Winning "Spirit" here.

[rookiepilot]

rookie pilot
I certainly commend you for your considerate and compassionate service to those in need.
There aren't many airline pilots who can claim to be as selfless.
You can certainly hold your head high and let the cynics embarrass themselves with their obnoxious insinuations.

Gino Under

Thank you Gino. One little boy, 3 or 4, from a northern Ontario community, needed I believe 8 or 10 surgeries in London, spaced over time, so he would be able to speak and correct a birth defect. Couldn't walk properly either, had a walking device. My 2+ hour flight saved him and his mom a 12 hour bus ride.

I flew him 2 or three times. Was a privilege.

Keep going and God speed. You certainly are a credit to the aviation community, head and shoulders above anything I ever did , suspect of others on this site as well.

Kindest regards

Thanks Old Fella.

Appreciate that. Volunteering brings a unique joy.

[Gino Under]

Sharklasers

My intent with this response isn't to question your experience with these disturbances and how they may have turned out for you but rather give you my perspective as a former airline pilot and former police officer. Having had numerous first hand experiences myself in one-on-one dealings with disruptive passengers, I have both perspectives upon which to reflect and opine. Do you?
Meanwhile, I'd hoped this wouldn't turn into a boring novel or overtly contentious commentary but it seems based on other comments, some degree of understanding of what law enforcement is faced with when you request they attend your aircraft, could be illustrated.

“Why would I vacate the cockpit thus creating a serious security hazard to wade to the back of the aircraft when I could just utilize my resources as laid out in my company operations manual and the rules of common sense to address an issue like this?”
Absurd?
No it isn’t.
Why would you vacate the cockpit?
Here’s why, especially if you’ve summoned the police to attend your aircraft.
The reality is simply as PIC, the guy in charge, common sense should tell you it’s not only your responsibility, it’s in your self interest and your company’s interest that you are able to positively identify the person or persons who are being disruptive on your aircraft and be able to describe what it was they were being disruptive and uncooperative about. You should be on top of any potential for the shit hitting the fan aboard your aircraft. There is no need for you to get into a scrap with your passenger or passengers. Leaving it up to the F/As is simply shirking your responsibility no matter how many fish you think you have to fry and as the PIC, you’re certainly not undermining them. Do you seriously think a scheduled departure time is going to trump your onboard complaint?

By the way, if your passengers and crew have been security vetted and allowed to board, how is it, while parked at a gate, you’d be “creating a serious security hazard”? Over statement?

“If I wanted to play cop I would have become a police officer.”
Well, unfortunately for you under federal statute definition, the PIC is a peace officer (in other words, you are the police) while exercising your PIC duties. This usually trumps (pardon the pun) your company ops manual and company legal department’s guidance if you’re ever summoned to court as a result of the original complaint.
(you’ll understand more clearly why I said that if you’re ever asked to give evidence in court regarding any future onboard incident you may experience, especially if a passenger sues. That’s when the real fun starts and you get to be part of it.).

“airport police have less than 0 issue coming onto an aircraft and removing disruptive passengers.”
I agree. The police will never have an issue when dispatched to investigate an onboard complaint. But, here’s the problem with your scenario. In my experience, airlines and airline personnel always want the police to do their dirty work without getting involved in the prosecutorial process when needed (thanks to the corporate legal department and PR guidance from your airline). Be sure your company policies are in sync with the Crown prosecutor's policy because there could be a significant difference with either prosecution or litigation.
Police can't charge or remove anyone from your aircraft based on heresay. Police powers cannot be exercised (that’s detain, arrest, or charge) unless the peace officer (or the police if you prefer) actually see an offence being committed. So it helps greatly if the PIC can observe the naughty behaviour for themselves. The Captain, the F/A In-charge, or the F/A should provide an accurate summary of the complaint for the attending officer(s), positively identify the offender and provide a corroborating statement to the investigating officer (who didn’t observe the offence) who will then have to determine what offence applies (if any) in order to exercise police powers and the removal (if necessary) of the offender and in some cases, use whatever force is necessary so their ass is legally covered and the airline’s ass is legally covered. Including the Captain’s.
If you got the police to remove the offender in your example, then there’s more to your scenario that needs to be revealed. Since you’ve indicated you were absent during the actual onboard disturbance, I can only imagine the accuracy of your second hand description of what actually went down.

“Once a passenger refuses a request to vacate the aircraft they are now trespassing and are the cops problem”
If I were the cop attending this complaint and this is how you wished to proceed (tresspassing), then here’s my enforcement issue. Your airline sold him a ticket for this flight, issued a boarding pass, assigned him a seat, security screened him, and seated him on your aircraft. So, how is he trespassing? Because he refused to get off? Doesn’t fit.
And, what exactly was your complaint against this individual? Causing a disturbance or trespassing? If he has no right to be there (didn’t pay for his seat) then trespassing wouldn’t likely be considered but I’d look at fraudulently obtaining transport as a possible indictment. In essence, how did this agitator get on your aircraft in the first place? I’d have to look into it a little more. I’ll go with the law that best applies if it fits the F/A’s explanation. But tresspassing??? I don't think so.

This is NOT the police’s problem despite your commentary bravado. It’s still your problem. Unless, of course, the mere presence of a uniformed police office on-board your aircraft resulted in the offenders willing compliance without protest due to perhaps a lack of knowledge regarding the law. If he does go willingly by cooperating with the police, win win. Good game.
Again, your story isn’t complete.

“Do you know how many pilots I know in a 705 operation who have had to drag a pax off themselves? 0.”
You shouldn’t have to “drag” anyone off if you’re prepared to assist the police as I've suggested rather than lock yourself away in the cockpit. By that I simply mean give the police the legal grounds to act through an ‘official’ complaint, provide witness (F/A’s) statements, and certainly be prepared for a court appearance. Easy. Unfortunately, airline personnel more often than not are MIA as you’ve already confessed to being.

“You tell yourself whatever you want though... I’m just telling you how it actually happens.”
Yes, and I’m just telling you how it actually works from a police perspective. I have a reasonable idea because I've had judges hand me my ass as a rookie for wrongful arrests in exactly these kinds of airline complaints. Some cases were dismissed because they were DOA or the airline reps simply didn't show.

Gino Under

[complexintentions]

"Having had numerous first hand experiences myself in one-on-one dealings with disruptive passengers" might give some people the wrong idea. One-on-one dealings by flight crew with disruptive passengers are a complete contradiction to both the philosophy and the actual policies of every airline I've ever worked for. Broadly speaking those are: on the ground, unruly pax issues are handled by cabin crew and ground staff. Assisted by local police if required. Of course the captain is informed, consulted, and makes the final offload decision but that does NOT mean whatsoever him/her heading into the back to get involved directly. In fact, in some carriers procedures require the cockpit door to be locked before boarding begins, and not permitted to be unlocked until all pax have disembarked. [In the air, unruly pax are handled by cabin crew. Full stop. Flight crew does NOT under any circumstances leave the flight deck to intervene, nor open the door. Ever.]

The cabin crew are trained in de-escalation, conflict resolution, the correct language to use - INCLUDING invoking the Commander's warning, which holds the same legal weight as if the captain had issued it directly - and the use of restraint techniques and the actual restraints. While I genuinely understand the urge (particularly for gung-ho former law enforcement) to be Captain Sheriff and Save The Day, it's absolute madness for the highest authority on the a/c to head to the back for a possible confrontation. The idea that the crew is incapable of properly identifying or describing the situation is nonsensical, it's exactly what they're trained for. As far as acting as a witness, how is a person arriving late to a situation a better witness than those who were there the whole time?

You seem quite keen to stress the powers an aircraft captain has, but having the legal right to act as a peace officer should not be conflated to having an explicit mandate to enforce laws. As such, expecting police to assist with someone breaking the law is hardly airline personnel "getting them to do their dirty work". In more than 2 decades of international flying with more than a few offloads of unruly pax, both on stand and after a diversion, I have never, ever, had police either refuse to attend an aircraft nor stand idly by and not assist with the removal of an uncooperative, aggressive or confrontational passenger. The legal threshold is not very high, virtually every jurisdiction in the world I've worked in has some variation of legal language that makes simply failing to heed the instructions of an aircraft crewmember a criminal offence. After the threat is removed, it is between company management and law enforcement as to how to proceed.

Maybe it's different in Canada, I dunno. But I can emphatically assure your, of the multiple companies I have worked for - from very large to very small - NONE would thank me for getting involved in an unruly pax issue, and in fact would consider it (and I agree) as extremely poor decision-making. A flight with 450 on board cancelled because the captain got punched in the face being a "hands-on peace officer" will not endear you to any employer I know of.

[Sharklasers]

"Having had numerous first hand experiences myself in one-on-one dealings with disruptive passengers" might give some people the wrong idea. One-on-one dealings by flight crew with disruptive passengers are a complete contradiction to both the philosophy and the actual policies of every airline I've ever worked for. Broadly speaking those are: on the ground, unruly pax issues are handled by cabin crew and ground staff. Assisted by local police if required. Of course the captain is informed, consulted, and makes the final offload decision but that does NOT mean whatsoever him/her heading into the back to get involved directly. In fact, in some carriers procedures require the cockpit door to be locked before boarding begins, and not permitted to be unlocked until all pax have disembarked. [In the air, unruly pax are handled by cabin crew. Full stop. Flight crew does NOT under any circumstances leave the flight deck to intervene, nor open the door. Ever.]

The cabin crew are trained in de-escalation, conflict resolution, the correct language to use - INCLUDING invoking the Commander's warning, which holds the same legal weight as if the captain had issued it directly - and the use of restraint techniques and the actual restraints. While I genuinely understand the urge (particularly for gung-ho former law enforcement) to be Captain Sheriff and Save The Day, it's absolute madness for the highest authority on the a/c to head to the back for a possible confrontation. The idea that the crew is incapable of properly identifying or describing the situation is nonsensical, it's exactly what they're trained for. As far as acting as a witness, how is a person arriving late to a situation a better witness than those who were there the whole time?

You seem quite keen to stress the powers an aircraft captain has, but having the legal right to act as a peace officer should not be conflated to having an explicit mandate to enforce laws. As such, expecting police to assist with someone breaking the law is hardly airline personnel "getting them to do their dirty work". In more than 2 decades of international flying with more than a few offloads of unruly pax, both on stand and after a diversion, I have never, ever, had police either refuse to attend an aircraft nor stand idly by and not assist with the removal of an uncooperative, aggressive or confrontational passenger. The legal threshold is not very high, virtually every jurisdiction in the world I've worked in has some variation of legal language that makes simply failing to heed the instructions of an aircraft crewmember a criminal offence. After the threat is removed, it is between company management and law enforcement as to how to proceed.

Maybe it's different in Canada, I dunno. But I can emphatically assure your, of the multiple companies I have worked for - from very large to very small - NONE would thank me for getting involved in an unruly pax issue, and in fact would consider it (and I agree) as extremely poor decision-making. A flight with 450 on board cancelled because the captain got punched in the face being a "hands-on peace officer" will not endear you to any employer I know of.

Don’t bother, Gino clearly has a fantasy of a Canadian airline captain with 0 relevant training and against company directives going to the back and swinging dick.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CanJet_Flight_918
Here is a Canadian airplane that was recently hijacked on the ground so don’t tell me it can’t happen.

Their are reasons most (every?) 705 airline will prohibit flight crew from physically intervening in a disruptive pax situation, what if it’s a distraction by a bad guy hoping to lure Captain Gino “Dirty Harry” Under out of the flightdeck?

But if you think you know better than the army of lawyers, former police and intelligence officers who comprise our corporate security team feel free to give them a call, I’m sure they would love to hear your opinion.

[Gino Under]

Since it may have been missed in my previous post, for clarity, it looks like I have to reiterate something I said. I said I have previous airline experience (roughly 20 plus years) and as such, consider myself (pretty familiar) with typical airport security requirements, general airline security requirements including cockpit door usage, general airline SOPs, airline SEP requirements, and sterile cockpits, company policies, not to mention boarding procedures, hijackings and other crap that can happen in-flight, having worked at more than one airline (Canada and abroad) during my career. It didn’t occur to me I needed to drop a full resume to draw attention to what should have been obvious to most readers. But obviously, it didn’t occur to some, judging by the vitriolic responses, that their explanations of how things work from the airline pilot perspective were a complete waste of time. I know how things work from that perspective.

I did NOT suggest or imply the PIC should ever roll up his sleeves, leave the flight deck, physically engage a disruptive passenger in hand-to-hand combat and get his nose bloodied, his knuckles bruised, and his uniform torn. That impression might have come from the reader’s own creative thought process but not from me. What I said was, it would help greatly if the PIC was able to observe and identify the offender. I did NOT say the PIC needed to or must leave the flight deck or completely disregard company policies.

The other obvious part (at least I thought it was), if you wanted to or were able to step outside the flight deck, having NOT suggested the PIC punches it out or wrestles with an offender, how easy would it be to converse with the in-charge at the main entry door or galley (if there is one) despite the availability of intercom and not wonder down the back?

“Under NO circumstances are locked cockpit doors to be opened while passengers are being boarded”.
Hang on. That’s not an absolute. Many times I’ve seen the flight deck door wide open as I boarded or disembarked as a passenger despite the strict protocol being revealed regarding the flight deck door use. Pilots have wondered in and out during various situations at the gate. It may have been because of company policy, the captain’s policy or requirements, or simply I’m too busy to notice it hasn’t been closed and locked because I’m not at that point in the cockpit prep or pre-start checklist? Hard to imagine, but wide open those doors were.

With regard to “having the legal right to act as a peace officer” and not “having an explicit mandate to enforce laws” I would suggest that you DO have the lawful mandate to enforce laws because the Criminal Code of Canada says you do. How likely are you to get involved as a beat cop on your own aeroplane in-flight? Come on. How about never, squared. (I can’t believe I had to say THAT too???) Unless there were specific security issues on board, in-flight, it’s highly unlikely (but possible) any PIC would ever leave the cockpit and walk the aisle (like a beat cop) looking for trouble. Again, as a former airline pilot, seriously I don't know this?

There are numerous scenarios in numerous jurisdictions that could be discussed, but it’s always a good conversation at a time when more and more passengers are being naughty, especially in-flight and pilots rarely, if ever, discuss it. At least in my experience.

The whole Spirit debacle could have been much better handled. It’s tough enough for mom and dad travelling with kids as it is.
F/A Nazis with kids should know better.

I flew home on an American carrier awhile back and on descent to land the F/A made a PA advising passengers if we didn’t sit down and fasten our seat belts she would tell the captain not to land. Too funny.

over and out.
Gino Under