Narrative:

Flight attendant called us to assist with passenger misconduct. They wanted to move him to an adjacent seat with a deadheader next to him to ensure their safety. The passenger refused to cooperate with any direction. After I had him give me his side of story, I decided to leave him in his seat and continue for 30 mins. If no trouble, continue -- otherwise we would divert to brisbane. We landed in sfo with FAA and local enforcement meeting flight. We made statements and the apt pressed charges. I feel must change: 1) fom guidance. 2) flight attendant manual guidance and training. 3) address differences in company, flight attendant, first officer expectations. 4) create database regarding problem passenger. When called to assist flight attendant, you must assume that the flight attendant cannot handle it by his- or herself. We hand a form letter to passenger detailing legal ramifications. If still problem to the flight attendant, we land. Flight attendants be aware of this policy and employ it. Have company, flight attendants and first officer on same page on expectations. This passenger, on a companion pass, can board another flight next week and be someone else's problem. This is unacceptable. We have data on frequent flyers, terrorism threat profile data, but zero on passenger that are a known problem. Too many passenger crew directives mean nothing. We do not have training, equipment, or motivation to deal with these people effectively in-flight. We were seconds away from a serious physical altercation with at least 2 people injured, probably seriously. We have a problem that needs to be dealt with, I want a response. Callback conversation with reporter revealed the following information: the reporter is pursuing his safety suggestions with his airline and is currently writing his proposals for the flight attendant and pilot manuals.

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: UNRULY PAX HAD DEADHEADER SIT WITH HIM UNTIL SFO. POLICE, FAA MET FLT. CAPT PRESSED CHARGES. SAFETY SUGGESTIONS.

Narrative: FLT ATTENDANT CALLED US TO ASSIST WITH PAX MISCONDUCT. THEY WANTED TO MOVE HIM TO AN ADJACENT SEAT WITH A DEADHEADER NEXT TO HIM TO ENSURE THEIR SAFETY. THE PAX REFUSED TO COOPERATE WITH ANY DIRECTION. AFTER I HAD HIM GIVE ME HIS SIDE OF STORY, I DECIDED TO LEAVE HIM IN HIS SEAT AND CONTINUE FOR 30 MINS. IF NO TROUBLE, CONTINUE -- OTHERWISE WE WOULD DIVERT TO BRISBANE. WE LANDED IN SFO WITH FAA AND LCL ENFORCEMENT MEETING FLT. WE MADE STATEMENTS AND THE APT PRESSED CHARGES. I FEEL MUST CHANGE: 1) FOM GUIDANCE. 2) FLT ATTENDANT MANUAL GUIDANCE AND TRAINING. 3) ADDRESS DIFFERENCES IN COMPANY, FLT ATTENDANT, FO EXPECTATIONS. 4) CREATE DATABASE REGARDING PROB PAX. WHEN CALLED TO ASSIST FLT ATTENDANT, YOU MUST ASSUME THAT THE FLT ATTENDANT CANNOT HANDLE IT BY HIS- OR HERSELF. WE HAND A FORM LETTER TO PAX DETAILING LEGAL RAMIFICATIONS. IF STILL PROB TO THE FLT ATTENDANT, WE LAND. FLT ATTENDANTS BE AWARE OF THIS POLICY AND EMPLOY IT. HAVE COMPANY, FLT ATTENDANTS AND FO ON SAME PAGE ON EXPECTATIONS. THIS PAX, ON A COMPANION PASS, CAN BOARD ANOTHER FLT NEXT WK AND BE SOMEONE ELSE'S PROB. THIS IS UNACCEPTABLE. WE HAVE DATA ON FREQUENT FLYERS, TERRORISM THREAT PROFILE DATA, BUT ZERO ON PAX THAT ARE A KNOWN PROB. TOO MANY PAX CREW DIRECTIVES MEAN NOTHING. WE DO NOT HAVE TRAINING, EQUIP, OR MOTIVATION TO DEAL WITH THESE PEOPLE EFFECTIVELY INFLT. WE WERE SECONDS AWAY FROM A SERIOUS PHYSICAL ALTERCATION WITH AT LEAST 2 PEOPLE INJURED, PROBABLY SERIOUSLY. WE HAVE A PROB THAT NEEDS TO BE DEALT WITH, I WANT A RESPONSE. CALLBACK CONVERSATION WITH RPTR REVEALED THE FOLLOWING INFO: THE RPTR IS PURSUING HIS SAFETY SUGGESTIONS WITH HIS AIRLINE AND IS CURRENTLY WRITING HIS PROPOSALS FOR THE FLT ATTENDANT AND PLT MANUALS.

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.