| SNS3Guppy has summed it up perfectly: and, as he says, we don't have all the necessary information. Diverting is never to be undertaken lightly, because it involves so many complications. It's also true that, by the time the different options have been carefully weighed in a situation that has apparently ceased to be critical, top of descent for the original destination may be fast approaching. As one who retired (on schedule) two months after 9/11, can I offer a couple of general points from my different − if limited − perspective?
The above case involved two large stewards restraining a passenger. As a passenger these days, I sometimes find myself in cabins of about 150, crewed by 3 female cabin attendants. However bossy an attitude they may present to most of the passengers (and they sometimes do), I hope they manage to develop a good rapport with several of the stronger young male passengers. The latter might be essential allies in the sort of case described above; particularly now that the flight crew is normally only two, both of whom may also be female, and are in any case discouraged from leaving the cockpit.
That perceived requirement for the flight crew − post Twin Towers − to be isolated in the cockpit is at the heart of the problem. I’m not offering a solution. For the last 10 years of my career we were making a stronger effort to counter the tendency for an increasing “us” and “them” division between the cockpit and the cabin. Cockpit CRM having evolved to something more useful than some of the early ideas, companies were introducing it to cabin crew. Presumably, these programmes are continuing? But any attempts to provide integrated crew CRM, with flight crews and cabin crew in the same classroom, must be hampered by the fact that they see so little of each other on the aeroplane. Having said that, the regular sharing of perceptions and experiences between cabin and cockpit crew − in a stress-free environment − is more important than ever. |