Brit Captain in trouble in Milan?
 

Maybe I've missed the thread, but I'm surprised this hasn't made it to R&N:

From the BBC at http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/uk/...00/1393374.stm

Pilot's smoking protest sparks legal action

Italian police have started legal
proceedings against a British airline
pilot who prevented 140 passengers
from disembarking because someone
had been smoking in the toilet.

Passengers on the flight from
Stansted to Milan on Sunday were
told on arrival by Brian Bliss that one
of them had endangered the safety of
the aircraft.

He demanded the culprit own up but
no one did and 40 minutes later
police boarded, let the passengers go
and asked Captain Bliss for an
explanation.

A police spokesman said criminal
proceedings were being started
against him for using unnecessary
force.


Thoughts folks? OK the smoker is an idiot of the first order, but the captain sounds distinctly OTT to me... poor chap had probably had the alarm go off three times per sector for the last week and had had enough... any idea how the airline (which airline?) are handling the situation?

Various obvious cans of worms opened here... captains authority, police boarding (were they invited?) - would like to hear a lot more facts about this incident.

The big airlines have procedures for that kind of stuff.

Sounds like this captain was inventing his own procedures.

Yup, a little Over The Top.

------------------
Men, this is no drill...

The incident happened almost 3 years ago, July 27 1998. Airline was Go.
It's just the court case that's starting now.

Thanks PT... doh! Can't even trust the beeb these days... on my reading of the article it's 'clear' that the incident happened yesterday...!

Explains why I didn't find a thread when I did I search on the last few days... question still stands; what DID GO do to the captain involved?

<mumbles about journos and goes off to search the archives>

I had a situation sort of like that with a bunch of college kids on spring break.

We were a last minute equipment change (JFK/CUN) and therefore had to make a fuel stop in Sanford, Fla.

As the refuelling was going on, the F/E and myself smelled cigarette smoke coming into the cockpit from the cabin. (The pax were remaing on board.

My initial plan was to go back and cleverly ask them to stop smoking, as we were almost ready to go, and Cancun was only another 50 minutes away.

But when I got back to where the smoke was, I noticed several cigarettes ground out on the carpet. (they didn't even use the ashtrays) Since no one would 'fess up, I decided to put everyone off. They wouldn't go, so I had to call for police intervention.

I explained to the tour leader that when whoever was smoking fessed up, they would stay behind and everyone else could go on with us, but they had to find the persons within 15 minutes or we would be out of duty time and then no one would go.

No one owned up to smoking, but one poor girl pointed one of the guys out to a cop, who told me, so I left him and took everyone else. This guy then had the ba!!s to say he wasn't the only one and it wasn't fair. I told him to tell me who the others were so then he could have some company.

The tour director wanted to know what to do and I told him to tell the other offenders who weren't caught to hand over $100 each to his buddy who was caught so he could buy a ticket to join the group the next day.

In the USA smoking on the a/c is a federal offense, so there's a little more leverage than other places where it may only be a company policy.

re GO Captain, here is the original news

http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/wor...140583.stm#top

(Monday, July 27, 1998 )

What a great thread!
Perhaps we should start a competition for the best story of an OTT action by a Captain. :rolleyes:
I can't think of anything even near either of these two stories at the moment.

Virgin, it is easy to sit back with a smug laugh at the "OTT" actions of others. Lets all hope that all your pax are angels and you never have to make such a decision

dog

Appreciate your comments and people will not be angels all the time. But you should step back and analyse the situation at the time

This Captain refused 148 fare paying passengers(those people who pay his wages) the right to disembark in an attempt to find one person who had committed an anti-social act smoking. After 40 minutes he released them without catching the offender.

Did he think he was a school teacher in charge of classroom where the whole class is given detention for the action of one person. He made a judgement call on the day that was a bad one now it would appear that it is time to pay.

I think the news story is an old one - don't know why the BBC doesn't date its news but makes old stories look current - but the legal action against the pilot in Milan was dropped.

I have stopped smoking long ago now, and it's why I feel free to question as follow:
From the beginning of the commercial aviation, until the late 80, millions of flights have been done, with aircrafts closely similars to the ones that are flying today, with almost the whole passengers allowed to smoke, and I have never heard (perhaps misinformation) of even one accident involving a smoking passenger.So, while the only offense of the smokers is the desagrements of other pax, why so hysterical OTT reactions of the crew?

[This message has been edited by MGloff (edited 26 June 2001).]

Depends what you are trying to achieve - If you let everyone go, you will never nail the culprit.

We had a brand new 737 at AMS which had the toilet mirror vandalized in flight by a diamond - huge rude letters right across. The captain let everyone off. I think I would have had the police come first - strapping big Dutchmen with holsters - just to make the point.

But there - Captain is paid to make decisions to the best of his judgement.

Gonna have to edit this - Mc Gloff haven't you heard of any crashes caused by toilet waste fires then?


[This message has been edited by Few Cloudy (edited 26 June 2001).]

MGloff, yup you are partly correct, but from what I understand, since smoking has been banned, it is not the act of smoking that is unsafe, but the fashion in which it is done.
Now it has to be done in secret, i.e. in the toilets, the safety issue is where to conceal the offending cigarette butt , lit or unlit , to avoid detection, and also the associated destruction of smoke detectors etc. to avoid being caught in the first place!

Interesting thoughts... the more I think about it, the more I think the captain in this case made a fairly serious error. Engineer put it very well.

A captain, rightly and necessarily, has the final authority on their aircraft. It's important that this is not seen to be abused, and imposing a schoolteacher-type collective punishment is an abuse, IMHO. Leave the business of catching & punishing the culprit to the authorities... whatever your opinion of their efficiency, they are professionals at their job just as you are at yours.

FWIW, if I had been on that flight (as a fare-paying pax, not deadheading) I would have been strongly tempted to open the door myself, if safe to do so, and bring charges of assault and false imprisonment against anyone who tried to stop me.

I understand his frustration at the smoking situation, but did the captain in this case, I wonder, pause to consider that his actions in detaining the entire planeload could easily have resulted in an air rage scenario which would be much more serious than the original smoking issue? I'd like to hear some input from cabin crew on how they would have felt about having to enforce such orders from the captain...

Mgloff,

My memory is my second shortest thing these days but wasn't there an Air India 747 that went down in the Atlantic years ago the cause being put down to somking in the toilets? Maybe it was Air Canada???

Gspot

I think you'll find that the Air India 747 went down due to a bomb by Sikh nationalist terrorists. The RCMP has finally arrested a suspect and the trial is pending. It was n't somking, or even smoking, in the toilets !!!

Gspot
There may very well have been smoke in the toilet of the Air India 747, probably caused by a bomb going off in the hold.

2 IIRC - AF at ORY, AC at CVG neither of which was ever attributed to cigarette butts. The US NTSB is quite convinced the AC fire was caused by a shorted flush motor. AF fire source is still undetermined AFAIK.

Back to the thread....
What would have happened if I as a pax had 'confessed' (falsely) just to stop the nonsense, and then recanted ?

[This message has been edited by PaperTiger (edited 26 June 2001).]

PT
Maybe Captain would have let rest of passanger disembark called police but here is the rub. Rest of passengers complain of Captain's action holding them on aircraft.

As stated before a judgement call at the time which was wrong. Maybe like any unruly passenger as we constantly hear of today he should have notified the police immediately. Let the appropriate authority deal with the situation.

Question
Within the law just how much power does a commander have and when is he relinquished of that power?

I agree with Ranger One - if I had been on that flight, I would do my utmost to bring charges of false imprisonment.. it was a ridiculous abuse of position and if this had happened anywhere else, anyone holding passengers against their will would be dismissed on the spot, and rightly so.

Also, if the man was that self important and pompous, I would have to question his ability to work an emergency with the FO. Talking of which, I wonder what, if anything, the FO said to challenge the Captain's apparent departure from sanity.

Ranting aside, I think probably the best solution to smokers in the loo would be to put sprinklers in there ! :)

If it is a British-registered aircraft (as in this case) the commander's powers are considerable, as contained in the Civil Aviaition Act 1982 and Air Navigation Order (2) 1995. I'm no lawyer but absent 'imminent danger', once the flight is complete I would expect the laws of the destination country then take precedence. This captain was charged with or at least accused of breaking an Italian law pertaining to unlawful detention (sic).

There is an article ex-Hansard which I found on the web. Long but thought-provoking IMO.
http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/cm199899/cmselect/cmenvtra /275/275ap36.htm



[This message has been edited by PaperTiger (edited 26 June 2001).]