737 diverted to CWL

[Ray Ban]

There seems to be a big gulf of knowledge between both parties to this debate, about what should happen during a flight given the circumstances of this incident. Everyone down to the cat and dog seems to have an opinion about what should and shouldn't have happened. In this respect, aviation is a victim of its own success, where everyone seems to know something or the other about airline flying and what pilots do, but not necessarily very much. Of course it would be impossible to educate everyone to a level whereby they would always understand and therefore sadly I think these misunderstandings will keep recurring.

At the end of the day everyone got home safely and lived to fly/fight another day!

[Flying Lawyer]

I agree Ray Ban.
"Everyone seems to know something or the other about airline flying and what pilots do, but not necessarily very much."
Now you professional pilots know how we feel when the armchair-experts/barrack-room lawyers go on about how lawyers and judges get it all wrong!

It's inevitable there'll be conflicting versions when there are several accounts of an incident like this, and I can understand how experienced passengers might feel (rightly or wrongly) entitled to comment about what happened in the cabin. But, how people who are not airline pilots feel able to give opinions on the Captain's decision to divert is beyond me. I'm not surprised; it happens to lawyers all the time.

Alty Meter made an interesting point re the 'smoking' PA turning a relatively minor incident into a drama. Any professionals agree with him that letting it go with a warning might have been the wiser option?

[Caledonian]

I am afraid from what l have seen they made the wrong decision and the fans will be acquitted and quite rightly,

1. one pax smoked in the toilet and it was extinguished right?? right so sit them down warn them off and end of story

2. abusive CC the way the woman was spoken too about possibly being late at Glasgow was wrong

3. I agree the pilots can only go by the information given by CC but it smacks of naiveity all round

I dont want to get at Astreaus because thats wrong it could have been any airline at the end of the day but what l will say is if there was a Glasgow crew using an Air 2000 aircraft for example this incident would never have happened.

l just believe a simple warning would have been suffice.

Though l think we can safely say Astreaus will not be asked to operate anymore football charters for any scottish club.

Sorry if this goes against the grain folks.

[Web-Footed Flyer]

What happened to the CVR

As a point of interest to many I am sure. can anyone inform this forum as to: Is it mandatory following a May day call to have the CVR and FDR, removed from the aircraft upon landing in order to settled quite a few arguments that may arise from said call.

[split throttle]

Caledonian

HHmmmmmmm, interesting.....

I take it Caledonian is a ball boy at park head then!!

His ignorance with airline safety is astonishing!!

The actions of the crew were made with only one thing in mind........the safety of EVERYBODY onboard.

Try not to believe the thoughts of ignorant passengers who know nothing of airline & a/c operations, remember their are two sides to every story!!!

[Techman]

You are quite right split throttle, there are two sides to every story.

Worth remembering, even for you.

[RatherBeFlying]

Will the CVR be in Court?

As it seems the cabin announcement about the smoker(s) may have played a key role in this incident, I am sure that the defense lawyers will be intensely interested in the CVR, especially as there seems to be conflicting accounts as to just what was said.

If the CVR was not secured or can not be made available because of legal restrictions, we can be assured that the defense lawyers will parade scores of witnesses as to just what they heard.

[PaperTiger]

If the CVR was not secured or can not be made available because of legal restrictions, we can be assured that the defense lawyers will parade scores of witnesses as to just what they heard.

You haven't been paying attention RBF, the testimony of 142 passengers counts for nothing when set against the testimony of the crew

[ADC]

"Your Honour,

My client contends that the Public Address from the Captain incited him and caused him to raise his voice."

"and did your client verbally abuse the crew member?",

" No your Honour, it was just a bit of friendly banter"

" I see, and did your client assault the crew member ?"

"No your honour, he just tapped her on the shoulder to state how upset he was about the Public Address"

"but this tap required first aid treatment after the aircraft landed"

"Yes your honour, sometimes my client does not know his own strength"

"But you accept that your client was drinking on board,seeing as empty alcohol beverages were found in his seat pocket"

"Well, your honour, he was thirsty after all the cheering for his sides victory, perfectly understandable really"

"And you admit that two of your other clients did smoke on board the aircraft"

"Well, yes your honour, but they are nervous passengers"

"Well, seems straightforward, by your own admission your client is guilty of a number of offences under the Air NAvigation Order, and I sentence him to 6 months in jail and fine him £2000"



I don't think the defence of " The captain upset me with his Public Address announcment" is going to be much of a defense.

A bit like..." The barman upset me by refusing me drink, saying I had too much, so I hit him"

[Miller]

I don't think the defence of " The captain upset me with his Public Address announcment" is going to be much of a defense.

Well, it depends what is said. And here the airline and passengers appear to give different accounts.

According to the airline the Captain announces that the person responsible for smoking will be handed over to police on arrival at Glasgow,

According to the passengers the Captain says that unless someone owns up to smoking then the passengers will be kept on the ground at Glasgow (pending the arrival of the police?).

As I have said earlier I have no problem with the airline version. If, however, the passenger version is correct then I would have great problems. You simply cannot hold innocent people without good reason. Does one or more persons smoking fall into that category. In addition why make such an announcement in mid-air?

Now, along with others I have asked what exactly was said by the Captain to the passengers to clear this up. I also accepted though that this might not be possible so I asked another question - was the person identified as smoking handed over to police at Cardiff.

Why is this relevant? Because if you accept the airline account it seems clear that someone was identified as an offender. The passengers on the other hand say that the captain wanted someone to own up failing which they would all be kept on the ground at Glasgow. To my mind such an announcement turns an aircraft from a means of transport into a means of confinement.
I have a problem with that and in common with others I think a court would have problems with that.

[DamienB]

Flying Lawyer (edit - whose post has now disappeared!) - a threat to unlawfully imprison a plane load of people would get even the most well behaved bunch of passengers protesting loudly, and if this turns out to be the case isn't there something in law about prevention of a greater crime being a sufficient reason to commit a smaller one? I'm thinking of the women protestors who broke into BAe and smashed up some Hawks for instance.

Naturally the majority here are believing without question the cabin crew account but faced with a large number of people testifying to the opposite, you really think any conviction could be gained?

The earlier remarks in this thread about "photographic evidence of our crew members' injury (taken for evidence by the police) to prove the seriousness of the assault" made me think open wounds, gushing blood, broken bones etc. and now it turns out to be a bruise that needed no medical attention. Lacking video evidence and in the face of multiple eye witnesses saying otherwise, do you seriously think a prosecution for assault would stand a chance?

Yes, it IS a serious assault in that no one on the aircraft should expect any injury of any sort from another person but overblowing the injury doesn't help the media scrum or the general belief among most of the public that this incident was effectively caused by poor decision making by the cabin crew rather than rioting football hooligans as was initially publicised. The talksport thing shows just how this is being played out to the public at large.

The industry will never manage to educate passengers as to acceptable behaviour if it persists with the holier than thou attitude displayed on this thread, no matter how legally correct that attitude is.

As a passenger, I've seen FAs react quite nastily to innocuous questions and I can well imagine how such responses could take a situation well past the point of safety and into headline territory - something happening with the people management training? Had I been on the flight, I'd have been delighted to be on the ground at Cardiff in one bit if there was even the slightest doubt at the aircraft's continued safety, but I would not be in the least surprised to find the rest of the cabin in uproar about it.

[Remmington]

Dont say some web guru has a sense of humour to place the Police recruitment ad. at bottom of page 16 with a Welsh translation?

[Flying Lawyer]

Remmington
Don't bother reading this post. You'll find it very boring

RatherBeFlying
It would be difficult (not necessarily impossible) to argue that what the Captain said or didn't say in his PA about smoking is relevant to guilt or not of any offence(s).
The question for the Court at that stage will be: Has the prosecution proved the defendant's guilt of the offence(s) charged? Not: Why did he behave in that way?

The second question is relevant to punishment if he is convicted but, even if the passengers' version is correct, it's a very tricky argument to advance. 'The defendant only behaved as he did because he thought the crew applied the law re smoking too strictly? Or because he didn't like what the Captain intended to do on arrival at Glasgow?
I can't see a Court regarding that as mitigation if anyone is convicted of threatening / assaulting Cabin Crew responsible for the safety an airliner full of passengers!

Miller
You might, repeat might just about have an arguable point if the incident had taken place after the aircraft had landed at Glasgow, and if the passengers had been detained. But it didn't. It took place during flight when nobody was being detained unlawfully. What can a defendant say if he used threats or force? I only used reasonable force to try to escape so that I wouldn't be unlawfully detained at Glasgow? At 35,000'? If anyone felt aggrieved, the proper course was take it up with the airline later, not take it out on the Cabin Crew during the flight.


In summary, the issues for a court to decide will be:
(1) Are we satisfied, on the evidence presented, that the defendant did what the prosecution say he did?
If not, that's the end of the matter.
If yes,
(2) Does what he did amount to the offence charged?
If no, defendant acquitted. If yes, conviction and appropriate punishment.

[Miller]

You might, repeat might just about have an arguable point if the incident had taken place after the aircraft had landed at Glasgow, and if the passengers had been detained. But it didn't.

First thank you for replying. I appreciate your view.

The point though is when the detention begins. Your argument seems to assume to that it begins once the plane lands on the ground. My argument is that the detention begins once the person realises that they are under constraint. In this instance that begins at the moment the pilot made his announcement (if I stress and I must stress, if, the passenger account is correct).

What can a defendant say if he used threats or force?

There are no excuses for threats or force. Again the accounts from the passengers and airline seem to vary wildly.

Though in case this causes any debate let me stress that the Captain had no alternative but to divert.

I only used reasonable force to try to escape so that I wouldn't be unlawfully detained at Glasgow? At 35,000'? Be sensible. If anyone felt aggrieved, the proper course was take it up with the airline later, not take it out on the Cabin Crew during the flight.

No, but it would be entirely proper to point out the inappropriate nature of the captain's announcement (if as I stress yet again again the passenger account is correct).

We seem to agree on this much though - that nothing will be of much use to any passenger who issues threats to or inflicts violence on cabin crew though as I said earlier the airline and passenger accounts are at odds with each other.

[Horatio]

ADC summed up the situation admirably.

Whatever the Captain said and in whatever form he said it is largely irrelevant to the core issue here.

Threatening or abusive behaviour is unacceptable onboard an aircraft, in a confined space, where it could lead to catastrophic effects that would endager the aircraft and ALL of it's occupants.
Cast your minds back to the tragedy at Hillsborough all those years ago. A ruckus started; what then ensued, due sheer panic, ultimately became an uncontrollable disaster in which so many lives were tragically lost (everyone there had their feet planted firmly on the ground, not like an airlane!).

That is a call that the crew on site have to make at the time. Easy for all the armchair critics to analyze from the comfort of their stress free environment and with no time limitation on arriving at their decision. By it's very nature, sometimes it might transpire that the crew member concerned might handle the situation in a slightly different way if the same scenario happened again, with the benefit of hindsight and with the benefit of 'sleeping on it'. Aircrew are rarely afforded that luxury. They have to make that decision on the spot. Their primary and overriding responsibility is the safety of the aircraft and it's occupants. Occupants means everybody onboard (crew and passengers alike); when there is a smoking rubble every life is as important as the next.

Regardless of how much training and simulation crews are given (and it is significant), no one situation will ever match the situation you are faced with on the day. That's sod's law and that is why the crews devote so much personal energy and dedication into their job. How many times have we all said things that either get misconstrued or came over in a way that they weren't intended? That happens every day of the week to all of us. With some people (e.g. my wife), it doesn't matter how carefully you address a situation; if she's in a mind to, she'll take it in the wrong way every damn time!

My point is; the Captain is the supreme authority onboard an aircraft in flight (those powers are invested to him under the ANO); his crew have his delegated authority and that gives them the same delagated powers. Refusal to comply is a lawful offence, like it or not.

I support the Captain and his crew in what I have seen. Even if it transpires later that he did 'threaten to imprison' all of the passengers onboard on arrival, as has been suggested, until the guilty party owned up (which I doubt, but who knows?) there are still no legitimate grounds for any passenger to become threatening, abusive or give grounds for the crew to believe they could be in a potentialy perilous position.

Facts are that, in contravention of the Captain's lawful commands;

1. Minimum of one passenger was smoking onboard
2. An unidentified number of passengers were drinking alcohol.
3. A crew memeber suffered a physical assault by a passenger, requiring medical attention.
4. A number of passengers gave the impression that the safety of the aircraft was compromised.

There maybe more, but the above is enough for the Captain to take the appropriate action he considered necessary to meet his primary obligation to 'ensure the safety of the aircraft and it's occupants'. That is his responsibility and one that he can be held liable for in a court of law, if he failed to do so. Like it or lump it!

Lucky for those passengers involved that the aircraft wasn't inbound to Spain, Greece or Turkey. The law inforcers there act, then ask questions later. The culprits here got away lightly, imho. Those guilty will hopefuly be pursued by the courts here. Thank their lucky stars they didn't get a hiding to nothing down route as well.

Moral of the story is; think very carefully before you get onboard an airplane, be prepared to obey all commands given; if that is unpalatable or inconcongruous with the £100+ you paid for your ticket, consider an alternative means of transport and hope they will tolerate your unacceptable behaviour. Otherwise, stay at home, get pissed infront of the TV and save the whole world a lot of grief!

[Flying Lawyer]

DamienB
(I inadvertently deleted my post when editing. I had a copy and it's now reinstated.)

Your first point:
No, that is not the law. The jury in the case you mention decided the women didn't commit a criminal offence, not even a small one. Read my exchange with Miller for the correct legal position. If you want a fuller explanation of the law, you'll have to pay.

Your second point: "you really think any conviction could be gained?"
Yes, a conviction could be gained, for the reasons I explained in my earlier post. It depends upon what the court makes of the witnesses called by both sides. Lots of supporting witnesses for one side or the other obviously helps that side, but quality of evidence is more important than quantity.
I am not in a position to offer an opinion either way on whether a conviction or convictions is likely. I wasn't on the flight, I don't know precisely what the prosecution will allege, I don't know the quality of the witnesses for either side, and I don't know what the defence(s) will be. I responded only to the suggestion that what the Captain actually said might provide a defence to anyone prosecuted.

If any passenger is proved to have assaulted a flight attendant then, in my view, they deserve to be punished severely regardless of what the Captain said in his PA, and regardless of whether the F/A was in their opinion behaving unreasonably.

"Naturally the majority here are believing without question the cabin crew account."
Naturally. We're guests on a professional pilots' forum. I don't know if Celtic have a forum, but I think I can guess what the majority are saying if they have.

Is it really so surprising that professional pilots with years of experience as airline pilots have become frustrated/irritated when the armchair experts criticise the Captain for diverting?
I haven't got MS FlightSim or whatever it's called, so I don't know if a disturbance in the cabin is one of the features.

[Devils Advocate]

ADC + Horatio = WELL SAID !!!

Ps. ( hence the edit ) and TO / Flying Lawyer too ( a top bloke ) !

[Crosswind Limits]

Flying Lawyer,

Quote:
_______________________________________________
Read my exchange with Miller for the correct legal position.
If you want a fuller explanation of the law, you'll have to pay.
_______________________________________________

Spoken like a true barrister!

[virgin]

I liked FL's last line as well!

[PaperTiger]

Threatening or abusive behaviour is unacceptable onboard an aircraft

Does it make a difference who utters those (alleged) threats ?