ONTPax
4th Jan 2010, 08:11
From Saturday's LA TIMES comes this. The "orange juice incident" sounds interesting. Doesn't seem like enough details were given.
ONTPax
* * * * * * * *
Flight crews have latitude in pegging threatening behavior
Actions that pose a safety risk can land a passenger in big trouble. But the definition is open to interpretation.
By Hugo Martín, Los Angeles Times
January 2, 2010
After an attempted terrorist attack on a flight from Amsterdam to Detroit, the Transportation Security Administration gave airline crews new discretion to deal with threats on U.S.-bound planes.
But a recent in-flight clash over a glass of orange juice shows that not everyone agrees about what constitutes an onboard threat.
The TSA issued a directive Dec. 28 saying airline crews could decide whether to prohibit passengers from having blankets, pillows and other personal items on their laps beginning one hour before landing. The airline staff can also decide to keep passengers from getting to their carry-on baggage one hour before landing, if the crew considers it a threat to safety.
But long before the latest terrorist incident, flight crews and passengers have differed over what is acceptable behavior on a plane.
Take the orange juice incident on a Dec. 6 American Airlines flight from Sacramento to Dallas. During the flight, first-class passenger John Reed said, a flight attendant gave him a written warning that his behavior could pose a threat because he ordered a glass of orange juice.
Reed took his case to several television news shows, where he described how his request for orange juice during breakfast service prompted a loud tirade from the flight attendant.
He said the attendant told him the request was inappropriate and suggested that he must be new to first-class seating. Reed said he called her comment "condescending." She responded by issuing him a formal warning that he may face prosecution for interfering with a crew member.
Reed said his version of events was corroborated by several other passengers.
A few days later, an American Airlines spokesman issued a statement saying the carrier had launched a "thorough investigation of the incident." The airline has since said the investigation continues and would not discuss any potential disciplinary action that the flight attendant may face. Reed has not been charged with a crime.
But a Federal Aviation Administration definition of in-flight threatening behavior leaves the matter open to some interpretation.
In a 2006 memo, the FAA listed four "distinct threat levels" that flight crews should report to aviation officials. The threats range from "disruptive behavior" to "attempted or actual breach of the flight deck."
In the memo, disruptive behavior was described as "irrational behavior that creates the potential for physical conflict, nonviolent threatening behavior, verbal harassment, inebriation and threats (both verbal and written)."
The memo goes on to say that it is impossible to describe every behavior that could be seen as a threat. So, the advisory suggested airline staff members "use their core concepts for response to security events."
Passengers can disagree with flight crews over what constitutes a threat, but ultimately, FAA rules give flight crews the final say.
Under FAA regulations, "the pilot in command of an aircraft is directly responsible for, and is the final authority as to the operation of that aircraft."
Because the flight crew acts on the pilot's behalf, it shares that authority.
Said FAA spokesman Ian Gregor: "If they give you a safety-related request, you have to comply."
SOURCE:
latimes.com/business/la-fi-briefcase2-2010jan02,0,1248602.story
ONTPax
* * * * * * * *
Flight crews have latitude in pegging threatening behavior
Actions that pose a safety risk can land a passenger in big trouble. But the definition is open to interpretation.
By Hugo Martín, Los Angeles Times
January 2, 2010
After an attempted terrorist attack on a flight from Amsterdam to Detroit, the Transportation Security Administration gave airline crews new discretion to deal with threats on U.S.-bound planes.
But a recent in-flight clash over a glass of orange juice shows that not everyone agrees about what constitutes an onboard threat.
The TSA issued a directive Dec. 28 saying airline crews could decide whether to prohibit passengers from having blankets, pillows and other personal items on their laps beginning one hour before landing. The airline staff can also decide to keep passengers from getting to their carry-on baggage one hour before landing, if the crew considers it a threat to safety.
But long before the latest terrorist incident, flight crews and passengers have differed over what is acceptable behavior on a plane.
Take the orange juice incident on a Dec. 6 American Airlines flight from Sacramento to Dallas. During the flight, first-class passenger John Reed said, a flight attendant gave him a written warning that his behavior could pose a threat because he ordered a glass of orange juice.
Reed took his case to several television news shows, where he described how his request for orange juice during breakfast service prompted a loud tirade from the flight attendant.
He said the attendant told him the request was inappropriate and suggested that he must be new to first-class seating. Reed said he called her comment "condescending." She responded by issuing him a formal warning that he may face prosecution for interfering with a crew member.
Reed said his version of events was corroborated by several other passengers.
A few days later, an American Airlines spokesman issued a statement saying the carrier had launched a "thorough investigation of the incident." The airline has since said the investigation continues and would not discuss any potential disciplinary action that the flight attendant may face. Reed has not been charged with a crime.
But a Federal Aviation Administration definition of in-flight threatening behavior leaves the matter open to some interpretation.
In a 2006 memo, the FAA listed four "distinct threat levels" that flight crews should report to aviation officials. The threats range from "disruptive behavior" to "attempted or actual breach of the flight deck."
In the memo, disruptive behavior was described as "irrational behavior that creates the potential for physical conflict, nonviolent threatening behavior, verbal harassment, inebriation and threats (both verbal and written)."
The memo goes on to say that it is impossible to describe every behavior that could be seen as a threat. So, the advisory suggested airline staff members "use their core concepts for response to security events."
Passengers can disagree with flight crews over what constitutes a threat, but ultimately, FAA rules give flight crews the final say.
Under FAA regulations, "the pilot in command of an aircraft is directly responsible for, and is the final authority as to the operation of that aircraft."
Because the flight crew acts on the pilot's behalf, it shares that authority.
Said FAA spokesman Ian Gregor: "If they give you a safety-related request, you have to comply."
SOURCE:
latimes.com/business/la-fi-briefcase2-2010jan02,0,1248602.story