Narrative:

Madrid, spain, to philadelphia, PA, united states of america. Statement of captain. At no time did the captain have a conversation with the disruptive passenger. Approximately 4 hours into the flight, flight attendant #1 came to the cockpit to report a problem with the behavior of frequent flyer passenger xy, seated in seat Y. My flight attendant's demeanor and tone of delivery in her description of the account convinced me of a genuine fearful deep concern of the impending situation. With reference to section X of the flight operations manual, the flight attendant issued the passenger notice of united states federal regulation violation. This experienced flight attendant claimed the passenger: disregarded the seriousness of the warning, displayed belligerent and irrational behavior which extensively disturbed other passenger, had at one point earlier in the flight 'cornered' her alone in the galley, appeared to suddenly be under the influence of alcohol or drugs as the passenger was 'non-descript' during boarding and the first half of the flight, prior to engaging in these non-normal actions and displays of irrationality, disrupted the entire first class section thus creating an uncomfortable atmosphere of apprehension and fear among other passenger in the cabin. These facts were confirmed by the first officer, whose rest period was brought to an abrupt and premature end, witnessed events which ensued required his intervention as an active crew member. Despite immediate involvement, the failure of first officer's attempt to subdue the exchange and bring resolution of the incident, he returned to the cockpit. He reported to me a deep concern that this passenger demonstrated a pattern of unstable behavior. My first officer returned to the cockpit obviously shaken and distraught with the experience he just encountered in full view of the entire first class section. The passenger was seated next to his own brother. This passenger had already achieved category 2 status as described in xx of the flight operations manual and was nearly eligible to be considered a category 3 criminal security problem. This was justified by the actions of the passenger who: 1) interfered with the flight attendant's duties by causing them to maintain a constant vigilance on his position within the aircraft at all times and 2) made it impossible for cockpit crew members to engage in their allowed, anticipated and desired rest periods and 3) diverted the captain's attention from routine duties to one of strategizing a course of action in compliance with company procedures as stated in the flight operations manual. The cockpit crew briefed the flight attendants that at least 1 flight attendant crew member was to be stationed at the cockpit door and be positioned to prevent a cockpit incursion for the duration of the flight. Pilots agreed that the crash ax and fire extinguisher were 2 methods of restraining or incapacitating the passenger in the event of a cockpit incursion. The threat required the crew to discuss a landing at the nearest suitable airport and cited boston logan airport as an acceptable airport. Messages were sent to the dispatcher via ACARS and the declaration of a controled category 2 security situation was relayed to company. The brother volunteered that they had been drinking prior to embarkation and hinted strongly the possibility that these pills probably were the culprit of the situation. The brother had no idea of what kind of pills were taken nor was he aware of any medical condition requiring his brother to take medication. During this time the cockpit crew developed a strategy which included a firm decision point to divert to boston in the event the passenger's behavior became more physical or uncontrollable. Everyone agreed the potential threat of a physical confrontation was strong, as exhibited by the passenger's aggressive behavior. In my galley discussion with the brother who requested the meeting, I made it clear that the aircraft was going to be met by auths at either boston or philadelphia and showed him the flight operations manual pages with highlighted portions justifying my decision. The crew rest seat now was rendered unusable by the crew. The remainder of the flight was stressful for crew and passenger alike. Thedisruptive passenger remained awake and talked, often loudly, with his brother for the remainder of the flight. It was subsequently reported to me that a trip to the restroom resulted in the passenger vomiting. The police officer reported another vomiting episode on the jetway. At no time was the vigilance of this passenger's behavior relaxed by the crew. The aircraft was met by auths who removed the passenger prior to deplaning. I was asked if I still wanted to 'press charges' and I agreed in the affirmative. As police escorted the prisoner off the airplane, a shoe-box-sized carton of cuban cohiba cigars dropped from the coat of the prisoner which triggered the police to notify customs officials. Deplaning passenger expressed gratitude and relief to the point of hugging and embracing the flight attendants upon disembarkation once the police removed the disruptive passenger. This passenger created an atmosphere of terror and fear for passenger and crew alike for nearly 4 hours. Callback conversation with reporter revealed the following information: the reporter stated that the man never fell asleep the whole flight, and that is why he wanted a flight attendant to guard the cockpit door for the rest of the flight. The man called the first officer, the purser, and the passenger across the aisle very abusive 'F' names, and threatened them. The captain was very uneasy with the man's brother, who told him that he'd try and help the crew quiet him down, but said 'I'm his brother, but I'm not responsible for him.' the captain wasn't sure the brother had also taken some drugs, so he couldn't be trusted. The flight did not divert to boston, but went ahead and landed in philadelphia. The people did arrest the man and charges were filed against him.

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: PLT (CAPT) RPT, B767-200, MADRID-PHILADELPHIA. ABUSIVE, UNSTABLE PAX, THREAT TO FLC, FIRST CLASS PAX. CABIN ATTENDANT HAD TO GUARD COCKPIT DOOR. POLICE ARREST.

Narrative: MADRID, SPAIN, TO PHILADELPHIA, PA, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. STATEMENT OF CAPT. AT NO TIME DID THE CAPT HAVE A CONVERSATION WITH THE DISRUPTIVE PAX. APPROX 4 HRS INTO THE FLT, FLT ATTENDANT #1 CAME TO THE COCKPIT TO RPT A PROB WITH THE BEHAVIOR OF FREQUENT FLYER PAX XY, SEATED IN SEAT Y. MY FLT ATTENDANT'S DEMEANOR AND TONE OF DELIVERY IN HER DESCRIPTION OF THE ACCOUNT CONVINCED ME OF A GENUINE FEARFUL DEEP CONCERN OF THE IMPENDING SIT. WITH REF TO SECTION X OF THE FLT OPS MANUAL, THE FLT ATTENDANT ISSUED THE PAX NOTICE OF UNITED STATES FEDERAL REG VIOLATION. THIS EXPERIENCED FLT ATTENDANT CLAIMED THE PAX: DISREGARDED THE SERIOUSNESS OF THE WARNING, DISPLAYED BELLIGERENT AND IRRATIONAL BEHAVIOR WHICH EXTENSIVELY DISTURBED OTHER PAX, HAD AT ONE POINT EARLIER IN THE FLT 'CORNERED' HER ALONE IN THE GALLEY, APPEARED TO SUDDENLY BE UNDER THE INFLUENCE OF ALCOHOL OR DRUGS AS THE PAX WAS 'NON-DESCRIPT' DURING BOARDING AND THE FIRST HALF OF THE FLT, PRIOR TO ENGAGING IN THESE NON-NORMAL ACTIONS AND DISPLAYS OF IRRATIONALITY, DISRUPTED THE ENTIRE FIRST CLASS SECTION THUS CREATING AN UNCOMFORTABLE ATMOSPHERE OF APPREHENSION AND FEAR AMONG OTHER PAX IN THE CABIN. THESE FACTS WERE CONFIRMED BY THE FO, WHOSE REST PERIOD WAS BROUGHT TO AN ABRUPT AND PREMATURE END, WITNESSED EVENTS WHICH ENSUED REQUIRED HIS INTERVENTION AS AN ACTIVE CREW MEMBER. DESPITE IMMEDIATE INVOLVEMENT, THE FAILURE OF FO'S ATTEMPT TO SUBDUE THE EXCHANGE AND BRING RESOLUTION OF THE INCIDENT, HE RETURNED TO THE COCKPIT. HE RPTED TO ME A DEEP CONCERN THAT THIS PAX DEMONSTRATED A PATTERN OF UNSTABLE BEHAVIOR. MY FO RETURNED TO THE COCKPIT OBVIOUSLY SHAKEN AND DISTRAUGHT WITH THE EXPERIENCE HE JUST ENCOUNTERED IN FULL VIEW OF THE ENTIRE FIRST CLASS SECTION. THE PAX WAS SEATED NEXT TO HIS OWN BROTHER. THIS PAX HAD ALREADY ACHIEVED CATEGORY 2 STATUS AS DESCRIBED IN XX OF THE FLT OPS MANUAL AND WAS NEARLY ELIGIBLE TO BE CONSIDERED A CATEGORY 3 CRIMINAL SECURITY PROB. THIS WAS JUSTIFIED BY THE ACTIONS OF THE PAX WHO: 1) INTERFERED WITH THE FLT ATTENDANT'S DUTIES BY CAUSING THEM TO MAINTAIN A CONSTANT VIGILANCE ON HIS POS WITHIN THE ACFT AT ALL TIMES AND 2) MADE IT IMPOSSIBLE FOR COCKPIT CREW MEMBERS TO ENGAGE IN THEIR ALLOWED, ANTICIPATED AND DESIRED REST PERIODS AND 3) DIVERTED THE CAPT'S ATTN FROM ROUTINE DUTIES TO ONE OF STRATEGIZING A COURSE OF ACTION IN COMPLIANCE WITH COMPANY PROCS AS STATED IN THE FLT OPS MANUAL. THE COCKPIT CREW BRIEFED THE FLT ATTENDANTS THAT AT LEAST 1 FLT ATTENDANT CREW MEMBER WAS TO BE STATIONED AT THE COCKPIT DOOR AND BE POSITIONED TO PREVENT A COCKPIT INCURSION FOR THE DURATION OF THE FLT. PLTS AGREED THAT THE CRASH AX AND FIRE EXTINGUISHER WERE 2 METHODS OF RESTRAINING OR INCAPACITATING THE PAX IN THE EVENT OF A COCKPIT INCURSION. THE THREAT REQUIRED THE CREW TO DISCUSS A LNDG AT THE NEAREST SUITABLE ARPT AND CITED BOSTON LOGAN ARPT AS AN ACCEPTABLE ARPT. MESSAGES WERE SENT TO THE DISPATCHER VIA ACARS AND THE DECLARATION OF A CTLED CATEGORY 2 SECURITY SIT WAS RELAYED TO COMPANY. THE BROTHER VOLUNTEERED THAT THEY HAD BEEN DRINKING PRIOR TO EMBARKATION AND HINTED STRONGLY THE POSSIBILITY THAT THESE PILLS PROBABLY WERE THE CULPRIT OF THE SIT. THE BROTHER HAD NO IDEA OF WHAT KIND OF PILLS WERE TAKEN NOR WAS HE AWARE OF ANY MEDICAL CONDITION REQUIRING HIS BROTHER TO TAKE MEDICATION. DURING THIS TIME THE COCKPIT CREW DEVELOPED A STRATEGY WHICH INCLUDED A FIRM DECISION POINT TO DIVERT TO BOSTON IN THE EVENT THE PAX'S BEHAVIOR BECAME MORE PHYSICAL OR UNCONTROLLABLE. EVERYONE AGREED THE POTENTIAL THREAT OF A PHYSICAL CONFRONTATION WAS STRONG, AS EXHIBITED BY THE PAX'S AGGRESSIVE BEHAVIOR. IN MY GALLEY DISCUSSION WITH THE BROTHER WHO REQUESTED THE MEETING, I MADE IT CLR THAT THE ACFT WAS GOING TO BE MET BY AUTHS AT EITHER BOSTON OR PHILADELPHIA AND SHOWED HIM THE FLT OPS MANUAL PAGES WITH HIGHLIGHTED PORTIONS JUSTIFYING MY DECISION. THE CREW REST SEAT NOW WAS RENDERED UNUSABLE BY THE CREW. THE REMAINDER OF THE FLT WAS STRESSFUL FOR CREW AND PAX ALIKE. THEDISRUPTIVE PAX REMAINED AWAKE AND TALKED, OFTEN LOUDLY, WITH HIS BROTHER FOR THE REMAINDER OF THE FLT. IT WAS SUBSEQUENTLY RPTED TO ME THAT A TRIP TO THE RESTROOM RESULTED IN THE PAX VOMITING. THE POLICE OFFICER RPTED ANOTHER VOMITING EPISODE ON THE JETWAY. AT NO TIME WAS THE VIGILANCE OF THIS PAX'S BEHAVIOR RELAXED BY THE CREW. THE ACFT WAS MET BY AUTHS WHO REMOVED THE PAX PRIOR TO DEPLANING. I WAS ASKED IF I STILL WANTED TO 'PRESS CHARGES' AND I AGREED IN THE AFFIRMATIVE. AS POLICE ESCORTED THE PRISONER OFF THE AIRPLANE, A SHOE-BOX-SIZED CARTON OF CUBAN COHIBA CIGARS DROPPED FROM THE COAT OF THE PRISONER WHICH TRIGGERED THE POLICE TO NOTIFY CUSTOMS OFFICIALS. DEPLANING PAX EXPRESSED GRATITUDE AND RELIEF TO THE POINT OF HUGGING AND EMBRACING THE FLT ATTENDANTS UPON DISEMBARKATION ONCE THE POLICE REMOVED THE DISRUPTIVE PAX. THIS PAX CREATED AN ATMOSPHERE OF TERROR AND FEAR FOR PAX AND CREW ALIKE FOR NEARLY 4 HRS. CALLBACK CONVERSATION WITH RPTR REVEALED THE FOLLOWING INFO: THE RPTR STATED THAT THE MAN NEVER FELL ASLEEP THE WHOLE FLT, AND THAT IS WHY HE WANTED A FLT ATTENDANT TO GUARD THE COCKPIT DOOR FOR THE REST OF THE FLT. THE MAN CALLED THE FO, THE PURSER, AND THE PAX ACROSS THE AISLE VERY ABUSIVE 'F' NAMES, AND THREATENED THEM. THE CAPT WAS VERY UNEASY WITH THE MAN'S BROTHER, WHO TOLD HIM THAT HE'D TRY AND HELP THE CREW QUIET HIM DOWN, BUT SAID 'I'M HIS BROTHER, BUT I'M NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR HIM.' THE CAPT WASN'T SURE THE BROTHER HAD ALSO TAKEN SOME DRUGS, SO HE COULDN'T BE TRUSTED. THE FLT DID NOT DIVERT TO BOSTON, BUT WENT AHEAD AND LANDED IN PHILADELPHIA. THE PEOPLE DID ARREST THE MAN AND CHARGES WERE FILED AGAINST HIM.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of July 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.