Air Canada plane diverted after man (not pilot) steals beer

[Louis]

as soon as I can polish up the french version:

Reading some of comments here I'm imagining the passenger briefing I'd never be allowed to give from the left seat.

Attention morons, this is your captain speaking. Here's how it works.
Rule # 1. I'm PIC. This is my plane and I'm responsible for all of your lives. So while I get us all from A to B at mach 0.82 today why don't you avoid letting stupid things escape from your stupid piehole when attempting to impress the cabin crew, sit your beer-soaked a** in your seat when the cabin crew request it, and just enjoy the ride.
Rule # 2. When in doubt, refer back to rule #1.
Thanks and have a nice flight.

Here's something you could work with JC:

Attention les caves, c'est votre capitaine qui parle. Voilà comment ça fonctionne ici.
Règle numéro 1: Je suis le commandant de bord. C'est mon avion et je suis responsable de toutes vos vies. Alors pendant que je nous emmène tous du point A au point B à une vitesse de Mach 0.82, pourquoi est-ce que vous éviteriez pas de débiter des niaiseries en essayant d'impressionner l'équipage de cabine, et d'asseoir votre cul imbibé de bière dans votre siège quand on vous le demande.
Règle numéro 2: En cas de doute, référez-vous à la règle numéro 1.
Sur ce, merci d'avoir choisi (insert airline name) et bon vol.

On a more serious note, the ingredients for trouble were there with an intoxicated passenger caught doing an obvious no-no. Diverting makes sense in my mind.

[shitdisturber]

I don't see the problem. The idiot was a drunken ass who got caught stealing. Now he's an unemployed drunken ass who got caught stealing and is facing charges. Good for the crew!

[KAG]

Having flown many a drunk a$$holes to/from YMM, it's good to see someone standing up to these jerks.
Some really do fit the term "rig pig".

[MUSKEG]

One can get swine flu symptoms from "rig pigs"

[Rockie]

Diversion is a serious thing because it costs a lot of money, disrupts follow on flights and is a great inconvenience to the other passengers. You don't do it simply because a guy's being an asshole since being an asshole is not illegal. The individual would have to be a threat of some kind that needs to be dealt with sooner rather than later. But it's the Captain's call given the circumstances at the time, and any of us armchair quarterbacking it after the fact without having been there or actually having the responsibility for making that decision is pointless.

Kind of like passing judgement on the UWO video making the rounds.

[Pugster]

Diversion is a serious thing...

But in our litigation-prone society, if you've got a guy who is non-cooperative and obviously drunk, he's a liability on the aircraft. I'd make the same decision and booted his ass off the aircraft and into the waiting hands of the RCMP. Once the aircraft is in the air - the Captain legally has the authority of a peace officer...and although I'd hate to exercise that option when you've got a boatload full of pax and one beligerent asshole, out they go.

Just imagine the sh#tstorm if this prick continued getting loaded...and an EVAC was necessary. He's then a liability that the crew knew about, and could impede himself and others from making it out OK. I'm all for beers on board, but people need to know what is acceptable, and what isn't. This Captain just helped illuminate to the flying public what isn't cool.

I saw a similar situation go down on a flight to YVR on WJ. A guy and girl in front of me were completely loaded (and arrived that way at 7AM...losers) on their way to the Bahamas for a vacation (they insisted on screaming this throughout the flight). The FA warned them multiple times to settle down or she would have no choice but to get the Captain involved. They didn't heed the warning.

They didn't make their connection to the Bahamas that day . Again, people need to understand what is acceptable and what isn't - and the possible consequences...

[just curious]

Well, thinking win-win, here, perhaps the UWO guys could get cabin attendant training...

[Rockie]

But in our litigation-prone society, if you've got a guy who is non-cooperative and obviously drunk, he's a liability on the aircraft.

On any given day there are people on board who are non-cooperative and drunk. That doesn't mean they are a threat. I have denied boarding, kicked off, and even returned to the gate because of lots of people who I thought would be much more trouble in the air. And I've also tossed people while still on the ground for being an asshole even though he didn't actually do anything illegal because the rest of the fare paying passengers have a right to a pleasant flight. But on the ground and diverting in the air are two very different things.

If I have to divert the guy has to be a real threat, and there will be criminal charges involved that will require returning to wherever I landed and bearing witness in a court case. Being non-cooperative and drunk does not necessarily pass that test.

Violent - yes.
Trying to damage the aircraft - yes
Being an asshole - no
Refusing to sit down and put on their seat belt - no

[MUSKEG]

So Rockie you are saying you would continue the flight even if a pax refuses to sit down and put on his seat belt. Hmmmm. Might be smooth now, guaranteed for rest of flight no. So you hit a bump and this asshole flys thru the air hits someone else injuring them severely. Explain that to ownership when you land, I want to be a fly on the wall.

[Rockie]

So Rockie you are saying you would continue the flight even if a pax refuses to sit down and put on his seat belt. Hmmmm. Might be smooth now, guaranteed for rest of flight no. So you hit a bump and this asshole flys thru the air hits someone else injuring them severely. Explain that to ownership when you land, I want to be a fly on the wall.

Absolutely. Eventually they will get tired of standing and looking like a dork and sit down themselves. Whereas if you land with him standing he might hurt himself and others around him. I'd love to be a fly on the wall listening to you explaining to your boss why you landed somewhere you weren't supposed to with someone standing instead of just waiting for him to get tired and sit down on his own. Afterall, if you're going to land anyway it might as well be at destination since the guy wasn't hurting anybody, right? Plus guaranteed if things start bouncing around he will sit all by himself.

[MUSKEG]

Explain that to the judge in court when the lawyer presses you for an excuse as to why you overflew a suitable landing spot thereby mitigating as much risk as possible which is your only line of defense by the way. I will take explaining a diversion for safety reasons anytime versus explaining to my boses why the company is being sued by an injured pax for not doing due diligence.

[Rockie]

A passenger standing isn't by itself a safety hazard. People do it all the time and that's not even including the cabin crew. I would have no problem explaining that to a judge. Now you try explaining to 200+ passengers and your boss why you're landing somewhere you shouldn't because somebody is standing up.

[MUSKEG]

Firstly the passengers would probably applaud being rid of him. Secondly it is the law to be seated and belted for T/O and landing. Again it's all about due diligence, and in this case you would fail. If you think a diversion is expensive try a lawsuit.

[Rockie]

The people who aren't bothered by him standing, and those that have now missed their connection won't thank you. Neither will your boss. But, when you're Captain on your airplane it's your call.

You have to be careful though to not let your ego get in the way. If you're really only stopping because you're pissed off he's not listening to you then maybe you should give it a second thought. You can always still get him when you land at destination. Nobody hurt. Nobody delayed. No extra cost.

Just say'in

[Pugster]

The people who aren't bothered by him standing, and those that have now missed their connection won't thank you. Neither will your boss. But, when you're Captain on your airplane it's your call.

You have to be careful though to not let your ego get in the way. If you're really only stopping because you're pissed off he's not listening to you then maybe you should give it a second thought. You can always still get him when you land at destination. Nobody hurt. Nobody delayed. No extra cost.

Just say'in

Agreed 100%. I'd say that if you're thinking of having the RCMP meet him at the gate, a diversion is probably something that you should seriously consider. Otherwise, it's probably not serious enough to justify the consequences it will have on the rest of the system and the passengers.

Any way, it should be spelled out clearly in the COM so if you do have to divert, you've got a policy in place...

[Rockie]

I've had passengers met by police dozens of times over the years for various reasons, none of which were serious enough to compel me to land. I wouldn't land unless the person was becoming a threat to passengers or airplane, and by the way that could include the other passengers wanting to kill him if he's that bad. Then I'd stop to prevent that too.

Every case is unique, but a good guide is if there is a requirement for the restraint kit then there is a definite requirement to land as soon as practical and have the professionals come on board and do it.

[Masta-Fred]

Guy's, there was more to the story than that little blurb. Saw them arresting the guy on the news last night, and what a couple of impressive friends he had with them. I'm sure their employer in Fort Mac was really impressed with the quality image these guys dished out for the oil patch industry on Global.

What quality image.. has there ever been a quality image for the rig pigs???

This would only happen on a flight to/from Fort Mac.... sigh...

[AuxBatOn]

Once the aircraft is in the air - the Captain legally has the authority of a peace officer...

Just curious, where did you get that?

Just trying to educate myself.

[Jastapilot]

On any given day there are people on board who are non-cooperative and drunk. That doesn't mean they are a threat. I have denied boarding, kicked off, and even returned to the gate because of lots of people who I thought would be much more trouble in the air. And I've also tossed people while still on the ground for being an asshole even though he didn't actually do anything illegal because the rest of the fare paying passengers have a right to a pleasant flight. But on the ground and diverting in the air are two very different things.

If I have to divert the guy has to be a real threat, and there will be criminal charges involved that will require returning to wherever I landed and bearing witness in a court case. Being non-cooperative and drunk does not necessarily pass that test.

Violent - yes.
Trying to damage the aircraft - yes
Being an asshole - no
Refusing to sit down and put on their seat belt - no

spoken like one of those 'good' Captains!

[Jastapilot]

Firstly the passengers would probably applaud being rid of him. Secondly it is the law to be seated and belted for T/O and landing. Again it's all about due diligence, and in this case you would fail. If you think a diversion is expensive try a lawsuit.

If a passenger is told to take their seat and buckle up for safety, and they refuse, then the airline is no longer liable for their neck if the passenger is hurt by turbulence. At WJ the FA is responsible to inform the passenger twice before giving up on them. If someone doesn't want to buckle up, you can't force them. Ya jast can't cure stupidity.

[Rockie]

Once the aircraft is in the air - the Captain legally has the authority of a peace officer...

Just curious, where did you get that?

Just trying to educate myself.

For Canadian aircraft the authority lies in the Criminal Code of Canada which was amended in the late 1950's to comply with Canada's obligations under the ICAO Montreal and Hague conventions. The information is very hard to find, and with anything legal it is extremely complicated. There is an excellent precis on the matter called "The Legal Status of the Canadian Aircraft Commander" written way back in 1973 by a lawyer named John T. Keenan and published by the then Canadian Airline Pilots Association.

The criminal code definition of a peace officer includes "the pilot in command of an aircraft", but only when that aircraft is in flight. The link to section 2 of the criminal code isn't working for some reason but I've included it here anyway in case it is temporary. If you get it to work look up "peace officer" and you should find what you're looking for.

http://www.efc.ca/pages/law/cc/cc.2.html

A PIC is only a peace officer in flight, and the definition of that is in the following section, and this link is working. This is the section of the criminal code that applies to crimes committed on an aircraft. I challenge you to read it without going crosseyed.

http://www.efc.ca/pages/law/cc/cc.7.html