked due to sept 11 th ) I declined, within 2 minutes of that conversation I had a crew member, who just happened to walk passed the passengers on the floor lossing pints of blood from a gash to the back of her head.
Flying is becoming more and more dangerous, and although many people have valid comments, you many were not on board, those that were did not see that much, trust me, when your sat down with a chair in front, one to the side, and one behind you, you are limited to what you can see going on, even on a small aircraft.
Cabin Crew are on board for safety, we are fully aware of the costs etc involved in diverting an aircraft, and what that means not only to you, but to the airline, they must have felt very un easy to even suggest it. And remember, sept 11th has changed this job forever, its no longer about tea and coffe, its about looking after everyone on boards life. And its very hard to know the outcome of a simple argument, I wish I had diverted, or had the capt come and have a eord, my collegue may not now be scared for life.
Its very easy to sit a judge, but lets remember, they did what they decided at the time was best in the situation, the last thing they wanted, was a .....hr delay, pages and pages of paper work etc, and most importantly, they did it for your, and their own safety, maybe ( not saying they did ) someone overacted, well maybe people made them feel that uneasy that they felt they had no other option.
Its just a shame for the other 14o pax who were well behaved and just enjoying them self.
But if it had gone wrong up their, and you were all dead, everyone would have been saying they should have diverted as soon as it kicked off. Would you risk your life for 8000 a year!!!!
I just hope everyone is ok now.
Flying is becoming more and more dangerous, and although many people have valid comments, you many were not on board, those that were did not see that much, trust me, when your sat down with a chair in front, one to the side, and one behind you, you are limited to what you can see going on, even on a small aircraft.
Cabin Crew are on board for safety, we are fully aware of the costs etc involved in diverting an aircraft, and what that means not only to you, but to the airline, they must have felt very un easy to even suggest it. And remember, sept 11th has changed this job forever, its no longer about tea and coffe, its about looking after everyone on boards life. And its very hard to know the outcome of a simple argument, I wish I had diverted, or had the capt come and have a eord, my collegue may not now be scared for life.
Its very easy to sit a judge, but lets remember, they did what they decided at the time was best in the situation, the last thing they wanted, was a .....hr delay, pages and pages of paper work etc, and most importantly, they did it for your, and their own safety, maybe ( not saying they did ) someone overacted, well maybe people made them feel that uneasy that they felt they had no other option.
Its just a shame for the other 14o pax who were well behaved and just enjoying them self.
But if it had gone wrong up their, and you were all dead, everyone would have been saying they should have diverted as soon as it kicked off. Would you risk your life for 8000 a year!!!!
I just hope everyone is ok now.
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 53
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As Danny said, MOL is entitled to put the 'other side' argument. He's no worse than some having a go at him. It's human nature to be more sympathetic to the group you belong to, pilot or Celtic fan. But I can't see how anybody can claim the Captain did anything except in the interest in the safety of his flight. That's just plain stupid.
There's only one thing I think was a bit odd.
The trouble started after the PA about smoking. That's the only thing both 'sides' agree on.
The passenger's version is "About one hour into the flight the pilot announced that someone had been smoking in the toilets and that the police had been called and we would all be detained at Glasgow until the person owned up." IF that's true, way over the top IMHO.
The company statement is a bit different "The Captain made a public address announcement stating that the behaviour encountered at the front of the aircraft (smoking in front toilets) would not be tolerated, and the offender would be met by police officers on arrival at Glasgow. A number of passengers at the rear of the aircraft objected strongly and loudly."
I still think that's OTT and not surprised some of the passengers got wound up. Different if he'd kept smoking after being told to stop.
Yes I know it's an offence but if a crowd of soccer fans are not causing any other trouble, I think warning if there was any more smoking police would be called on landing would have been wiser.
MOL
You don't need qualifications to post on Prune, but your not in a position to comment on what the Captain decided. That's what irritates people. The Captain would have made a decision on what he was told by the CC. I've never had it happen to me but if I was told there was a disturbance on board, I'd land asap. Whatever happened or didn't happen down the back, on what he was told, the Captain made 100% the right decision.
Think about it. Even if you're right and the CC over-reacted the Captain can't do anything except make a decision on wha he's told. It would be stupid for one of the pilots to go into the cabin just in case it was a serious disturbance and he was assaulted. At the very least he'd be shaken up, maybe worse. You have two pilots because you need two pilots, not just in case one of them gets incapacitated.
And we don't like being diverted any more than passengers!
There's only one thing I think was a bit odd.
The trouble started after the PA about smoking. That's the only thing both 'sides' agree on.
The passenger's version is "About one hour into the flight the pilot announced that someone had been smoking in the toilets and that the police had been called and we would all be detained at Glasgow until the person owned up." IF that's true, way over the top IMHO.
The company statement is a bit different "The Captain made a public address announcement stating that the behaviour encountered at the front of the aircraft (smoking in front toilets) would not be tolerated, and the offender would be met by police officers on arrival at Glasgow. A number of passengers at the rear of the aircraft objected strongly and loudly."
I still think that's OTT and not surprised some of the passengers got wound up. Different if he'd kept smoking after being told to stop.
Yes I know it's an offence but if a crowd of soccer fans are not causing any other trouble, I think warning if there was any more smoking police would be called on landing would have been wiser.
MOL
You don't need qualifications to post on Prune, but your not in a position to comment on what the Captain decided. That's what irritates people. The Captain would have made a decision on what he was told by the CC. I've never had it happen to me but if I was told there was a disturbance on board, I'd land asap. Whatever happened or didn't happen down the back, on what he was told, the Captain made 100% the right decision.
Think about it. Even if you're right and the CC over-reacted the Captain can't do anything except make a decision on wha he's told. It would be stupid for one of the pilots to go into the cabin just in case it was a serious disturbance and he was assaulted. At the very least he'd be shaken up, maybe worse. You have two pilots because you need two pilots, not just in case one of them gets incapacitated.
And we don't like being diverted any more than passengers!
Last edited by Alty Meter; 16th Dec 2002 at 19:31.
This debate is beginning to miss the point and is becoming a general "passengers versus airline" slanging match.
Surely the key question here is the actions of the small minority of passengers who caused great inconvenience to their fellow passengers and to the airline? I would have thought it would be more appropriate for the [alleged] miscreants to answer for their actions to the police on behalf of those other passengers and the airline. Instead, MOL et al seem to be trying to force Astraeus to justify the diversion and claiming that it was unnecessary. Do they deny the fact that there was a problem? It is almost as if they are citing that the airline is somehow guilty rather than the troublemakers.
I don't think anyone here is trying to suggest that everyone on board was involved and for MOL and Remmington to defend the reputations of the innocent is commendable to a point. But there you have to draw the line - in defending the reputations of the innocent, you cannot afford to overlook or in any way trivialise the allegations facing the accused.
As a matter of course, airlines don't tend to regard smoking, drinking own alcohol, assault on cabin crew and threatening behaviour as acceptable forms of conduct on board, whether exercised individually or jointly.
The questions of what happened after the decision to divert was made are largely irrelevant - by that point, the disturbance had taken place and the crew had taken what I think to be an extremely sensible decision to get the aircraft down on the ground. If you are aware that one of the cabin crew has been assaulted, you don't hang around at FL350 to see if someone has another go.
It's just extremely sad that the actions of a few have led to so much inconvenience for so many but there are virtually no other ways to deal with problems of this nature other than the one chosen chosen by the Astraeus crew.
Surely the key question here is the actions of the small minority of passengers who caused great inconvenience to their fellow passengers and to the airline? I would have thought it would be more appropriate for the [alleged] miscreants to answer for their actions to the police on behalf of those other passengers and the airline. Instead, MOL et al seem to be trying to force Astraeus to justify the diversion and claiming that it was unnecessary. Do they deny the fact that there was a problem? It is almost as if they are citing that the airline is somehow guilty rather than the troublemakers.
I don't think anyone here is trying to suggest that everyone on board was involved and for MOL and Remmington to defend the reputations of the innocent is commendable to a point. But there you have to draw the line - in defending the reputations of the innocent, you cannot afford to overlook or in any way trivialise the allegations facing the accused.
As a matter of course, airlines don't tend to regard smoking, drinking own alcohol, assault on cabin crew and threatening behaviour as acceptable forms of conduct on board, whether exercised individually or jointly.
The questions of what happened after the decision to divert was made are largely irrelevant - by that point, the disturbance had taken place and the crew had taken what I think to be an extremely sensible decision to get the aircraft down on the ground. If you are aware that one of the cabin crew has been assaulted, you don't hang around at FL350 to see if someone has another go.
It's just extremely sad that the actions of a few have led to so much inconvenience for so many but there are virtually no other ways to deal with problems of this nature other than the one chosen chosen by the Astraeus crew.
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Venezuala
Posts: 7
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
http://www.talksport.net/
I love my football but I can't listen to the 'no nonesense sports breakfast' because Mike Parry is on it. Anyone who has ever listened to the show will know what I mean.
I love my football but I can't listen to the 'no nonesense sports breakfast' because Mike Parry is on it. Anyone who has ever listened to the show will know what I mean.
Paid up
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 601
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ohh dear...
My BBC buddy tells me that the colloquial name in the industry for this particular radio station is Talk****e - very apt!
From http://www.talksport.net/
PS - remember to send your comments on the 'Free the Glasgow 6' campaign to [email protected]
Let's give them some interesting comments to read out on air tomorrow morning.
My BBC buddy tells me that the colloquial name in the industry for this particular radio station is Talk****e - very apt!
From http://www.talksport.net/
Free the Glasgow Six
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
talkSPORT has joined the campaign to free the Glasgow Six. The six Celtic fans were arrested following disturbances on board a plane en route to Glasgow from Northern Spain last week.
The Free The Glasgow Six campaign believes that it was the fault of the air-crew and of course the fan who had a smoke but that the over-reaction was ridiculous. Since launching the campaign talkSPORT has received a particularly detailed e-mail from one of the female passengers on board who says that it was a panicking air-hostess who was at the centre of the problems. She says that the air crew over –reacted.
Says Mike Parry, Co-host of the No Nonsense Sports Breakfast “We've already had a fantastic response towards the campaign. We’ve been inundated with people who had been on the plane and who were outraged at being branded louts.We've also received a huge number of messages from Rangers fans supporting the Celtic boys."
"This is about football fans being treated in the usual shabby manner by authorities. Everyone knows that the Scottish fans are some of the best and friendliest in the World”
The full e-mail transcript from the female passenger is available here. talkSPORT listeners wanting to get behind the campaign should send support to [email protected].
A FREE THE GLASGOW SIX committee has now been formed by Peter Jordan. Jordan told talkSPORT listeners on Monday morning that he is “planning to organise a white-hanky protest at the next Celtic game and to start involving MSP's MP's and even Euro MP's.” He mentioned in particular that he is hoping that George Galloway, his constituency MP will be getting involved.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
talkSPORT has joined the campaign to free the Glasgow Six. The six Celtic fans were arrested following disturbances on board a plane en route to Glasgow from Northern Spain last week.
The Free The Glasgow Six campaign believes that it was the fault of the air-crew and of course the fan who had a smoke but that the over-reaction was ridiculous. Since launching the campaign talkSPORT has received a particularly detailed e-mail from one of the female passengers on board who says that it was a panicking air-hostess who was at the centre of the problems. She says that the air crew over –reacted.
Says Mike Parry, Co-host of the No Nonsense Sports Breakfast “We've already had a fantastic response towards the campaign. We’ve been inundated with people who had been on the plane and who were outraged at being branded louts.We've also received a huge number of messages from Rangers fans supporting the Celtic boys."
"This is about football fans being treated in the usual shabby manner by authorities. Everyone knows that the Scottish fans are some of the best and friendliest in the World”
The full e-mail transcript from the female passenger is available here. talkSPORT listeners wanting to get behind the campaign should send support to [email protected].
A FREE THE GLASGOW SIX committee has now been formed by Peter Jordan. Jordan told talkSPORT listeners on Monday morning that he is “planning to organise a white-hanky protest at the next Celtic game and to start involving MSP's MP's and even Euro MP's.” He mentioned in particular that he is hoping that George Galloway, his constituency MP will be getting involved.
Let's give them some interesting comments to read out on air tomorrow morning.
Whatever the truth as to what was happening in the cabin, the Captain obviously had to divert based on the information available to him. Equally, it would be pretty silly for one of the two guys responsible for flying the plane to get involved in a brawl down the back.
After that, it all gets more interesting, and subjective. It's sad that the debate is so polarised:
- All football supporters are irrational, drunken yobs.
- All cabin crew are peerless professionals with unimpeachable credentials.
Not much room for compromise there! None of the people here were actually on the plane. The people closest to the incident (Astraeus management) have spoken to the crew and clearly cannot be regarded as independent. Apologists for the supporters have only spoken to passengers, and clearly are not exactly independent either.
For what it is worth, I have seen unreasonable behaviour by passengers on planes. (Stood between cabin crew and passenger in one such incident.) But I have also seen cabin crew react in a totally irrational manner to perfectly reasonable questions, and threaten legal sanctions against the passenger who asked. (I gave my name and address as a witness to a passenger threatened in this manner by one crew, but never heard any more about it.) I have heard cabin crew threaten legal sanctions against a passenger who, in my view as a disinterested observer in the next seat, had experienced behaviour so extreme that I was surprised he didn't lash out. I have seen cabin crew whose behaviour I, as a heterosexual male, found extremely off putting (offensive is too strong, but off-putting not strong enough).
One of the most depressing features of this website is the thinly veiled contempt that many of the aviation professionals seem to have for the people they carry.
Again, I was not on the flight. Maybe the passengers misbehaved, maybe the cabin crew over reacted. I don't know. But this thread seems to be more about prejudice (on both sides) than about what happened! Shouldn't the police decide if there is a case to answer, and the courts decide who is to be believed?
After that, it all gets more interesting, and subjective. It's sad that the debate is so polarised:
- All football supporters are irrational, drunken yobs.
- All cabin crew are peerless professionals with unimpeachable credentials.
Not much room for compromise there! None of the people here were actually on the plane. The people closest to the incident (Astraeus management) have spoken to the crew and clearly cannot be regarded as independent. Apologists for the supporters have only spoken to passengers, and clearly are not exactly independent either.
For what it is worth, I have seen unreasonable behaviour by passengers on planes. (Stood between cabin crew and passenger in one such incident.) But I have also seen cabin crew react in a totally irrational manner to perfectly reasonable questions, and threaten legal sanctions against the passenger who asked. (I gave my name and address as a witness to a passenger threatened in this manner by one crew, but never heard any more about it.) I have heard cabin crew threaten legal sanctions against a passenger who, in my view as a disinterested observer in the next seat, had experienced behaviour so extreme that I was surprised he didn't lash out. I have seen cabin crew whose behaviour I, as a heterosexual male, found extremely off putting (offensive is too strong, but off-putting not strong enough).
One of the most depressing features of this website is the thinly veiled contempt that many of the aviation professionals seem to have for the people they carry.
Again, I was not on the flight. Maybe the passengers misbehaved, maybe the cabin crew over reacted. I don't know. But this thread seems to be more about prejudice (on both sides) than about what happened! Shouldn't the police decide if there is a case to answer, and the courts decide who is to be believed?
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 49
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Amen,
Don't agree with everything you say, but your last paragraph sums it up.
I think all the other matters have been thrashed.
I like the idea of the PPRuNeRs letting talksport know what they think. Don't suppose they'll broadcast it though.
Don't agree with everything you say, but your last paragraph sums it up.
I think all the other matters have been thrashed.
I like the idea of the PPRuNeRs letting talksport know what they think. Don't suppose they'll broadcast it though.
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: York, Pa.
Posts: 23
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Scared to Death
One thing that worries me about all this... There have been several reports of pax who were terrified by the emergency decent to Cardiff, and in particular by what they thought to be a steep decent and a sudden bank. Whatever the rights and wrongs of the diversion, surely the capt. should at least have made an announcement about the diversion, and reassured any pax who might be concerned? It is agreed that the vast majority of the pax were innocent in this matter, and to show some concerns for their piece of mind would have cost nothing, and would have made the whole situation a lot more tolerable. I know several very nervous pax who start preying whenever they even hear a change in engine note, and I can only imagine how they would respond to a decent like this!
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Horsham, England, UK. ---o--O--o---
Posts: 1,185
Received 4 Likes
on
2 Posts
Oh Dear, How Sad, Never Mind!
Why not frighten them in such circumstances, If they're scared they won't misbehave anymore!
Why not frighten them in such circumstances, If they're scared they won't misbehave anymore!
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Mk. 1 desk at present...
Posts: 365
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
One thing that worries me about all this... There have been several reports of pax who were terrified by the emergency decent to Cardiff, and in particular by what they thought to be a steep decent and a sudden bank. Whatever the rights and wrongs of the diversion, surely the capt. should at least have made an announcement about the diversion, and reassured any pax who might be concerned?
Any PPL knows this. Sorting out an unexpected night diversion to CWL, they had their hands full. It's the job of the cabin crew to brief the pax.
R1
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: York, Pa.
Posts: 23
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hmmmm
I am a PPL, so I know all about aviate, navigate, communicate, thank you, but this wasn't so sudden a diversion than they had no time to talk to the pax. I also know that before I back-off the power for a decent, I warn any new flyers so they don't think anything is a miss! Okay, not the same deal and I am not fit to lick this chaps flying boots, but given the earlier dispatch problems, the sensitivities of nervous flyers surely might have been taken into consideration.
As to the other posters who indicate that it was somehow okay to avoidably scare the paying public, well, either you're joking, or I'll be finding myself surpised to say that perhaps those here who suggested the existence of a form of contempt for the pax -- be it in general or just in the case of football fans -- have a point! I can accept the capt. was busy; I can accept he felt he had no choice but to divert; but even if he believed World War III had broken out in his airplane, he had inocents in his care, too. End of story.
As to the other posters who indicate that it was somehow okay to avoidably scare the paying public, well, either you're joking, or I'll be finding myself surpised to say that perhaps those here who suggested the existence of a form of contempt for the pax -- be it in general or just in the case of football fans -- have a point! I can accept the capt. was busy; I can accept he felt he had no choice but to divert; but even if he believed World War III had broken out in his airplane, he had inocents in his care, too. End of story.
Last edited by MikeGranby; 17th Dec 2002 at 06:58.
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 49
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mike,
A question
You have reason to believe that a group of disruptive passengers in the back of your aircraft are out of control, that they have been smoking and have assaulted one of your cabin crew. You need to land as soon as possible. What do you think the effect would be on those passengers if you now anounce that you are taking them to Cardiff??
I suspect it could have made a bad situation potentially worse.
Furthermore, as I'm sure someone mentioned earlier, there are are only two types of aircraft descents , as described by Journos, a plummet, and a terrifying plummet.
A question
You have reason to believe that a group of disruptive passengers in the back of your aircraft are out of control, that they have been smoking and have assaulted one of your cabin crew. You need to land as soon as possible. What do you think the effect would be on those passengers if you now anounce that you are taking them to Cardiff??
I suspect it could have made a bad situation potentially worse.
Furthermore, as I'm sure someone mentioned earlier, there are are only two types of aircraft descents , as described by Journos, a plummet, and a terrifying plummet.
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: min rest
Posts: 424
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
IMHO....
This captain and crew will reflect on this incident and consider if they could have done anything differently, this reflection is a habit for pilots ducking the slings and arrows of a flying career.
When a captain makes his decision the outcome must be fail safe
least dead, least aircraft bent.
This captains decision when it came was fire proof, it was a safe decision.
Haveing declared an emergency, an emergency descent was a logical option.
Hopefully also reflecting will be the loo smoker and the passengers drinking their own booze onboard and thoes singing ymca to drown out the emergency briefings.
Obviously these passengers had no idea what was acceptable conduct flying onboard an aircraft and if their conduct is so out of line they must be instructed what is required of them.
This conduct should be agreed at the point of charter or travel made on something less critical than an aircraft.
Clearly companies that allow ground staff to load passengers who have been drinking can expect such diversions.
It is difficult to remain employed as a captain if you cancell the flight at the sight of the first drunken boarding passenger that ground staff hoist on the crew.
It is similarly difficult to remain employed if you return to the ramp when your charterers singing drowns out the emergency brief.
Just where you draw the line and divert if you have compromised your proffessional instincts several times in the interests of getting everyone safely home is a very fine line.
This captain recieved positive information that the cabin attendent had been assulted and control of the cabin had been lost.
This was positive information that the captain needed that the line had been crossed and this situation could not now ignored as possibly other prevoius logged warning bells.
The captain quite rightly now declared a may day and landed ansap.
Such diversions will continue until companies the CAA and security get their combined acts together to protect crews and
educate passengers.
A good crm lesson in communications problems from which everyone can learn that booze and passengers and delays are an explosive mixture.
This captain and crew will reflect on this incident and consider if they could have done anything differently, this reflection is a habit for pilots ducking the slings and arrows of a flying career.
When a captain makes his decision the outcome must be fail safe
least dead, least aircraft bent.
This captains decision when it came was fire proof, it was a safe decision.
Haveing declared an emergency, an emergency descent was a logical option.
Hopefully also reflecting will be the loo smoker and the passengers drinking their own booze onboard and thoes singing ymca to drown out the emergency briefings.
Obviously these passengers had no idea what was acceptable conduct flying onboard an aircraft and if their conduct is so out of line they must be instructed what is required of them.
This conduct should be agreed at the point of charter or travel made on something less critical than an aircraft.
Clearly companies that allow ground staff to load passengers who have been drinking can expect such diversions.
It is difficult to remain employed as a captain if you cancell the flight at the sight of the first drunken boarding passenger that ground staff hoist on the crew.
It is similarly difficult to remain employed if you return to the ramp when your charterers singing drowns out the emergency brief.
Just where you draw the line and divert if you have compromised your proffessional instincts several times in the interests of getting everyone safely home is a very fine line.
This captain recieved positive information that the cabin attendent had been assulted and control of the cabin had been lost.
This was positive information that the captain needed that the line had been crossed and this situation could not now ignored as possibly other prevoius logged warning bells.
The captain quite rightly now declared a may day and landed ansap.
Such diversions will continue until companies the CAA and security get their combined acts together to protect crews and
educate passengers.
A good crm lesson in communications problems from which everyone can learn that booze and passengers and delays are an explosive mixture.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Mike G
I'm not knocking your point which demonstrates a thoughtful approach, but the primary responsibility of an aircraft commander is for the safety of the aircraft and souls on board.
As a fellow PPL, who has been fortunate enough to benefit from mixing with a number of professional pilots, it has always struck me that it is not necessarily their handling skills that are better than ours (although they are usually far more current and more consistent), but their decision making capability is at a far higher level given the relative complexity of the respective environments and the rigorous continuous training regimes operated by airlines.
If this capt didn't make a PA, I believe that it is because his professional training and experience lead him to focus on other activities that were more important - after all, a mayday had been called.
At the end of the day, the a/c arrived safely at CWL and the appropriate authorities were able to attend.
I'm not knocking your point which demonstrates a thoughtful approach, but the primary responsibility of an aircraft commander is for the safety of the aircraft and souls on board.
As a fellow PPL, who has been fortunate enough to benefit from mixing with a number of professional pilots, it has always struck me that it is not necessarily their handling skills that are better than ours (although they are usually far more current and more consistent), but their decision making capability is at a far higher level given the relative complexity of the respective environments and the rigorous continuous training regimes operated by airlines.
If this capt didn't make a PA, I believe that it is because his professional training and experience lead him to focus on other activities that were more important - after all, a mayday had been called.
At the end of the day, the a/c arrived safely at CWL and the appropriate authorities were able to attend.