737 diverted to CWL
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Dublin
Posts: 23
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Good man Pancho - call posters who give another viewpoint 'know it all fools' and then censor them all.
I suppose the couple who, with many other passengers thought they were crashing and said goodbye to each other may have had a long few days as well. But don't worry about the public or, as some people have referred to them on here, the common people, the yobos, the drunks etc etc.
I am looking forward to any court case that takes place because it will show people like you that there is another side to all of this.
I can assure you that the passengers are not letting this go and will be bombarding the club from tomorrow to take up their case. This will not go away.
Now, censor away.......
I suppose the couple who, with many other passengers thought they were crashing and said goodbye to each other may have had a long few days as well. But don't worry about the public or, as some people have referred to them on here, the common people, the yobos, the drunks etc etc.
I am looking forward to any court case that takes place because it will show people like you that there is another side to all of this.
I can assure you that the passengers are not letting this go and will be bombarding the club from tomorrow to take up their case. This will not go away.
Now, censor away.......
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Gatwick
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Further clarification of certain points
I totally refute any suggestion that technical problems were responsible for the diversion to Cardiff. The aircraft was serviceable when it left Santiago, remained so throughout the flight and was serviceable when it arrived at Cardiff. There was a minor technical fault which was attended by engineers at Santiago that did delay the flight's departure but the technical fault was resolved fully before departure. The diversion to Cardiff was made solely as a direct result of passenger action aboard the flight.
Suggestions by certain parties on this bulletin board indicate reports that they dispute the injuries sustained by one of the cabin crew members aboard the flight. These suggestions are factually inaccurate. A cabin crew member was struck in the arm with sufficient severity to cause swelling which has now developed into extensive bruising. The cabin crew member received medical attention airside at Cardiff after landing on Friday and her injuries form part of the police investigation.
There were three stewards (nb as opposed to Cabin Crew) placed by the charterer on the flight. In as far as we are aware, they did not intervene and were not involved in the disturbance in any way.
Celtic FC has a scheme to approve fans attending or travelling to matches. We are assured that all of the passengers on this flight were accredited to Celtic FC and there is no suggestion that this was an "unofficial" or "back-street" flight as one correspondent here has claimed. It is also worthwhile noting that another flight operated by a different [major] UK charter airline followed the Astraeus aircraft. This was arranged via exactly the same charterer and broker and was completely trouble-free. I believe one of the crew members of that flight has made a posting on this BB to affirm this.
The Celtic FC management have clearly stated that any fan convicted as a result of the events on Friday's flight will be banned from the Club. This stance is welcomed by Astraeus.
Astraeus cabin crew receive extensive training during their careers with the company on conflict management. The primary aim of that training - conducted by Securicare which also undertakes training for other UK airlines such as Air 2000 - is to de-fuse situations such as this if they cannot be averted. I have the utmost confidence that any of our crew members - including those on Friday's flight - would act in accordance with their training in the event of a disturbance occurring whilst in flight.
The consumption of passengers' own alcohol during the flight is prohibited by Astraeus. I believe this policy is also employed by all other UK airlines. Evidence collected from the aircraft on Friday after landing at Cardiff suggests that a number of passengers had ignored this rule by consuming their own alcohol on the flight. We recognise that this may well have been a contributory factor in the incident which took place on board.
I stress that a disturbance of any magnitude aboard an aircraft constitutes unacceptable behaviour on the part of the initiator(s). I reiterate that there is no place within the confines of an aircraft cabin at 33,000ft for the type of rowdy or unruly behaviour to which many people may turn a blind eye at 23.30 on a Friday evening outside a bar or public house. Astraeus and its employees will take action to protect the safety, security and wellbeing of other passengers and crew members in the event of any such behaviour, whether a football flight or a routine charter service.
The crew members on Friday's flight have the full, unequivocal support of myself and my fellow directors and they are to be commended for their prompt action taken to ensure that a difficult situation did not degenerate to the point where it became a threat to the safety of the aircraft and its occupants.
Jonathan Hinkles
Commercial Director
Astraeus
15 December 2002
Suggestions by certain parties on this bulletin board indicate reports that they dispute the injuries sustained by one of the cabin crew members aboard the flight. These suggestions are factually inaccurate. A cabin crew member was struck in the arm with sufficient severity to cause swelling which has now developed into extensive bruising. The cabin crew member received medical attention airside at Cardiff after landing on Friday and her injuries form part of the police investigation.
There were three stewards (nb as opposed to Cabin Crew) placed by the charterer on the flight. In as far as we are aware, they did not intervene and were not involved in the disturbance in any way.
Celtic FC has a scheme to approve fans attending or travelling to matches. We are assured that all of the passengers on this flight were accredited to Celtic FC and there is no suggestion that this was an "unofficial" or "back-street" flight as one correspondent here has claimed. It is also worthwhile noting that another flight operated by a different [major] UK charter airline followed the Astraeus aircraft. This was arranged via exactly the same charterer and broker and was completely trouble-free. I believe one of the crew members of that flight has made a posting on this BB to affirm this.
The Celtic FC management have clearly stated that any fan convicted as a result of the events on Friday's flight will be banned from the Club. This stance is welcomed by Astraeus.
Astraeus cabin crew receive extensive training during their careers with the company on conflict management. The primary aim of that training - conducted by Securicare which also undertakes training for other UK airlines such as Air 2000 - is to de-fuse situations such as this if they cannot be averted. I have the utmost confidence that any of our crew members - including those on Friday's flight - would act in accordance with their training in the event of a disturbance occurring whilst in flight.
The consumption of passengers' own alcohol during the flight is prohibited by Astraeus. I believe this policy is also employed by all other UK airlines. Evidence collected from the aircraft on Friday after landing at Cardiff suggests that a number of passengers had ignored this rule by consuming their own alcohol on the flight. We recognise that this may well have been a contributory factor in the incident which took place on board.
I stress that a disturbance of any magnitude aboard an aircraft constitutes unacceptable behaviour on the part of the initiator(s). I reiterate that there is no place within the confines of an aircraft cabin at 33,000ft for the type of rowdy or unruly behaviour to which many people may turn a blind eye at 23.30 on a Friday evening outside a bar or public house. Astraeus and its employees will take action to protect the safety, security and wellbeing of other passengers and crew members in the event of any such behaviour, whether a football flight or a routine charter service.
The crew members on Friday's flight have the full, unequivocal support of myself and my fellow directors and they are to be commended for their prompt action taken to ensure that a difficult situation did not degenerate to the point where it became a threat to the safety of the aircraft and its occupants.
Jonathan Hinkles
Commercial Director
Astraeus
15 December 2002
Last edited by JonathanH; 15th Dec 2002 at 18:52.
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Venezuala
Posts: 7
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
An idiot's guide to air travel
1) Check-in at the airport and wait for your flight to be called
2) Board the flight when called and take your seat, with the help of the cabin crew if required.
3) Relax and wait for the aircraft to start taxi procedure. Maybe have a flick thorugh the inflight magazine and take a peek out the window.
4) Fasten your seatbelts when called and enjoy the thrill of the take off
5) When allowed to do so, unfasten your seatbelts and have a drink (non alcoholic) from the bar and maybe have a chat with the cabin crew if they have time
6) Have a pleasant meal and maybe a cup of coffee of two
7) Exchange pleasantries with the passengers near you or read a book
8) When called to put on your seatbelts then return to your seats and wait for further instruction.
9) Prepare for landing when advised to do so and maybe take a view of the countryside below as you commence your descent.
10) Disemebark the aircraft when allowed to do so and stroll through to baggage reclaim where you are reunited with your baggage before proceeding through to the arrivals area where you are met by friends and loved ones before being driven home to your warm abode in good time to relax and reflect on an enjoyable trip abroad.
There, wasn't too difficult was it.
1) Check-in at the airport and wait for your flight to be called
2) Board the flight when called and take your seat, with the help of the cabin crew if required.
3) Relax and wait for the aircraft to start taxi procedure. Maybe have a flick thorugh the inflight magazine and take a peek out the window.
4) Fasten your seatbelts when called and enjoy the thrill of the take off
5) When allowed to do so, unfasten your seatbelts and have a drink (non alcoholic) from the bar and maybe have a chat with the cabin crew if they have time
6) Have a pleasant meal and maybe a cup of coffee of two
7) Exchange pleasantries with the passengers near you or read a book
8) When called to put on your seatbelts then return to your seats and wait for further instruction.
9) Prepare for landing when advised to do so and maybe take a view of the countryside below as you commence your descent.
10) Disemebark the aircraft when allowed to do so and stroll through to baggage reclaim where you are reunited with your baggage before proceeding through to the arrivals area where you are met by friends and loved ones before being driven home to your warm abode in good time to relax and reflect on an enjoyable trip abroad.
There, wasn't too difficult was it.
Well said JH, though I'd counsel against going into too much detail on this forum if there is to be follow up action elsewhere.
It's inevitable and unfortunate that in any such event there will be a vast majority of innocent customers highly inconvenienced by the malice or stupidity of the one or two - this is no different from the bomb hoaxer or gate no-show who causes a missed slot and thereby disrupts the journey of hundreds on board whilst a security baggage search is conducted. I guess the PR skill required is to ensure that the justified mass anger of fellow passengers is directed against the miscreant rather than the airline, as well as to send out a wider message as to where the line is to be drawn. I think that you've already achieved the latter, for which well done. The former is made more difficult by the fact that you have an affinity group who will close ranks and are unlikely to condemn their own, rather than a planeload of random individuals who might have been more objective about the true cause of their regrettable experience.
Good luck!
It's inevitable and unfortunate that in any such event there will be a vast majority of innocent customers highly inconvenienced by the malice or stupidity of the one or two - this is no different from the bomb hoaxer or gate no-show who causes a missed slot and thereby disrupts the journey of hundreds on board whilst a security baggage search is conducted. I guess the PR skill required is to ensure that the justified mass anger of fellow passengers is directed against the miscreant rather than the airline, as well as to send out a wider message as to where the line is to be drawn. I think that you've already achieved the latter, for which well done. The former is made more difficult by the fact that you have an affinity group who will close ranks and are unlikely to condemn their own, rather than a planeload of random individuals who might have been more objective about the true cause of their regrettable experience.
Good luck!
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: The Burrow, N53:48:02 W1:48:57, The Tin Tent - EGBS, EGBO
Posts: 2,297
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Southend King has said much of what I would have said but I would like to add a comment or two from a passenger's (not on this flight) point of view.
1 Any action which gets me safely back on the ground in a nasty situation is fine by me.
2 It is perfectly possible to have a fracas taking place a few rows away and not know anything about it at the time. It has happened to me and I have very good hearing. If you add in dulled senses from imbibing alcohol and / or the use of headphones to listen to the inflight entertainment then perception is lessened even further.
I would like to pose a question; who is responsible for ensuring that anyone who is drunk does not board an aircraft? Is it the check-in staff, the staff at the gate, the cabin crew at the aircraft door or the passenger him(her) self?
I must say that television programmes about commercial aviation do tend to give the impression that a person under the influence of alcohol can board an aircraft unless they are particularly offensive or legless and this impression can only be to the detriment of the crew and other passengers.
What, if any training is given to staff at all stages in the recognition of a person suffering from the effects of alcohol? Don't laugh, it is not always as straightforward as you may think.
A suggestion: when tickets are being sold for a flight which is likely to be carrying fans to a football match why not include a notice stating in plain, simple English, that the passenger will be refused boarding if under the influence of alcohol, that no alcohol may be taken on board and that smoking is banned. It might also be an idea to have a tear-off strip which the passengers have to sign to say they have read and understood and hand in at check-in. Maybe a note to the effect that some sort of nicotine replacement may be an idea for heavy smokers particularly on the longer flights.
Mr Softie I find that recipe works very well with the addition of a nap or two on long haul flights.
1 Any action which gets me safely back on the ground in a nasty situation is fine by me.
2 It is perfectly possible to have a fracas taking place a few rows away and not know anything about it at the time. It has happened to me and I have very good hearing. If you add in dulled senses from imbibing alcohol and / or the use of headphones to listen to the inflight entertainment then perception is lessened even further.
I would like to pose a question; who is responsible for ensuring that anyone who is drunk does not board an aircraft? Is it the check-in staff, the staff at the gate, the cabin crew at the aircraft door or the passenger him(her) self?
I must say that television programmes about commercial aviation do tend to give the impression that a person under the influence of alcohol can board an aircraft unless they are particularly offensive or legless and this impression can only be to the detriment of the crew and other passengers.
What, if any training is given to staff at all stages in the recognition of a person suffering from the effects of alcohol? Don't laugh, it is not always as straightforward as you may think.
A suggestion: when tickets are being sold for a flight which is likely to be carrying fans to a football match why not include a notice stating in plain, simple English, that the passenger will be refused boarding if under the influence of alcohol, that no alcohol may be taken on board and that smoking is banned. It might also be an idea to have a tear-off strip which the passengers have to sign to say they have read and understood and hand in at check-in. Maybe a note to the effect that some sort of nicotine replacement may be an idea for heavy smokers particularly on the longer flights.
Mr Softie I find that recipe works very well with the addition of a nap or two on long haul flights.
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Lake Side Quebec Canada
Posts: 37
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Two questions not answered Yet.
Maybe someone from Aestres can say something.
1) What was the PA announcement concerning the smoking SLF ?
2) Was the lady who asked a polite question really threated to
be arrested ?
In the event that the answer to both above questions is
afirmative:
Then 1) Someone is up to be sued for unlawfull
detainment.
2) Is it really what we want to have CC
that have such dangerous power
espcially during a hight stress moment ?
1) What was the PA announcement concerning the smoking SLF ?
2) Was the lady who asked a polite question really threated to
be arrested ?
In the event that the answer to both above questions is
afirmative:
Then 1) Someone is up to be sued for unlawfull
detainment.
2) Is it really what we want to have CC
that have such dangerous power
espcially during a hight stress moment ?
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Dublin
Posts: 23
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Max Tow - do you see the irony in this quotation from your post ?:
................................by the fact that you have an affinity group who will close ranks and are unlikely to condemn their own.........
I certainly do.
................................by the fact that you have an affinity group who will close ranks and are unlikely to condemn their own.........
I certainly do.
Beady Eye
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 1,495
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Web-Footed Flyer
I would respectfully suggest that the questions you ask are sub-judice and are to be answered in the courts.
Max Tow:
Highly inconvenienced are perhaps the key two words in this whole affair. Some passengers were highly inconvenienced but ALL on the flight are alive and uninjured, with the exception of one member of crew.
Oh and MOL.
You have irritated others in this thread and you are starting to irritate me, so perhaps you are a troll, I don't know. What I'd like to know is what are your qualifications to be entering into a debate on a subject in which you appear to only have knowledge which you have garnered from the media? And please, no picking and choosing which questions you will and won't answer, as previously in this thread. A straight answer to a simple question.
Max Tow:
It's inevitable and unfortunate that in any such event there will be a vast majority of innocent customers highly inconvenienced by the malice or stupidity of the one or two
Oh and MOL.
You have irritated others in this thread and you are starting to irritate me, so perhaps you are a troll, I don't know. What I'd like to know is what are your qualifications to be entering into a debate on a subject in which you appear to only have knowledge which you have garnered from the media? And please, no picking and choosing which questions you will and won't answer, as previously in this thread. A straight answer to a simple question.
Last edited by BDiONU; 15th Dec 2002 at 20:41.
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Dublin
Posts: 23
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
MP demands Celtic aircraft inquiry
by Eleanor Cowie and Mark Macaskill
AN MP yesterday demanded an inquiry into the cost of deploying an RAF helicopter and riot police after an aircraft carrying Celtic fans was forced to make an emergency landing.
A Boeing 737 destined for Glasgow, carrying about 140 football supporters, was forced to land at Cardiff on Friday afternoon after a member of the cabin crew was allegedly assaulted.
Following early reports of a riot on board and a Mayday distress call from the pilot, about 60 armed police, more than 30 firefighters and eight ambulance teams were deployed to Cardiff airport. An RAF Sea King helicopter was also diverted from training over the Bristol Channel to assist.
Although the cost of the operation has yet to be calculated, it is estimated that it will run into thousands of pounds.
Yesterday six men arrested by South Wales police were released on bail without charge.
Julie Morgan, MP for Cardiff North, called for an immediate investigation. “Clearly there needs to be a report as the aircraft had to make an emergency landing,” she said.
“On the surface, it looks as if the pilot made an unnecessary landing but people are more nervous now and his first concern would be for the safety of the passengers.”
According to Astraeus, the airline, there were two disturbances on the aircraft. The first took place at the front of the plane and involved a passenger smoking in the lavatories. The second incident occurred at the rear of the aircraft, after the captain had appealed to passengers for calm, stating that the behaviour at the front of the aircraft would not be tolerated.
According to the airline, an air hostess was struck on the arm. She was examined by paramedics on arrival at Cardiff but did not require hospital treatment.
Last night a spokesman for the airline stood by its pilot’s decision to divert the flight.
Jim McGahan, a Celtic supporter who was on the plane, said that tensions began to rise after the captain announced that a man was suspected of smoking in the lavatory.
“That’s when people began asking questions but there wasn’t any indication of a disturbance,” he said. “Within 10 minutes one of the stewards rushed into the cockpit. The seat-belt light came on and the plane banked sharply right. There was no warning, no announcement from the captain and there was a lot of anxiety from the passengers.”
by Eleanor Cowie and Mark Macaskill
AN MP yesterday demanded an inquiry into the cost of deploying an RAF helicopter and riot police after an aircraft carrying Celtic fans was forced to make an emergency landing.
A Boeing 737 destined for Glasgow, carrying about 140 football supporters, was forced to land at Cardiff on Friday afternoon after a member of the cabin crew was allegedly assaulted.
Following early reports of a riot on board and a Mayday distress call from the pilot, about 60 armed police, more than 30 firefighters and eight ambulance teams were deployed to Cardiff airport. An RAF Sea King helicopter was also diverted from training over the Bristol Channel to assist.
Although the cost of the operation has yet to be calculated, it is estimated that it will run into thousands of pounds.
Yesterday six men arrested by South Wales police were released on bail without charge.
Julie Morgan, MP for Cardiff North, called for an immediate investigation. “Clearly there needs to be a report as the aircraft had to make an emergency landing,” she said.
“On the surface, it looks as if the pilot made an unnecessary landing but people are more nervous now and his first concern would be for the safety of the passengers.”
According to Astraeus, the airline, there were two disturbances on the aircraft. The first took place at the front of the plane and involved a passenger smoking in the lavatories. The second incident occurred at the rear of the aircraft, after the captain had appealed to passengers for calm, stating that the behaviour at the front of the aircraft would not be tolerated.
According to the airline, an air hostess was struck on the arm. She was examined by paramedics on arrival at Cardiff but did not require hospital treatment.
Last night a spokesman for the airline stood by its pilot’s decision to divert the flight.
Jim McGahan, a Celtic supporter who was on the plane, said that tensions began to rise after the captain announced that a man was suspected of smoking in the lavatory.
“That’s when people began asking questions but there wasn’t any indication of a disturbance,” he said. “Within 10 minutes one of the stewards rushed into the cockpit. The seat-belt light came on and the plane banked sharply right. There was no warning, no announcement from the captain and there was a lot of anxiety from the passengers.”
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 1,294
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
MOL,
I don't know what axe you have to grind against the aviation community but please would you go and do it elsewhere.
The way you keep having ago at Astraeus suggests to me an ulterior motive .
Has the Guv managed to find his way back in
I don't know what axe you have to grind against the aviation community but please would you go and do it elsewhere.
The way you keep having ago at Astraeus suggests to me an ulterior motive .
Has the Guv managed to find his way back in
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 202
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Although i applauded the captains decision to divert, I believe this incident has certainly got blown totally out of all proportion.
At least eight charters left from Santiago and Vigo that evening and the following day, and all those flights completed their journeys without any trouble at all.
Lets not paint everyone with the same brush, I think all the fans on those flights deserve some credit for their good behaviour, as did the majority on the diverted flight.
At least eight charters left from Santiago and Vigo that evening and the following day, and all those flights completed their journeys without any trouble at all.
Lets not paint everyone with the same brush, I think all the fans on those flights deserve some credit for their good behaviour, as did the majority on the diverted flight.
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Dublin
Posts: 23
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well Flower, you would be totally wrong.
I have no axe to grind, I have simply put the other point of view.
It is amazing that I am now being insulted by a number of posters for simply doing this.
I have no axe to grind, I have simply put the other point of view.
It is amazing that I am now being insulted by a number of posters for simply doing this.
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: London
Posts: 44
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BDiONU said
"I would respectfully suggest that the questions you ask are sub-judice and are to be answered in the courts. "
No-one's been charged yet so it can't be subjudice. I suggest you do as you suggest others do and keep to what you what you consider yourself an expert on
"I would respectfully suggest that the questions you ask are sub-judice and are to be answered in the courts. "
No-one's been charged yet so it can't be subjudice. I suggest you do as you suggest others do and keep to what you what you consider yourself an expert on
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Over The Hills And Far Away
Posts: 676
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
With all due respect to ATCO's and 'system specialists' and other non-aircrew, very few people know exactly what occured on this particular flight, and only if you have experienced really unruly passengers will you have any idea of what went through the minds of the cabincrew. You will also know that after the event it will be quite difficult to give an exact account of what took place, such as who did what and when.
So before people start demanding the CV of posters, it might be a good idea to have a look at one self first.
So before people start demanding the CV of posters, it might be a good idea to have a look at one self first.
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: London
Posts: 6
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Web-Footed Flyer said
Yes, that would be good. I am puzzled by this because the airline's account gives me the impression that the culprit had been identified by cabin crew and would be met by police at Glasgow whereas the passengers' version has the captain demanding that the culprit own up failing which all passengers would be held at Glasgow pending the arrival of the police.
Depending on which one is true I think we have two different situations. In the first instance it would be a case of passengers reacting badly to the news that an identified passenger would be met by police at Glasgow. The second situation is much different and would have involved an aircrew holding passengers against their will on an aircraft. The question then would be whether they had sufficient reason to do so.
Maybe someone from Aestres can say something.
1) What was the PA announcement concerning the smoking SLF ?
Yes, that would be good. I am puzzled by this because the airline's account gives me the impression that the culprit had been identified by cabin crew and would be met by police at Glasgow whereas the passengers' version has the captain demanding that the culprit own up failing which all passengers would be held at Glasgow pending the arrival of the police.
Depending on which one is true I think we have two different situations. In the first instance it would be a case of passengers reacting badly to the news that an identified passenger would be met by police at Glasgow. The second situation is much different and would have involved an aircrew holding passengers against their will on an aircraft. The question then would be whether they had sufficient reason to do so.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: EDI, LHR, NQY
Posts: 403
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No-one's been charged yet so it can't be subjudice.
I'm saying nothing about the diversion, but the way AEU has handled this issue and supported its crew has been absolutely fantastic IMHO.
aka Capt PPRuNe
Join Date: May 1995
Location: UK
Posts: 4,541
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Please leave the moderating to the moderators. MOL is welcome to ask the questions he has been asking even if he doesn't realise that he too is insulting some of us with his insinuations. What he doesn't seem to realise is that when it comes to the technical explanations of what we, as professional crew base our decisions on is fact and what the passengers seem to base theirs on is their 'perceptions' of what we do when we are at work.
We have already had the company's backing of the crew and an explanation based on their report. We have also had the interviews of some of the passengers which have shown to me at least and probably most of the others who frequent this forum and are in the business, that their stories are conflicting and a lot of their understanding of what a crew does when confronted with disruptive passengers is painfully inadequate.
Now we have an MP wanting an inquiry. Well, I am sure that the MOR, the police report and the subsequent court cases will provide some answers. Do MPs always call for an inquiry when some police are called out to cover an incident involving football hooligans?
At least here on PPRuNe we are able to correct some of the wilder presumptions and inaccurate speculation made by those who are not 'in the job'. By allowing posters such as MOL to make their insinuations we are able to see where the distortions are coming from.
We have already had the company's backing of the crew and an explanation based on their report. We have also had the interviews of some of the passengers which have shown to me at least and probably most of the others who frequent this forum and are in the business, that their stories are conflicting and a lot of their understanding of what a crew does when confronted with disruptive passengers is painfully inadequate.
Now we have an MP wanting an inquiry. Well, I am sure that the MOR, the police report and the subsequent court cases will provide some answers. Do MPs always call for an inquiry when some police are called out to cover an incident involving football hooligans?
At least here on PPRuNe we are able to correct some of the wilder presumptions and inaccurate speculation made by those who are not 'in the job'. By allowing posters such as MOL to make their insinuations we are able to see where the distortions are coming from.
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Glasgow
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What qualifications do you need to take part in this discussion?
I really can't see what MOL's insinuations are. He is asking questions based on the reports from people onboard. Yes, these reports are conflicting, but the reports of the crew also seem to conflict with a lot of people as well.
I really can't see what MOL's insinuations are. He is asking questions based on the reports from people onboard. Yes, these reports are conflicting, but the reports of the crew also seem to conflict with a lot of people as well.
Join Date: Aug 1998
Location: West Sussex
Posts: 149
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
DX Wombat and others
I see we are now on the 12th page already on this subject. I find the most interesting point is the large number of non-aircrew posts on this subject and the huge furore that it has caused. Many people returning to the fray repeating themselves and getting a bit more of the action.
My take on the incident is that the current yob culture present in a minority of air travellers is to be deplored. Unfortunately it is getting worse. Obviously I was not on the subject aircraft and cannot comment on the severity of some passengers behaviour, BUT it seems that the smoking incident did take place, and it seems that a stewardess was struck and the flight crew were advised of a deteriorating situation.
From that point on, it was the Captain's call. Whether or not a Mayday was justified is completely immaterial. We were'nt there! He played it as he saw fit, and that is what he's paid to do.
Incidentally DX, how are you going to stop alcohol coming on board. Ban duty free sales at the airports? Or confiscate the lot as people come on board? Not Hardly! as John Wayne would say.
Lastly, does this incident add anything to the debate on the locked cockpit door policy?
Now can we talk about something else!
I see we are now on the 12th page already on this subject. I find the most interesting point is the large number of non-aircrew posts on this subject and the huge furore that it has caused. Many people returning to the fray repeating themselves and getting a bit more of the action.
My take on the incident is that the current yob culture present in a minority of air travellers is to be deplored. Unfortunately it is getting worse. Obviously I was not on the subject aircraft and cannot comment on the severity of some passengers behaviour, BUT it seems that the smoking incident did take place, and it seems that a stewardess was struck and the flight crew were advised of a deteriorating situation.
From that point on, it was the Captain's call. Whether or not a Mayday was justified is completely immaterial. We were'nt there! He played it as he saw fit, and that is what he's paid to do.
Incidentally DX, how are you going to stop alcohol coming on board. Ban duty free sales at the airports? Or confiscate the lot as people come on board? Not Hardly! as John Wayne would say.
Lastly, does this incident add anything to the debate on the locked cockpit door policy?
Now can we talk about something else!