SWA: widow says flight crew wouldn't let her call suicidal husband

[peekay4]

GERMANTOWN, Wis. — Southwest Airlines is under fire after a Wisconsin woman said a flight crew refused to let her make an emergency call to her husband before he took his own life.

Karen Momsen-Evers was on a flight from New Orleans to Milwaukee last month when she received an alarming text message from her husband just before takeoff: “Karen, please forgive me for what I am about to do, I am going to kill myself."

She said she quickly responded "no" to the message and tried to call her husband, but "the steward slapped the phone down and said, 'You need to go on airplane mode now.'" Momsen-Evers said she explained the emergency, but the flight attendant said she could not call because of "FAA regulations."


More from:

Widow says flight crew wouldn't let her call suicidal husband | www.ajc.com (http://www.ajc.com/news/news/national/widow-says-southwest-flight-crew-wouldnt-let-her-c/nmGLn/)

[ExXB]

Very unfortunate timing, but the crew do not have the discretion to waive the rules. Also there is no certainty that the phone could connect and maintain a connection to a cell network from the altitude the plane was flying.

Neither the crew, nor WN, are to blame for this.

[Ancient Mariner]

she received an alarming text message from her husband just before takeoff

What about engaging brain instead of relying on SOPs?
Like I said in another thread about air crew reactions, humanity is going down, and fast.

[alserire]

Agreed. Nonsensical behaviour by the crew.

[peekay4]

@ExXB

Statement from Southwest Airlines as quoted in the article:

Our hearts go out to the Evers family during this difficult time. Flight attendants are trained to notify the captain if there is an emergency that poses a hazard to the aircraft or to the passengers on board. In this situation, the pilots were not notified.

Maybe cabin crews are so used to having to make passengers stop using their phones (on practically every flight) that the situation has become generic -- they no longer consider if there's a real reason or justification for any phone's continued use. I think this just human nature... not really a "fault" per se.

[Capot]

............ the crew do not have the discretion to waive the rules.Nonsense; the Captain can waive pretty much any rule if the circumstances, in his/her judgement, require a particular course of action.

The problem in this case, as in so many others, is a poorly-trained FA with an attitude that tells him/her that their passengers are all idiots. You only have to read some of the stuff in the CC Forum to see what I mean.

In this case the FA should have immediately referred to the Captain who, I suspect, would have immediately let the woman try.

Maybe the phone wouldn't work, but at least she could spend the rest of her life knowing that she did her best, rather than being prevented by the stupidity of an FA, who ignored the SOP to pass the problem up to the Captain.

[west lakes]

In this case the FA should have immediately referred to the Captain who, I suspect, would have immediately let the woman try.

And at that stage of the flight do you really think that SOPs really permit that interruption to the captain?

[Capot]

If the circumstances warrant it, yes. And they did. If the reports are right, the aircraft was on the ground. It was a situation any half-way competent Captain could easily handle. If they were taxying or holding, there are a number of options; sorting out last-minute issues at that stage, perhaps getting ATC to provide a stop out of the flow, is not unknown.

It was ......an emergency that poses a hazard to the aircraft or to the passengers on board.

[SeenItAll]

Given the ferocity with which I have seen many self-important people on planes persist in using their phones when they have been requested to turn them off, I have little doubt that cabin crew have been told by these people that continuing/making their call is vital for any number of fanciful, yet seemingly urgent reasons (e.g., left the baby strapped in his car seat in the car park, forgot to turn off the gas on the oven, etc.). How can you expect the crew to separate the liars from the truthtellers? And how do you give guidance as to exactly how urgent the call need must be? There will always be a new reason offered. There is no reason for this crew to be chided for enforcing standard regulations.

[Phileas Fogg]

Flight attendants are trained to notify the captain if there is an emergency that poses a hazard to the aircraft or to the passengers on board.

But there was no hazard to the aircraft or the passengers on board ... was there?

Let's face it, we hear it all the time when the LoCo passenger hasn't made it to the check-in desk on time, "But please, my mother is dying, you must let me travel" or whatever, alas we've heard so many excuses during our time we're pessimistic when we hear it the next time, and the next time etc.

[Capot]

The argument that this passenger had to suffer because in nearly every case where a passenger wants the staff to bend the rules their reason is manufactured doesn't wash.

When confronted by a situation where there is real doubt it is axiomatic that the passenger gets the benefit of the doubt, especially if the potential consequences of not doing so could be catastrophic, and the consequences of doing so are at worst inconvenience.

All she wanted to do was try and make a phone call. All the FA had to do was pass her request to the Captain, as per the Company requirement, apparently, and he ("the steward") refused to do that. (I do wonder if the personalities involved made calling the flight deck more difficult than it should be.)

All this stuff about people falsely pleading dying relatives at the check-in desk, as a justification for the FA's refusal to do even that, is irrelevant and, frankly, ridiculous.

It frequently saddens me when I see the industry in which I have worked for 40 years reducing its front-line staff to a bunch of jobsworth robots who are unable, perhaps not even allowed, to assess a situation properly and act accordingly in the service of the passengers who pay their wages. It hasn't always been like that.

This applies particularly to a minority of passenger handling staff on the ground, and a minority of cabin staff in the air.

[Phileas Fogg]

just before takeoff

Perhaps, just perhaps, the Captain was preoccupied whilst the cabin had been secured, all passengers and cabin crew strapped in, take-off imminent, perhaps a slot time to make, an on-the-spot discretionary decision by the cabin crew member to expedite departure and not inconvenience hundreds of passengers for an explanation that some might find extraordinary, perhaps even alcohol or narcotic induced.

I despise that the industry has been reduced to call centre type mentalities wearing brightly coloured tee shirts but there is no suggestion of that being a factor in this situation.

As for providing a service for the passengers that pay their wages, it is well known regarding restricted if any mobile phone usage on board airliners and if that is a problem then take the bus or the train instead.

[ExXB]

Capot,
How would you have handled it if you were the flight attendant, performing the final phase of departure checks?

How would you have handled it if you were the PIC also performing the final phase of departure checks? What would you have done?

[Capot]

As the FA I would have called the Flight Deck to resolve the problem. That's what i am supposed to do. Final checks in progress or not.

I would have said to her as the Captain;

"OK, make your call".

And if she insisted on being disembarked after it I would have gone back to the gate to offload her asap.

Exactly as I would do if a passenger suddenly became very ill, or disturbed, at any moment prior to take-off.

Massive disruption, etc etc. **** happens from time to time.

I am aware that in these days of fear of consequences a Captain may feel he/she needs to discuss it with Head Office before doing anything out of the ordinary, but your question was "what would you do?".

[Lord Spandex Masher]

But there was no hazard to the aircraft or the passengers on board ... was there?



How would you react if you had just found out your better half was about to kill themselves?

[Phileas Fogg]

Capot,

These days I run a modestly sized resort where one frequent question I am asked by guests is if they can use the kitchen. After many an earlier problem the answer is, since, always "NO", they come up with all sorts of pleads and in the end one needs to switch off listening, as if to say "What part of NO do you not understand?" and I often use an excuse that it would present a security risk which would have the police close me down.

Similarly, in a world that has become addicted to mobile phones Cabin Crew must hear all the time excuses why passengers need to continue using mobile phones and, like me, I'm sure to a degree they just switch off listening to all the excuses, the answer in "NO", end of, and I don't blame them for blaming it on the FAA as I blame my excuse on the police.

So the flight attendant in this situation has my every support, he/she has heard similar a thousand times before and he/she gave the answer "NO". You suggest the aircraft should have returned to stand, if one wants aircraft returning to stand then one should pay to fly with a legacy carrier.

One day I was travelling on business BHX/CDG and due to a train cancellation I arrived at the AF desk a couple of minutes after it had closed, I gave them a sound explanation of the train, that I am aviation staff, I'll "leg it" to the gate etc. and, bless them, they checked me in ... Want full service then pay for it!

Could the widow's phone call have prevented him from topping himself, if he hadn't done it that day then he is likely to have done it another day, hundreds of passengers disrupted for one person that wants to end his life, it can be a cruel world but SWA's priority is to shifting passengers from A to B and maintaining their schedules as best they can.

[Phileas Fogg]

Originally Posted by Phileas Fogg View Post
But there was no hazard to the aircraft or the passengers on board ... was there?
How would you react if you had just found out your better half was about to kill themselves?

So, precisely, what was the hazard to the aircraft or the passengers on board?

[Capot]

, he/she has heard similar a thousand times before I doubt that.

Perhaps all the cabin crew who have been confronted by a highly distressed passenger producing a text from a spouse saying "I'm about to kill myself" would now raise their right hands. Yup, thought so. Not very many.

As I said, I've been in the industry for 40 years, of which 20 were pretty much on the front line, and I have never seen or heard of anything remotely similar. You cannot excuse the FA on the grounds that he had seen it all 1,000 times before. He had not.

And, all he needed to do was call the flight deck and pass the problem to them. Why was that so difficult?

I have to tell you that if i got a text from Mrs C, while in a jet taxying out to the holding point, saying that she's had enough and is going to kill herself, and the cabin crew said, in effect; "Tough, our schedule is far more important than your wife's life, turn your phone off NOW, siddown and shut up," I would run amok, partly as a way to get offloaded immediately, but mostly through frustrated rage. So would many people posting here defending the FA, I suspect. And if not, they should.

[Lord Spandex Masher]

How would you react, precisely?

[Phileas Fogg]

Capot,

Now you're telling porkies.

I've just read the report again and nowhere does it state nor suggest that the passenger produced a text, to the crew, from a spouse saying "I'm about to kill myself"

[Capot]

You're right, it doesn't. But what are the chances that the lady who got the text did not show it to the FA to support her plea to make a call?

Let's get away from what we would all have done as the FA, let's think about what we would have done as someone receiving a text like that, with no reason to doubt that the sender meant it.

Are you all seriously suggesting that you would meekly accept an FA telling you that you may not make a call, he will not call the Captain, and you must sit down, keep quiet and do nothing?

If you really mean that you would meekly accept that, while you believe someone you love is killing himself/herself, you are very strange people.

[skyhighfallguy]

IF the captain was rotating for takeoff, he was too busy

IF the engine had not yet started, he was not too busy to discuss the situation.

Doing the checklists can be started over again.

However, SWA has an on time mentality.

I remember one of our commercials awhile back. Quite good. Little girl loses doll in waiting area, advises FA, FA advises pilot, pilot advises airport ops, ops calls gate agent, gate agent finds doll, baggage handler takes doll via vehicle to plane, pilot opens window, baggage handler tossess doll to pilot, pilot salutes. Doll returned to little girl.


But people do lie about things. We use to call it ''crying wolf too often''.

Recently a famous police brutality case showed a suspect yelling for an inhaler and that he was an asthmatic.

The trouble is I saw this in a "ROCKFORD FILES" episode about 35 years ago and when the suspect was let up, he started fighting, not gasping.

YOU JUST NEVER KNOW>

I have always briefed my girls/fa's that they should call up any time...but they better have a damn good reason if we are rolling fast for takeoff.

[Phileas Fogg]

Capot,

Had the passenger addressed the cabin crew, to the effect, "I need to deplane this aircraft NOW" then that is a matter that any reasonable F/A would have addressed to the Captain.

But she didn't, she wanted to stay on board but break regulations by using her mobile phone whilst continuing on her journey and the F/A was quite correct to deny that.

That said she was under extreme stress whilst not thinking clearly whilst it's very easy for "us", with a knowledge of procedures, to clarify how she should have acted.

P.S. One point that seems to have been missed here ... She'd received a suicidal SMS and was about to make an immediate reply when disciplined to switch her phone off ... So she'd already been using her mobile, to receive the SMS, after being told to switch it off so it's probable that the F/A was already miffed with her and had she respected FAA and SWA regulations in the first instance she would never received the SMS.

[peekay4]

But she didn't, she wanted to stay on board but break regulations by using her mobile phone whilst continuing on her journey and the F/A was quite correct to deny that.
Wow I didn't realize you were on the flight. Thanks for letting us know all the facts accurately. :hmm:

[P6 Driver]

Classic PPRuNe. Lots of comment on the lines of "I would have done that" and "They should have done this". I suspect no-one commenting here truly knows ALL the facts from all sides.

To paraphrase the old Vietnam thing - "You weren't there, man, you weren't there!"

[Capot]

she wanted to stay on board but break regulations by using her mobile phone whilst continuing on her journeyWell, what Peekay4 said. I'm amazed that not only were you there, but you knew exactly what she was thinking. Of course, what with hubby killing himself, she really wanted nothing other than to finish her journey, and was just being a bit stroppy about calling him to say "Don't do it."

[Phileas Fogg]

Capot,

Hello sir ... Do you understand English?

The report headlines and states that the crew wouldn't allow her to call suicidal husband, no mention that she displayed to the crew his SMS nor that she asked, and the crew denied her, deplaning the aircraft.

You must learn to stop assuming and/or telling porkies to suit your own argument Capot!

[ExXB]

When one Assumes, one makes an Ass of u and of me.

[Lord Spandex Masher]

The report headlines and states that the crew wouldn't allow her to call suicidal husband, no mention that she displayed to the crew his SMS nor that she asked, and the crew denied her, deplaning the aircraft.



Irrelevant. She explained to the crew and that should have been enough.

Now you have a mentally unstable, distraught, stressed and distracted passenger onboard and you consider that perfectly acceptable and safe.

[Capot]

...no mention that she displayed to the crew his SMS....And no mention that she did not. Do you seriously believe that when trying to persuade the FA to either let her make the call, or ask the Captain to let her make the call, she would not have shown the FA the text, to explain why it was so important; literally a matter of life or death. Or do you believe that she told the FA about the text, but refused to let him see it? Come on, FFS.

As I have suggested before, put yourself in her position if you can. Then think of what you would have done. Maybe the jobsworth's mantra "roolz is roolz" would not be quite so important to you in that situation.

[Phileas Fogg]

Capot,

What we don't know is just how soon before take-off it was, her not deplaning the aircraft does suggest that they had departed from the terminal building though.

During the taxying out when the cabin crew are demonstrating the emergency procedures I'm of the impression that all passengers are required to pay attention whilst keeping quiet, perhaps this is an FAA regulation.

Thereafter, during the take-off run, rotate and initial climb, is it reasonable to allow passenger(s) to chatter away on their mobile phone(s)?

So to allow her usage of her mobile phone, whilst staying on the flight, would suggest to me that they would have needed to delay the flight whilst allowing her to make and finish her call!

[Load Toad]

These things will happen because so many passengers abuse the privilege of using phones on board planes.


With regard to this case - 'just before take off' - we don't know any other details. How soon? Why not call? Why not alert the cabin crew and ask to leave the plane / alert the pilot?

Some one texting a suicide note when the receiving part could possibly be already in the air / not at the airport / in the toilet...?

[S.o.S.]

I think this thread has probably gone as far as it can go with all sides having had their say. The nature of the Internet is that we shall (almost certainly) never hear of this again but it has given the chance for everyone to consider what they might do.

[Lord Spandex Masher]

What we don't know is just how soon before take-off it was, her not deplaning the aircraft does suggest that they had departed from the terminal building though.
It's not difficult to turn around and park on stand you know.

During the taxying out when the cabin crew are demonstrating the emergency procedures I'm of the impression that all passengers are required to pay attention whilst keeping quiet, perhaps this is an FAA regulation.
You think following some regulation is more important than stopping your beloved from topping themselves?

Thereafter, during the take-off run, rotate and initial climb, is it reasonable to allow passenger(s) to chatter away on their mobile phone(s)?
No, is that what happened in this case? Doubt it because the CC would have been seated don't you know.

So to allow her usage of her mobile phone, whilst staying on the flight, would suggest to me that they would have needed to delay the flight whilst allowing her to make and finish her call!
Oh no! Perhaps she might want to get off though.

[Phileas Fogg]

I agree with S.o.S.

[davidjpowell]

The only thing I would say is that I sympathise with the woman who had to sit on a flight after receiving a text like that.

Whether she was prevented for a good/bad reason that would be like a form of mental torture.

[Phileas Fogg]

David ... 100% Agreed

In the UK military there is a thing called "self inflicted injury" ... i.e. If one goes sunbathing then one doesn't dare to report sick for being sunburned.

At which point SWA tell punters to switch off mobile phones and at which point this lady still had her phone switched on are unclear but there is a reasonable chance that she received her husband's SMS at a point when she should have had her phone switched off.

That would be "self inflicted injury".

P.S. My UK military training was during the summer of 1976 ... We all got sunburned and without even trying to :)

[Capot]

I agree with S.o.S.Me, too.

Extra characters.

[PAXboy]

My work involves meeting recently bereaved families, including by suicide. Sending a message when the receiver is expected to not be able to receive it is well known. Further, people waiting until the person that loves them most is away, before proceeding with their plan, is also well known.

Suicide is very complex, has long roots and leaves enormous damage that cannot be quantified for a decade or more.

This women, will forever remember the moment she read the message, as much as if she had received it following the arrival of her flight at its destination.

[Load Toad]

If she had a partner that unstable - we can equally reason why she was away travelling. I don't want to be callous but we don't know enough about this case to make an absolute judgement.

[ExXB]

If she had a partner that unstable - we can equally reason why she was away travelling. I don't want to be callous but we don't know enough about this case to make an absolute judgement.

It was in the original story Karen was flying from New Orleans back to Milwaukee after taking a girls trip down south. The text came as flight attendants were doing their final cabin checks.

You are absolutely right, we don't know enough about this story.

My final comment:

The FAA recently looked at the use if electronic devices in all flight phases. It determined that there was little risk, provided the device is in flight mode. The ladies phone was not in flight mode and the FA instructed her to secure it. The FA does not have the discretion to allow calls contrary to the regulation.

We can second guess the FAs actions but we were not there. Nor can we know if a succesful call would have made any difference to the outcome.

[Load Toad]

taking a girls trip down south

That sort of statement alone leads to natural human speculation.

[PAXboy]

Load Toad
If she had a partner that unstable - we can equally reason why she was away travelling.Quite apart from not knowing the full (or even the half) story, you would be surprised how many people take their own lives 'out of the blue'. The greatest number of families that I have met are totally shocked by the event and had had no warning signs.

There are some who try and fail and thus alert their family but the most recent case I dealt with (two weeks ago) the family had had zero warning and the person was behaving as they always had. I recently heard of a case where a mature woman spent the evening playing cards with her friends as they often did - left at the normal time and took her own life.

If the woman in this case had been planning to be away from home, he could seen that as the perfect opportunity. Again, I have seen that many times.

Unfortunately, I could give countless similar examples. Those who have decided to kill themselves - will succeed.

[Phileas Fogg]

Take the GermanWings nutter as an example, had anyone around him suspected they wouldn't have let him anywhere near the aircraft!

[enq]

I have to ask: Had a lot of people received such a text & taken it seriously how many would allow anything short of overwhelming physical resistance prevent them from attempting to dial out?

Though I do accept that shock (from receiving such a text) may have prevented rational rule breaking behaviour (yes, there are rare situations when sticking to the rules even if they have force of law can be a very bad idea) & could easily have given CC the wrong impression of the real situation.

Fairly horrible for all involved, CC included I would imagine.

[Octopussy2]

If I had received a text like that, nothing (short of physical restraint/being knocked out) would have kept me on that plane - I've have been standing in the aisle screaming to be let off - at which point the cabin crew would have had no option but to take me seriously.

For me, that's the bit that doesn't add up. However, I think the cabin crew could and should have listened and taken her seriously - just because you may get "battle-hardened" doesn't mean you shouldn't take this kind of thing seriously. There's no guarantee that the outcome could have been prevented, but this way, the poor woman will never know.

[Phileas Fogg]

Octopussy,

Agree 100% with the first part of your post.

With regards to the second half half of your post ... Are SWA cabin crew authorised to delay a departure whilst a passenger uses their mobile phone illegally?

[S.o.S.]

We have established that we do not know the detail - and never will - and without that, questioning what crew are allowed to do is pointless.

I really do not want to have lock another thread.

[Capot]

...... and rather silly rhetorical questions don't move us much forward, either......

[Dont Hang Up]

PF is right.

Rules are rules. No excuses. No exceptions.

If you allow one desperate wife phone her suicidal husband then the next thing you know they will all be doing it! Chaos.

[Phileas Fogg]

Thanks DHU,

We've had a second yellow card from the mod, now can some of us agree to disagree before he pulls the red card from his pocket? :)