737 diverted to CWL
Keeping Danny in Sandwiches
Join Date: May 1999
Location: UK
Age: 76
Posts: 1,294
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The post 911 locked cockpit door has contributed to this. The general feeling in the past was that the sight of the Captain or F/O generally managed to quieten things down. Now it is down to the Cabin Staff to sort it out on their own and the action of any Captain faced with disorder in the cabin is land as soon as possible.
Footie fans are going to have to adapt to the new way of dealing with their behaviour. An aircraft is not the same as Sauchiehall St on a Saturday lunchtime.
Some years ago I had a group of Liverpool fans going to Rome jumping up and down in unison at the back of a 737. Thought it was a laugh until they spent the next couple of days in a Rome jail ( No interviews and statements in Italy).
Footie fans are going to have to adapt to the new way of dealing with their behaviour. An aircraft is not the same as Sauchiehall St on a Saturday lunchtime.
Some years ago I had a group of Liverpool fans going to Rome jumping up and down in unison at the back of a 737. Thought it was a laugh until they spent the next couple of days in a Rome jail ( No interviews and statements in Italy).
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: The Valley Where the Thames Runs Softly
Age: 77
Posts: 556
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's just as well that this will be sorted out in the calm atmosphere of a courtroom with all parties giving their evidence. The two accounts are so far apart that there can be no alternative.
But, whatever emerges, there is not the slightest doubt that the Captain has a duty to safeguard his aircraft crew and passengers as he sees fit at the time.
But, whatever emerges, there is not the slightest doubt that the Captain has a duty to safeguard his aircraft crew and passengers as he sees fit at the time.
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Surrey
Posts: 45
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
MOL
The fact that there was a rendition of YMCA during the safety briefing would tell any crew member that their passengers do not want to take their safety seriously and that there could be further problems. The crews laughter was probably through nerves.
There may (and I emphasise the word may) have been different ways of approaching this situation along with certain de-escalation and conflict management techniques that could have been employed by the cabin crew. However, It takes a very special person to consider these fully and use them with conviction. The cabin crew have a very difficult job under these particular circumstances. Stop for a moment and try to think if you would like your daughter to have to handle a plane full of rowdy Celtic fans who are being disrespectful to her efforts to carry out her duties.
Of course the pilot is not going to enter the cabin. I can't believe that the person writing this article actually sounds incredulous at that fact. His duty is simply to get that aircraft back on to the ground as quickly and safely as possible before a situation like this gets out of control. Along with that is recent (post 9/11) changes in legislation that legally restrict the flight deck access.
I fully support the actions of the flight crew. There have been many changes in awareness to this sort of behaviour post 9/11 and a zero tolerance policy along with more restrictive procedures must be adopted by airlines. For the sake of their own safety there must be a respect for this policy by passengers.
Again Earthmovers quote was spot on!
Flying an aircraft through the sky is a much more volatile process than one imagines. Technology, modern comforts and conveniences have lulled some of the travelling public into thinking they can behave like they were on a bus. Well it is not a bus - it is a very fast moving and heavy missile! The message is wait until you get on Terra Firma then - and only then - behave as you want.
The fact that there was a rendition of YMCA during the safety briefing would tell any crew member that their passengers do not want to take their safety seriously and that there could be further problems. The crews laughter was probably through nerves.
There may (and I emphasise the word may) have been different ways of approaching this situation along with certain de-escalation and conflict management techniques that could have been employed by the cabin crew. However, It takes a very special person to consider these fully and use them with conviction. The cabin crew have a very difficult job under these particular circumstances. Stop for a moment and try to think if you would like your daughter to have to handle a plane full of rowdy Celtic fans who are being disrespectful to her efforts to carry out her duties.
Of course the pilot is not going to enter the cabin. I can't believe that the person writing this article actually sounds incredulous at that fact. His duty is simply to get that aircraft back on to the ground as quickly and safely as possible before a situation like this gets out of control. Along with that is recent (post 9/11) changes in legislation that legally restrict the flight deck access.
I fully support the actions of the flight crew. There have been many changes in awareness to this sort of behaviour post 9/11 and a zero tolerance policy along with more restrictive procedures must be adopted by airlines. For the sake of their own safety there must be a respect for this policy by passengers.
Again Earthmovers quote was spot on!
Flying an aircraft through the sky is a much more volatile process than one imagines. Technology, modern comforts and conveniences have lulled some of the travelling public into thinking they can behave like they were on a bus. Well it is not a bus - it is a very fast moving and heavy missile! The message is wait until you get on Terra Firma then - and only then - behave as you want.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: europe
Posts: 111
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think what MOL is saying is that we have to watch out we don't turn this into a witch-hunt. Its a bit hypocritical that we scream about the injustice of the very trigger-happy security folks at the airports that will arrest and deport you after rectal-probing you if they even suspect you of anything. Yet we are happy to accept the crews version without knowing all the facts.
YES, the captain took a decision as he has no firsthand view of events,Only what he is told by somebody. Good call by him.
YES, the behaviour by some passengers these days does beggar belief and the CC do NOT deserve to be abused verbally or physically. Anybody who thinks they are above the law/CC should be grounded and blacklisted by all carriers.
Thanks MOL for evening up the balance.
YES, the captain took a decision as he has no firsthand view of events,Only what he is told by somebody. Good call by him.
YES, the behaviour by some passengers these days does beggar belief and the CC do NOT deserve to be abused verbally or physically. Anybody who thinks they are above the law/CC should be grounded and blacklisted by all carriers.
Thanks MOL for evening up the balance.
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: UK
Age: 64
Posts: 3,586
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hamrah
No doubt you have your hands full today dealing with this and supporting your staff, so my apologies for taking you to task. You said...
Very laudable, very high minded, but I think this may read better framed, on the boardroom wall, than it does here. If it sounds familiar to many people, it is because it is depressingly similar to the statements that we hear again and again on the news from the FA/Government/Supporters Clubs every time there is a football incident. Meanwhile, the body count (so to speak) rises inexorably.
Charter airlines operate supporter flights during the winter because of commercial necessity, not out of any particular desire to spread joy and happiness amongst supporters. Cabin crew operate supporter flights because they are rostered to do so, and have no choice. Nobody "likes" doing supporter flights, although if an overseas daystop is involved, this can sugar the pill. Granted nowadays they are better than they used to be, but that still doesn't make them easy, or pleasant. I've been doing supporter flights or over 20 years: During that time, my cabin crew have been threatened, pushed over, spat at, verbally and sexually abused, vomited on, asked to clean faeces and urine from aisle carpets. I cannot count how many I have spoken to in the galley, who were in tears or other distress. If you really still believe that your cabin crew actually enjoy doing these flights for the high principles that you quoted, then it may be that you need to spend more time talking with them.
For the future, here is my advice for your supporter flights, gained from hard earned experience. Disregard it if you wish (you may already have some/all/none of these procedures in place).
1. A uniformed member of the airline security staff should travel on every supporter flight. They don't have to do anything, just be visible.
2. A hot meal on every sector. Some supporters may not have had a hot meal in days - the meal fills time, slows them up, soaks up and makes people feel better. Don't serve booze on board.
3. Every passenger should be handed a "behaviour guide" card at check in, and sign a tear-off conditions of carriage and hand to the gate staff. It doesn't have to be a complicated document, just a reminder. Supporter are mates: It will be very difficult to get anybody to testify against anybody else when it all goes wrong.
4. Theme the flight. If you have a "greatest goals" video for that team, play it. Put a club logo or scarf in the cabin. Do anything that helps create the impression that the crew are on the same side.
5. Finally, most importantly, hand pick the crew - don't just roster it like any other duty. We all have strengths and weaknesses in different areas.
No doubt you have your hands full today dealing with this and supporting your staff, so my apologies for taking you to task. You said...
The view of our Commercial Department, shared by the rest of us in the company, is that we will not punish the vast majority of football fans who want an enjoyable trip away supporting their club, just because of the mindless few who we experienced tonight
Charter airlines operate supporter flights during the winter because of commercial necessity, not out of any particular desire to spread joy and happiness amongst supporters. Cabin crew operate supporter flights because they are rostered to do so, and have no choice. Nobody "likes" doing supporter flights, although if an overseas daystop is involved, this can sugar the pill. Granted nowadays they are better than they used to be, but that still doesn't make them easy, or pleasant. I've been doing supporter flights or over 20 years: During that time, my cabin crew have been threatened, pushed over, spat at, verbally and sexually abused, vomited on, asked to clean faeces and urine from aisle carpets. I cannot count how many I have spoken to in the galley, who were in tears or other distress. If you really still believe that your cabin crew actually enjoy doing these flights for the high principles that you quoted, then it may be that you need to spend more time talking with them.
For the future, here is my advice for your supporter flights, gained from hard earned experience. Disregard it if you wish (you may already have some/all/none of these procedures in place).
1. A uniformed member of the airline security staff should travel on every supporter flight. They don't have to do anything, just be visible.
2. A hot meal on every sector. Some supporters may not have had a hot meal in days - the meal fills time, slows them up, soaks up and makes people feel better. Don't serve booze on board.
3. Every passenger should be handed a "behaviour guide" card at check in, and sign a tear-off conditions of carriage and hand to the gate staff. It doesn't have to be a complicated document, just a reminder. Supporter are mates: It will be very difficult to get anybody to testify against anybody else when it all goes wrong.
4. Theme the flight. If you have a "greatest goals" video for that team, play it. Put a club logo or scarf in the cabin. Do anything that helps create the impression that the crew are on the same side.
5. Finally, most importantly, hand pick the crew - don't just roster it like any other duty. We all have strengths and weaknesses in different areas.
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 7
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hamrah, perhaps you can tell us what the 6 have been charged with? I dont believe they have been charged at all?
further to my post yesterday re OVERKILL, I think The "Riot "has been Downgraded a few hundred Notches to a disturbance? I also note That the RAF are now asking whether this incident warrented a Mayday? not to mention this afternoons Media who are beggining to use the words " over reaction". It will be interesting to see Exactly what the Charges Will be if any?
further to my post yesterday re OVERKILL, I think The "Riot "has been Downgraded a few hundred Notches to a disturbance? I also note That the RAF are now asking whether this incident warrented a Mayday? not to mention this afternoons Media who are beggining to use the words " over reaction". It will be interesting to see Exactly what the Charges Will be if any?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: EDI, LHR, NQY
Posts: 403
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
General atmosphere was summed up by a
rendition of YMCA when the cabin crew were doing the safety announcement
rendition of YMCA when the cabin crew were doing the safety announcement
As for charges, the six may simply be bailed to reappear later while the incident is investigated. One question, though: can Astreus recover the costs of the diversion if there is no successful prosecution?
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Glasgow, Scotland
Posts: 15
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Another witness account:
Found here
Architect David McKenna, 40, from Clydebank, was on the flight with his brother Jim. He said: "Apparently someone was smoking in the toilets and that caused trouble with the staff.
"I believe there was also an argument between one of the fans, who is a lawyer, and a stewardess. It's been claimed he put his hands on her and that's what triggered the pilot to divert to Cardiff.
"As far as I'm concerned there was no trouble or rowdiness, just happy banter.
"Even after the alleged incidents the staff didn't seem to be panicked at all.
"I think the pilot's reaction was excessive, it's incredible we were grounded.
"The police boarded when we touched down and immediately one of the fans had to be carried off because he had taken a panic attack.
"No one felt threatened at any time. There was no fracas and I'm amazed this has happened.
"There was no alcohol served on the flight and everyone was sober, except for some who had a few drinks before they got on. But everyone was in a good mood and there was no hint of trouble."
He added that police refused to tell the fans when they would be released or how they would get back to Glasgow.
Another passenger, Steve Prince, said: "There was no alcohol on the flight. No one was drinking their own alcohol."
A spokesman for the jet's owner Astraeus said: "The incident involved a passenger smoking. The captain told them this was not acceptable.
"A fight ensued and at least one flight attendant was hit on the arm.
"The plane landed safely at 3.30pm. We are currently investigating whether there were any injuries to crew or passengers, or any damage to the plane.
Found here
Architect David McKenna, 40, from Clydebank, was on the flight with his brother Jim. He said: "Apparently someone was smoking in the toilets and that caused trouble with the staff.
"I believe there was also an argument between one of the fans, who is a lawyer, and a stewardess. It's been claimed he put his hands on her and that's what triggered the pilot to divert to Cardiff.
"As far as I'm concerned there was no trouble or rowdiness, just happy banter.
"Even after the alleged incidents the staff didn't seem to be panicked at all.
"I think the pilot's reaction was excessive, it's incredible we were grounded.
"The police boarded when we touched down and immediately one of the fans had to be carried off because he had taken a panic attack.
"No one felt threatened at any time. There was no fracas and I'm amazed this has happened.
"There was no alcohol served on the flight and everyone was sober, except for some who had a few drinks before they got on. But everyone was in a good mood and there was no hint of trouble."
He added that police refused to tell the fans when they would be released or how they would get back to Glasgow.
Another passenger, Steve Prince, said: "There was no alcohol on the flight. No one was drinking their own alcohol."
A spokesman for the jet's owner Astraeus said: "The incident involved a passenger smoking. The captain told them this was not acceptable.
"A fight ensued and at least one flight attendant was hit on the arm.
"The plane landed safely at 3.30pm. We are currently investigating whether there were any injuries to crew or passengers, or any damage to the plane.
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Surrey
Posts: 45
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am incredulous that people still believe this to be overkill.
It is possible that no charges will be levelled if there is no evidence of a crime being committed. Crews are not mind readers, however, and cannot tell how much a situation like this is going to escalate. Whilst I am sure that these people were not intending to hijack this aircraft, the aircraft could easily become a big flying bomb if it gets out of control. Without armoured flight deck doors (and I assume Astraeus hasn't gone phase 2 yet) then a breach of the flight deck could have disastrous consequences. If a drunken fan decided to "talk" to the captain then there is not a lot the cabin crew could do to stop him - do I really need to put the dangers of that into words?
There is no other action than the one taken!
It is possible that no charges will be levelled if there is no evidence of a crime being committed. Crews are not mind readers, however, and cannot tell how much a situation like this is going to escalate. Whilst I am sure that these people were not intending to hijack this aircraft, the aircraft could easily become a big flying bomb if it gets out of control. Without armoured flight deck doors (and I assume Astraeus hasn't gone phase 2 yet) then a breach of the flight deck could have disastrous consequences. If a drunken fan decided to "talk" to the captain then there is not a lot the cabin crew could do to stop him - do I really need to put the dangers of that into words?
There is no other action than the one taken!
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Gatwick
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Statement by Astraeus
Having interviewed the flight and cabin crew, and spoken at some length with the Police, we now have a clear picture of the events that caused the Captain to make the decision to divert flight AEU 308 (Santiago to Glasgow, 13 12 2002) to Cardiff. The safety of the passengers and crew is at all times his and Astraeus' absolute priority, and we support his decision.
There were two disturbances on the aircraft. One, at the front, involved a passenger smoking. A senior cabin crew member pointed out that it was against air travel regulations to smoke on the aircraft.
The second incident occurred at the rear of the aircraft cabin, after the Captain made a public address announcement stating that the behaviour encountered at the front of the aircraft would not be tolerated, and, in line with procedures adopted by ourselves and most other UK airlines, the offender would, as a matter of course, be met by police officers on arrival at Glasgow.
A number of passengers at the rear of the aircraft objected strongly and loudly, one female passenger becoming particularly agitated. At least ten other passengers became involved, and in the ensuing fracas the cabin crew member was struck on the arm. She was examined by paramedics on arrival at Cardiff, but no hospital treatment was required. It has become apparent from our debriefing of cabin crew that passengers in the forward and centre of the cabin may not have been aware of the second disturbance.
At that stage, a cabin crew member contacted the Captain, making clear that the cabin crew felt matters were threatening the safety of the aircraft, and the Captain made the decision to divert to Cardiff. No confrontation of any magnitude is acceptable on a passenger aircraft.
We believe alcohol consumed by some of the passengers was an influence. Alcohol was categorically forbidden on this flight and was not sold. However, a number of passengers carried alcohol on board, some as legitimate "duty-free" take-home purchases, but some opened containers and drank the contents.
Their actions were in direct breach of the UK Air Navigation Order 2000 (in other words, they broke the law)
Police and airline staff discovered approximately 20 empty alcoholic drinks containers of various sizes secreted at the rear of the aircraft when it was examined at Cardiff.
It was also logged that on the outbound flight from Glasgow to Santiago that cabin crew had to confiscate alcohol that passengers had brought on board.
The Captain and his crew were extremely shaken by events. The Captain has 25 years flying experience, with, amongst other airlines, Airtours and Cathay Pacific. The senior cabin crew member joined Astraeus at the beginning of the year. She was previously a senior cabin crew member with British Airways. All Astraeus cabin crew receive extensive conflict management training before they join operational crews.
Finally, there is an allegation of an engine problem with the aircraft. This is not true. A warning indictor relating to the starting procedure of one engine delayed departure. A relatively minor matter, some airlines may elect to fly in such circumstances, we will not. As the safety of passengers and crew is of paramount importance, this had to be checked by an engineer who subsequently discovered it was an indicator fault, not a fault with the engine. The aircraft is serviced and maintained in line with Boeing recommendations by the world's leading aircraft maintenance company.
----------
I leave the above statement to speak for itself but would clarify a small number of other points.
Firstly, we do serve a hot meal on all flights where there is sufficient flight time to do so; and one was served on this flight.
Secondly, service of alcohol was not undertaken on board.
Thirdly, Astraeus has operated a number of other football charters including those with Newcastle, Liverpool and Malaga FC supporters on board. We have never experienced problems of this nature on any of those flights and I would stress that it appears as though a small number of passengers were responsible for this disturbance.
Fourthly, Astraeus has treated this serious incident as a disturbance and has never referred to this as a "riot". This was a term which I believe was used in certain quarters of the media and not one initiated or approved by us.
There were two disturbances on the aircraft. One, at the front, involved a passenger smoking. A senior cabin crew member pointed out that it was against air travel regulations to smoke on the aircraft.
The second incident occurred at the rear of the aircraft cabin, after the Captain made a public address announcement stating that the behaviour encountered at the front of the aircraft would not be tolerated, and, in line with procedures adopted by ourselves and most other UK airlines, the offender would, as a matter of course, be met by police officers on arrival at Glasgow.
A number of passengers at the rear of the aircraft objected strongly and loudly, one female passenger becoming particularly agitated. At least ten other passengers became involved, and in the ensuing fracas the cabin crew member was struck on the arm. She was examined by paramedics on arrival at Cardiff, but no hospital treatment was required. It has become apparent from our debriefing of cabin crew that passengers in the forward and centre of the cabin may not have been aware of the second disturbance.
At that stage, a cabin crew member contacted the Captain, making clear that the cabin crew felt matters were threatening the safety of the aircraft, and the Captain made the decision to divert to Cardiff. No confrontation of any magnitude is acceptable on a passenger aircraft.
We believe alcohol consumed by some of the passengers was an influence. Alcohol was categorically forbidden on this flight and was not sold. However, a number of passengers carried alcohol on board, some as legitimate "duty-free" take-home purchases, but some opened containers and drank the contents.
Their actions were in direct breach of the UK Air Navigation Order 2000 (in other words, they broke the law)
Police and airline staff discovered approximately 20 empty alcoholic drinks containers of various sizes secreted at the rear of the aircraft when it was examined at Cardiff.
It was also logged that on the outbound flight from Glasgow to Santiago that cabin crew had to confiscate alcohol that passengers had brought on board.
The Captain and his crew were extremely shaken by events. The Captain has 25 years flying experience, with, amongst other airlines, Airtours and Cathay Pacific. The senior cabin crew member joined Astraeus at the beginning of the year. She was previously a senior cabin crew member with British Airways. All Astraeus cabin crew receive extensive conflict management training before they join operational crews.
Finally, there is an allegation of an engine problem with the aircraft. This is not true. A warning indictor relating to the starting procedure of one engine delayed departure. A relatively minor matter, some airlines may elect to fly in such circumstances, we will not. As the safety of passengers and crew is of paramount importance, this had to be checked by an engineer who subsequently discovered it was an indicator fault, not a fault with the engine. The aircraft is serviced and maintained in line with Boeing recommendations by the world's leading aircraft maintenance company.
----------
I leave the above statement to speak for itself but would clarify a small number of other points.
Firstly, we do serve a hot meal on all flights where there is sufficient flight time to do so; and one was served on this flight.
Secondly, service of alcohol was not undertaken on board.
Thirdly, Astraeus has operated a number of other football charters including those with Newcastle, Liverpool and Malaga FC supporters on board. We have never experienced problems of this nature on any of those flights and I would stress that it appears as though a small number of passengers were responsible for this disturbance.
Fourthly, Astraeus has treated this serious incident as a disturbance and has never referred to this as a "riot". This was a term which I believe was used in certain quarters of the media and not one initiated or approved by us.
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Them and us syndrome
The dust is starting to settle.
Whilst PPRUNE regulars may be willing to give more points for the crew version, ANY court of law is going to take into account the statements from 144 passengers.
Smoking in the toilet is not a fire hazard - it is the disposal of lighted butts in the paper bin which is the problem. Once the smoke has been detected (the smoke alarm ?) and the problem interdicted, it is no longer a problem. Whether the airline wants to take summary action against the offender (it is not an arrestable offence) is a matter for the airline - but an emergency descent would only be called for IF a fire had broken out, AND neither the sprinkler nor available fire extinguishers put it out.
As for unruly passengers - my reading of it was that the cabin crew panicked. This was not a convict flight. There would have been sufficient assistance from uninvolved passengers had things really got out of hand.
By commencing an emergency descent in the manner he did, the captain used his aircraft as a weapon against mainly innocent passengers - and for that he must be held accountable.
Whilst PPRUNE regulars may be willing to give more points for the crew version, ANY court of law is going to take into account the statements from 144 passengers.
Smoking in the toilet is not a fire hazard - it is the disposal of lighted butts in the paper bin which is the problem. Once the smoke has been detected (the smoke alarm ?) and the problem interdicted, it is no longer a problem. Whether the airline wants to take summary action against the offender (it is not an arrestable offence) is a matter for the airline - but an emergency descent would only be called for IF a fire had broken out, AND neither the sprinkler nor available fire extinguishers put it out.
As for unruly passengers - my reading of it was that the cabin crew panicked. This was not a convict flight. There would have been sufficient assistance from uninvolved passengers had things really got out of hand.
By commencing an emergency descent in the manner he did, the captain used his aircraft as a weapon against mainly innocent passengers - and for that he must be held accountable.
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Southend , UK
Posts: 54
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Those last two posts are fascinating...wonder what colour the sky is on their planets.
Maybe I can summarise what I've read and seen so far...
1. There was a disturbance on this flight (I think everyone agrees on that)
2. Some passengers broke the law ( smoking...disobeying the instructions of the crew)
3. A Cabin Crew member was assaulted (police evidence)
4. Passengers were drinking their own booze
5. The Captain declared an emergency and landed.
6. 6 People were detained by police pending charges (police statement)
Now, taking all the "passion" and "journo-speak out of the reporting ( Riots...etc), I don't see what the issue really is. The crew did what they were trained to do. The Captain landed ASAP.
The courts will decide how "guilty" the offenders were.
Everything else is crap. The debate on whether a Mayday was appropriate or not is of no consequence, and will almost certianly be held between the professional Captains who may have to face similar situations (anyone want to check back on the news networl on the last three or four similar such instances, including the couple of US diversions recently?), and other pseudo-experts on this forum.
Of course there will be two "sides" to any story, and no doubt there will be vigourous defence of both sides. My view, as an experienced Captain, is that the Crew made the right decision in the circumstances.
The media will have their day......
Maybe I can summarise what I've read and seen so far...
1. There was a disturbance on this flight (I think everyone agrees on that)
2. Some passengers broke the law ( smoking...disobeying the instructions of the crew)
3. A Cabin Crew member was assaulted (police evidence)
4. Passengers were drinking their own booze
5. The Captain declared an emergency and landed.
6. 6 People were detained by police pending charges (police statement)
Now, taking all the "passion" and "journo-speak out of the reporting ( Riots...etc), I don't see what the issue really is. The crew did what they were trained to do. The Captain landed ASAP.
The courts will decide how "guilty" the offenders were.
Everything else is crap. The debate on whether a Mayday was appropriate or not is of no consequence, and will almost certianly be held between the professional Captains who may have to face similar situations (anyone want to check back on the news networl on the last three or four similar such instances, including the couple of US diversions recently?), and other pseudo-experts on this forum.
Of course there will be two "sides" to any story, and no doubt there will be vigourous defence of both sides. My view, as an experienced Captain, is that the Crew made the right decision in the circumstances.
The media will have their day......
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Egcc
Posts: 1,695
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Southend,
You beat me to it. Smoking is a fire hazard and the ANO was broken (see previous posts for the relevant article), this makes it an arrestable offence. Tango85's view is somewhat flawed in the reality department. It's like saying that having a bomb on board is ok, it's just setting it off that is dangerous! Additionally, would he like to see procedures that require the airline to rely on other passengers helping out in these situations? Don't be rediculous. Any offer of help can be taken into consideration at the time, but procedures are written for the lowest common denominator - No help. The safety of the flight is in the hands of the crew. The Captain used the aircraft as a weapon against the innocent? The option not to fly is available to everyone. If you put your trust in the crew before you flew then you made that choice TO fly, so now you have to accept that they are best placed to decide on the actions appropriate in any given situation. If you don't accept that then be rational about it and don't get on board in the first place. You have a choice.
PP
You beat me to it. Smoking is a fire hazard and the ANO was broken (see previous posts for the relevant article), this makes it an arrestable offence. Tango85's view is somewhat flawed in the reality department. It's like saying that having a bomb on board is ok, it's just setting it off that is dangerous! Additionally, would he like to see procedures that require the airline to rely on other passengers helping out in these situations? Don't be rediculous. Any offer of help can be taken into consideration at the time, but procedures are written for the lowest common denominator - No help. The safety of the flight is in the hands of the crew. The Captain used the aircraft as a weapon against the innocent? The option not to fly is available to everyone. If you put your trust in the crew before you flew then you made that choice TO fly, so now you have to accept that they are best placed to decide on the actions appropriate in any given situation. If you don't accept that then be rational about it and don't get on board in the first place. You have a choice.
PP
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 7
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If my door was being kicked down by armed terrorists, or both engines flamed out, for example I would call mayday, but I have lost count of the times a pax has had a crafty fag in the toilets, it happens every day! I have to my recollection performed two or three rapid descents (outside the sim) both due to decompression, the last one going into dallas a few years ago.
Southend King: There is a difference between declaring an emergency and calling Mayday. I think an enquiry is on The cards.
Southend King: There is a difference between declaring an emergency and calling Mayday. I think an enquiry is on The cards.
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Southend King
1 & 2 agreed. But did it call for a frightening emergency descent ?
3 - There is no such thing as "police evidence". The police only record what they are told.
4. Big deal. So long as they are allowed to take it on board, you cannot really stop them from drinking it.
5. The captain is entitled to declare an emergency - but he also has to be held accountable for it.
6. Yes, on the evidence of the crew. They will get seriously screwed if it transpires they exaggerated events.
9/11 has brought out a good deal of paranoia in the industry - and I think this will prove to be one good example of it.
p.s. I live on planet earth.
1 & 2 agreed. But did it call for a frightening emergency descent ?
3 - There is no such thing as "police evidence". The police only record what they are told.
4. Big deal. So long as they are allowed to take it on board, you cannot really stop them from drinking it.
5. The captain is entitled to declare an emergency - but he also has to be held accountable for it.
6. Yes, on the evidence of the crew. They will get seriously screwed if it transpires they exaggerated events.
9/11 has brought out a good deal of paranoia in the industry - and I think this will prove to be one good example of it.
p.s. I live on planet earth.
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Smoking
Pilot Pete
Smoking where prohibited on an aircraft is a SUMMARY offence in most juristictions including Canada and UK - see here
http://www.tc.gc.ca/aviation/regserv...nglish/law.htm
It is a fire hazard if lighted butts are placed in the paper bin - that is the reason for the total ban on smoking. I made the point because too many people react without knowing what the hazard actually is (you obviously included). In fact practiced illicit smokers know to cover the smoke alarm and flush their butts down the basin.
Your analogy with an explosive device is ridiculous.
Finally, the captain has a lot of authority on an aircraft, but he is still subject to both criminal and civil law, and cannot act as he pleases without fear of rebuke or censure. In this case, he needs to prove that he genuinely believed the aircraft was endangered, to justify his actions. From the evidence of the passengers, the flight recorder would give up some useful information as well.
Smoking where prohibited on an aircraft is a SUMMARY offence in most juristictions including Canada and UK - see here
http://www.tc.gc.ca/aviation/regserv...nglish/law.htm
It is a fire hazard if lighted butts are placed in the paper bin - that is the reason for the total ban on smoking. I made the point because too many people react without knowing what the hazard actually is (you obviously included). In fact practiced illicit smokers know to cover the smoke alarm and flush their butts down the basin.
Your analogy with an explosive device is ridiculous.
Finally, the captain has a lot of authority on an aircraft, but he is still subject to both criminal and civil law, and cannot act as he pleases without fear of rebuke or censure. In this case, he needs to prove that he genuinely believed the aircraft was endangered, to justify his actions. From the evidence of the passengers, the flight recorder would give up some useful information as well.