737 diverted to CWL
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Southend , UK
Posts: 54
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I see Harry Hynd's interview getting some prominence in the Mail on Sunday this morning. I wonder if his suggestion of an alternative motive worthy of review by the airlines lawyers 
I am also highly amused at the old Tabloid journalism version of flying. It appears there is only two types of aircraft descent, A PLUNGE (fairly normal descent), or a TERRIFYING PLUNGE ( probably used some speed brakes along the way).
Suppose I should check my QRH for the TERRIFYING PLUNGE PROCEDURE before my next sim check
I am also highly amused at the old Tabloid journalism version of flying. It appears there is only two types of aircraft descent, A PLUNGE (fairly normal descent), or a TERRIFYING PLUNGE ( probably used some speed brakes along the way).
Suppose I should check my QRH for the TERRIFYING PLUNGE PROCEDURE before my next sim check
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Cork, Ireland
Posts: 1,625
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The aircraft involved had gone tech a few times in Glasgow and Santiago. What aircraft was she - a classic or NG 737? Why did the aeroplane go tech and is she in service today or in a hangar for work?
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Somewhere probing
Posts: 301
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A friend of mine has told me it was a B737-300 (G-STRB).
The fault reported was to do with an engine start over-temp indication, i.e. where the EGT gauge flashes at you when you’re starting the engine because it thinks that some start-up parameter has been exceeded.
So one could imagine that the crew commenced starting the engines and saw the EGT gauge flashing at them. So they shutdown the engine and called on engineering to have a look at it.
The engineer(s) do their stuff and report that it should be ok now.
The crew once again start the engine, and guess what ? Yep, the EGT gauge still flashes at them, so they shut the engine down and call the engineer back.
Whilst somewhat of an iterative approach, they keep going at this ( and how else can you prove that it's ok ? ) wherein, after a number of start attempts, it's finally determined to be a fault with the 'start monitoring system' and not the actual engine itself.
So the flight crew check the QRH & the MEL and determine what procedure applies ( if any ), get the techlog signed off by the appropriately licensed engineer and away they go.
Aside from which, a fault in the engine start over temp system is really no big deal, once you’ve had it assessed as such - but prudence is always the watchword of professional aviators !
Overall, I’m sure that we’re all aware that all things mechanical occasionally go wrong, e.g. bicycles, cars, coaches, boats, ships, trains. Concord’s, space shuttles, and Boeing 737's do indeed sometimes go tech - and when they do we fix'em, and in the case of things which convey one either into the air or onto the sea one tends to be a bit more pedantic about having it working properly before venturing forth........ and I’ve yet to meet a flight crew that would take an un-airworthy aircraft into the air, if only for the protection of their own wellbeing, never mind risking pax and cabin crew, etc. - so any suggestion of shoddy practice in this instance is pure codswallop and or mishief making.
It sounds to me like the Astraeus flight crew did it by the book, and there’s nothing wrong with that !
The fault reported was to do with an engine start over-temp indication, i.e. where the EGT gauge flashes at you when you’re starting the engine because it thinks that some start-up parameter has been exceeded.
So one could imagine that the crew commenced starting the engines and saw the EGT gauge flashing at them. So they shutdown the engine and called on engineering to have a look at it.
The engineer(s) do their stuff and report that it should be ok now.
The crew once again start the engine, and guess what ? Yep, the EGT gauge still flashes at them, so they shut the engine down and call the engineer back.
Whilst somewhat of an iterative approach, they keep going at this ( and how else can you prove that it's ok ? ) wherein, after a number of start attempts, it's finally determined to be a fault with the 'start monitoring system' and not the actual engine itself.
So the flight crew check the QRH & the MEL and determine what procedure applies ( if any ), get the techlog signed off by the appropriately licensed engineer and away they go.
Aside from which, a fault in the engine start over temp system is really no big deal, once you’ve had it assessed as such - but prudence is always the watchword of professional aviators !
Overall, I’m sure that we’re all aware that all things mechanical occasionally go wrong, e.g. bicycles, cars, coaches, boats, ships, trains. Concord’s, space shuttles, and Boeing 737's do indeed sometimes go tech - and when they do we fix'em, and in the case of things which convey one either into the air or onto the sea one tends to be a bit more pedantic about having it working properly before venturing forth........ and I’ve yet to meet a flight crew that would take an un-airworthy aircraft into the air, if only for the protection of their own wellbeing, never mind risking pax and cabin crew, etc. - so any suggestion of shoddy practice in this instance is pure codswallop and or mishief making.
It sounds to me like the Astraeus flight crew did it by the book, and there’s nothing wrong with that !
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: 30 West
Age: 65
Posts: 926
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Most people who travel on aeroplanes are basically normal, ordinary people. Unfortunately, cicumstances can change the mood of a group, espescially when stress, alcohol, nicotine deprivation or general excitement are present. I spent my time in the right hand seat watching experienced skippers deal with a variety of situations, some well, some not so well. Now it has been my turn for over 6 years and I take with me the experiences I had over the previous years. One thing I always do on the smaller aircraft is to front the passengers to welcome them on board if time permits. At times I am very direct and let the passengers know in a friendly but firm manner that we need their cooperation and expect appropriate behavior during the flight. This is particularly important on special flights such as charters or Friday night IBZ flights. I take pride in the fact that so far ( touch wood ), I have never had trouble on a flight and my sympathy goes to the skipper on this flight who seemed to be caught between a rock and a hard place. All professional pilots attend regular CRM courses, perhaps with events such as this and more importantly, the added stresses of locked flight deck doors, we are seeing that the alledged advantage to a locked door can sometimes be far outweighed by the difficulty in comunication between senior Cabin Staff and Flight Deck as a situation is developing. I am not advocating that a Flight Deck member should leave the cockpit, we have seen the result of that before. It would be interesting to find out from the crew involved if they felt that the locked door was a hinderance ?
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Dublin
Posts: 23
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It will be interesting to see the charges and court case that follow all of this. I suspect there will be none.
Riot claim used to justify faulty plane risk, say fans
By Neil Mackay, Home Affairs Editor
The Celtic fans on board the flight from Spain which made an emergency landing in Cardiff after its pilot made a mayday distress call are intending to sue the airline Astraeus over its claims that rioting occurred on the plane.
The pilot and cabin crew on board flight AEU308, which was taking the group of mostly professional, middle-class fans back to Glasgow from Santiago de Compostela, say a stewardess was attacked after complaining about a passenger smoking in the plane's toilet. As a result, the Boeing 737 and its 150 passengers were diverted to Cardiff as the pilot issued the emergency call. RAF helicopters were scrambled and the plane was greeted by armed police backed up by teams of firefighters and paramedics.
Six passengers were arrested for public order offences and after several hours of interviews the rest were bussed to Scotland. All six have now been released on bail pending further inquiries. At first it looked like another bad day for Scottish football with Celtic fans fighting mid-air. But does the Astraeus version of events stand up to scrutiny? The fans say no.
While they admit they were 'boisterous and noisy', they also insist that there was absolutely no violence and no aggression shown to the crew. In an attempt to understand why they were diverted, the fans have come up with a few conspiracy theories themselves. Chief among these is the claim that the plane was suffering from a mechanical fault and Astraeus used fans' rowdy behaviour as an excuse to set the plane down early.
Pat Coogan, a 50-year-old council official and grandfather who was sitting at the front of the flight, said: 'There were problems on take-off on Thursday morning before we left.
'The same thing happened on the Friday when we were flying back. We were on board and then they disembarked us ... We got back on board about two hours later and the pilot told us the engines had been tested.
'We were a bunch of football fans so there was obviously some singing and a bit of crack, but nothing threatening. The pilot made an announcement that someone had been smoking in the toilet. He said it was dangerous and illegal and that the police would be waiting for us in Glasgow.
' A few minutes later there was an announcement that the cabin crew should take up their positions for landing.
'There was a sudden dip and the plane plummeted. The lady opposite me was having a panic attack and praying .
'I was terrified. We'd already had two delays over the engines and now we were plummeting out of the sky. We thought the plane was in trouble. We were scared out of our wits.
'There was no riot. People were having a laugh and a joke. I saw no-one standing up. I saw no-one fighting. I saw no damage to the plane. I was told that when a stewardess was speaking at the back of the plane to passengers about smoking in the toilet, someone tapped her on the shoulder to ask her a question. Is that what they're interpreting as an assault?
'What they are saying about a riot is a piece of nonsense.
'When paramedics came on board in Cardiff they asked where the
casualties were and were shocked that no-one was injured. The only riot that took place was in the imagination of the crew.'
One passenger did have to be taken off because they suffered a panic attack due to the tense landing.
'This was a total farce and the crew made a mountain out of a molehill. It certainly crossed my mind that using a riot might be a way of getting around landing with engine problems.'
David McKenna, a 40-year-old architect from Glasgow who was sitting at the back of the plane, said: 'When we heard someone had been smoking we all agreed it was wrong . We were told that if the culprit didn't own up that we'd be kept on the plane in Glasgow until police spoke to us.
'A Glasgow lawyer then called over a stewardess and told her she
couldn't keep innocent people on a plane and there was a bit of
finger-waving. The guy was just making it clear he knew his rights. She seemed to take umbrage at this and ran like a crazy woman to the back of the plane in tears. I was astonished.
'She called the pilot and said she'd been assaulted -- but she hadn't been. That's when we veered off course and nose-dived thousands of feet. We were all frantic.
'No-one was drinking on this flight and only a handful of people had one or two beers before they boarded. More than 140 people don't all tell the same lie -- and everyone on board, apart from the crew, say there was no disturbance.
' We have to set the record straight. People will see us as hooligans and it will do Celtic damage unless we make it clear we did nothing wrong. We're planning a group action against Astraeus for distress and negligence.'
Harry Hynds, the travel agent who arranged the trip, backed up the fans and attacked Astraeus, saying: 'Everyone who was on that plane knows what really happened and it is nothing like what is being portrayed by the airline.'
Iain Macauley, a spokesman for Gatwick-based Astraeus, defended the firm, saying a 'passenger objected to being asked to extinguish his cigarette' by a cabin crew member.
He said that after an announcement from the captain stating such
behaviour would not be tolerated 'a number of passengers at the rear objected strongly and loudly '.
Macauley added: 'In the ensuing fracas the cabin crew member was struck on the arm.' He said she did not require hospital treatment and claimed that despite alcohol being banned some drinks containers were found later.
Macauley also said that a 'warning indicator relating to the starting procedure of one engine delayed departure'.
Superintendent Colin Jones of South Wales police, which dealt with the incident, said it was 'somewhat unusual' that the pilot made a mayday call.
Riot claim used to justify faulty plane risk, say fans
By Neil Mackay, Home Affairs Editor
The Celtic fans on board the flight from Spain which made an emergency landing in Cardiff after its pilot made a mayday distress call are intending to sue the airline Astraeus over its claims that rioting occurred on the plane.
The pilot and cabin crew on board flight AEU308, which was taking the group of mostly professional, middle-class fans back to Glasgow from Santiago de Compostela, say a stewardess was attacked after complaining about a passenger smoking in the plane's toilet. As a result, the Boeing 737 and its 150 passengers were diverted to Cardiff as the pilot issued the emergency call. RAF helicopters were scrambled and the plane was greeted by armed police backed up by teams of firefighters and paramedics.
Six passengers were arrested for public order offences and after several hours of interviews the rest were bussed to Scotland. All six have now been released on bail pending further inquiries. At first it looked like another bad day for Scottish football with Celtic fans fighting mid-air. But does the Astraeus version of events stand up to scrutiny? The fans say no.
While they admit they were 'boisterous and noisy', they also insist that there was absolutely no violence and no aggression shown to the crew. In an attempt to understand why they were diverted, the fans have come up with a few conspiracy theories themselves. Chief among these is the claim that the plane was suffering from a mechanical fault and Astraeus used fans' rowdy behaviour as an excuse to set the plane down early.
Pat Coogan, a 50-year-old council official and grandfather who was sitting at the front of the flight, said: 'There were problems on take-off on Thursday morning before we left.
'The same thing happened on the Friday when we were flying back. We were on board and then they disembarked us ... We got back on board about two hours later and the pilot told us the engines had been tested.
'We were a bunch of football fans so there was obviously some singing and a bit of crack, but nothing threatening. The pilot made an announcement that someone had been smoking in the toilet. He said it was dangerous and illegal and that the police would be waiting for us in Glasgow.
' A few minutes later there was an announcement that the cabin crew should take up their positions for landing.
'There was a sudden dip and the plane plummeted. The lady opposite me was having a panic attack and praying .
'I was terrified. We'd already had two delays over the engines and now we were plummeting out of the sky. We thought the plane was in trouble. We were scared out of our wits.
'There was no riot. People were having a laugh and a joke. I saw no-one standing up. I saw no-one fighting. I saw no damage to the plane. I was told that when a stewardess was speaking at the back of the plane to passengers about smoking in the toilet, someone tapped her on the shoulder to ask her a question. Is that what they're interpreting as an assault?
'What they are saying about a riot is a piece of nonsense.
'When paramedics came on board in Cardiff they asked where the
casualties were and were shocked that no-one was injured. The only riot that took place was in the imagination of the crew.'
One passenger did have to be taken off because they suffered a panic attack due to the tense landing.
'This was a total farce and the crew made a mountain out of a molehill. It certainly crossed my mind that using a riot might be a way of getting around landing with engine problems.'
David McKenna, a 40-year-old architect from Glasgow who was sitting at the back of the plane, said: 'When we heard someone had been smoking we all agreed it was wrong . We were told that if the culprit didn't own up that we'd be kept on the plane in Glasgow until police spoke to us.
'A Glasgow lawyer then called over a stewardess and told her she
couldn't keep innocent people on a plane and there was a bit of
finger-waving. The guy was just making it clear he knew his rights. She seemed to take umbrage at this and ran like a crazy woman to the back of the plane in tears. I was astonished.
'She called the pilot and said she'd been assaulted -- but she hadn't been. That's when we veered off course and nose-dived thousands of feet. We were all frantic.
'No-one was drinking on this flight and only a handful of people had one or two beers before they boarded. More than 140 people don't all tell the same lie -- and everyone on board, apart from the crew, say there was no disturbance.
' We have to set the record straight. People will see us as hooligans and it will do Celtic damage unless we make it clear we did nothing wrong. We're planning a group action against Astraeus for distress and negligence.'
Harry Hynds, the travel agent who arranged the trip, backed up the fans and attacked Astraeus, saying: 'Everyone who was on that plane knows what really happened and it is nothing like what is being portrayed by the airline.'
Iain Macauley, a spokesman for Gatwick-based Astraeus, defended the firm, saying a 'passenger objected to being asked to extinguish his cigarette' by a cabin crew member.
He said that after an announcement from the captain stating such
behaviour would not be tolerated 'a number of passengers at the rear objected strongly and loudly '.
Macauley added: 'In the ensuing fracas the cabin crew member was struck on the arm.' He said she did not require hospital treatment and claimed that despite alcohol being banned some drinks containers were found later.
Macauley also said that a 'warning indicator relating to the starting procedure of one engine delayed departure'.
Superintendent Colin Jones of South Wales police, which dealt with the incident, said it was 'somewhat unusual' that the pilot made a mayday call.
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Somewhere probing
Posts: 301
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
MOL, thanks for that ( though one hopes that what you've posted is not copyrighted material from a newspaper and / or that you have persmission to cut / paste it ? ) as gives me something to do, on a dreary cold Sunday avo, by way of picking out the huge holes in it..........so here we go:
W.r.t. ‘Celtic fans ...... intending to sue the airline Astraeus over its claims that rioting occurred on the plane’ – Now correct me if I'm wrong, but I think that if one reads the press releases / statements from Astraeus they have made NO mention of 'a riot', indeed the tone of their announcements have been very conservative, preferring to deal in fact rather than emotion or hearsay. Indeed I think you will find that it is the press ( and press alone ) that have used the word 'riot' ( it reads better, and so sells more papers ! )
W.r.t 'It certainly crossed my mind that using a riot might be a way of getting around landing with engine problems.'
Just who thinks this stuff up ?!
Indeed it hardly adds up does it, e.g. having delayed the departure to ensure that all was well with the aicraft, the crew would hardly be likely to have then diverted due to a mechanical fault and not informed the passengers of it - especially so as they declared a Mayday and in it stated that it was due to a disturbance in the cabin, and which is something that they might not wish to wish to broadcast into the cabin, lest it makes matters worse !
Also, following the diversion to Cardiff, I think that you’ll find that the aircraft was subsequently then flown directly back to Gatwick – without need for any engineering work to be done to it prior to that journey. Like I say, it doesn’t add up.
W.r.t. 'Pat Coogan, a 50-year-old council official and grandfather who was sitting at the front of the flight, said: 'There were problems on take-off on Thursday morning before we left.' - There were not problems on takeoff - maybe BEFORE takeoff during the push-back / engine start; one must accurately report what has happened as it makes a lot of difference (imho).
W.r.t. ‘'There was no riot’ – Indeed, and to my knowledge nobody at the Astraeus has used that phrase, those upset by this can thank (blame) the press for that one.
W.r.t. ’People were having a laugh and a joke. I saw no-one standing up. I saw no-one fighting. I saw no damage to the plane.’ - Indeed he might not have seen anything, he was after all reported as sitting in the front of the aircraft, more than likely facing forwards, and very probably not privy to what was happening at the rear of the cabin and similarly unlikely to be able to see any damage - that HE didn't see anything does not mean that nothing happened ( additionally, please read the explanation provided by 'rai' - on the next page - as to why this might be so )
W.r.t. ‘I was told that when a stewardess was speaking at the back of the plane to passengers about smoking in the toilet, someone tapped her on the shoulder to ask her a question. Is that what they're interpreting as an assault?’ – Ah, so he’s passing on second-hand / hearsay information – is this another fine example of accuracy in journalism ?!
W.r.t. 'obviously some singing and a bit of crack, but nothing threatening' - Really ? They might think that it's all "just a larf !" but to some it might well indeed seem VERY threatening !
W.r.t. ''The same thing happened on the Friday when we were flying back. We were on board and then they disembarked us ... We got back on board about two hours later and the pilot told us the engines had been tested.' - Well at least he got that bit right, i.e. the pilots were making sure that the aircraft was as safe as possible - and rather than have the pax stuck on the aircraft for what might have been a lengthy wait, they ( the crew ) arranged for the pax to be taken off the aircraft so that they ( the pax ) might be more comfortable and be better able to take advantages of the facilities within the airport ( no doubt to drink and smoke )
W.r.t. ‘She called the pilot and said she'd been assaulted -- but she hadn't been.’ – Firstly define assault ? Secondly how does he know that she wasn’t assaulted ?
W.r.t. 'No-one was drinking on this flight….’ – How does he know that ? And how come the police found empty liquor containers in the rear of the pax cabin ? ( unless…. of course ! duh, oh silly me for not having seen it sooner, the crew must have planted it ! It’s all so obvious now. )
W.r.t. ‘….. and everyone on board, apart from the crew, say there was no disturbance’ – which is no doubt why a cabin crew member has bruising on her arm, there is damage to the aircraft, the police have bailed some of the passengers to return at a later date and / or that more of the pax could be looking at arrest w.r.t the events they might have been party too onboard.
So, given the rather obvious gaping holes in his version of events, one might say that Mr.Coogan’s credibility might not be quite as rock solid as some might hope and / or be reading in the press today.
Ps. Liquidhockey – please define what you mean by ‘always going tech’ – i.e. provide us with some facts and figures please, lest we assume that what you write is just hearsay or invention too ?
PPs. Do journo’s have special dictionaries from which they swap ordinary words like ‘descend’ with ones line ‘plummet’ ?
W.r.t. ‘Celtic fans ...... intending to sue the airline Astraeus over its claims that rioting occurred on the plane’ – Now correct me if I'm wrong, but I think that if one reads the press releases / statements from Astraeus they have made NO mention of 'a riot', indeed the tone of their announcements have been very conservative, preferring to deal in fact rather than emotion or hearsay. Indeed I think you will find that it is the press ( and press alone ) that have used the word 'riot' ( it reads better, and so sells more papers ! )
W.r.t 'It certainly crossed my mind that using a riot might be a way of getting around landing with engine problems.'
Just who thinks this stuff up ?!Indeed it hardly adds up does it, e.g. having delayed the departure to ensure that all was well with the aicraft, the crew would hardly be likely to have then diverted due to a mechanical fault and not informed the passengers of it - especially so as they declared a Mayday and in it stated that it was due to a disturbance in the cabin, and which is something that they might not wish to wish to broadcast into the cabin, lest it makes matters worse !
Also, following the diversion to Cardiff, I think that you’ll find that the aircraft was subsequently then flown directly back to Gatwick – without need for any engineering work to be done to it prior to that journey. Like I say, it doesn’t add up.
W.r.t. 'Pat Coogan, a 50-year-old council official and grandfather who was sitting at the front of the flight, said: 'There were problems on take-off on Thursday morning before we left.' - There were not problems on takeoff - maybe BEFORE takeoff during the push-back / engine start; one must accurately report what has happened as it makes a lot of difference (imho).
W.r.t. ‘'There was no riot’ – Indeed, and to my knowledge nobody at the Astraeus has used that phrase, those upset by this can thank (blame) the press for that one.
W.r.t. ’People were having a laugh and a joke. I saw no-one standing up. I saw no-one fighting. I saw no damage to the plane.’ - Indeed he might not have seen anything, he was after all reported as sitting in the front of the aircraft, more than likely facing forwards, and very probably not privy to what was happening at the rear of the cabin and similarly unlikely to be able to see any damage - that HE didn't see anything does not mean that nothing happened ( additionally, please read the explanation provided by 'rai' - on the next page - as to why this might be so )
W.r.t. ‘I was told that when a stewardess was speaking at the back of the plane to passengers about smoking in the toilet, someone tapped her on the shoulder to ask her a question. Is that what they're interpreting as an assault?’ – Ah, so he’s passing on second-hand / hearsay information – is this another fine example of accuracy in journalism ?!
W.r.t. 'obviously some singing and a bit of crack, but nothing threatening' - Really ? They might think that it's all "just a larf !" but to some it might well indeed seem VERY threatening !
W.r.t. ''The same thing happened on the Friday when we were flying back. We were on board and then they disembarked us ... We got back on board about two hours later and the pilot told us the engines had been tested.' - Well at least he got that bit right, i.e. the pilots were making sure that the aircraft was as safe as possible - and rather than have the pax stuck on the aircraft for what might have been a lengthy wait, they ( the crew ) arranged for the pax to be taken off the aircraft so that they ( the pax ) might be more comfortable and be better able to take advantages of the facilities within the airport ( no doubt to drink and smoke )
W.r.t. ‘She called the pilot and said she'd been assaulted -- but she hadn't been.’ – Firstly define assault ? Secondly how does he know that she wasn’t assaulted ?
W.r.t. 'No-one was drinking on this flight….’ – How does he know that ? And how come the police found empty liquor containers in the rear of the pax cabin ? ( unless…. of course ! duh, oh silly me for not having seen it sooner, the crew must have planted it ! It’s all so obvious now.
)W.r.t. ‘….. and everyone on board, apart from the crew, say there was no disturbance’ – which is no doubt why a cabin crew member has bruising on her arm, there is damage to the aircraft, the police have bailed some of the passengers to return at a later date and / or that more of the pax could be looking at arrest w.r.t the events they might have been party too onboard.
So, given the rather obvious gaping holes in his version of events, one might say that Mr.Coogan’s credibility might not be quite as rock solid as some might hope and / or be reading in the press today.
Ps. Liquidhockey – please define what you mean by ‘always going tech’ – i.e. provide us with some facts and figures please, lest we assume that what you write is just hearsay or invention too ?
PPs. Do journo’s have special dictionaries from which they swap ordinary words like ‘descend’ with ones line ‘plummet’ ?
Last edited by Devils Advocate; 15th Dec 2002 at 16:08.
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: the Real World
Posts: 66
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think one thing the AEU commercial team have found out the hard way is that all football/sports charters are NOT the same. There is a huge gulf between the well organised 'official' flights and the unofficial flight they operated last week. Official flights tend to carry supporters club members on club charters, where one sniff of trouble and you have a life ban, plus the security on board is usually club security, plus well known fans who command respect of their peers plus generally some police spotters thrown in. The unofficial lot tend in my experience have had little or none of the above and fans can buy their flight out of the back pages of the local rag with no verification of who they are etc, typically if theres a match ticket in the price it is not unknown for that ticket to be in the wrong end of the ground. I would hope the AEU buys do their homework in future and dont just pick up any old work that comes by the door, even in these hard times you can still be brave enough to be choosy if you want.
Seems to me we have a real problem here - a dichotomy as to how these things should be handled. On one hand the Captain (who has signed for, and has responsibility for, the complete operation from boarding to disembarkation) and on the other the (for want of a better word) passengers. Since we're a democracy (allegedly), obviously the resolution of these matters should be left to the vote. "All those in favour of an immediate diversion to Cardiff say aye, or yachidaa, those who want to carry on having a free-for-all, hit someone!" 
The rib-tickling antics of our (i.e. British) footie fans could never be interpreted as offering a threat to anyone (Did Anthony Carn ever get anywhere with his request for an ironic smilie?) and they would, naturally, feel mortified at any suggestion to the contrary. As suggested elsewhere, the lead offered by that bastion (I think that's the word I want? ) of professional footie, Terry V in defending the application of football studs to an opponent's face is par for the course.
All this being so, I can only offer the suggestion made by a contributor to a thread on a similar topic some time ago - Use three crew aircraft for this task. Employ LARGE FEs and issue them with a six cell Maglite. At the first hint of standard passenger idiocy, have him take a cabin stroll examining the cabin fittings by torchlight. I venture to suggest that peace will reign pretty quickly.
Should this prove to be unacceptable to the ubiquitous bean counters, hand these charters over to their correct environment - the freighters. Careful with the straw on the floor though - some of these characters haven't had to deal with such luxurious surroundings.
One final thought - The staunch defender of the rights of the common (and I use the word advisedly) man. MOL, lists his "from" as Dublin .......... MOL/Dublin ????? No, couldn't be ..... surely not ..... no, no .,.. there must be LOTS of MOLs in Dublin
The rib-tickling antics of our (i.e. British) footie fans could never be interpreted as offering a threat to anyone (Did Anthony Carn ever get anywhere with his request for an ironic smilie?) and they would, naturally, feel mortified at any suggestion to the contrary. As suggested elsewhere, the lead offered by that bastion (I think that's the word I want?
) of professional footie, Terry V in defending the application of football studs to an opponent's face is par for the course.All this being so, I can only offer the suggestion made by a contributor to a thread on a similar topic some time ago - Use three crew aircraft for this task. Employ LARGE FEs and issue them with a six cell Maglite. At the first hint of standard passenger idiocy, have him take a cabin stroll examining the cabin fittings by torchlight. I venture to suggest that peace will reign pretty quickly.
Should this prove to be unacceptable to the ubiquitous bean counters, hand these charters over to their correct environment - the freighters. Careful with the straw on the floor though - some of these characters haven't had to deal with such luxurious surroundings.
One final thought - The staunch defender of the rights of the common (and I use the word advisedly) man. MOL, lists his "from" as Dublin .......... MOL/Dublin ????? No, couldn't be ..... surely not ..... no, no .,.. there must be LOTS of MOLs in Dublin
Beady Eye
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 1,495
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Having read all the posts in this thread I want to give my professional opinion as an ex-D&D controller at the Scottish ATCC.
Firstly there has been debate as to whether the Captain should or should not have called a mayday and whether he'll be held accountable;
There are two states of emergency (see CAA document CAP413 here http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/33/CAP413.pdf) Distress A condition of being threatened by serious and/or imminent danger and of requiring immediate assistance, for which the RT call is Mayday. and Urgency A condition concerning the safety of an aircraft or other vehicle, or of some other person on board or within sight, but does not require immediate assistance, the RT call is Pan.
There are posts in here from people who have spoken directly to the crew and there is doubt that the pilot felt in need of immediate assistance. So which distress call to make was a no-brainer, it had to be a Mayday (I don't see the relevance of a comment posted in here about a police superindent thinking it was unusual, this is outside of his professional competence).
I cannot envisage, given the circumstances described, that there will be any 'blame' attaching to the captain for over reaction (if indeed hindsight shows that it was an over reaction). Every controller that I know would much rather pilots reported emergencies accurately. Yes it is no problem to upgrade a pan to a mayday, but by the same token it is easy to downgrade. If you come in with a cautious pan, because you fear the repercussions of a mayday, then it is possible that it may work against you. The time interval between pan then mayday could be wasted because that time can be used to launch the rescue choppers and get them heading toward you. No-one in ATC would EVER castigate a pilot for declaring an emergency.
Secondly; Kinloss is mentioned because thats where the Air Rescue Coordination Centre is based (there are no rescue choppers there, although some are along the coast at Lossiemouth). The choppers are scrambled almost by routine, irrespective of the location of the aircraft in distress, because in the event of a catastrophe in addition to rescue they will be used to ferry the injured to hospital. There is a whole rescue organisation equipped, trained, willing and in fact just waiting around to come to your aid when you feel you need them.
Thirdly; In my professional opinion (irrespective of the opposing views posted in this thread about what actually happened on board) the captain reacted in an exemplary and professional manner to an undoubted threat to his aircraft and its occupants (whether real or perceived) and is to be congratulated.
Altercations on an aircraft in flight cannot be resolved whilst still in the air because the captain has an aircraft which has to be flown. They can be debated safely on the ground. When all is said and done what was lost by the aircraft diverting? Everyone got home in one piece and that may not have been the case otherwise.
Firstly there has been debate as to whether the Captain should or should not have called a mayday and whether he'll be held accountable;
There are two states of emergency (see CAA document CAP413 here http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/33/CAP413.pdf) Distress A condition of being threatened by serious and/or imminent danger and of requiring immediate assistance, for which the RT call is Mayday. and Urgency A condition concerning the safety of an aircraft or other vehicle, or of some other person on board or within sight, but does not require immediate assistance, the RT call is Pan.
There are posts in here from people who have spoken directly to the crew and there is doubt that the pilot felt in need of immediate assistance. So which distress call to make was a no-brainer, it had to be a Mayday (I don't see the relevance of a comment posted in here about a police superindent thinking it was unusual, this is outside of his professional competence).
I cannot envisage, given the circumstances described, that there will be any 'blame' attaching to the captain for over reaction (if indeed hindsight shows that it was an over reaction). Every controller that I know would much rather pilots reported emergencies accurately. Yes it is no problem to upgrade a pan to a mayday, but by the same token it is easy to downgrade. If you come in with a cautious pan, because you fear the repercussions of a mayday, then it is possible that it may work against you. The time interval between pan then mayday could be wasted because that time can be used to launch the rescue choppers and get them heading toward you. No-one in ATC would EVER castigate a pilot for declaring an emergency.
Secondly; Kinloss is mentioned because thats where the Air Rescue Coordination Centre is based (there are no rescue choppers there, although some are along the coast at Lossiemouth). The choppers are scrambled almost by routine, irrespective of the location of the aircraft in distress, because in the event of a catastrophe in addition to rescue they will be used to ferry the injured to hospital. There is a whole rescue organisation equipped, trained, willing and in fact just waiting around to come to your aid when you feel you need them.
Thirdly; In my professional opinion (irrespective of the opposing views posted in this thread about what actually happened on board) the captain reacted in an exemplary and professional manner to an undoubted threat to his aircraft and its occupants (whether real or perceived) and is to be congratulated.
Altercations on an aircraft in flight cannot be resolved whilst still in the air because the captain has an aircraft which has to be flown. They can be debated safely on the ground. When all is said and done what was lost by the aircraft diverting? Everyone got home in one piece and that may not have been the case otherwise.
Last edited by BDiONU; 15th Dec 2002 at 14:34.
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 39
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Have a look at http://www.flyastraeus.com/ for more conflicting events.
Interesting to read the bio's and "what if " policies
(Edited by PPRuNe dispatcher : URL corrected)
Interesting to read the bio's and "what if " policies
(Edited by PPRuNe dispatcher : URL corrected)
Last edited by PPRuNe Dispatcher; 15th Dec 2002 at 16:04.
Join Date: Dec 1997
Location: Suffolk UK
Posts: 4,927
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There seems to be some fundamental failure of understanding amongst those who would suggest that the Captain of this flight overreacted. An aircraft is no place to have any kind of argument which has become physical. There is no 'acceptable' level of violence or passenger disruption. In a 737 there are only four or so flight attendants, who control the cabin with the consent and co-operation of the passengers. If that consent or co-operation is withdrawn, for whatever reason, then the senior F/A is quite right to state that she has 'lost' the cabin. As the potential consequences of this loss of control of, in this case, a violent situation are injury or worse to both crew and innocent passengers, the Captain has no choice but to land immediately and have the source of the trouble removed and dealt with by the appropriate authority.
There is also no time to conduct some kind of slow-time pro-and-con assessment of what the right course of action might be. Perhaps some of those arguing against this crew's actions would like to suggest at what time they would have regarded this situation as serious enough to require immediate landing? Broken cabin furniture? Use of objects as weapons? Individuals with broken limbs or open injuries? Or would they accept that the end result, where everyone was returned to the ground safely, although in some bad grace, should be regarded as a successful outcome of a potentially very dangerous (and actually very frightening) situation. You can't just open the door and throw the idiots out!
As has been said in many stuations in aviation, it's better to be on the ground wishing you were in the air than in the air wishing you were on the ground.
There is also no time to conduct some kind of slow-time pro-and-con assessment of what the right course of action might be. Perhaps some of those arguing against this crew's actions would like to suggest at what time they would have regarded this situation as serious enough to require immediate landing? Broken cabin furniture? Use of objects as weapons? Individuals with broken limbs or open injuries? Or would they accept that the end result, where everyone was returned to the ground safely, although in some bad grace, should be regarded as a successful outcome of a potentially very dangerous (and actually very frightening) situation. You can't just open the door and throw the idiots out!
As has been said in many stuations in aviation, it's better to be on the ground wishing you were in the air than in the air wishing you were on the ground.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 22
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Miller says:
Having recently worked a stint as a member of cabin crew i am confident that it would be possible for there to be some sort of disturbance at the rear of the aircraft of which passengers at the front and centre of the aircraft would not be aware of.
Aside from the obvious fact that an aircraft cabin in the cruise is a relatively noisy environment you also have to take into account that passengers are facing forward and are virtually enclosed by the seats in front of them, the backs of their own seats and the side wall of the fuselage. All of these factors significantly reduce the passengers visibility and ability to hear things (any cabin crew member who has had to repeat the question "what would you like to drink sir/madam?" three or four times will understand what i mean - of course the same applies to passengers who have to repeat their requests several times to crew who cant quite catch what they are saying).
In fact, when i myself have been positioning on a flight in a passenger seat i always notice how different a passengers viewpoint of a cabin is to that of the crew. Its almost like you're in a different place and you have little awareness of whats happening more than a row ahead or behind you. The statements we've heard so far seem to indicate that no passengers were standing up which re-inforces the probability that it would be very hard for passengers in the centre and front of the cabin to hear, see or accurately deduce what was happening at the rear of the cabin. As a result i wouldnt be very surprised if the majority of the passengers didnt see a disturbance that is later proved to have been quite serious and said as much in their statements to the police and the press.
And yet the airline can say that passengers in the middle and front parts of the aircraft may not have been aware of what was going on. I just find that part hard to understand, and I can only think that either this was rather a subdued fracas or else the rest of the passengers were stone deaf.
Aside from the obvious fact that an aircraft cabin in the cruise is a relatively noisy environment you also have to take into account that passengers are facing forward and are virtually enclosed by the seats in front of them, the backs of their own seats and the side wall of the fuselage. All of these factors significantly reduce the passengers visibility and ability to hear things (any cabin crew member who has had to repeat the question "what would you like to drink sir/madam?" three or four times will understand what i mean - of course the same applies to passengers who have to repeat their requests several times to crew who cant quite catch what they are saying).
In fact, when i myself have been positioning on a flight in a passenger seat i always notice how different a passengers viewpoint of a cabin is to that of the crew. Its almost like you're in a different place and you have little awareness of whats happening more than a row ahead or behind you. The statements we've heard so far seem to indicate that no passengers were standing up which re-inforces the probability that it would be very hard for passengers in the centre and front of the cabin to hear, see or accurately deduce what was happening at the rear of the cabin. As a result i wouldnt be very surprised if the majority of the passengers didnt see a disturbance that is later proved to have been quite serious and said as much in their statements to the police and the press.
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Midlands, UK
Posts: 128
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I wonder how many of the so-called witnesses travelling as fans were suitably inebriated during the incident? Some football supporters must understand that behaviour that "may" be acceptable in a pub in town on a Saturday afternoon is just NOT acceptable in an aircraft at altitude.
Someone on here said that most of the fans were "middle class professional people". Well for their information, some of the worst hooligans in the Chelsea Headhunters and ICF are city bankers and stockbrokers. All they are is mindless yobs dressed in Armani suits.
I doubt if any of the voices here suggesting that the crew over-reacted to a very minor incident are professional pilots.
Finally, well done to the crew for dealing with the situation and getting the aircraft safely on the ground.
P.S. I wish football was not the national game - it brings nothing but embarrassment and shame to these shores!
Someone on here said that most of the fans were "middle class professional people". Well for their information, some of the worst hooligans in the Chelsea Headhunters and ICF are city bankers and stockbrokers. All they are is mindless yobs dressed in Armani suits.
I doubt if any of the voices here suggesting that the crew over-reacted to a very minor incident are professional pilots.
Finally, well done to the crew for dealing with the situation and getting the aircraft safely on the ground.
P.S. I wish football was not the national game - it brings nothing but embarrassment and shame to these shores!
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: London
Posts: 6
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
rai said
I appreciate your experience but according to the airline this is not some sort of disturbance. Again to quote what they say
"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."
And having said that I cannot understand how the airline can go on to say how passengers in the front and middle of the aircraft may not have heard what went on. So, as I said earlier, I can only conclude that this was a relatively subdued fracas (which differed little in tone from the ordinary background noise to be expected) or else the passengers were stone deaf. I appreciate though that you're trying tell me how it could come about, so thank you for that.
Whatever, accounts in the Scottish media today have one couple
on that aircraft saying goodbye to each other, convinced, in their minds at least, that they were falling to their deaths. I find accounts like that disturbing.
Similarly I would have trouble with any announcement (has anyone confirmed its veracity?) that the passengers were informed that they would be detained at Glasgow till the person or persons smoking cigarettes owned up. In common with others on this board a situation like that would raise immediate questions in my mind of false imprisonment. I am not sure of the legal position on this but an announcement like that, to my mind at least turns an aircraft from being a mode of transport into a means of confinement. Again I must stress though that I have no idea whether this announcement was in fact made.
Finally, the pilot took the only course of action option to him with the information available to him. I have some nagging doubts expressed above as the accuracy of the information conveyed to him, but his decision to divert seems like the only one open to him.
Having recently worked a stint as a member of cabin crew i am confident that it would be possible for there to be some sort of disturbance at the rear of the aircraft of which passengers at the front and centre of the aircraft would not be aware of.
I appreciate your experience but according to the airline this is not some sort of disturbance. Again to quote what they say
"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."
And having said that I cannot understand how the airline can go on to say how passengers in the front and middle of the aircraft may not have heard what went on. So, as I said earlier, I can only conclude that this was a relatively subdued fracas (which differed little in tone from the ordinary background noise to be expected) or else the passengers were stone deaf. I appreciate though that you're trying tell me how it could come about, so thank you for that.
Whatever, accounts in the Scottish media today have one couple
on that aircraft saying goodbye to each other, convinced, in their minds at least, that they were falling to their deaths. I find accounts like that disturbing.
Similarly I would have trouble with any announcement (has anyone confirmed its veracity?) that the passengers were informed that they would be detained at Glasgow till the person or persons smoking cigarettes owned up. In common with others on this board a situation like that would raise immediate questions in my mind of false imprisonment. I am not sure of the legal position on this but an announcement like that, to my mind at least turns an aircraft from being a mode of transport into a means of confinement. Again I must stress though that I have no idea whether this announcement was in fact made.
Finally, the pilot took the only course of action option to him with the information available to him. I have some nagging doubts expressed above as the accuracy of the information conveyed to him, but his decision to divert seems like the only one open to him.
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Nottingham,UK
Posts: 236
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Incidents of 'air rage' seem to be increasingly common these days. I am curious to know why this is the case - the accepted wisdom is that the availability of alcohol is a primary cause. For me, it is no coincidence that reported incidents have increased in parallel with the complete ban on smoking and the increasing availability of cheap flights. Combined with cramped seating in economy and large numbers of people that suffer with mild claustrophobia and may well have mild anxiety about flying anyway then it isn't surprising that incidents occur.
I'm generally very relaxed (some people might say that I tend towards the horizontal ) but I was verging on the irritable after a recent transatlantic flight. I can easily imagine how someone would become aggressive.
I honestly believe that the smoking ban is a mistake - for some passengers it is the straw that breaks the camel's back - and it is the cabin crew that have to deal with it. I have nothing but respect for cabin crew - I wouldn't do their job for all the tea in China.
I also understand that football fans can be intimidating - people behave abnormally in large groups. That is part of the enjoyment of going to a football match, or even a concert or a comedy show. It taps into something primal. However, trapped in a metal tube with such a group of people when a few people are becoming unruly is always going to be unnerving. In all probability there is some exaggeration/understatement from both sides, but as I wasn't there I am not in a position to comment.
What can be done? We cannot stop people from becoming angry and aggressive. No amount of training will eliminate that. My humble suggestion is one that I don't see happening for commercial reasons, but might go some way to reducing the number of people that do find themselves behaving irrationally. Simply - more space. Lower density seating with more legroom. Oh, and let me have a fag!
I'm generally very relaxed (some people might say that I tend towards the horizontal
) but I was verging on the irritable after a recent transatlantic flight. I can easily imagine how someone would become aggressive.I honestly believe that the smoking ban is a mistake - for some passengers it is the straw that breaks the camel's back - and it is the cabin crew that have to deal with it. I have nothing but respect for cabin crew - I wouldn't do their job for all the tea in China.
I also understand that football fans can be intimidating - people behave abnormally in large groups. That is part of the enjoyment of going to a football match, or even a concert or a comedy show. It taps into something primal. However, trapped in a metal tube with such a group of people when a few people are becoming unruly is always going to be unnerving. In all probability there is some exaggeration/understatement from both sides, but as I wasn't there I am not in a position to comment.
What can be done? We cannot stop people from becoming angry and aggressive. No amount of training will eliminate that. My humble suggestion is one that I don't see happening for commercial reasons, but might go some way to reducing the number of people that do find themselves behaving irrationally. Simply - more space. Lower density seating with more legroom. Oh, and let me have a fag!
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Glasgow
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ray Ban;
Indeed, you wonder. You don't know, you weren't there.
Ray Ban;
This isn't Chelsea. Now you are just comparing apples and oranges (no, not that kind of orange.)
None of us were there. We don't know what happened. So stop trying to make out this was a plane full of drunken ICF.
The pilot decided to land, no-one will argue with that. As for the information he based this on from the crew, well it looks like it will be an interesting trial if it ever gets that far.
I wonder how many of the so-called witnesses travelling as fans were suitably inebriated during the incident?
Ray Ban;
Someone on here said that most of the fans were "middle class professional people". Well for their information, some of the worst hooligans in the Chelsea Headhunters and ICF are city bankers and stockbrokers.
None of us were there. We don't know what happened. So stop trying to make out this was a plane full of drunken ICF.
The pilot decided to land, no-one will argue with that. As for the information he based this on from the crew, well it looks like it will be an interesting trial if it ever gets that far.
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Ireland
Posts: 48
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hamrah, Danny, any chance you could close this thread now ? I think the crew concerned have had a long few days, a little protection would be good just now. The "know it all" fools have had their say, now lets move on.