Sunwing flight diverted due to smoking passengers

[midwingcrisis]

......so now that the Courts in Bermuda have extinguished and thrown out the "smoking charges"......

[Agrios Anemos]

Crew did the right thing. For all of you pilots making comments about how the crew made the wrong decision your obviously not that bright. First of all what gives you the right to make an opinion when all you have is what CBC reports. You have no clue what happened and to what degree so keep your comments to yourself. It was more then one passenger so asking five flight attendants to strap in three males and one female would be a little tough to do and might have even escalated the situation and put other passengers in danger. Especially now a days with this thing called metal illness that were hearing more and more about. If they continued and there was a fire in the washrooms and ended up in the ocean what would all your post be. The crew should have diverted I bet. Always easy to sit at home on your computer and post comments that have no validity when you already know the result. Sure could of, would of, maybe but the end result is that safety was jeopardized. You as a pilot or flight attendant safety all ways comes first I thought that’s what we do all are training for. Maybe I have been wrong all these years.

[shamrock104]

I havent heard a thing about "Metal illness", whats that all about?

[cncpc]

Remember Stan Rogers...

I play Northwest Passage a couple of times a month. That should be our national anthem.

[trey kule]

Smoking on the aircraft is an offence and can be dealt with at the arrival airport

.

Help me out here..I am bit lost at the actual offense. Please quote the statute, regulation , law that applies to a Canadian plane and smoking....
Please Quote the WHOLE applicable sections to keep it in context..
NOT airline POLICY. I dont recall any airline saying it is an offence.. What they say in their briefing is "smoking is not permitted"...people assume somthing sometimes that is implied but not correct.

I think the offense here would have to do with failing to follow a lawful order, disruption etc., but not smoking unless it occurred during take off or landing..

Lastly, do no fly lists not exist anymore.Should be simple to put them on it...and if I may sort of paraphrase Doc, its a long trip home by boat and train.

[CD]

A few references for you:

CAR 602.05 - Compliance with Instructions
CAR 602.06 - Smoking

Non-Smokers Health Act
Non-Smokers Health Regulations

While the other links contain information likely applicable to this situation, I'll just quote the requirements of section 602.06:

602.06 Smoking

(1) No person shall smoke on board an aircraft during take-off or landing or when directed not to smoke by the pilot-in-command.

(2) No person shall smoke in an aircraft lavatory.

(3) No person shall tamper with or disable a smoke detector installed in an aircraft lavatory without permission from a crew member or the operator of the aircraft.

[trey kule]

So, is it fair to say then, that unless the Captain directs you not to smoke, other than take off, landing, and in the lavatory, it is not against any applicable CARS?

Take a quick read at the poster's quote I posted...

I am not trying to debate the practice, just the point that people tend to post facts that are, well, not entirely correct.

So the actually smoking is not the material issue here..It it the order to extinguish them, and then any further disturbance as a result of that..Much more serious, and as a Captain, I can tell you how I would react if someone tells me to stuff a lawful command. It is no longerabout cost at that point, and anyone that does not understand that needs a course in leadership. There were how many witnesses to their behavior?
These are not rig pigs sitting in the back of a Navajo with all their crew buddies..There are lots of other passangers on board...If a fire had ensued all those that say the crew overreacted in this instance would no doubt be trotting out the tsk tsks...its quite clear to us what they should have done...
Another job well done by a flight crew...it has been a good week.

[Colonel Sanders]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saudia_Flight_163

All 287 passengers and 14 crew on board died ...

Saudi officials subsequently found two butane stoves in the burned-out remains of the airliner, with a fire extinguisher near one of them. For many years, Middle Eastern airlines had allowed devout Muslims to use butane stoves on board so they could comply with Islam's strict dietary laws - a practice unthinkable on Western airlines. The Saudi government had recently passed regulations forbidding them, but Muslim pilgrims still tried to smuggle them aboard.

[Doc]

......so now that the Courts in Bermuda have extinguished and thrown out the "smoking charges"......

And you guys were expecting what? The death penalty?
People seem to forget, that not all that many years ago, smoking on airliners was a very common practice. This was before the "modern" era of really fire retardant materials. Nobody died form smoking on an airliner during flight.
Stan Rogers died because a "brain dead crew" (sorry Stan Steamer, if that's too string for you, like I GARA) kept a circuit breaker in that kept popping. The Lavatory flush motor? Either way, this had NOTHING to do with smoking. The year was 1778 , I wish was in Sherbrooke now....
Doing a bit of quick research has led me to believe that Canada has now lost jurisdiction over the case here. Bermuda has dismissed the case, and being a part of the British system, their decision will hold. So, our trouble makers are scott free. They are having the "last laugh" so to speak. Bermuda is MUCH nicer than the DR. They're being put up in a hotel, BTW.
I'll withdraw the "brain dead carp" remarks for the benefit of the doubt to the crew at Sun Wing, even though I strongly disagree with the way they handled the situation. This shouldn't even have made the news. It was an over reaction to an otherwise silly situation. People are assholes. Here were two prime examples of the genre. But to be screaming about hazards to the crew, or safety of the flight, tells me you guys are buried deep within the bullshit your HR departments shovels. You are tripping over yourselves in an effort to be politically correct, in always backing the crew. Sometimes there are better ways to handle pretty much anything. This was, I feel, one of those times.
Stan Steamer, if we meet, beer's on me.

[Doc]

You average cigarette lasts for what? (I don't smoke) Six to eight minutes? Is that about it? So after six to eight minutes, the cigarettes would have pretty much gone out on their own? I don't know how long a diversion to Bermuda would take......a wee bit more than six to eight minutes, I'd be willing to bet. So, our crew flew, how long? Thirty to forty-five minutes to do what? Make a point? C'MON Man! The frikken cigarette would have been OUT long before we could get these heinous father rapers off the airliner? What would they do if a passenger refused to fasten a seatbelt? Return to their seat because the fasten seatbelt sign was illuminated? Insist on having a drink without a credit card? Sit in an unassigned seat? Turn off an electronic device? Better bring back capital punishment! I'm not defending the passengers here, but this "JOKE" had to cost Sun Wing $100K. Perhaps it's time to use a little common sense? Find peaceful ends to conflict? His nest interview WILL include the question...."How did you deal with a conflict in flight...?" His answer will be..."Well, I diverted a 737 full of passengers to Bermuda, so I could kick two people off for smoking for eight minutes...." Not an answer I'd like to have to give.
I feel sorry for an industry who feels, the answer to a problem like..."These guys won't put out their cigarettes...." is "WOW, FU&K! LETS LAND!!!!" is the correct way to go. It's time to pull your politically correct heads out of your asses!
The crew may well have been "correct" here. I just think they could have been "more" correct with a little more thought. Is all.

[PT6onH20]

.

[photofly]

It seems to me there's a lot of strong reaction, or over-reaction, in commercial aviation:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twitter_Joke_Trial
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/2 ... 95113.html

and countless other examples.

[thatlowtimer]

At the end of the day, the crew was told what to do via satcom. It doesn't matter what the COM says, or what the CARS say, nor the SOP's. If you work for a big airline or any airline for that matter, when someone with some power tells you to divert, you're going to divert.

[Doc]

At the end of the day, the crew was told what to do via satcom. It doesn't matter what the COM says, or what the CARS say, nor the SOP's. If you work for a big airline or any airline for that matter, when someone with some power tells you to divert, you're going to divert.

Do you really think that they were instructed to divert and land in a foreign country? To land in a sovereign nation? Because somebody wouldn't put their cigarette out? Are you serious? Were they "told" to do that? Do you know this for a "fact" or are you pontificating?

Most of you are sticking up for this crew (honourable as that is) because I am not. But, would YOU really land in a foreign country because your cabin crew is having a problem getting a passenger to put out a cigarette? Really? WOW

[Doc]

Alot of spout off from a guy that doesnt play in the same field, eh?

I don't play in the NHL either. But I know a bad call when I see one.

[Changes in Latitudes]

Doc do you honestly believe that airlines allow pilots to make calls like that all on their own? I think you'd really enjoy meeting the gaggle of ground captains that spring up out of the blue when something like this happens at an airline. All of the sudden there's 10 cubicle monsters in some office that can do your job better than you.

I put good money on the fact that these guys did as they were told. They didn't just arrive in Bermuda, pick up the phone and say "Hi Dispatch, tell my wife I won't be home, and can you book 120 rooms, oceanview for me, kay, thanks, bye".

[flyinthebug]

I tend to agree with Changes in Latitudes on this one. The crew didnt make this decision on their own.

Regardless of who made the call to divert as they did (cost was closer to 50K than 100K) it was a serious over reaction. As Doc pointed out, 25 years ago we all breathed smoke on aircraft. The last 6-8 rows were the "smoking section" and I recall a flight from Toronto-Frankfurt in 1981 on an L10-11 where I enjoyed puffing my face off the entire 8.5 hour flight. Again, as Doc pointed out there have been ZERO aviation fatalities linked directly or indirectly to smoking onboard.

This redneck family got caught smoking in the bathroom and wouldnt tell where they "hid the evidence" so everyone over reacts and they divert and cost the company 50K. This family (if you saw them on the news you would understand) could never pay 50K even if they get a judgement against them. The whole blood from a stone thing. In anycase, its closer to 5 mins for a smoke Doc...and even one they may not have butted completely out, would likely be out in under 2 mins with no one puffing on it. This was an unnecessary delay to the passengers, when the Skip could have arrested them, duct tape them to their seat and let the DR authorities handle it "DR Style".

The bean counters at Sunwing will love explaining this one to the board lol.
But Sir, we sued the hillbillys and they just cant pay us!!

Fly safe all.

[Cat Driver]

Poor old Doc is really getting a lot of flack here, so I am going to ask a few questions and see if maybe he has some valid points.

First:

Was safety really compromised by the act of smoking on board an airliner?

For decades smoking was normal on all airlines except for take off and landing.

Tens of millions of people smoked on airliners and as far as I recall there was never a passenger death or injury on board of an airplane due to passengers smoking.

Therefore there was no real immediate safety issue.

However it would seem the passengers were not complying with crew instructions.

602.05 (1) Every passenger on board an aircraft shall comply with instructions given by any crew member respecting the safety of the aircraft or of persons on board the aircraft.

(2) Every crew member on board an aircraft shall, during flight time, comply with the instructions of the pilot-in-command or of any person whom the pilot-in-command has authorized to act on behalf of the pilot-in-command.

None of us here really know who exactly made the decision to divert but it sure looks like it was a costly diversion based on the slap on the wrist these passengers got from a Bermuda court.

Maybe this fiasco will give these airlines a chance to review how they handle the next clash between cabin crew and passengers.

[Shiny Side Up]

I personally don't think safety is the issue here, if you run a service and have rules for the use of that service then you'd better be prepared to enforce said rules. How many other people were on the airplane? Something to think about is that if three passengers can disrupt the service that other passengers recieve, the chances of getting return business from the rest of the passengers would be unlikely.

If I was on an airplane and someone beside me decided to start smoking, I'd want the crew to stop it. I after all paid for a nonsmoking flight. If they allowed it to go on, I sure as hell wouldn't use said service again, anymore than I would go to a restaurant again if that happened. I think the cost of what the crew did, hasn't been weighed against how their actions would affect future business in this discussion so far.

This ties into that "pushiness" discussion in the other forum. One of the problems you have when customers become pushy. Is it a safety issue? Maybe not yet, but if you have rules, you must enforce them or they aren't rules. Usually the rules are there so it doesn't get to the point of becomming a safety issue. Sometimes this may cost you, and sometimes its looked at as poor customer service to the person who is seeking to bend the rules in their favour. Something to think about: is there enough of a market that supports one's ability to smoke on an airplane that would warrant allowing it, assuming one would lose the business of those who don't want smoking to occur on your planes? What would happen if it got out that these people started smoking on board the airplane and the crew did nothing about it? The return flight you got ten people smoking?

['CauseTheCaravanCan]

I havent heard a thing about "Metal illness", whats that all about?

you mean you don't know??!!!

um, I feel the crew made the right choice. i'm glad we had this talk

[CID]

I've been reading about this story from several news agencies and it looks like the incident was blown out of proportion but the pilots didn't do anything wrong. I think it was the flight attendant(s) that screwed up.

From what I understand, the 22 year son got up to use the bathroom while the airplane was in the climb and the seat belt signs were still on. Apparently there was a delay on departure and the passengers were seated for a while. The flight attendant told the 22 year old to sit down and his mother asked to flight attendant to let him go because he had to go badly.

The flight attendant wouldn't allow it and shortly after, the father tried to use the bathroom and was told the same thing. Once the seatbelt signs went off, the son then the father used the bathroom and the father made some offending remarks to the flight attendants.

Later in the flight, another passenger said he smelled a strong cigarette smell coming from the bathroom around the same time as the son was exiting. The flight attendant approached the 22 year old and asked where the cigarette butt was. He denied having a cigarette and an argument ensued.

Eventually this was all reported to the flight deck from the flight attendant's perspective and the pilot did the right thing and landed the airplane before the disturbance escalated even more.

If I had to use the restroom really bad in the climb, I would certainly be inclined to go to the lav regardless of what the flight attendant said. I've seen many instances where the flight attendants have allowed this.

I think the flight attendants could have handled this much better and controlled the escalation.

[jump154]

Personally, I'm really happy that this incident is all we have to discuss on this forum right now.

[midwingcrisis]

..."Smoking charges" were dropped due to a lack of evidence. Company stated they would recoup losses (40-50K as stated) through whatever means. What is interesting is that these parties admitted guilt to "not obeying a command". Does the cost of diverting to Bermuda (and extra expenses) become recoverable in a civil judgment and correct jurisdiction at what cost? Further, what constitutes a "command"? Whatever crew did is irrelevant, however it may impede their employer from a financially feasible outcome.

[Doc]

I've been reading about this story from several news agencies and it looks like the incident was blown out of proportion but the pilots didn't do anything wrong. I think it was the flight attendant(s) that screwed up.

From what I understand, the 22 year son got up to use the bathroom while the airplane was in the climb and the seat belt signs were still on. Apparently there was a delay on departure and the passengers were seated for a while. The flight attendant told the 22 year old to sit down and his mother asked to flight attendant to let him go because he had to go badly.

The flight attendant wouldn't allow it and shortly after, the father tried to use the bathroom and was told the same thing. Once the seatbelt signs went off, the son then the father used the bathroom and the father made some offending remarks to the flight attendants.

Later in the flight, another passenger said he smelled a strong cigarette smell coming from the bathroom around the same time as the son was exiting. The flight attendant approached the 22 year old and asked where the cigarette butt was. He denied having a cigarette and an argument ensued.

Eventually this was all reported to the flight deck from the flight attendant's perspective and the pilot did the right thing and landed the airplane before the disturbance escalated even more.

If I had to use the restroom really bad in the climb, I would certainly be inclined to go to the lav regardless of what the flight attendant said. I've seen many instances where the flight attendants have allowed this.

I think the flight attendants could have handled this much better and controlled the escalation.

You know i have to ask this. Did a flight crew member ever actually SEE a cigarette? So, we have some poor bastard who was obviously in distress, and in need to "hit the head", like right now. We have a Nazi flight attendant who feels he can just sit and wet his pants? We have a conflict. A "report" of a "cigarette smell"? No smoke alarm from the lav, but an assumption of smoking? Followed by "not obeying an order" to remain to a seat and crap your pants.....? I still think they pooched it. Just because nobody was injured or killed does not make what that crew did right.

[grimey]

Land in Dominican, tell them they're no longer permitted to fly on Sunwing, refund their return ticket, and tell them to have a nice day. Instead they screwed over every other passenger.

Personally, I'm really happy that this incident is all we have to discuss on this forum right now.

Yup.