Narrative:

While holding short of runway 25R for departure, the #1 flight attendant called to inform us that she had just become aware of an intoxicated passenger on board, and that she had called for the #2 flight attendant to make another evaluation of that passenger. While we were waiting for the second evaluation and departure clearance, we quickly looked for guidance in the fom and discovered that there isn't any. We were quite clear about what is required when the discovery is made at the gate (as is the fom), but discovery during taxi is not specifically covered. Our departure clearance was imminent when we got the second evaluation (yes, he is drunk, but not considered to be a problem by either flight attendant) and we departed phx for lgb. Had we been at the gate, there would have been no question or hesitation about removing the passenger. However, without clear guidance in the fom, and out of concern for the other 123 passenger -- with an approaching lgb curfew -- we made the judgement to leave. The passenger was fine during the flight. However, at engine shutdown, the #1 flight attendant requested law enforcement. Apparently the man tried to visit the lavatory when we were below 10000 ft, and then mouthed off to the flight attendant. There was also a concern about him driving home. In the future, I will return to the gate and have the passenger removed regardless of the scheduling consequences. Also, the fom should be revised with clear language requiring a gate return. Supplemental information from acn 543488: we found plenty of data in dealing with intoxicated passenger at the gate and in-flight. No information in our manual gave guidance on taxi or an in-line-for-departure procedure scenario. By this time the flight attendant was back on the intercom. She said that the gentleman in question urgently needed to use the bathroom and was somewhat verbally abusive. Again we said to her that we would not depart if she felt the least bit uncomfortable. Together, the flight attendants agreed that he was not a threat to safety. It was only going to be a 1 hour flight. The flight was full and we did not want to inconvenience the other 123 well-behaved passenger. We both felt the flight could be operated safe and legal. Apparently, the intoxicated passenger was up in the aisle walking toward the forward lavatory while we were on short final. We expect the gate agents to screen for intoxicated passenger, which did not happen in this instance. It may be wrong but we made a judgement call.

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: WHILE #3 FOR TKOF, CONFLICTING CONSIDERATIONS OF AN INTOXICATED PAX VERSUS ARPT CURFEW TIMES IN LGB COMPLICATED AN A319 FLC'S DECISION MAKING OF WHETHER TO DEPART PHX ON TIME OR RETURN TO THE GATE.

Narrative: WHILE HOLDING SHORT OF RWY 25R FOR DEP, THE #1 FLT ATTENDANT CALLED TO INFORM US THAT SHE HAD JUST BECOME AWARE OF AN INTOXICATED PAX ON BOARD, AND THAT SHE HAD CALLED FOR THE #2 FLT ATTENDANT TO MAKE ANOTHER EVALUATION OF THAT PAX. WHILE WE WERE WAITING FOR THE SECOND EVALUATION AND DEP CLRNC, WE QUICKLY LOOKED FOR GUIDANCE IN THE FOM AND DISCOVERED THAT THERE ISN'T ANY. WE WERE QUITE CLR ABOUT WHAT IS REQUIRED WHEN THE DISCOVERY IS MADE AT THE GATE (AS IS THE FOM), BUT DISCOVERY DURING TAXI IS NOT SPECIFICALLY COVERED. OUR DEP CLRNC WAS IMMINENT WHEN WE GOT THE SECOND EVALUATION (YES, HE IS DRUNK, BUT NOT CONSIDERED TO BE A PROB BY EITHER FLT ATTENDANT) AND WE DEPARTED PHX FOR LGB. HAD WE BEEN AT THE GATE, THERE WOULD HAVE BEEN NO QUESTION OR HESITATION ABOUT REMOVING THE PAX. HOWEVER, WITHOUT CLR GUIDANCE IN THE FOM, AND OUT OF CONCERN FOR THE OTHER 123 PAX -- WITH AN APCHING LGB CURFEW -- WE MADE THE JUDGEMENT TO LEAVE. THE PAX WAS FINE DURING THE FLT. HOWEVER, AT ENG SHUTDOWN, THE #1 FLT ATTENDANT REQUESTED LAW ENFORCEMENT. APPARENTLY THE MAN TRIED TO VISIT THE LAVATORY WHEN WE WERE BELOW 10000 FT, AND THEN MOUTHED OFF TO THE FLT ATTENDANT. THERE WAS ALSO A CONCERN ABOUT HIM DRIVING HOME. IN THE FUTURE, I WILL RETURN TO THE GATE AND HAVE THE PAX REMOVED REGARDLESS OF THE SCHEDULING CONSEQUENCES. ALSO, THE FOM SHOULD BE REVISED WITH CLR LANGUAGE REQUIRING A GATE RETURN. SUPPLEMENTAL INFO FROM ACN 543488: WE FOUND PLENTY OF DATA IN DEALING WITH INTOXICATED PAX AT THE GATE AND INFLT. NO INFO IN OUR MANUAL GAVE GUIDANCE ON TAXI OR AN IN-LINE-FOR-DEP PROC SCENARIO. BY THIS TIME THE FLT ATTENDANT WAS BACK ON THE INTERCOM. SHE SAID THAT THE GENTLEMAN IN QUESTION URGENTLY NEEDED TO USE THE BATHROOM AND WAS SOMEWHAT VERBALLY ABUSIVE. AGAIN WE SAID TO HER THAT WE WOULD NOT DEPART IF SHE FELT THE LEAST BIT UNCOMFORTABLE. TOGETHER, THE FLT ATTENDANTS AGREED THAT HE WAS NOT A THREAT TO SAFETY. IT WAS ONLY GOING TO BE A 1 HR FLT. THE FLT WAS FULL AND WE DID NOT WANT TO INCONVENIENCE THE OTHER 123 WELL-BEHAVED PAX. WE BOTH FELT THE FLT COULD BE OPERATED SAFE AND LEGAL. APPARENTLY, THE INTOXICATED PAX WAS UP IN THE AISLE WALKING TOWARD THE FORWARD LAVATORY WHILE WE WERE ON SHORT FINAL. WE EXPECT THE GATE AGENTS TO SCREEN FOR INTOXICATED PAX, WHICH DID NOT HAPPEN IN THIS INSTANCE. IT MAY BE WRONG BUT WE MADE A JUDGEMENT CALL.

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.