I need Pilots Opinions Please!

[londoneasyjetboi]

Hi Everyone, I know this probably needs to be moved to another forum, but this is the only place I can think of on here where I will get a Pilots direct opinion, I hope you guys and gals can help me out!

Without going into too much detail about an event I had recently, at what point as a Commander of an Aircraft would a pasenger have to cross to make the decision to Divert to an close airport?

The short version of the story is a passenger made an unprovoked attack (Very physical, pax were slightly injured) on 3 pax. It took 2 large male Cabin Crew and one other large pax to remove violent pax and subdue him. Commander was informed of the event at 75min before destination airport. It took him nearly 40min to make a decision, by which point, time made the decision as the original destination was closest.

All Cabin Crew onboard were visibly shaken and commander was again informed 3 times that we were not happy to continue and wanted to get down... we were very lucky that pax did not have anymore outbursts.

My question is, what needs to happen onboard in this kind of situation for you as a Commander to make the decision to divert and offload violent pax asap?

Looking forward to your replies!

[NigelOnDraft]

There is no easy / correct decision

Much as you won't like it

and commander was again informed 3 times that we were not happy to continue and wanted to get down

would lilkely have been the least of his concerns His priority was the safety of the aircraft and occupants, and an unplanned, short notice diversion requires a significant safety hazard to these to justify. 8 hours across the Atlantic is one thing, an hour to planned dest with a Cabin Crew and/or Pax to try to restrain further problems might be the best option.

Also, bear in mind the effect on your dispruptive Pax of being told the aircraft will be diverting because of them, to have them offloaded / arrested / locked up. Not guaranteed to calm them down

The fact that you got to Dest without futher problems somewhat (but not necessarily) supports the Capt's decision sorry

NoD

[Rainboe]

He was subdued. Why divert? You might not like it but it is his decision, not yours. There is still a planeload of people wanting to get to their destination, not divert. If the creep was subdued and injuries not serious (obviously), I fail to see what the desire to divert is for.

[Bealzebub]

Yes, as NOD states it is pointless trying to second guess or comment with the third hand benefit of hindsight.

A point to consider is that the event you describe and the Captain were seperated by a locked steel bullet proof door. The Captain would be reliant on communications from the cabin, and my guess is that things were very busy at the time.

Any diversion from cruising altitude (other than in extremis) is never going to be a case of "any airport will do and we will be on the ground in 10 minutes". Even a well placed airport is probably going to be at least a 25 minute event and likely longer. The situation of a violent passenger is indeed a very serious one. Obviously the Captain would expect all necessary attempts to be made to restrain and subdue the passenger as was obviously done in your case. There are then any number of variables that would come into play with respect to the follow up action. The assesment of the ongoing threat, would rely on clear reports from the cabin. The suitability and availability of a diversion airport. I can imagine that a situation like this must have been extremely unpleasant and stressful for everybody, but particularly for the crew, and minutes restraining an individual must have seemed like hours!

It may have been some time before the Captain was furnished with enough facts to properly decide on a follow up course of action, and even then he would have had to plan a course of actions based on the situation as it existed. However unpleasant and frightening, it sounds as if you were very successful in stabilising the incident, and it is not difficult to envisige a situation were the best course of action may have been to continue to a destination that was familiar and properly planned, rather than take a hasty stab at an unplanned and unfamiliar diversion airport which in reality may have resulted in very little time saving.

It is very hard to give you any sort of meaningful answer, because any situation is dependant on so many variables that are relevant on the day. The Captain would have been very mindful of what he was being told by the crew, and I am wondering how well the imperative was communicated, how and by whom? In any event it sounded as if you did a very good job, and the decisions made however difficult resulted in a successful outcome.

[Gassy]

Rainboe......Why always on the defence? The guy was asking a genuine question and opinion. He wasnt saying the pilot made a wrong decision.

Not all us SLF are on here to dig at you pilots. Try not to shoot us down evertime we post a question.

[londoneasyjetboi]

Thanks guys for your answers so far. However, probably due to my short wrap up of events, I am not really asking if the correct decision was made, I am asking, if you were in command of an aircraft, and a situation like this arose, what variables (ie, pax strength, injuries, unstable conditions in the cabin, not phyiscal limits like closest airport, correct services available there) do you take into consideration while making a decision to divert or continue? Please also keep in mind, that I work for airline that does not carry restraint kits.

Keep it up guys, I like the responses coming so far, whether they are of the same ideas that I have not, I can always learn more!

[Lookforshooter]

I fly jets single pilot...managing passegers once in the air, is pretty much moot. They either handle themselves or they don't. Sometimes they even sit up front in the copilot's seat. Needless to say, once in the air if a simple verbal command doesn't deal with the problem, I would simply land the aircraft..pull the pax out, and hope that he caused me to 'defend myself'.

[wiggy]

londoneasyjetboi

The previous posters have IMHO got it pretty much spot on..there are a stack of variables but if the passenger has been successfully restrained, if there are no serious injuries, if there are no signs of other troublemakers in the cabin then chances are the Commander is going to continue to destination ( indeed in our outfit that is stated Company policy).

Of course if you haven't got restraint kits the situation may be slightly different, but even in that case continuing to destination may well still be the safest course of action.

[OneIn60rule]

Not having any experience on that part.

I would treat it as a Drunk nob that needs cuffing.

It's ONE person. What can he do while he is restrained?

Let's assume there are 300 pax in there. Is is logical to divert due to one person?

It would cost an awfull lot of money to divert. I doubt the offending pax would be able to pay back for what he did. (won't cover the divert).

Also note, I assumed that cabin crew were trained for such an event? I mean how often has one had to deal with rowdy pax?


Take a different concept. What if someone onboard is seriously ill? Then yes, divert is definately on top of the list.

1/60

[B747-800]

restrain him and fly on

YouTube - Angry passenger panics on transatlantic flight

If the cabin crew can restrain him there is no problem to continue to destination, if not: , we got a real problem!

Otherwise get them: YouTube - Anti-Aircraft hijacking drill of Xinjiang Armed Police

[1in1000000]

I would imagine that, if in your opinion, the situation was under control and you were reasonably confident that nothing major was going to happen for the remaining duration of the flight proceed as first planned.3 angry passangers is a lot more manageable than 300

[Piltdown Man]

The simple (and legal) answer is: Any point I care to choose. The sensible one is very much a mute point and as you see above, very open to discussion. But given no other information I'll carry on with Plan A until my colleagues in the cabin suggest that they may soon lose control or that a diversion might be sensible. Then, depending on what is beneath me, an en-route diversion may be started.

However, rest assured, anybody who has interfered with (and these are the words) "the safety, conduct or good order" of my flight will be arrested on arrival and I will insist that they are charged with such offences and I will appear in court to testify.

PM

[Arthur Dent1]

What about the Notechs skills though? The information relayed through the armoured insurgent proof door stated three times that the need was to divert. it was not certain that the violence had permanently ceased. Don't completely disagree with the above posts but increased relevance to cc communiacations I feel could have been taken.

[Non-PC Plod]

I would tend to lean towards ArthurDents point here. If the whole crew is telling the captain they are not happy, then I think he needs to have outstandingly good reasons to ignore them and just carry on. A good leader needs to take the team with him, after all.

[SNS3Guppy]

Asking "what would you do" is inherently flawed. It calls for speculation based on far too little information, and leaves the subject without the benefit of being in that situation. I can think of many reasons to continue and many reasons to divert, and can tell you that I would use my best judgement given all the factors in consideration at the time. Those factors would include, but not be limited to the nature of the situation, the threat posed by the subdued individual, the fuel state, weather at destination and alternates and diversionary fields, aircraft performance, company needs, safety of flight, extenuating circumstances such as maintenance issues or inoperative equipment, political considerations, etc.

While the flight attendants and others on board have important insights and information, they don't have the full picture regarding the flight, nor are they in posession of all the facts. Nor are they in charge of the flight; that's the job of the pilot in command.

Should the captain in this case have diverted? I can't say, as I wasn't there. One may expect that the PIC will take all the information into account; not just that provided by the flight attendants, but all the information. Decisions to divert or proceed may be impacted by many criteria; the combative passenger is but one thing to consider.

[Chris Scott]

SNS3Guppy has summed it up perfectly: and, as he says, we don't have all the necessary information. Diverting is never to be undertaken lightly, because it involves so many complications. It's also true that, by the time the different options have been carefully weighed in a situation that has apparently ceased to be critical, top of descent for the original destination may be fast approaching. As one who retired (on schedule) two months after 9/11, can I offer a couple of general points from my different − if limited − perspective?

The above case involved two large stewards restraining a passenger. As a passenger these days, I sometimes find myself in cabins of about 150, crewed by 3 female cabin attendants. However bossy an attitude they may present to most of the passengers (and they sometimes do), I hope they manage to develop a good rapport with several of the stronger young male passengers. The latter might be essential allies in the sort of case described above; particularly now that the flight crew is normally only two, both of whom may also be female, and are in any case discouraged from leaving the cockpit.

That perceived requirement for the flight crew − post Twin Towers − to be isolated in the cockpit is at the heart of the problem. I’m not offering a solution. For the last 10 years of my career we were making a stronger effort to counter the tendency for an increasing “us” and “them” division between the cockpit and the cabin. Cockpit CRM having evolved to something more useful than some of the early ideas, companies were introducing it to cabin crew. Presumably, these programmes are continuing? But any attempts to provide integrated crew CRM, with flight crews and cabin crew in the same classroom, must be hampered by the fact that they see so little of each other on the aeroplane. Having said that, the regular sharing of perceptions and experiences between cabin and cockpit crew − in a stress-free environment − is more important than ever.

[wiggy]

londoneasyjetboi

Ok, from what you describe you had a tough time...but, just a thought...unlike us, hopefully your Captain on the day had all the information he needed from the cabin to make a land ASAP/ continue decision - did you ( or any of the crew, especially the Senior Cabin Crew Member) ask your Captain for the logic behind his decision after you had landed and everything had calmed down?

[londoneasyjetboi]

Hey Wiggy.

Yeah he had all the information, I could not guarantee continued control of the situation in the Cabin, those were my words to him....

As for reasoning, there were none given, he gave a short statement to the police and then he left... no debrief, just a thanks for today and left... I dont know how to go from there

Any suggestions?

[Bealzebub]

The truth is, that in many of these difficult situations everybody does their utmost to achieve the best possible outcome. Nobody would willfully seek to place the aircraft or anybody aboard in undue or unnecessary jeopardy. However the perception of what somebody else should be doing is often different from the reality. This is where effective communication plays a major part. For some of the reasons already discussed (and presumably the basis of your initial question,) the reaction you either wanted or expected differed from the actual response for maybe some of these or any other reasons.

I think you are perfectly entitled to contact the relevant person or department within your company to say that you are still uncomfortable with this situation, and would like to discuss it further. It may be the safety department or the CRM team, or your line manager, who can assist in this regard. Not that I am suggesting you are, but do not be confrontational, go in with an open mind, put your points across and listen to what is offered in response. You could of course ask the Captain to contact you when he has a 30 minutes to spare so that you can discuss it further, but I would still suggest using a mediator from the appropriate department to assist in this regard.

I can tell you that as a Captain, I would have no problem at all with anybody who wanted to discuss or follow up a situation that was causing them concern. I would however point out that there is rarely an emergency situation that I have ever been involved with, where later I didn't repeatedly analyse and revisit the problem, often questioning my own decisions and wondering if anything could have been done better. Often the answer is yes, something else could have been done differently, but that is with the benefit of hindsight, time, experience and information that was not readily apparent at the time.

More often there are situations that I could have taken further, or elevated, where there might have been a lesson to be learned, however sometimes you have to simply put it to bed and move on to fight another day. In the type of situation you have described, like many other of the respondents, I can see it from both sides of the divide. The stress of the incident had an adrenalin response, but once the incident was over and the adrenalin had gone, the stress remained, or perhaps grew. This isn't unusual and I really do feel you need to address it. Of course that in part is why you are asking your question here, but if the responses are not helping to reduce that stress then you must seek a resolution within your own company structure of the type I have suggested.

[411A]

In the end, it is the Commanders decision, not that of the cabin crew, nor anyone else.
The Commander will certainly do the best he can under the circumstances.
After all, that is precisely why he is paid the big(er) bucks, is it not?