Narrative:

10 min from landing cabin attendant attendant advised passenger had disabled the smoke detector in aft lav and had been smoking. (:30 segment i.e., no smoking entire flight). Passenger appeared intoxicated and was hostile. He had forced cover off detector and removed the battery. Requested security meet aircraft on termination. Airport police took subject into custody, then checked with local fbi, were told since he had not physically attacked or hindered flight attendant to release him, which they did. My problem is with the system that requires the departure announcements include the statement about 'federal law prohibits etc etc tampering, smoking etc', we hand over to them a person who breaks all these laws, i.e., smoking/tampering (and attempting to smoke while taxiing on ground) and they, the enforcement end of this system, says to forget it, he didn't harm anybody. If fbi doesn't enforce federal law (or only during 8-5 working hours) and if the FAA enforcement people are spread so thin they are not available, then who does enforce and under what guidelines? The company's concern in these cases is entirely public relations oriented. The duty manager contacted upon arrival was busy consulting with the P/right department rather than security of FAA enforcement while the fbi was telling the local officers to release him. Answer: arrest, book and require bond before release. P.south. The 'smoker' considered the whole affair a big joke.

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: PASSENGER ON MLG ACR DEACTIVATES LAVATORY SMOKE DETECTOR AND SMOKES IN LAVATORY WHILE NO SMOKING SIGN ON. PASSENGER WAS TURNED OVER TO ARPT SECURITY WHO TOOK NO ACTION AND RELEASED THE OFFENDER.

Narrative: 10 MIN FROM LNDG CAB ATTENDANT ADVISED PAX HAD DISABLED THE SMOKE DETECTOR IN AFT LAV AND HAD BEEN SMOKING. (:30 SEGMENT I.E., NO SMOKING ENTIRE FLT). PAX APPEARED INTOXICATED AND WAS HOSTILE. HE HAD FORCED COVER OFF DETECTOR AND REMOVED THE BATTERY. REQUESTED SECURITY MEET ACFT ON TERMINATION. ARPT POLICE TOOK SUBJECT INTO CUSTODY, THEN CHECKED WITH LOCAL FBI, WERE TOLD SINCE HE HAD NOT PHYSICALLY ATTACKED OR HINDERED FLT ATTENDANT TO RELEASE HIM, WHICH THEY DID. MY PROBLEM IS WITH THE SYSTEM THAT REQUIRES THE DEP ANNOUNCEMENTS INCLUDE THE STATEMENT ABOUT 'FEDERAL LAW PROHIBITS ETC ETC TAMPERING, SMOKING ETC', WE HAND OVER TO THEM A PERSON WHO BREAKS ALL THESE LAWS, I.E., SMOKING/TAMPERING (AND ATTEMPTING TO SMOKE WHILE TAXIING ON GND) AND THEY, THE ENFORCEMENT END OF THIS SYSTEM, SAYS TO FORGET IT, HE DIDN'T HARM ANYBODY. IF FBI DOESN'T ENFORCE FEDERAL LAW (OR ONLY DURING 8-5 WORKING HRS) AND IF THE FAA ENFORCEMENT PEOPLE ARE SPREAD SO THIN THEY ARE NOT AVAILABLE, THEN WHO DOES ENFORCE AND UNDER WHAT GUIDELINES? THE COMPANY'S CONCERN IN THESE CASES IS ENTIRELY PUBLIC RELATIONS ORIENTED. THE DUTY MGR CONTACTED UPON ARRIVAL WAS BUSY CONSULTING WITH THE P/R DEPT RATHER THAN SECURITY OF FAA ENFORCEMENT WHILE THE FBI WAS TELLING THE LOCAL OFFICERS TO RELEASE HIM. ANSWER: ARREST, BOOK AND REQUIRE BOND BEFORE RELEASE. P.S. THE 'SMOKER' CONSIDERED THE WHOLE AFFAIR A BIG JOKE.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of August 2007 and automatically converted to unabbreviated mixed upper/lowercase text. This report is for informational purposes with no guarantee of accuracy. See NASA's ASRS site for official report.