Panic Attack Man Tries To Storm Cockpit
 

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

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.

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 :hmm:

How does one man 'storm' anything?

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?

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 .

What's the likely punishment for this guy ?

Is it possible to ban someone from flying ?

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

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.

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!

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.

Safety is NOT the first priority
 

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.

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.

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.

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. .

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.

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?

You mean this?

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.

etrang, i'm struggling to get your point but i'll see it and raise you this point:

Do you think that [insert country here] Aviation Authority would allow airlines to sell/serve alcohol on board if they thought it would endanger the safety of pax, crew and a/c? You do know that the Aviation Authority is the "GOD" of Aviation, and what they say goes?
Take the CAA for example.

(my emphasis)

I am yet to hear of any Aviation Authority anywhere in the world who does not put safety first, therefore does not impose safety as a primary concern to any airline they regulate.

Indeed they are not. Call them a "perk" if you must. It sort of comes with the "contract" (ticket). It's not written, but it's an expectation. I too, when i travel as pax, have an alcoholic beverage when i'm off on my holidays. I expect it to be there should i fancy one.

But then again we could go on and on and on re this subject.
Maybe at this point we should agree to disagree.

As Tight Slot said the only 100% safe flight is the one that never leaves the ground. So every flight involves compromises between safety and practicalities such as getting where you want to go. The point about regulators is a good one though. It is mainly the existance and enforcement of regulations which make flying safe - not airline managements or crew. Flying is very safe in the UK for example but much less so in, for example, Africa. No one ever wants to have a crash but people will often cut corners if they can.

However, you seem to missunderstand my point. I am NOT saying that flights are unsafe. I am saying that airlines' constantly repeated claims that they only care about safety and that they will do everything to ensure passenger safety are economical with the truth to say the least.

Let me give you some more examples;

Rear facing seats: In the event of a crash sitting in a rear facing seat is safer - military transport aircraft have rear facing seats for this reason. But commercial airlines do not - taking off backwards can feel uncomfortable and airlines worry about the loss of passengers and thus revenue if they turn their seats around.

Four point seat belts: A four point or three point seat belt provides better protection than the two point lap belt. Pilots and crew get 4 point belts. Passengers get the less safe two point belts because it would cost the airlines money to upgrade their seats.

Yes regulators accept the current situation. I am not saying flying is unsafe - its clearly a very safe form of travel. I'm saying that airlines could make it more safe, and that they would do so even without regulators telling them to IF safety was really they only thing they cared about.

etrang I'm going to have to add my two cents here as senior crew for a certain loco airline.

I don't know of any airline who's mantra is "safety if the only thing we care about" although I could stand corrected on this. However in the UK at least it is the number one priority for all carriers and therein lies the difference in your perceptions and reality.

My lot also care passionatly about on time performance as it costs money if we are late. However I can confidently say there is no and I repeat no pilot who would accept an aircraft for a flight if he had concerns re a technical issue. We would stay on the ground until it is sorted so safety takes priority over our on time performance.

Profit per seat is right up there for any airline nowadays not just the loco's. As crew we are constantly bombarded by various sales incentives from management and many of them involve alcohol. Crew also earn a lot of commision from the sale of alcohol.

If the Friday night Ibiza appears on our roster we know the spend per head and therefore the company's profit per seat is likely to be high as this flight has a particular pax profile.

However if any problems kick off safety takes priority over this. If we have problems on boarding the offenders get off so the company profit per seat is then tranferred elsewhere in the interests of flight safety. If we have problems during flight we stop selling alcohol (which is one of a number of measures at our disposal) so again safety takes priority. I'm sure ATS and Tightslot would concur that is the approach of all UK airlines. I'm referring to the UK as I don't have experience outside of this.

I hope that reassures you. Safety is and always will be the number one priority when flying end of :ok:

LCD

When I see smoke hoods for pax, then I'll buy into 'safety being #1 priority.'

Until then, it's profit, but carefully managing the risk of hull losses, which is bad for business.

Erm...
 

What Military aircraft have you been on? I've been on Aussie 707's, HS748's, Caribous, and C130 Hercules of Oz, US, and Malaysian air-forces.

The 707's and HS748's had forward facing seats. The Caribous and Hercs all had sideways facing seats. All the above had lap belts.

DIVOSH!

F3G you have raised a good point re the smoke hoods. Indeed we already have individual oxygen masks and individual life jackets so why not have individual smoke hoods as well? I can't answer that but can take a guess.

etrang also raises very relevant points re 4 point harnesses and rear facing seats. Indeed I sit on and am strapped into exactly that for take off/landing. I feel a lot safer than the SLF should an incident occur at this stage of flight because of this.

However if I travel on a train/coach in which I get the choice I will always travel in a forward facing seat because it is more comfortable for me personally. I know basic crash dynamics so should know better.

Apparently there have been studies done on plane pax which demonstrate they feel the same. I have never seen any of them so cannot offer informed comment. All I know is most pax prefer to travel forward facing regardless of anything else.

What I do know through experience is that most (not all) pax put their comfort above safety. Some pax do not see the importance of fastening their lap belt even in severe turbulence......some will disregard everything and get up and walk around the cabin (usually to go to the loo). What advantage does the 4 point harness have to them here? They will walk pass the CC who are strapped into their 4 point harness and still disregard the CC instructions......:rolleyes:

A lot of pax (not all) pay scant regard to the safety brief which instructs them on how to use the masks and life jackets amoung other things. Why would they pay more regard to the instructions on how to use the smoke hoods??

Smoke hoods are provided to all crew to fight a fire and we are trained how to do this and use them. Pax are not and niether would most of them listen to a routine brief on this anyway because after all a fire on their flight would never happen would it??

Fighting fires aside, yes the O2 generated by these hoods would give pax at least 15 minutes of breathable air but then we have to stow them.

On every flight I do I have pax who will throw their handluggage on top of crew/pax emergency equiptment despite large signs saying no stowage. They will open bins to do this. Even when I explain when doing this why I am moving their baggage a few rows down I get grief for doing this.

Smoke hoods would have to be stowed somewhere and that would probably be in the overhead bins so your hand luggage would then become hold baggage because space would be reduced and CAA regs state emergency equiptment must be unobstructed.

The CAA balance what is essential for flight safety against what the pax expect and want. What is desirable is another matter and a matter for infinete debate.

You are correct re "hull losses being bad for business". There are also a lot of potential safety incidents in between that catastrophic event that are risk managed.

Yes profit is something that every airline cares about including my own. I had hoped that my previous post demonstrated how safety takes priority over this. As it hasn't then to pax who doubt this I would say this:

All flight and cabin crew are human with families like yourselves. Do you really think we would fly or operate on a plane where profit would take priority over safety??

But if baggage handling agents and indeed relevant airline personnel adhered to the size/weight specifications of hand luggage that is allowed on board, then the need to remove unchecked baggage to the hold would not be such an issue.

Unfortunately, due to many airlines charging for checking in luggage, this problem is exacerbated.

I appreciate that this is a difficult one and there are valid points from all sides, but I believe the balance between the needs of an airline to generate revenue without compromising safety is about right.

Would making the flight 'dry' or not selling duty free items in glass bottles improve safety? (Although I fail to comprehend why plastic bottles are not used for all duty free liquid sales - even if only from a weight perspective).

I believe one of the biggest safety features of an aircraft are the cabin crew themselves. We as pax usually only see CC carrrying out their 'normal' duties, however, I am confident that should an emergency situation arise, they will have had the appropriate training to deal with the situation whether it be an intoxicated or irate pax, a medical emergency or an evacuation.

Sure, there are additional features that could potentially improve on board safety, however, that would apply to most things we do or use in our lives today.

Mandatory use of seat belts on trains and coaches are just one example.

Whether additional safety features are 'reasonably practicable' to implement i.e. the risk that has to be weighed against the measures necessary to eliminate the risk, is another matter.

[QUOTE]Safety is and always will be the number one priority when flying end of /QUOTE]

Then perhaps you could address the specific issues of why airlines don't provide pax with; four point seat belts, rear-facing seats, smoke hoods, etc. I would be very interested in you answer.

Because it fails the cost/benefit analysis that any safety measure considered goes through. Anyone arguing differently either does not understand the process or are trying to keep up appearences.

Absolutely!

Thankfully, catastrophic mid air events are extremely rare, but the reality is that when such events occur, rear facing seats, smoke hoods and four point seat belts would be rendered ineffective with the outcome sadly predictable.

Many survivable incidents result in the seating becoming dislodged from their anchoring points which results in a 'concertina' effect resulting in serious body trauma - again, it could be argued that four point seat belts would not increase the survivability of pax in such circumstances.

As One Outsider correctly stated, it is all down to cost/benefit analysis based on risk assessments (likelihood X severity of an incident) and other relevant factors likely based on previous incidents.

In an ideal world, it would be better to have footbridges over every road rather than have to cross at street level with all the risks that entails. All roads should be dual carriageways in the interest of improved vehicle segregation, but the reality is that costs are a deciding factor and road improvements are usually only implemented where there is an unacceptable level of risk and danger based on previous accidents.

To implement the above, it would require citizens to pay a hefty price on their taxes - likewise the airline industry would need to increase the fares substantially to introduce measures that may or may not increase the safety of a particular aircraft.

Please don't assume I am trivialising the loss of even one life, but I believe that the airlines have reduced their risks of injury/death to an acceptable level. Statistics based on the number of people flying annually and the numbers of injuries/deaths per mile travelled will likely confirm that assertion.

100% risk free is an unrealistic goal, but as alluded to earlier in this thread, to achieve anything near that, the aircraft would need to remain on the ground.

I am confident that the current combination of very well trained cabin crew, on board safety measures and legislation - not forgetting the skills and expertise on the flight deck and all of their strict requirements that are policed by respective Aviation Authorities have reduced the risks of flying to an acceptable level.

Etrang OMG now I understand why Tightslot threw in the towel :ugh:

My post I feel answers your questions and so does Passey777 but to spell it out again for you:

The majority of pax don't want to fly with 4 point harnesses and rear facing seats and that's cost/benefit analysis aside. In fact a lot of them won't fasten a lap belt when instructed to do so and many pay little attention to the safety brief.

For every bit of equitment a pax might have to use for themselves on board that is the seatbelts, oxgen masks and lifejackets (all of which you are given by the way despite the cost) by law you have to be briefed on before take off. Likewise the exits. If we issued smoke hoods the same would apply.

Everyday I see pax talk, read and sleep their way through the demo on what we do now. Why would they give any more attention to the use of a smokehood?

Smoke hoods are issued to crew because it is our role to fight fires on board not the pax. The majority can be put out within a few minutes so there is no need for the pax to have these for breathing purposes. If there is uncontrolled smoke in the cabin due to an underfloor fire you can rest assured the flight crew will be descending PDQ and have procedures for venting the cabin.

My advice to you as clearly you have a really low opinion of the aviation industry and the professional's who work within it is don't fly if you have so little confidence in us.

I'm going to follow Tightslot and ATS on this one and give you the last word. In the meantime I'm going to watch the following to see how I should be doing my safety demo according to your viewpoint. I bet I would get more attention from the SLF :ok:

www.youtube.com New United Airlines safety demonstration. The Pam Ann safety demonstration is also good for a laugh but doesn't quite get over that profit apparently takes priority over safety so clearly :rolleyes:

Enjoy!!

lowcostdolly, unfortunately you still fail to understand my point. Let me try again.

Passey777 did answer the question and clearly did understand the issues. That is the point - Airlines do cost/benefit analysis for every action or inaction. They could make flying safer but choose not to because they consider it too expensive.

You claim that pax don't want 4 point harness, etc. Whether or not that's true, what pax want or don't want should not be the deciding factor when it comes to safety.

Your reply seems rather emotional, perhaps because think that i have a "low opinion of the aviation industry and the professional's who work within it". That is not true at all. The aviation industry has managed to make flying a very safe form of travel indeed and should be congratulated for it.

Perhaps, for the avoidance of doubt, we should differentiate between cabin crew and airline management.

I have no doubt that a well trained and motivated CC member has a primary focus on safety, I saw Austrian crew deal with a suspected fire on board last year and they were very professional. So let's make it clear that cabin crew are not the target of any tough words in this thread (I think I can say that from what I have read.)

Equally, I have no doubt that airline management uses (sophisticated) cost benefit techniques to decide what is safe enough in a civilian environment, within the oversight of the regulatory authorities.

There will always be a trade off in calculating acceptable safety, as I private pilot of single engined aircraft, I am more aware than most people of that.

The point the ealier poster was making is that regular pax understand this and don't like the 'safety is our priority' spin.

Likewise, the industry is it's own worst enemy for mollycoddling pax and letting them walk around with the belt sign on, letting them get on to aircraft when drunk (I do know more get drunk in the air, but drunks do board, I have seen them.)

The following extract is from from the Select Committee on Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs, 14th report, 14 July 1999......

[QUOTE]85. Most of the fatalities during the Manchester disaster were the result of inhaling lethal quantities of carbon monoxide or hydrogen cyanide. Moreover, the evacuation of the aircraft was severely impeded by passengers collapsing unconscious from the effects of smoke.

[224] As a result the Air Accident Investigation Branch recommended that the Civil Aviation Authority should develop a specification for a smokehood that could be worn by passengers to protect them from smoke and fumes, and thus give them longer to evacuate an aircraft, and to conduct research into the use of smokehoods. The Authority's specification was rigorous, requiring that the smokehood should provide protection against a variety of toxic and suffocating environments, be suitable for use during both a ground fire and an in-flight fire, when it would have to be used for longer periods, be easy to put on, not hamper vision, and allow the wearer to hear instructions.

[225] As a result, it has been very difficult to manufacture a product to meet these requirements.

86. The Civil Aviation Authority is particularly concerned about the difficulty of donning a smokehood, the time it would take, and the time taken to evacuate the aircraft afterwards.

[226] Quite apart from the delay in finding and then putting on the smokehood, it is possible that the hood would give a false sense of security, leading to passengers evacuating more slowly. Conversely, as the Transport Committee said in 1991, "it is no use passengers being able to evacuate an aircraft in 60 seconds if, in toxic smoke and without a smokehood, they collapse unconscious in half that time".

[227] We recognise that there are sensible arguments that can be advanced against the provision of smokehoods, and we note the observation made by British Airways, that "the industry belief is that they would be more hazardous than helpful".

[228] Virgin Atlantic said that "the Civil Aviation Authority and the Federal Aviation Administration have written reports on the use of smokehoods and they said basically that they would cause more problems in evacuation if people were installing smokehoods".

[229] Nevertheless, we thought it very telling that several of our witnesses, including the Chief Inspector of Air Accidents, told us that they carried smokehoods whenever they travelled. (my italics)

[230] We recommend that the Safety Regulation Group should again conduct research into smokehoods, and the benefit which they might bring to evacuations of aircraft during fires. They should publish the results of their research within a limited timescale, and, unless there are compelling safety reasons why they should not be carried, the Safety Regulation Group should seek to make the provision of smokehoods on commercial aircraft a mandatory requirement.[/QUOTE

Thanks, 3 Greens. I knew the smoke hood idea had been binned by SRG and other long since. Good to have the facts.

In a similar vein, I have a family member who is a Firefighter, who has cautioned me about having excessive reliance on a fire extinguisher. The message was very clear ... don't pi55 around, STAY LOW, GET OUT OF THE HOUSE!

All these things are potentially good for TRAINED people. Lemmings and SLF may be less useful.

I had the pleasure of watching a very grey cloud of smoke coming down the aisle of an A320 and it certainly gets your attention.

Really don't fancy a lungful of HCN, the same nasty stuff they used to dispose of crims convicted of capital charges in some of the states.

Smokehoods for pax are not a viable idea because (in addition to the reasons already mentioned) given the sudden nature of such an emergency, they would be busy sitting there putting them on (and then dying anyway) instead of getting out of the aircraft quickly.

Think back to the Hudson river ditching last year. Should the crew have wasted valuable minutes getting pax to fit their lifejackets whilst still inside a sinking aeroplane rather than getting everyone out quickly?

:ugh:

etrang
 

You seem to believe that any measure that improves (no matter how slightly) safety ought to be implemented (no matter how expensive) - forgive me if I've misunderstood, but you're criticising airlines for (in your mind) putting profit above safety.

But all safety decisions are ultimately subject to cost-benefit analysis (except for those taken by individuals, who are free to make their own irrational choices). Since resources are always finite, money spent on one safety measure is not available to be spent on another, and therefore corporate and governmental safety decisions are always based on such an analysis, as passy777 pointed out, in order to deliver best value for money - the only decision is where to draw the line (since the line must be drawn somewhere) - the British government somewhat arbitrarily sets the line at £2 million per expected life saved.

For aviation, minimum safety standards are set by numerous national and international bodies. They too bear in mind the cost implications of their safety decisions, which is why they don't mandate smoke hoods, rear-facing seats, four-point belts etc.

This has resulted in a transport system that is by most measures the safest on the planet, despite being involved in the inherently risky business of moving large numbers of people at high-speed and high altitude in thin-walled metal tubes.

As an illustration, let's suppose there's a new airline PerfectAir that will incorporate all possible safety features. As a result PerfectAir can guarantee to deliver you to your destination safely. I need to get to New York. I can take a standard flight from Heathrow (which statistically has a roughly 1 in 11 million chance of ending fatally) or fly PerfectAir from Stansted. Surprisingly, it's actually safer for me to travel from Heathrow, since Stansted would involve me in an extra 100 miles of road travel which has a 1 in 700,000 chance of killing me - actually somewhat less than that, since (like all British males) I consider myself to be an above average driver. :ok:

eightyknots

You do not seem to be fixated on a single accident mode and unable to understand that fires also happen in the air (as did the incident I was involved in) and I can assure you that there was plenty of time to don masks as the aircraft abandoned the climb and started back to base.

Note the comment from the report "The Authority's specification was rigorous, requiring that the smokehood should provide protection against a variety of toxic and suffocating environments, be suitable for use during both a ground fire and an in-flight fire, when it would have to be used for longer periods, be easy to put on, not hamper vision, and allow the wearer to hear instructions."

They got that, even if you didn't.

To close the loop on this one, I made the comment that I would believe that safety was an airline's #1 priority if they supplied pax smokehoods and hold that to be true.

I don't believe it will happen soon (unless there is knee jerk legislative reaction to a fire related disaster) because the business case does not make sense.

So let's understand that flying is a trade off.

With regard to pax dying through putting the hoods on, the report considered that and quoted the transport committee "it is no use passengers being able to evacuate an aircraft in 60 seconds if, in toxic smoke and without a smokehood, they collapse unconscious in half that time".


You will also note that unconscious pax blocking the aisles as a major factor in the MAN incident.

Pax Vobiscum

You have not understood what etrang is saying.

Why don't you read it again.

What, after all, is safety, apart from being a mantra used to excuse a multitude of abuses inflicted upon concepts of human rights which are in themselves abuses of common sense and intelligence?

The reasonable prophylactic precautions that can be taken to avoid an incident or accident where, coincidentally, loss or damage civil actions might arise.

Is it unsafe if I carry on board an aircraft my own personal smoke hood, a 100ml bottle of after shave and my two lucky flint stones?

F3G

Ok, when was the last time anyone on board died due to smoke in the cabin whilst in flight?