737 diverted to CWL
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Cork, Ireland
Posts: 1,625
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sixteen pages now on this topic!! A couple of Christmases ago a Cubana DC-10 went off the runway at Guatemala and many people lost their lives and on PPRuNe the subject warranted just a handful of posts. What values there? Okay, if a passenger on the Astraeus aircraft was smoking let them be prosecuted and if hands were laid on a flight attendant let the police and the CPS decide what to do next. By the way, the terrorists who carried out the September 11th attacks in America were neither football supporters or smokers on an aircraft returning from a football match. The length of this topic now suggests to me there is an element of power tripping going on by some pilots as if they would relish the idea of having to emergency land an aeroplane because of any kind out of the ordinary cabin disturbance just to show that they have the authority to do so. Have to concede though that the power thing is now all pervasive in aviation and at airports with the likes of the Bottom Fondling Failed Wheel-clamper Brigade and some check in type people wearing epaulettes and behaving like little Hitlers in their treatment of crews, airport users and passengers.
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Somewhere probing
Posts: 301
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Paper Tiger - yes it does, e.g Bush versus Sadam, maybe?!
Tom the Tenor - Most pilots would much rather simply go to work, fly from A to B and back to A, get off and go home - where Mayday's, for any reason, they can do without - but per the saying, "Needs must when the Devil drives !"
Tom the Tenor - Most pilots would much rather simply go to work, fly from A to B and back to A, get off and go home - where Mayday's, for any reason, they can do without - but per the saying, "Needs must when the Devil drives !"
Guest
Posts: n/a
I have followed the posts on this subject with great interest and have enjoyed, although not always agreed with,the points made by all contributors.
Firstly and most importantly,congratulations to the Captain and crew for their(ultimately) expeditious and safe conclusion to an uncomfortable in flight situation.Whether it should ever have been allowed to develop into a Mayday scenario,however,is another matter.
Before I propose my own thoughts on the subject I realise that to combat the highly defensive attitude of SOME of the Captains it seems necessary to establish credentials.
19 years RAF Navigator on defensive/offensive strike /attack combat aircraft-more commonly referred to as talking ballast..
3 years passing on my "wisdom" and training Operations Officers of a friendly foreign Air Force,albeit as a mercenary.
13 years flying as both navigator and F/O on Mil jets and Bizz jets respectively,plus latterly managing the Operations Room of the Flying task.
This was NOT a Mayday situation.However on the information available to the Captain a diversion at the earliest SAFEST opportunity was appropriate.There was no requirement to alert the SAR team at Kinloss.I've only seen one obvious contribution from ATC and he supports the call but I suspect many more would agree wth me that a request to divert with assistance as required would have met the bill(no pun intended) without alerting the media rat pack.
Therin lies the problem which has developed.The whole largely uninformed B****y world "knows" what has happened and they intend to get their pound of flesh.They probably will!
The underlying problem,well discussed in this forum and by those considerably more articulate than me,is one between aircrew with the knowledge and SLF without.What an appalling term to call the people who pay your wages.Yes ,I was talking ballast once but that was not a problem 'cos the thikko driver needed me to get him to his target and back home again.We called it banter-remember.A thing between equals.Your SLF don't have a voice or at least not till now and in aircrew terms are not equal.
I have flown with many Captains over the last 30+ years and like every other professional some were good some were not as Captains,or Managers.They were,however, all highly proficient at their primary task of pilots.Being a good pilot will not automatically grant powers of leadership, man management ,PR skills or crisis control unfortunately, and with an arrogant lack of respect for seemingly everyone except other pilots I'm feared you make your own beds in which to lie.
What else is to blame?Has CRM totally failed-possibly.Do you all hold yourseves in such high regard that communication with those without the knowlege is out of the question?
Perhaps that is the key-COMMUNICATION.
By and large if the general public have at least the feeling that they have been told the "truth" and "have been kept in the picture" many of the heartaches may be spared.
I've much more I could say,based on experiences,but perhaps another day,anyway my secretary says she has to go and cook the meal and clean the house so I'd have to do my own typing.
By the way I had thought of calling myself OKWhiskyCharlie but as that was to clever I stuck to my "soodonim"
Firstly and most importantly,congratulations to the Captain and crew for their(ultimately) expeditious and safe conclusion to an uncomfortable in flight situation.Whether it should ever have been allowed to develop into a Mayday scenario,however,is another matter.
Before I propose my own thoughts on the subject I realise that to combat the highly defensive attitude of SOME of the Captains it seems necessary to establish credentials.
19 years RAF Navigator on defensive/offensive strike /attack combat aircraft-more commonly referred to as talking ballast..
3 years passing on my "wisdom" and training Operations Officers of a friendly foreign Air Force,albeit as a mercenary.
13 years flying as both navigator and F/O on Mil jets and Bizz jets respectively,plus latterly managing the Operations Room of the Flying task.
This was NOT a Mayday situation.However on the information available to the Captain a diversion at the earliest SAFEST opportunity was appropriate.There was no requirement to alert the SAR team at Kinloss.I've only seen one obvious contribution from ATC and he supports the call but I suspect many more would agree wth me that a request to divert with assistance as required would have met the bill(no pun intended) without alerting the media rat pack.
Therin lies the problem which has developed.The whole largely uninformed B****y world "knows" what has happened and they intend to get their pound of flesh.They probably will!
The underlying problem,well discussed in this forum and by those considerably more articulate than me,is one between aircrew with the knowledge and SLF without.What an appalling term to call the people who pay your wages.Yes ,I was talking ballast once but that was not a problem 'cos the thikko driver needed me to get him to his target and back home again.We called it banter-remember.A thing between equals.Your SLF don't have a voice or at least not till now and in aircrew terms are not equal.
I have flown with many Captains over the last 30+ years and like every other professional some were good some were not as Captains,or Managers.They were,however, all highly proficient at their primary task of pilots.Being a good pilot will not automatically grant powers of leadership, man management ,PR skills or crisis control unfortunately, and with an arrogant lack of respect for seemingly everyone except other pilots I'm feared you make your own beds in which to lie.
What else is to blame?Has CRM totally failed-possibly.Do you all hold yourseves in such high regard that communication with those without the knowlege is out of the question?
Perhaps that is the key-COMMUNICATION.
By and large if the general public have at least the feeling that they have been told the "truth" and "have been kept in the picture" many of the heartaches may be spared.
I've much more I could say,based on experiences,but perhaps another day,anyway my secretary says she has to go and cook the meal and clean the house so I'd have to do my own typing.
By the way I had thought of calling myself OKWhiskyCharlie but as that was to clever I stuck to my "soodonim"
Registered User **
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: poll position
Posts: 269
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nice one roghead. Too often captains make decisions that are deemed to be unquestionable because of the "commanders perogotive, I'm in command ,This is my aircraft" type of philosophy.
None of the above absolves an individual from being answerable or censurable if the reaction was innappropiate. The current uk pro pilot attitude of overkill is imho a result of not being properly versed in the overall affect of the use of certain alert calls.
In general in non airworthy situations a request for priority may suffice. I believe an atco would be of assistance in order not to clog up his airspace. failure to get the necessary would entitle and upgrade to pan and so on.
Managing non urgent (as in airworthy) situations with the highest priority overkill as a blanket reaction, indicates equal measures of rushed decision making and dare i say it lack of professionalism not bucket loads of it.
After all if flite didnt think their decisions were sacrosanct to outsiders (ie public, mangement and cabin crew) we woudnt need crm would we!!
No patronising replies please, i am one of you just not as arrogant as some.
I'll be in my office.
None of the above absolves an individual from being answerable or censurable if the reaction was innappropiate. The current uk pro pilot attitude of overkill is imho a result of not being properly versed in the overall affect of the use of certain alert calls.
In general in non airworthy situations a request for priority may suffice. I believe an atco would be of assistance in order not to clog up his airspace. failure to get the necessary would entitle and upgrade to pan and so on.
Managing non urgent (as in airworthy) situations with the highest priority overkill as a blanket reaction, indicates equal measures of rushed decision making and dare i say it lack of professionalism not bucket loads of it.
After all if flite didnt think their decisions were sacrosanct to outsiders (ie public, mangement and cabin crew) we woudnt need crm would we!!
No patronising replies please, i am one of you just not as arrogant as some.
I'll be in my office.
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Scotland
Posts: 44
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Flying Lawer
How do you 'prove' beyond all reasonable doubt the guy in the toilet was actually smoking?
Surley the door was closed. No eye witnesses and a smoke alarm cant testify in court.
If you cant prove this what happened next may not have happened and both sets of parties involved would appear to be arguing over nothing.
Just a thought
How do you 'prove' beyond all reasonable doubt the guy in the toilet was actually smoking?
Surley the door was closed. No eye witnesses and a smoke alarm cant testify in court.
If you cant prove this what happened next may not have happened and both sets of parties involved would appear to be arguing over nothing.
Just a thought
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: San FrancisGo
Posts: 15
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The most interesting parts of this saga are, to me, the points that the vocal passengers and posters seem to think are significant.
Specifically, we've seen pax making much of the mech issues at pushback. We've seen dramatic accounts of "nose diving" 737s. We've seen weird arguments about legality of detaining people.
Now, all of those issues are totally irrelevant. What UNDENIABLY happened was a number of offences against ANOs, specifically the smoking and drinking (unless someone smuggled empty containers on board...) The rest of the "explanations" by passengers seem to amount to an attempt to justify or rationalize various instances and types of misconduct.
I'm particularly perplexed by the emphasis the accounts placed on the "nose diving" and the cabin crew rushing around, as if that amounts to even a small pile of beans. By the that time, the damage was done, the commander had decided to get on the ground ASAP, had declared an emergency, and was presumably busy connecting the dots between an airliner at FL350 and a runway...
Further, I'm not sure of the significance of the mechanical issues at push-back. If they occurred as described, then one might conclude that the pax may have been nervous at the idea of faults and/or irritated at the delay. In either case, the pax would have been (psychologically) primed to a "fight or flight" instinct, which would escalate any negative stimulus more rapidly than would have been the case without the priming. And if that were the situation on board the a/c, the risk of losing control of civilived behavior in the cabin was certainly elevated, and an experienced and wise crew may well have *correctly* called the situation as being critical to the safety-of-flight. Which is not, I believe, what the pax were trying to suggest...
[ I'm dismissing out of hand the conspiracy theory of mechanical problems in the air. Had it a grain of truth, the paper trail would have been problematic: *someone* would have had to sign-off on the alleged emergency repairs made at CWL, and the actual repairs in Glasgow and Spain. Plus, of course, even if he were attempting to conceal a severe problem from the pax, the captain is unlikely to have tried to conceal it from the people on the ground upon whom he might depend for his life (had there been a problem) ]
Moreover, it may seem obvious to most people, but suboptimal conduct on the part of the airline (if it existed) is no excuse for suboptimal conduct by anyone else. Perhaps the best way to make this point is to suggest an extrapolation: if a female ground staffer announces a departure delay, would be OK to rape her?
Of course not... yet there's much being made about the alleged illegal detention in Glasgow.
BUT... kids, and this is kinda important, that detention hadn't occurred, and no-one knows whether it ever would have done. Certainly, the alleged lawyer and the woman who supposedly asked about the delays *hadn't* been detained, and no-one has even suggested that the detainer would have been the cabin crew.
So why do so many posters seem to think this at all relevant? If the pax had arrived at Glasgow and had been detained, then they MIGHT have had a case against whoever detained them (which would, I believe, have been the Police making inquiries...) But they didn't get to Glasgow, and no-one detained them.
Certainly, no-one seems to dispute the fact that some of the pax discussed the potential detention with the cabin crew, and embarked on discussions of the legalities thereof. But why? No matter what the "aggrieved" passengers say, I have to wonder at the state of mind of people who start lecturing a woman about the problems with doing something that hasn't happened, might not happen, and even if it did happen, wouldn't involve her!
And once you accept the obvious irrationality of those passengers, one has to start wondering what else they had got up to...
I'm also curious as to what interactions, if any, the police in Spain had with this choice group of people. Someone (possibly MOL) made much of the fact that the police were not, as alleged, called... because THEY WERE ALREADY THERE. OK, but what did they say or do? Even the most pro-pax accounts acknowlege pre-departure drinking...
[ Oh, and as to that irrelevant red herring about "police evidence": the police evidence in this case will include evidence as to the empty alcohol containers and the injuries sustained by the crew member. That is police evidence. Enjoy! ]
Malc.
Specifically, we've seen pax making much of the mech issues at pushback. We've seen dramatic accounts of "nose diving" 737s. We've seen weird arguments about legality of detaining people.
Now, all of those issues are totally irrelevant. What UNDENIABLY happened was a number of offences against ANOs, specifically the smoking and drinking (unless someone smuggled empty containers on board...) The rest of the "explanations" by passengers seem to amount to an attempt to justify or rationalize various instances and types of misconduct.
I'm particularly perplexed by the emphasis the accounts placed on the "nose diving" and the cabin crew rushing around, as if that amounts to even a small pile of beans. By the that time, the damage was done, the commander had decided to get on the ground ASAP, had declared an emergency, and was presumably busy connecting the dots between an airliner at FL350 and a runway...
Further, I'm not sure of the significance of the mechanical issues at push-back. If they occurred as described, then one might conclude that the pax may have been nervous at the idea of faults and/or irritated at the delay. In either case, the pax would have been (psychologically) primed to a "fight or flight" instinct, which would escalate any negative stimulus more rapidly than would have been the case without the priming. And if that were the situation on board the a/c, the risk of losing control of civilived behavior in the cabin was certainly elevated, and an experienced and wise crew may well have *correctly* called the situation as being critical to the safety-of-flight. Which is not, I believe, what the pax were trying to suggest...
[ I'm dismissing out of hand the conspiracy theory of mechanical problems in the air. Had it a grain of truth, the paper trail would have been problematic: *someone* would have had to sign-off on the alleged emergency repairs made at CWL, and the actual repairs in Glasgow and Spain. Plus, of course, even if he were attempting to conceal a severe problem from the pax, the captain is unlikely to have tried to conceal it from the people on the ground upon whom he might depend for his life (had there been a problem) ]
Moreover, it may seem obvious to most people, but suboptimal conduct on the part of the airline (if it existed) is no excuse for suboptimal conduct by anyone else. Perhaps the best way to make this point is to suggest an extrapolation: if a female ground staffer announces a departure delay, would be OK to rape her?
Of course not... yet there's much being made about the alleged illegal detention in Glasgow.
BUT... kids, and this is kinda important, that detention hadn't occurred, and no-one knows whether it ever would have done. Certainly, the alleged lawyer and the woman who supposedly asked about the delays *hadn't* been detained, and no-one has even suggested that the detainer would have been the cabin crew.
So why do so many posters seem to think this at all relevant? If the pax had arrived at Glasgow and had been detained, then they MIGHT have had a case against whoever detained them (which would, I believe, have been the Police making inquiries...) But they didn't get to Glasgow, and no-one detained them.
Certainly, no-one seems to dispute the fact that some of the pax discussed the potential detention with the cabin crew, and embarked on discussions of the legalities thereof. But why? No matter what the "aggrieved" passengers say, I have to wonder at the state of mind of people who start lecturing a woman about the problems with doing something that hasn't happened, might not happen, and even if it did happen, wouldn't involve her!
And once you accept the obvious irrationality of those passengers, one has to start wondering what else they had got up to...
I'm also curious as to what interactions, if any, the police in Spain had with this choice group of people. Someone (possibly MOL) made much of the fact that the police were not, as alleged, called... because THEY WERE ALREADY THERE. OK, but what did they say or do? Even the most pro-pax accounts acknowlege pre-departure drinking...
[ Oh, and as to that irrelevant red herring about "police evidence": the police evidence in this case will include evidence as to the empty alcohol containers and the injuries sustained by the crew member. That is police evidence. Enjoy! ]
Malc.
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: York, Pa.
Posts: 23
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Last Comment
I'll make one further comment on my point, because the thread has already moved on...
Well, this one can be argued either way. They might react badly, or they might sit down, realizing that Plod will be waiting for them in a short time.
I guess my issue with this is not a piloting one, but a customer service one. From the reports, we have various people terrified to the point of saying goodbye to their loved ones. If these reports are correct (and they may not be, of course) then I am just asking if there is not something to be learned in turns of how information is passed to the cabin.
Also, a few posts in this thread have given the impression, rightly or wrongly, that "pax is pax", and that everyone should suffer for the sins of a small number of people. This is unacceptable from a moral point of view, but perhaps more importantly, from a customer service point of view! Airlines need passengers. Scaring them off is a bad thing, and if that happened, lessons need to be learned.
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 guess my issue with this is not a piloting one, but a customer service one. From the reports, we have various people terrified to the point of saying goodbye to their loved ones. If these reports are correct (and they may not be, of course) then I am just asking if there is not something to be learned in turns of how information is passed to the cabin.
Also, a few posts in this thread have given the impression, rightly or wrongly, that "pax is pax", and that everyone should suffer for the sins of a small number of people. This is unacceptable from a moral point of view, but perhaps more importantly, from a customer service point of view! Airlines need passengers. Scaring them off is a bad thing, and if that happened, lessons need to be learned.
According to some reports, the cabin announcement triggered vigorous expression of complaints from certain passengers which sadly deteriorated into an altercation where a cabin crew member suffered injury.
Doubtless the legal meter will be running as the court determines where the line lies between disputatious behavior and interfering with the crew's performance of their duties.
Flying Lawyer, my interest in the cabin announcement is that it might add legitimacy to the passengers' sense of grievance -- perhaps more in the public mind than in court as you have pointed out.
Doubtless the legal meter will be running as the court determines where the line lies between disputatious behavior and interfering with the crew's performance of their duties.
Flying Lawyer, my interest in the cabin announcement is that it might add legitimacy to the passengers' sense of grievance -- perhaps more in the public mind than in court as you have pointed out.
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Where?
Posts: 145
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This has to be one of the most interesting/emotive/controversial and annoying threads in many a long year. Well here goes....
As Cabin Crew with some 24years experience I would like to make the following observations.
The Captain was right. He is the Commander of the Aeroplane. If in any doubt put it on the ground. It's the safest place to be for all. Crew and pax. A decision was made on the information received. The possibility of a group of passengers becoming uncontrollable is enough in my book.
Think back to the EMA accident where, I believe, the Captain did not listen to the Cabin Crew?
The threat of physical/verbal abuse towards crew or passengers must not be/is not to be tolerated.
Intimidation or "taking the p%ss" is akin to bullying. Bullying is no longer tolerated in the workplace. Why should it accepted on an aeroplane?
If the safety briefing is ignored It should be stopped and then repeated until such time those not prepared to listen at least give others the chance to do so.
Smoking in the toilet is ….. well words fail me. Prosecute.
As Cabin Crew, charters of this nature are not welcome. They have in my experience been confrontational and led to my crew being abused both verbally and physically resulting in pax being refused return travel. However volunteers with the necessary experience and skills can go along way to solving this one. Captains have to be “checked” into certain airfields, why not Cabin Crew “checked” on certain flights?
To managers and those in commercial departments, come along and see for yourself. You would be very upset and annoyed if you were subjected the same abuse.
The travelling public MUST learn that the "ANO" MUST be adhered to. It is the law.
Cheers,
As Cabin Crew with some 24years experience I would like to make the following observations.
The Captain was right. He is the Commander of the Aeroplane. If in any doubt put it on the ground. It's the safest place to be for all. Crew and pax. A decision was made on the information received. The possibility of a group of passengers becoming uncontrollable is enough in my book.
Think back to the EMA accident where, I believe, the Captain did not listen to the Cabin Crew?
The threat of physical/verbal abuse towards crew or passengers must not be/is not to be tolerated.
Intimidation or "taking the p%ss" is akin to bullying. Bullying is no longer tolerated in the workplace. Why should it accepted on an aeroplane?
If the safety briefing is ignored It should be stopped and then repeated until such time those not prepared to listen at least give others the chance to do so.
Smoking in the toilet is ….. well words fail me. Prosecute.
As Cabin Crew, charters of this nature are not welcome. They have in my experience been confrontational and led to my crew being abused both verbally and physically resulting in pax being refused return travel. However volunteers with the necessary experience and skills can go along way to solving this one. Captains have to be “checked” into certain airfields, why not Cabin Crew “checked” on certain flights?
To managers and those in commercial departments, come along and see for yourself. You would be very upset and annoyed if you were subjected the same abuse.
The travelling public MUST learn that the "ANO" MUST be adhered to. It is the law.
Cheers,
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Mk. 1 desk at present...
Posts: 365
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Oh not they aren't... Oh yes they are!
The two press releases relating to this incident are now gone from Astraeus' website.
http://www.flyastraeus.com/News/Pres...13Dec2002.html
and
http://www.flyastraeus.com/News/Pres...14Dec2002.html
Wonder why they're hiding them? Will be interesting to see if they disappear completely after this post
On a point of order, does anyone know if the cabin was secured in the normal way prior to landing? Was 'cabin secure' communicated to the flight deck?
R1
Oh no they're not !
R1 - Thanks for the heads-up, I've since tidied up the site and removed the actual press release pages - rather than just the links to them.
Grantm - The links to the press releases were removed under the premise of them being 'old news' and no-longer pertinent, in as much that a 'press release' is just a mechanism for someone to promulgate information to all and sundry at a particular moment in time, and as such they have a 'shelf-life', of sorts.
There's certainly no skulduggery at play here, and should anybody retrospectively require copies of them please contact the Astraeus press-office(r) who'll gladly supply PDF'd versions.
One hopes this helps to answer your concerns regarding this.
Crashdive - fair do's, it certainly does - thanks for the explanation
R1
Last edited by Ranger One; 18th Dec 2002 at 13:29.
Beady Eye
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 1,495
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dicksynormous
In general in non airworthy situations a request for priority may suffice. I believe an atco would be of assistance in order not to clog up his airspace. failure to get the necessary would entitle and upgrade to pan and so on.
Roghead:
The ARCC is ALWAYS informed of all emergencies in UK airspace, its part of the D&D controllers checklist. The rescue choppers are invariably scrambled 'just in case'. Little point in having rescue teams available sitting in the crewroom awaiting a call when there's potential that they'll be required instantly.
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: UK/Spain
Posts: 71
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So, there we have it then...
Stick 150 odd pax in an aluminium tube, surrounded with fuel that can fly at 500 mph, 5 miles high. Try and give the pax a safety demonstration and they respond with a moving rendition of YMCA. Gimme a break.
Maybe air travel is percieved as safe and taken for granted by many.
And i wonder if something had gone seriously wrong how many of these harmonic jokers would have been bleating about the need for compensation 'cos they had'nt been properly informed/ how they had been terribly wronged....
Stick 150 odd pax in an aluminium tube, surrounded with fuel that can fly at 500 mph, 5 miles high. Try and give the pax a safety demonstration and they respond with a moving rendition of YMCA. Gimme a break.
Maybe air travel is percieved as safe and taken for granted by many.
And i wonder if something had gone seriously wrong how many of these harmonic jokers would have been bleating about the need for compensation 'cos they had'nt been properly informed/ how they had been terribly wronged....
Join Date: May 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 176
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just going back a few pages, apparently there were stewards (not the cabin crew type) onboard this aircraft. They would of
introduced themselves to the crew from the outset and so the
crew should of known they were "available".
Why, if this situation was serious enought to benefit from a mayday call, were these stewards not involved to cool the situation ?
The postings here have really brought home to me how much
the average airline pilot or cabin crew member overrates their position not just in this industry but in society as a whole.
Yes the operating Captain did a good job getting everyone (maybe even the undeserving) on the deck safely
but its the finer points of cabin announcements and Mayday calls that perhaps have to be investigated but thats Astraeus' business not ours.
rt
introduced themselves to the crew from the outset and so the
crew should of known they were "available".
Why, if this situation was serious enought to benefit from a mayday call, were these stewards not involved to cool the situation ?
The postings here have really brought home to me how much
the average airline pilot or cabin crew member overrates their position not just in this industry but in society as a whole.
Yes the operating Captain did a good job getting everyone (maybe even the undeserving) on the deck safely
but its the finer points of cabin announcements and Mayday calls that perhaps have to be investigated but thats Astraeus' business not ours.
rt
Guest
Posts: n/a
quote.
The ARCC is ALWAYS informed of all emergencies in UK airspace, its part of the D&D controllers checklist. The rescue choppers are invariably scrambled 'just in case'. Little point in having rescue teams available sitting in the crewroom awaiting a call when there's potential that they'll be required instantly
BDiONU
Agreed-However that's my point entirely.This was not a Mayday/Pan/Securitie situation but a diversion requiring police and medical assistance not SAR helicoptors.
The ARCC is ALWAYS informed of all emergencies in UK airspace, its part of the D&D controllers checklist. The rescue choppers are invariably scrambled 'just in case'. Little point in having rescue teams available sitting in the crewroom awaiting a call when there's potential that they'll be required instantly
BDiONU
Agreed-However that's my point entirely.This was not a Mayday/Pan/Securitie situation but a diversion requiring police and medical assistance not SAR helicoptors.
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Hants, UK
Posts: 34
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Roghead
This was not a Mayday/Pan/Securitie situation but a diversion requiring police and medical assistance not SAR helicoptors.
The Captain felt the situation warranted an emergency and the ground organisation responded appropriately.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Just a thought......
As the debate seems to be concentrating on the alleged inflammatory PA announcement.....if a statement along the lines of "no passenger will be allowed to disembark at Glasgow until police attend the aircraft" was made via the PA, this could be misinterpreted as the alleged threat regarding detention.
If this were the case, a defence of unreasonable behaviour on the grounds of unreasonable provocation would not hold water.
The public at large are invariably poor observers, ask a lawyer how much credence they give to an eyewitness account if hostile to their client...
As the debate seems to be concentrating on the alleged inflammatory PA announcement.....if a statement along the lines of "no passenger will be allowed to disembark at Glasgow until police attend the aircraft" was made via the PA, this could be misinterpreted as the alleged threat regarding detention.
If this were the case, a defence of unreasonable behaviour on the grounds of unreasonable provocation would not hold water.
The public at large are invariably poor observers, ask a lawyer how much credence they give to an eyewitness account if hostile to their client...
Last edited by feet dry; 18th Dec 2002 at 11:26.
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: London
Posts: 12
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I just want to echo Mike Granby's comments a couple of pages back and express surprise and dismay at a couple of the responses he received, which were incredibly arrogant.
Leaving all the nonsense about "plummeting" aside, when an aircraft starts to lose height, the pax notice and if it happens well short of destination, with no announcement whatsoever, that must be a frightening experience (it would certainly frighten me).
I appreciate that the pilots' first responsibility is to fly the aircraft and get everyone down safely, but I can't believe that it's not SOMEONE's job to brief the passengers. It would appear that that someone failed in this instance.
I'm concerned that at least one Ppruner thinks "oh, that's ok, let's frighten them to death, teach them not to do it again" (what about the majority of passengers who had done nothing wrong?) - are you a pilot? If so, I hope I never get on your aircraft. As someone commented earlier, this thread has revealed the contempt with which some airline crew seem to regard their passengers - and it's not a pretty sight.
Most of us are only too well aware that our lives are in your hands up there and many of us find that complete lack of control a terrifying experience. In those circumstances, a little reassurance goes a long way.
Edited to clarify: I am not criticising the actions of the crew on board the flight in deciding to divert etc (I'm sure they weren't exactly gagging to go to Cardiff without good reason!) Even if it could be classified as an "overreaction", I'd rather they erred on the side of caution. I am criticising one specific failure, not conduct in relation to this incident in general.
Leaving all the nonsense about "plummeting" aside, when an aircraft starts to lose height, the pax notice and if it happens well short of destination, with no announcement whatsoever, that must be a frightening experience (it would certainly frighten me).
I appreciate that the pilots' first responsibility is to fly the aircraft and get everyone down safely, but I can't believe that it's not SOMEONE's job to brief the passengers. It would appear that that someone failed in this instance.
I'm concerned that at least one Ppruner thinks "oh, that's ok, let's frighten them to death, teach them not to do it again" (what about the majority of passengers who had done nothing wrong?) - are you a pilot? If so, I hope I never get on your aircraft. As someone commented earlier, this thread has revealed the contempt with which some airline crew seem to regard their passengers - and it's not a pretty sight.
Most of us are only too well aware that our lives are in your hands up there and many of us find that complete lack of control a terrifying experience. In those circumstances, a little reassurance goes a long way.
Edited to clarify: I am not criticising the actions of the crew on board the flight in deciding to divert etc (I'm sure they weren't exactly gagging to go to Cardiff without good reason!) Even if it could be classified as an "overreaction", I'd rather they erred on the side of caution. I am criticising one specific failure, not conduct in relation to this incident in general.
Last edited by Octopussy; 18th Dec 2002 at 15:35.
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 39
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Interesting that my remarks about "holier than thou attitude" of crews to PAX was less than well recieved a few days ago...now others are coming out of the woodwork to agree that perhaps there is room for improvement...you dont need to be flight crew to understand how to handle an ugly situation, flashing the braid and shouting the orders will not cower todays punters, rather the opposite, the rule of law is the rule of the mob when you are outnumbered.