passenger dies...subdued by passengers during a flight

[baggersup]

Here come the lawsuits....
******************

Death of Disruptive Airline Passenger Probed
Subdued by Passengers, Man Removed Dead From Jet

NEW YORK (March 20) - Prosecutors are investigating the death of a man who was subdued by several fellow airline passengers after he became disruptive on a New York-bound flight, a spokesman said Sunday.

William Lee was pronounced dead late Friday after he was removed from the American Airlines flight at Kennedy International Airport. The cause of death had not yet been determined and was under investigation.

Lee, 48, of New York, stood up in his seat on American's Flight 4 from Los Angeles and ''loudly demanded another beer,'' airline spokesman Tim Smith said.

Flight attendants asked him to wait until they reached his row, Smith said, but the man ''got very, very belligerent and loud and disruptive and was told he would not be served any more alcohol.''

The purser tried to calm him down, but he pushed her aside in order to get to the aisle, the spokesman said.

Seven other male passengers restrained Lee, who was a very large man, and they and the flight crew put flexible handcuffs on him and put him back in his seat, Smith said.

Lee got out of his seat again and the seven passengers held him on his back on the galley floor until the plane landed, Smith said. He said he had heard reports the men were members of a rugby team but said he couldn't yet confirm that.

After the landing, Port Authority police boarded the plane and administered CPR to Lee, who ''was in some kind of distress,'' Smith said.

[Airbubba]

These incidents have happened a few times over the years. I remember one incident discussed here years ago where a pax out of BKK tried to kick out a window and was restrained and given an injection by a doctor onboard to calm him down. They diverted to Terhan and the pax expired.

Here's another case similar to the one at JFK that occurred pre 9-11:

_______________________________________


Sep 16, 2000

A nineteen year old youth who allegedly tried to break into the cockpit during a Southwest Airlines flight was killed by the passengers who restrained him, not by a heart attack, an autopsy has concluded.

The U.S. Attorney's office described Jonathan Burton's August 11 death as an act of self-defense by frightened passengers and said it would not file criminal charges.

Burton, from Las Vegas, became combative 20 minutes before Flight 1763 was due to land, hitting other passengers and pounding on the locked cockpit door, reports said.

As many as eight of the plane's 120 passengers subdued him and held him down until the flight arrived in Salt Lake City, reports said.

Burton died after being removed from the plane, and authorities believed he had died of a heart attack.

The autopsy report classified his death a homicide because it resulted from "intentional actions by another individual or individuals."

The report, released by Burton's family, said he suffocated. He also had bruises and scratches on his torso, face and neck and suffered blunt force injuries.

"He was strangled, beaten and kicked," said family attorney Kent Spence. "We'd like to know how this could have happened to this young man. This kid had no history of violence, he would sooner take a spider outside than kill it."

The autopsy found low levels of marijuana in Burton's body but said that was an "unlikely explanation" for his violent outburst.

The family has not decided whether to sue Southwest Airlines or the passengers, Spence said.

Statistics from the Federal Aviation Administration showed 292 incidents of "unruly passengers" last year, up from 138 in 1995. The FAA can recommend fines of up to $25,000 for airline passengers who "assault, threaten, intimidate or interfere with a crew member."

http://news.airwise.com/stories/2000/09/969146121.html

[El Grifo]

Guess thats exactly what happens when you watch too much Hollywood !!

Seven guys "restraining" one guy. What the hell would you expect the outcome to be other than the obvious.

[Globaliser]

Restraining people can be very dangerous, and very unobviously so. If even policemen and prison officers can get it wrong, it's so much more likely that untrained people can. If this is going to happen regularly, maybe cabin crew ought to get some training about just what can happen so that they can take some role in supervising those who are helping out?

[JackOffallTrades]

As I see it the only good thing to come of this is the message that disruptive behaviour is not tolerated on-board airliners.
Law suits aside, it is illegal be drunk on-board an aircraft.

I may sound harsh, but I am glad the drunk fellow did not get away with this.

[Sunfish]

Would it be too much to suggest that disruptive behaviour on an aircraft is life threatening behaviour in that no one is going to prosecute the restrainers if they are a little too harsh?

Furthermore, why is the consumption of alcohol still allowed on aircraft? Why do we need to supply duty free either?

[robnewman]

Unfortunately, incidents like this, known as positional asphyxia, happen every now and then, to members of the Police Service.

The report that seven other passengers were restraining this person makes no difference. It would have had the same outcome if it was ONE person. If the man was being restrained face down, he could have become unconcious within 20 seconds due to not being able to expand the lungs sufficiently. If he was over-weight, this would have made it worse.

I fear that the excellent intentions of the other passengers may end up with them facing serious charges, when really they should be getting commendations.

When will people ever learn that loutish behaviour on board an aircraft is a serious crime, and should never be tolerated? When will the courts treat this with the seriousness it deserves and deal out some lengthy sentences?

Whilst i'm sure we'd all agree this man didn't derserve to go in this way, I hope his demise will make the next drunk passenger, who thinks he can throw his weight around, think twice and sit down, shut up, and wait until he gets to his destination before drinking himself into a stuper.

Good luck to those passengers. My thoughts are with you.

[JackOffallTrades]

Get away with disruptive behaviour on an aircraft!

Drunks will never think.

I fear the only way to avoid this situation in the future is strict control of alchoholism before and during flight.

Before flight check everyone is sober.

During the flight make sure no-one drinks alchohol (by not selling it for starters).

Drastic but would solve some problems.

Cabin crew may argue that alchohol relaxes people and therefore helps those with a fear of flight by sedation etc... The arguements could go on....

[Heliport]

I may sound harsh, but I am glad the drunk fellow did not get away with this. So, given a straight choice between him 'getting away with' his drunken behaviour or dying, you'd choose death.

Surely this is a tragedy for everyone involved - the pax who restrained him, the CC, the man who died and the family he's left behind.

[JackOffallTrades]

Yes this is sad. I would not wish death on anyone. Unfortunately it has happened. If you were there as one of those passengers would you sit back and let a drunken passenger harm your safety and that of fellow passengers?

Or would you do what the 8 rugby playing types did and sedate him?

[Captain Sand Dune]

Considering the events of the last few years, there is no excuse for bad behaviour of any sort when on board an aircraft.get away with what?
Good to see no-one was going to wait around to find out!
I have been under the afluence of incohol numerous times (post 9/11) when paxing in the back end of an aircraft, but then again I'm not the beligerent/suicidal type when drunk.

[sammypilot]

Several people posting have queried the need for serving drink on board. The problem often is that the person is at least semi-drunk when boarding. You only have to go to Manchester or Gatwick to see the state some people are in when they present themselves at the gate, particularly for charter flights.

Most of the problems should be tackled pre-boarding and the law regarding boarding an aircraft whilst drunk should be enforced. This is the time to do it when their are the appropriate authorities available to back up staff. Instead of which, to avoid trouble, the potentially problematic passenger is allowed to board. They then become the responsibility of cabin crew most of whom are physically incapable of dealing with them.

A firm policy of not allowing people to board when inebriated would be a tremendous boon to flight crew. Not getting your holiday because you are drunk concentrates the mind and particularly the minds of your travelling companions who will have their plans disrupted.

[Vampy]

Seven other male passengers restrained Lee, who was a very large man

Now does large mean he was incredibly fat? Or was he incredibly well built? Not only was he very large, but he was drunk. Now one of my good friends is in the police. Only last night we were talking about restraining people, arresting people who were under the influence etc etc. When people are very drunk and intent on doing something/going somewhere/whatever, it's gonna take more than one person to restrain them. We're not living in a world where you can gently sit someone down and politely ask them to kindly refrain from doing what they were doing. Just doesn't happen. So I can't quite understand....

Guess thats exactly what happens when you watch too much Hollywood !!

You've obviously never been confronted by a very large drunk man my friend. How many people do you think they should have used to restrain him? And if you were confronted by a similar situation on a flight, how long would you have spent discussing it with your fellow passengers before actually doing something whilst some idiot was causing havoc? A bit of a reality check is greatly required here methinks.....

[El Grifo]

The image of 5 "Rugby Players" is it now? Restraining overweight drunk in the cramped area of an aircraft aisle, is clearly a recipe for disaster. Something is bound to give.

We have all witnessed recent similar scenarios on TV when seven burly cops restrain a drunk in the street or seven burly prison officers restrain a belligerent prisoner in his cell. The outcome is always the same.

Had this guy been brandishing a lethal weapon like the ragged edge of a smashed booze bottle, or threatening to set fire to the contents which he had previously poured over the seats,
Or even the unthinkable, waving a 2-inch nail clipper around threatening to take over the aircraft, then there could be clear justification for the actions. He was a drunk who had presumably been fed the legal intoxicant in the terminal building and on the aircraft.

When you drink to much of that stuff you get drunk, when you get drunk you do strange things, doing strange things in an aircraft at 30 odd thousand feet is not recommended these days.

Restrict the sale of duty free alcohol and unlimited drinks in the terminal, thus depriving anyone with both a lethal weapon and a reason to go loco on board and restrict the amount of alcohol supplied on board. Perhaps that way we could reduce the incidents of air rage and the need for passengers to feel the need to act as Rambos or Prison Warders.

[Max Angle]

Presumeably if there had been an air marshall on board he would have saved the passengers time by shooting him. Not sure how the legal system works in the US but in the UK they would be very lucky not to be facing manslaughter charges. There would seem to have been no intent to interfere with the operation of flight, ie trying to knock the flightdeck door down, and wether they intended it or not, lethal force was used to restrain him. They are on rather dodgy legal ground I suspect.

[really not]

http://www.zarc.com/english/other_sprays/reports/excited_delirium.html

Have a look at this, sounds like this guy suffered from "Excited Delirium" current thinking is once restrained you've got 1 1/2 hours to get them safe and free to move or they drop dead through hypothermia or heart attack

[Avman]

Looks like pax will soon have to be breathalized prior to boarding then :E

Check-in line
Security line
Breathalizer line

Aah, the joys of modern day flying!

[one-punch-mickey]

Shame the chap died, nobody deserves that.

However is it any surprise now that passengers will intervene if they suspect a nutter is trying to get into the cockpit? Had I been a passenger on that flight then I too would have been scared, perhaps not before 9/11 but now I sure would be.

As a Pilot I now feel much more secure in the knowledge that the folks down the back will not sit back and wonder what to do when they see a lunatic (drunk or otherwise) attempt to break into the cockpit. What were they to think, oh perhaps the chap was just being friendly and wanted to give the skipper a big kiss?

The result was tragic no argument, but better that than the plane going in like a tent peg.

[barit1]

Another headline case (http://www.wcpo.com/news/2003/local/12/01/whitecastle.html)

This case was ruled heart failure induced by asphyxia - he was grossly overweight and lying face down under restraint. Many similarities to this weeks event, including the state of intoxication.

[Globaliser]

Am I the only person who thinks that banning the service of alcohol on board all flights is a bit of a sledgehammer to crack a nut? Yes, there is air rage from time to time, but is there so much of it that it needs such a dramatic and inhospitable response? I don't think so, especially if the airlines would do as they threaten and deny boarding to already-drunk passengers.

What seems to be needed, though, is some training to at least one cabin crew member as to what are safe and unsafe positions in which to restrain a person, "excited delirium" or not. (BTW, 1½ hours may be about 20 times the time that's needed to kill someone with an inappropriate restraint position.) So even if there are seven untrained rugby players, all of whom are needed, there should be someone who can direct operations. It's not a big addition to the first aid training and defibrillator training that's already given.

[Lou Scannon]

The moral of the story seems to be that anyone threatening the safety of a flight does so entirely at their own risk.

The more publicity this event gets, the better.

[hobie]

Post 9-11 if a passenger attempts to break down a Cockpit door .... attacks other doors or windows .... attacks Cabin Crew, then he risks being killed (by over zealous fellow passengers) .....

Remembering that all of this happening at something like 30,000 feet and mach 0.8 or so then as far as I'm concerned he is likely to get what he deserves :ok:

[Irish Steve]

Considering the events of the last few years, there is no excuse for bad behaviour of any sort when on board an aircraft.

This comes in the middle of some wide publicity here in Ireland where the representative of the Garda (police), and a judge are both saying that a new law is required to make it easier to take action against people that injure or abuse personnel of the emergency services in places like hospital A&E departments.

Yeah, I'm sticking my neck out, but it's about time someone did.

What we really need is a recognition from ALL concerned, especially politicians and the PC brigade that ALL forms of alcohol induced injury, damage, or similar activity are UNACCEPTABLE.

No conditions, special laws for aircraft, or emergency services personnel, or the like. That's ducking the issue.

Plain and simple. alcoholic excess that causes damage or injury to the person or property or both will get suitably "rewarded", and in many cases, custodial sentencing is not the answer, but SEVERE financial penalties, over a prolonged period of time, including sensible and appropriate levels of compensation paid by the perpetrator to the victims(s).

Harsh? Maybe. Necessary? Absolutely, when the levels of damage and injury that are being caused on a daily basis are taken into consideration.

it won't be cabin crew that are unhappy about not selling alcohol on flights, it will be the airline management, as they will be losing a good margin product. Equally, the vast majority on flights don't abuse alcohol, so why should the majority lose out because of a few idiots. Far better to have a clear and unambiguous policy that states VERY clearly EXACTLY what the penalties for abuse will be, and then enforce them, without the excuses and other nonsense that goes on at present. Would that be so hard? Probably not, but who is going to have the bottle to bring it in?

Amongst the politicians that are currently in control, I don't see many candidates stepping forward on this one, it would be too unpopular.

[VC10 Rib22]

This is a very tragic - and fortunately rare - outcome, but one has to understand that in situations of perceived extreme danger, such as that these passengers experienced, the first phase of the body's General Adaption System - the Alarm Reaction - causes the suprarenal glands to secrete the stress hormone Adrenaline, increasing energy available to the muscles. As a result of this, an individual in a combative situation has the potential to 'punch above their weight', which is compounded by the fact that the adrenaline also causes improved quality of the brain's decision-making process and improved alertness. Thus you have a situation where individuals can identify and deal with a problem at great speed, and with great power - not an ideal scenario when the individuals concerned happen to be rugby players, already strong and trained to negate aggression with aggression.

I look forward to reading the outcome of the investigation, and whilst I feel sorry for the deceased and his family, he was the cause of the incident. I hope lessons are learned and procedures are reviewed to ensure that the chances of a repeat are minimised. However, I'll finish by saying that the results of not-too-distant events have created an environment where passengers are no longer prepared to sit back and accept the safety of their flight being jeopordised.

VC10 Rib22

[Paracab]

robnewman,

You raised a point about positional asphyxia causing unconsciousness within 20 seconds.

Can you explain why this happens ?

I'm not doubting you, I'm just curious about the pathophysiology behind this occurence.

[Sunfish]

Now we are all speculating ... I'd be willing to bet half a frozen Mars bar that no charges will be laid.

I suspect that the grounds might be that there is no possibility of getting a conviction.

If I was the proverbial "reasonable man on the Clapham Omnibus ", I would expect that a drunk attempting to kick a window out or damage the aircraft in some way is making an attempt on my life and I would react accordingly in defence of my own life.

Anyone else want to play armchair lawyer?

cheers, Sunfish

[Globaliser]

Paracab: You raised a point about positional asphyxia causing unconsciousness within 20 seconds.

Can you explain why this happens ?It's been a few years since I read a number of learned medical articles explaining this (had to do so for work), so apologies if I get any of this slightly skew-whiff.

It's basically due to the fact that in certain positions, the movement of the rib cage and diaphragm get restricted more than you might think, thus leading to insufficient air getting into the lungs. Unsurprisingly, there are various risk factors - for example, overweight people with large tummies are well-known to be at increased risk of positional asphyxia, simply due to the mechanical effect of pressing the fat tummy into the body, which partly goes upwards into the diaphragm to restrict lung capacity.

If we're resting, this might not matter too much, particularly if we're free to move. But if someone's been exercising vigorously (eg in a violent struggle with police officers or prison officers, which is a typical scenario), he will have increased oxygen requirements, in part due to the oxygen debt that's built up during the exercise.

Depriving someone of sufficient air when he's in that condition may rapidly exacerbate his oxygen debt. You can then very rapidly reach a state where there's a sudden and catastrophic change in the person's biochemistry, leading to collapse and sudden death.

One of the ironies of the situation is that when the person reaches that catastrophic edge and suddenly goes quiet, the restrainers may think that it's just that they've "won", the person has given up, and that the last restraint they put on was the one that worked - so they maintain that restraint. By the time they work out that the person's gone quiet and limp because something's wrong, he may already be dead.

[Paracab]

Globaliser,

Thanks for that, it makes a lot of sense. I was guessing it was along those sort of lines but not something I was 100% familiar with, when perhaps I should have been.

Not something I've encountered, but you never know...

[Speedpig]

quote
"Several people posting have queried the need for serving drink on board. The problem often is that the person is at least semi-drunk when boarding. You only have to go to Manchester or Gatwick to see the state some people are in when they present themselves at the gate, particularly for charter flights."

Ah, there's the problem.
Shut down Gatwick and Manchester.
And why do you think it is just these two airports?

I have the pleasure (dubious) of often being the first person called to deal with passengers who are " in their cups".
I am not a policeman, fireman or doctor and am unarmed.
I'm average build and 5' 10" don't play rugby any more due to a dickie knee and rapidly advancing middle age(still play cricket though... does that count?).
I am a check - in supervisor for Willie's new train set at Gatwick.
I estimate that I have dealt with somewhere in the region of 150 people in various stages of pissed, from smelling of last night's excess to rolling in their own vomit.
I am expected to make a judgement call on whether these people are fit to travel within a few minutes before departure time. If I'm lucky, I get to see them at check-in and can stop them there
Guess who these people are?
Charter pax? Rebellious lads out on a stag weekend?
I've been at Gatwick for 21 years and have only once offloaded a lad out with his mates.
Normally it is the more "respectable" full fare, schedule pax. This includes famous politicians who like to fly to Scotland and business men after their "lunch" and quite often women who demonstrate full use of the English language's more colourful expressions.
Sailors returning to Lithuania, Latvia or Poland are very common as are oil workers from some far flung desert. I have some sympathy for some of these as I've spent time in Saudi.....
Guess where most people have got their alcohol from? Inbound longhaul flights. Why do we give it away? It is easier to give than it is to say no.
I often get called to inbound flights to meet disruptive pax.
The inbound crew have a nasty habit of disappearing rapidly once at the gate. Why is that?
My job, ultimately, is to make our aircraft as safe and comfortable as possible for everyone onboard. I never refer pax to crew (some of my colleagues do) to make the call. If I feel the crew need to be aware, then it means I have a concern. If I have a concern, then I need to stop the person from boarding.
The real problem is defining the drunk from the nutter, and then the drunk nutter.
I am not medically qualified to decide if a person is drunk, or insane. I have to make the call based on gut feeling and experience and then deal with the consequences when the offloadee gets angry. Most get very angry but few have the balls to pursue after the event because of embarassment.
I always err on the side of caution and usually offload.
So far, I have only been hit once....... by a woman.... but have been threatened with death, violence and curses towards my family and me...... people have threatened to wait for me outside and one even mistook someone else for me later and threatened them.
Most drunks are allowed to travel the next day with their tail between their legs but some receive permanent bans.
There is no clear cut solution to disruptiveness. Spot the drunk or nutter on the ground if you can, but some don't become drunk or mad until they're at altitude.
Zero alcohol is the only way of making sure pax don't get any more drunk. Do away with the duty free alcohol too.
In the short time we get to actually see a passenger at check-in and then the gate, how can we assess their sanity? If they ask for help or display strange habits are they just nervous or mad?
I thank God I was not on duty the night of the BA2069 incident. He wasn't a charter pax, nor was he drunk allegedly.
Sorry, I'm going on a bit now. Very emotive subject. Please do not associate disruptiveness with a particular type of pax or airport.

[Beausoleil]

Arriving drunk after longhaul - exactly. Airlines bring a lot of this on themselves.

I flew back from Houston with BA some years back next to an oil guy who was staggering as he walked up the aisle. The cabin crew had no qualms about serving him 2 beers at a time the whole way. When we were landing he couldn't be woken to put his seatbelt on (it was draped over him by the cabin crew) and he had wet himself. He was between me and another passenger and the aisle so was a clear danger to us in the event of an evacuation.

BA's response to a complaint was that it was less fuss for them to let him drink than to withhold alcohol. Those around him who had miserable flights (would you like to be strapped next to that nutter on the bus for several hours until he passes out - and in steerage conditions at that?) could just suck it up.

I've tried to avoid BA ever since. I like some of the American airlines who have started charging high prices for booze on longhaul.

[El Grifo]

Nice one Speedpig. That was truly a breath of fresh air.

Nothing beats the reality of frontline experience.


:ok: :cool: :ok:

[PaperTiger]

I would expect that a drunk attempting to kick a window out or damage the aircraft in some way is making an attempt on my life and I would react accordingly in defence of my own life.In the case in point (AA4), no evidence has emerged that the deceased did either. There is a garbled journo-type reference to trying to open the flightdeck door, and equally, some other accounts which say he never got any further forward than row 25.

The legal procedings here are probably going to revolve around reasonable force, that is if the D.A. decides any lay any charges at all.
I don't have a crystal ball, but I'm not sure either result would be a Good Thing.

No charges or acquittal = drunk pax fair game.
Guilty = forget about help from fellow-pax next time.

:(

[Piltdown Man]

Speedpig, I wish that there we a few more like you.

And for the others who are suggesting that "over-reacting" passengers who are assisting cabin crew by restraining unruly passengers are liable to prosecution - Well, IMHO if they are asked to assist or cabin crew agree with their actions, then they are following a legal order from the Captain. The problem then becomes his. And we have one of the biggest "Get of Jail Card Free Cards." This is because we are taking action to ensure the safety of the aircraft, its cargo and occupants.

Only history will prove me wrong!

[PaperTiger]

Well, IMHO if they are asked to assist or cabin crew agree with their actions, then they are following a legal order from the Captain.Further details about this incident seem to have dried up completely, either because it's sub judice or being swept under the rug. We shall have to see if any criminal charges ensue and whether the defense is anything like your opinion. In my lay opinion, that argument would not stand up in a civil wrongful death suit.

On another board the pertinent question was raised as to the state of intoxication of the 'restrainers'. A rugby team on a long transcon - could they possibly have had a bevvy or two as well ?

Alcohol + testosterone + adrenalin. You do the math. :hmm:

[radeng]

It seems to me that there are dangerous possibilities.
Scenario like this:

Cobby FA ( and they DO occur) passenger unhappy with service, but not doing anything other than complaining. FA loses cool (we've seen examples here before on this forum of this apparently happening), well meaning passengers take part. Original complainant dies. PM shows him/her not to be drunk or under influence of drugs.

Now, is this 'tough luck' for the poor guy's family, or is it manslaughter? Is the airline responsible? Are the passengers responsible for an over - reaction as a result of the over reaction of an FA?

The performances of some FAs on airlines in the US are such that I would cheerfully personally have hung. drawn and quartered them. You daren't complain these days, and writing to the airline is such a waste of time that you wonder if they have anyone employed in any US based airline who can read! Or who gives a sh*t about customer relations.

[anengineer]

As long as the industry continues to sell booze to pax before and during flights then incidents like this, and possibly far worse, will simply continue to happen.

The solution is obvious - stop selling booze to pax and stop ALL pax under the influence from boarding, even if it means breath testing. After all, you really *do* have a drug problem if you can't manage a few hours, or even half a day, without shovelling it into your system.

They've increased safety by stopping smoking on board most flights, all they have to do now is stop the boozing. ....But of course, it'll never happen whilst there's money to be made from it. Even if the worst case scenario should happen, they'll wheel out various excuses as to why a complete ban on alcohol isn't necessary.

An aircraft several miles up, travelling at close to the speed of sound is NO environment for anything that compromises safety - period.

[Speedpig]

Speedpig, I wish that there we a few more like you.
LOL so do I:) Thank you
What is lacking is consistency of policy. As long as we depend on individual judgement, there may be mistakes made.

[Jaq]

Anyone, no, everyone who attempts to gain access to the flight deck with malicious intent (Mind you, could include cabin crew at times), should be dealt with in a lethal manner. He's not trying to get a better view from those big windows. He's trying to kill everyone on board. Or was the obvious missed here.

Or perhaps just a smack on the back of his hand and tell him how naughty he's being would do!!!!!!

I'd rather take the risk of being charged with manslaughter than the risk of him missing a 'twin tower'.

[PaperTiger]

everyone who attempts to gain access to the flight deck with malicious intent (Mind you, could include cabin crew at times), should be dealt with in a lethal mannerAnd the relevance to this incident is... what ?

[flapsforty]

As long as the industry continues to sell booze to pax before and during flights then incidents like this, and possibly far worse, will simply continue to happen.


So very true. Which leaves people like speedpig and ourselves with the impossible task of correctly dealing with this endlessly repetitive nightmare. We are not trained for it, we are under severe time pressure when making these decisions and know that deciding to off-load a drunk will most likely delay the flight (hold lugage needs to be removed) and make other pax miss their connections. If we decide wrongly, we migth have an accident like this one on our hands mid-air. If we over-react, we might off-load a perfectly innocent sailor who is used to booze and would have quietly gone to sleep after take off.

It's a lose-lose situation for everybody concerned, pax included, and anengineer perfectly summarises it.

Speedpig, sometimes leaving you to deal with it is sheer cowardice from the FAs. Othertimes it's having to catch the next light, having already dealt with the situation for the past 3 hours and being heartily fed up with it or being plain exhausted after 12 hours of working a flight crossing 7 time-zones.

[Globaliser]

anengineer: They've increased safety by stopping smoking on board most flights, all they have to do now is stop the boozing. ....But of course, it'll never happen whilst there's money to be made from it.And how much money do the full service airlines make from selling booze? Come on, there's more to it than this simplistic view.

[Speling misteak, sory.]

[flapsforty]

Globaliser, I do not think the view is simplistic. While many full service airlines do not take money for the booze they serve, there is the aspect of competition.
The obscene amounts of money generated by the sale of tax free booze most certainly is relevant here!

Speaking only for myself here, being fairly strict with the amount of alcohol we serve to individual pax, based on their reactions to the increasing inebreation, I know for a fact that it is NOT the alcohol they get served by us, but rather surreptitious drinking from their own tax free bottles which is the problem.

All alcohol related aggression incidents I have experienced have been caused by this. All of them!
It is physically impossible to continuously supervise one's allotment of 50 pax. So the idiots will drink from their tax free bottles. And will get drunk enough to pose a safety hazard.
I confiscate bottles every bl**dy week!
I have the technique down so pat that I can now accomplish it without the offending pax getting angry. But that has taken me 20 years of practice, and in the mean time I have been scared ****less by pissed bozoos far too many times.

Globaliser, you tell me. Why, if not because of all the £££$$$€€€ made, should we (pax & crew) be subject to this idiocy???

[Globaliser]

With respect, it's simplistic to think that if you'll automatically have less of a problem if you try to impose a zero alcohol policy on board aircraft.

First of all, flying's already a very stressful business for most of the world. (As my friends would say, if there are times when even I can get stressed about air travel, just think what it must be like for everyone else.)

Second, you've also got a lot of people who are definitely nicotine-addicted and - for better or worse reasons - will not bring or use any non-smoking nicotine replacements. Most of the people I know who fall into this camp are heavy smokers who will say, if challenged, that they don't need any of this nicotine chewing gum stuff: they reckon that they only want a smoke because they like having something to do with their hands. But they're the people who get most edgy, nervous and argumentative the longer they're without a cigarette.

Of course, many of the most heavily nicotine-addicted don't notice, because they're used to washing down their nicotine stimulant with alcoholic sedative.

So take away the alcoholic feel-good sedative from everyone (smokers and non-smokers alike), and what do you get? Fewer aggressive drunks, for sure, but more aggressive stressees, some of whom are climbing the cabin walls from lack of nicotine. Fourteen-hour sectors, anyone? (I've got two coming up next weekend.)

It's not for nothing that onboard catering is advertised along the lines of "good food and good wine to help you relax and unwind".

There are many pax who can "do" air travel only because they can have a quiet drink or two to calm them down. If you take that away, many of them will stop flying. Bad for business, sure. Bad for crew's jobs, too.

The overwhelming majority of pax drink sensibly, if they drink at all. Managing the problem is a question of balance. Simplistic "solutions" really don't help the issue.

[767yyz]

No matter how OTT the pax were on the flight, no matter how close to the equivalent of manslaughter in UK terminology they came, it's my feeling the likelihood of finding an unbiased jury in post 9/11 USA will be impossible....and Sunfish is right, there will probably be no charges brought.

All of us up the pointy end however are pleased as punch that SLFs won't allow nutters to compromise the safety of the aircraft, and of course, we can all pontificate as to what the deceased on the AA service might have done next - but it does not excuse the cabin staff from allowing an apparent rugby-type mob from restraining the individual, in the galley, themselves apparently unrestrained for landing. Complicit in his death ? I'd say so.

All that was needed to create a recipe for disaster, if the TSA and FAA decided to change the rules, would be a dead-heading flight officer, authorized to carry a weapon, getting carried away John Wayne style.

Here, in the Great White North, the thought of a dead heading flight officer with a pistol strapped to his/her thigh, whistling the tune from The Good, The Bad and The Ugly makes us go colder then even the deepest winter...

Armchair Lawyer Musings Concluded.

[PaperTiger]

it's my feeling the likelihood of finding an unbiased jury in post 9/11 USA will be impossible....and Sunfish is right, there will probably be no charges brought.Probably so, although I would not be surprised to see a civil suit brought. From what has been released so far I'd say there's enough for a competent lawyer to present a case on the preponderance. AA would no doubt be named as co-defendant in which case it may be settled (and gagged) out of court, and we'll not be any the wiser as to exactly what went on. Pity.