VIOLENT PAX -
Rest assured that I am not in favor of pampering an obviously dangerous passenger. However, there are less than deadly methods available.
A standard procedure for flight attendants is to identify "able-bodied passengers" to assist with an evacuation. A sky-rage situation is no different.
Consider the possibility that the report of the off-duty policeman on the Southwest is accurate. They are as expert as they come at subduing violent perps.
I've been on the backs of many to screen such potential problems at the gate and found that prevention has been effective. There's nothing new or secret about that.
In too many cases airlines who have wanted to prosecute a sky-rage problem have been stopped at the argument, "You are known to have boarded the questionable passenger. You are also known to have served him/her alcohol." A lot of cases have walked because of that.
If clearly and absolutely necessary, I wouldn't blame anyone for 'dusting' someone such as a terrorist.
However, once a passenger is clearly subdued, there is no excuse for moving onward to the conscious choice of killing.
My crusade is for education, procedures and implements such as straps, ties and cuffs to restore passenger safety. Such have been around for years and proven to work.
A low pressure pepper spray can be made available.
There can be no doubt that there are extremes in which a killing might be inadvertently effected, such as in a case of a passenger 'dusted' with PCP. In cases such as that, I'm quite willing to comment, "Too bad, but it was unavoidable under the circumstances."
However, until it is patently clear that death is necessary, even if inadvertent, I cannot condone the mob mentality, particularly it's encouragement.
As a co-pilot I used to prompt the captain that regardless of what company policy was, who did he want left in charge if something happened in a confrontation. Hence, I've had my share of passenger confrontations as a copilot as well, including a few which nearly got violent. I'm no stranger to the potential of a pilot getting creamed.
The Alaska 259 incident is a prime example. If ever there was an excuse to use a crash-axe, they had it with not even myself questioning it's fatal use. Notice that the guy is still alive. It was as close as any who've survived. A civilized mentality appropriately was employed.
I fail to understand this "Hey, let's kill somebody!" attitude.
If you want to take the Salt Lake issue one step further, imagine the crew or company being held responsible for the excessive force. There are laws are out there which could have sent a few people on the crew to prison.
If you don't want to preserve life for any other reason, how about considering the crews liability under the laws. Only the political winds prevent that from happening. Ask the cops in the Rodney King beating.
With rare exception, restraint is appropriate and enough.
With no other choice available, I promise you, I'll be the first to swing a crash axe. I fully agree that the lives of all on board are the first priority with no exceptions.
Until it is reasonably clear that no other choice is available, I respectfully that civilized standards should prevail.
In an actual circumstance, I'll give the welfare of the passengers the benefit of the doubt over the life of a violent passenger - but not until it's clear that the unenviable choice MUST be made.