Panic Attack Man Tries To Storm Cockpit

[donnlass]

A man suffering a panic attack tried to storm the cockpit of an aircraft on a flight to Gran Canaria from Cardiff.


BBC News - Passenger tries to storm cockpit on plane from Cardiff

[sTeamTraen]

There is something to be said for airport security. Between this bloke, the guy in the US who tried to open the door, the drunks with their bomb threat the other day, none of them also had a weapon on them. When people go bananas it's nice if they don't also have a screwdriver on them. (I wonder how many incidents of drunken tourist behaviour we don't hear of, and how many of those might escalate if sharp objects were available.)

None of that makes Alan Johnson any less of an idiot, obviously.

[captplaystation]

One could argue that much of the stress (and perhaps "triggers" ) associated with "panic attacks" might be promoted by all the bullsh1t we have to go
through every time we travel by air.

Chicken/egg ?

Just a thought.

Then again, he is maybe just a heedcase

[forget]

How does one man 'storm' anything?

[Juliet Sierra Papa]

and how many of those might escalate if sharp objects were available.

How sharp do you want, Is a pen, pencil etc sharp enough? Or would you prefer the "High Impact Styrene" knife complete with serated edge that comes with most meals on board?

[smudgethecat]

Get a grip woman ffs ,some drunken pax decides to vist the the flight deck, the armoured door does its job end of story, havent you got anything better to do, surely theres some ironing in need of urgent attention .

[InSeat19c]

What's the likely punishment for this guy ?

Is it possible to ban someone from flying ?

[Final 3 Greens]

How sharp do you want, Is a pen, pencil etc sharp enough? Or would you prefer the "High Impact Styrene" knife complete with serated edge that comes with most meals on board?

Or a 1 litre glass bottle with the end knocked off?

[Fernanjet]

Look....we all know that you don't need a weapon to cause havoc on an aircraft - there are enough other things already on board or available in the airport to cause damage/injury.

that's another story and should not be combined with this case of a man who just panicked....

he wasn't trying to hurt anyone, not trying to cause terror in the skies.

he panicked, admittedly, he was a bit stupid, and he was released by police in LPA later on.

the right outcome i think.

[Nicholas49]

"Thomson Airways would like to reassure customers that incidents of this type are extremely rare and that their safety is our first priority at all times."

Love it when that statement is trotted out. Safety is the crew's number one priority, but the company's is to make a profit. That is how it should be, of course, but I wish they'd be a little more honest about this!

[TightSlot]

Originally Posted by Nicholas49

Love it when that statement is trotted out. Safety is the crew's number one priority, but the company's is to make a profit

This sort of dinner-party throw-away cynicism surfaces periodically, and is tedious.

Safety is indisputably the number one priority of an airline. Without compliance with the various bits of legislation and procedure that apply to the enormously complicated world of commercial aviation, there would be no airline to even earn a profit in the first place. Killing customers is bad for business, and therefore profit.

Naturally, all businesses seek to be profitable - no profit, no business. It does not take surgically precise analytical skills to work this out and scarcely seems worth saying in here. I'm not certain whether it was said with the intention of sniping at the industry or demonstrating some sort of perceptive insight - both would seem to have failed.

[etrang]

and how many of those might escalate if sharp objects were available.

If you want something razor sharp and very dangerous in flight, just buy a bottle of duty-free that every airline is happy to sell you, hold it by the neck and hit it against something solid - instant knife edge and inflamable liquid too.

[etrang]

Safety is NOT the first priority

Safety is indisputably the number one priority of an airline

I disagree. Nicholas49 is correct, there are many things that airlines could do to increase safety but choose not to do for cost reasons. For example;

All mobile phones could be removed from passengers before boarding and returned on arrival. This would guarantee passengers do not use phones during landing and take off - something i'm sure you know some people still do despite the warnings.

Airlines could refuse to serve any alcohol onboard as well as breathalise and search passengers before boarding. This would inconvenience passengers and lose the airline business but it would make air travel safer.

[Abusing_the_sky]

All mobile phones could be removed from passengers before boarding and returned on arrival. This would guarantee passengers do not use phones during landing and take off - something i'm sure you know some people still do despite the warnings.

Why? Some airlines, like my lot, have a selection of a/c fitted with a Mobile Phone System that allows pax to use their mobile phones just like when they're on the ground.
Many airlines allow phones in Flight Mode (not where i work, but others do). Pax use their phones as MP3 players, they listen to their music or watch movies, play games and so on.
Now, for T/O and Landing they have to be switched of. If one or 2 pax decide not to listen to the CC's instructions (who only reinforce the commander's instructions), there are ways to deal with them; but whilst the wast majority of pax are following the said instructions, why should they be affected because of one or two plonkers who chose to "be different" let's say.

Apart from that, who on their right mind would willingly give away to a complete stranger something that contains private information (e-mails, text messages, people's phone, numbers, you know what i mean). I know that phones nowadays have an option where you can lock your phone and only access it with a password or pin number, but in this day and age, anyone can hack just about anything.

Airlines could refuse to serve any alcohol onboard as well as breathalise and search passengers before boarding. This would inconvenience passengers and lose the airline business but it would make air travel safer.

Again, why do that? Just because there are some idiots out there who can't handle their drink, doesn't mean the rest of the pax are the same.
When the said idiots cause problems, that's where we step in. The ground staff can stop them at the gate. If they don't notice the drunk, we will notice them on board and should it be the case, will off load them. Should it happen in the air, there are ways of dealing with it (restrain, diversion and eventually police on arrival).
You also need to remember that the airline doesn't have to refuse to serve alcohol because CC can refuse to serve it to an unruly pax. It is at the CC's discretion to assess the case (person).

And this is where i agree with Tight Slot.

Safety is indisputably the number one priority of an airline

[etrang]

Why do that? Because it would increase safety.

I'm NOT saying that airlines should ban alcohol or take mobile phones off passengers. I'm saying they could and that if they did it would increase the safety of the flight. Not by much but it would make the flight just slightly safer. If the airlines first priority really was safety they would do whatever they could, however small, to increase safety.

They don't do it because the increase in safety would be tiny and it would lose them passengers and money, ie. safety does not come before everything else, it is just one of a number of competing issues. .

[TightSlot]

Wrong - I'm sorry, but it simply is. I'm having trouble finding alternative ways of explaining this point, and usually when that happens it tells me that I am wasting my time - however, I'll have one more go...

Safety in aviation is not an absolute: It is, and always has been, a compromise. The only absolutely certain method for avoiding impact with the ground is never to leave it. All aspects of aviation are trade-offs between safety and the requirement for flight. Therefore, you argument may be extended ad infinitum - there are infinite ways in which safety could be enhanced, and infinite examples. Some of the improvements or changes may be driven by fashion, some by experience and some by common-sense.

Forgive me, but I feel that I should ask if you work on-board the aircraft? Those who do, work with safety as their prime concern: This approach can only be successfully achieved if the culture of the airline supports it - It cannot exist in isolation.

[etrang]

Again, why do that? Just because there are some idiots out there who can't handle their drink, doesn't mean the rest of the pax are the same

Again, i'm not saying they should. I'm saying the fact that they don't shows that safety is not the only consideration. There are lots of things airlines could do to make flying safer but choose not to do pecause pax wouldn't like it or it would cost time or money. That's ok, flying is still one of the safest forms of travel, but it does get annoying when airlnes go on and on about how safety is all they care about.

[etrang]

Tight slot, perhaps we are talking at cross purposes. Could you address the specific examples i gave above; do you agree that removing phones from pax or allowing no alcohol in flights would improve safety even if only to some tiny extent?

[TightSlot]

I thought I had? It's probably better if I withdraw at this point, so there you are - you've won.

[etrang]

You mean this?

All aspects of aviation are trade-offs between safety and the requirement for flight.

But alcohol or mobile phones are not requirements for flight.

I am not suggesting that you or most airline managements do not have safety as a high priority. I'm just saying that the incessent airline mantra of "safety is all we care about" is simply not true (they also care about survival and profits, etc,) and becomes tiresome after a while.