London to Washington Flight diverted to Boston
Considerably Bemused Wannabe
Join Date: May 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 498
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not a pilot also, but if I was to have a guess, I'd say it was either to keep the aircraft from the populated terminal areas and/or it is safer/easier for the appropriate security/police personal to carry out their business.
As I say, that’s just my guess.
Changing the subject slightly, I saw an interview with Captain Eric Moody on Sky News - he said was a laughable over-reaction this incident has been.
As I say, that’s just my guess.
Changing the subject slightly, I saw an interview with Captain Eric Moody on Sky News - he said was a laughable over-reaction this incident has been.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Fantasy Island
Posts: 555
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by easyPilot
Not a pilot also, but if I was to have a guess, I'd say it was either to keep the aircraft from the populated terminal areas and/or it is safer/easier for the appropriate security/police personal to carry out their business.
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: A normal Northern Land, with Uncle Sam's anarchy to the south...
Posts: 147
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Procedures for dealing with aircraft involved in security alerts when on the ground are a combination of central and local policy - the airport operator will find a remote, secure location for the aircraft, away from populated and other sensitive areas of the field where the unloading and checking of the craft can take place - normally remote and secluded.
Not ever having operated into BOS, althought passed through it in the back, I can't provide precise comment why the 76 was parked on the piano keys of one the runways....but BOS is a very tight piece of real estate. Bangor would have seemed more sensible frankly - although UA has extensive handling at BOS.
As an aside, you can always count on Eric to inject common-sense into any discussion - shame he wasn't in the left hand seat of that particular service, but he is of course sadly long retired...
Not ever having operated into BOS, althought passed through it in the back, I can't provide precise comment why the 76 was parked on the piano keys of one the runways....but BOS is a very tight piece of real estate. Bangor would have seemed more sensible frankly - although UA has extensive handling at BOS.
As an aside, you can always count on Eric to inject common-sense into any discussion - shame he wasn't in the left hand seat of that particular service, but he is of course sadly long retired...
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: A normal Northern Land, with Uncle Sam's anarchy to the south...
Posts: 147
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
We all know the mentality of American law enforcement...
This whole thread is about the reasons why the commander of the UAL service elected to divert following declaration of a security emergency, which he/she discussed with company based on info from cabin staff in the thick of it.
Without the press jumping in (CNN's coverage was appalling, with "experts" dragged in who knew little and waffled for their fee), whilst I agree with the PIC's decision or not, or whether the jittery cabin staff over-reacted, or not (and if they are THAT jittery - time to seek new employment), what we would like to hear about -
1. How a seemingly distraught woman suffering from an ailment became subject of a security emergency and was restrained by PAX and Cabin Crew?
2. If she posed a threat by sitting at an emergency exit...were suggestions made to move her to another seat ?
3. What information PIC received and interpreted to turn this incident into a major flap complete with National Guard?
4. Why Boston and not some other under-used field ? (operational ease reasons I imagine)
5. What will be the consequences for a woman, who may have had some form of illness, and may have been innocently carrying "banned items" - matches and petroleum jelly - which should have been picked up at screening...
When all of that's answered, then we'll know why and can criticise or support the commander involved.
This whole thread is about the reasons why the commander of the UAL service elected to divert following declaration of a security emergency, which he/she discussed with company based on info from cabin staff in the thick of it.
Without the press jumping in (CNN's coverage was appalling, with "experts" dragged in who knew little and waffled for their fee), whilst I agree with the PIC's decision or not, or whether the jittery cabin staff over-reacted, or not (and if they are THAT jittery - time to seek new employment), what we would like to hear about -
1. How a seemingly distraught woman suffering from an ailment became subject of a security emergency and was restrained by PAX and Cabin Crew?
2. If she posed a threat by sitting at an emergency exit...were suggestions made to move her to another seat ?
3. What information PIC received and interpreted to turn this incident into a major flap complete with National Guard?
4. Why Boston and not some other under-used field ? (operational ease reasons I imagine)
5. What will be the consequences for a woman, who may have had some form of illness, and may have been innocently carrying "banned items" - matches and petroleum jelly - which should have been picked up at screening...
When all of that's answered, then we'll know why and can criticise or support the commander involved.
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: SLF, living somewhere East in the West
Posts: 235
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
far away?
Originally Posted by easyPilot
Not a pilot also, but if I was to have a guess, I'd say it was either to keep the aircraft from the populated terminal areas and/or it is safer/easier for the appropriate security/police personal to carry out their business.
As I say, that’s just my guess.
Changing the subject slightly, I saw an interview with Captain Eric Moody on Sky News - he said was a laughable over-reaction this incident has been.
As I say, that’s just my guess.
Changing the subject slightly, I saw an interview with Captain Eric Moody on Sky News - he said was a laughable over-reaction this incident has been.
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/...-logan.337.jpg
Last edited by grimmrad; 17th Aug 2006 at 20:08.
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: in my dreams
Posts: 29
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Apparently she was sitting next to an emergency exit, and fellow passengers were afraid that she might open the exit in an attempt to escape.
Just imagine the mayhem if she'd managed to open it at cruising height!
Just imagine the mayhem if she'd managed to open it at cruising height!
Drama crisis indeed!
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Germany
Posts: 175
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
yesterday (see page 2 of the thread):
From Fox News
GreatCircle posted on p. 2, too
now CNN.com today:
Oh dear 
Finally I have a question:
Do I read correctly that she was screened in Dubai only?
From Fox News
Transportation Security Administration Director George Naccara refuted initial reports that the incident was terrorist related, and said the passenger was claustrophobic, became upset, and got into a confrontation with the flight crew.
Naccara denied reports that the woman was carrying Vaseline, a screw driver, matches and a note referencing Al Qaeda.
Naccara denied reports that the woman was carrying Vaseline, a screw driver, matches and a note referencing Al Qaeda.
Massport spokesman Phil Orlandella initially said an unidentified woman carrying Vaseline, a screw driver, matches and a note referencing Al Qaeda had been taken into custody.
The woman was carrying hand lotion, matches and a standard Phillips screwdriver, Marcinkiewicz [FBI spokeswoman Gail Marcinkiewicz] said. Up to four books of matches and screwdrivers shorter than 7 inches are allowed on flights, according to the Transportation Security Administration. But under the tighter restrictions, hand lotion is not.
Finally I have a question:
A United Airlines spokesman said the woman began her journey in Dubai, where she underwent security screening, then connected to the United flight.
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: long island
Posts: 316
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'll bet this is one time when Channel 9 was turned off.
I also wonder if there is anybody or agency who can be held liable for any financial losses suffered by the passengers. As I said earlier, the airline is out tens of thousands of dollars, but individual passengers may have also suffered real financial loss from this episode.
Exactly WHO said she had matches etc and a letter "referencing" Al q? .
I also wonder if there is anybody or agency who can be held liable for any financial losses suffered by the passengers. As I said earlier, the airline is out tens of thousands of dollars, but individual passengers may have also suffered real financial loss from this episode.
Exactly WHO said she had matches etc and a letter "referencing" Al q? .
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Wet Coast
Posts: 2,335
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well, here's the latest. No guarantee that it's any more accurate than all the previous versions
http://www.thedenverchannel.com/news...68/detail.html
And according to (ahem..) another board, the woman in question is a bit of a 'known' nutter
http://www.thedenverchannel.com/news...68/detail.html
And according to (ahem..) another board, the woman in question is a bit of a 'known' nutter
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Wet Coast
Posts: 2,335
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by finfly1
Exactly WHO said she had matches etc and a letter "referencing" Al q? .
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Rockytop, Tennessee, USA
Posts: 5,898
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
I can't fault the crew for doing a divert after some of the conversation reported below.
From an updated article in The New York Times:
______________________________
...She also had a bottle of water, which did not appear to be supplied by the flight crew. It wasn't clear how the items made it through airport security, which is been significantly tightened since the terror plot arrests.
Later during the flight, according to the affidavit, Mayo asked a flight attendant: ''Is this a training flight for United Flight 93?'' The flight attendant didn't know if she made a mistake because the flight was actually Flight 923, or if she was referring to Flight 93, the hijacked plane that crashed in Pennsylvania on Sept. 11.
She was ''biting her fingers, rubbing her feet and in a constant state of movement. She appeared very agitated,'' the affidavit said.
She also wrote in a note and said to flight attendants that she had been in a country illegally, and later said she had photographs of Pakistan.
''She stated that the photographs would be awful, and she indicated that they related to the people that she had been with in the mountains of Pakistan,'' the affidavit said.
Flight attendants summoned the captain, who spoke to Mayo. During the conversation, she made reference to there being ''six steps to building some unspecified thing.''
''She made reference to being with people associated with two words. She stated that she could not say what the two words were because the last time that she had said the two words she had been kicked off of a flight in the United Arab Emirates,'' according to the affidavit.
The captain and purser both believed that she was referring to al-Qaida, Choldin wrote...
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/us/A...-Diverted.html
___________________________________
From an updated article in The New York Times:
______________________________
...She also had a bottle of water, which did not appear to be supplied by the flight crew. It wasn't clear how the items made it through airport security, which is been significantly tightened since the terror plot arrests.
Later during the flight, according to the affidavit, Mayo asked a flight attendant: ''Is this a training flight for United Flight 93?'' The flight attendant didn't know if she made a mistake because the flight was actually Flight 923, or if she was referring to Flight 93, the hijacked plane that crashed in Pennsylvania on Sept. 11.
She was ''biting her fingers, rubbing her feet and in a constant state of movement. She appeared very agitated,'' the affidavit said.
She also wrote in a note and said to flight attendants that she had been in a country illegally, and later said she had photographs of Pakistan.
''She stated that the photographs would be awful, and she indicated that they related to the people that she had been with in the mountains of Pakistan,'' the affidavit said.
Flight attendants summoned the captain, who spoke to Mayo. During the conversation, she made reference to there being ''six steps to building some unspecified thing.''
''She made reference to being with people associated with two words. She stated that she could not say what the two words were because the last time that she had said the two words she had been kicked off of a flight in the United Arab Emirates,'' according to the affidavit.
The captain and purser both believed that she was referring to al-Qaida, Choldin wrote...
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/us/A...-Diverted.html
___________________________________
She had a bottle of water, mentioned some alleged photographs of Pakistan (sheez, thats serious!), agitated (possibly because of the amount of attention she was receiving) and mumbling probably slightly incoherently by published accounts. All signs of a batty old crow, not a determined al-qaida terrorist.
Whilst I can't fault the judgement of the commander (after all I wasn't there) there is a slight odour of over-reaction here going by published accounts.
The disturbing aspects though are how this incident is a reflection on how the state of things are today...
Whilst I can't fault the judgement of the commander (after all I wasn't there) there is a slight odour of over-reaction here going by published accounts.
The disturbing aspects though are how this incident is a reflection on how the state of things are today...
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: A normal Northern Land, with Uncle Sam's anarchy to the south...
Posts: 147
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by flash8
The disturbing aspects though are how this incident is a reflection on how the state of things are today...
If the NYT article is 100% accurate, and the UAL crew were jittery, as the date for the planned attacks was yesterday, I guess, at a pinch, you could see where they were coming from.
Also, a batty old crow, mumbling crap is not the same threat as a nutter wanting to bring jihad into our lives...
However, I am sure there will be a full report we can disect and discuss in a few months...
One of the most objectionable things about yesterday was the media hysteria - predominantly CNN whose coverage was appalling, and served no purpose at all in the intelligent debate that could have occured.
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: USA
Posts: 563
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
First off:
why boston ? pull up a copy the of the US AIM and find out that BOSTON has an FAA sponsored K9 explosive detection team and Bangor doesn't. (though it may or may not have a local law enforcement team).
The distance from Bangor to Boston is 174.5 NM and could be flown in about 25 minutes...even though the decision to divert was made 2 hours out, even if the decision had been made over the top of Bangor, just descending normally would have taken 10 to 15 minutes...and let me tell you BOSTON is a much more capable airfield than Bangor...so if things were under control and no other factors were present Boston makes good sense!
And some of you are being critical of news coverage without actually offering suggestions on how to make it better. I was involved with CNN's coverage and would like to know what you think in a constructive way. (see previous post on page one).
As to parking the plane on 33left (the numbers of 15right showing on tv) makes good sense, as 33left/15right is not used too much at boston due to noise and prevailing winds...at least on that day.
Yes, it appears that some poor lady "lost it" and all precautions were taken. An over reaction? As long as everyone is safe, how can anyone be too critical...especially with all the fuss in England recently?
regards
jon
why boston ? pull up a copy the of the US AIM and find out that BOSTON has an FAA sponsored K9 explosive detection team and Bangor doesn't. (though it may or may not have a local law enforcement team).
The distance from Bangor to Boston is 174.5 NM and could be flown in about 25 minutes...even though the decision to divert was made 2 hours out, even if the decision had been made over the top of Bangor, just descending normally would have taken 10 to 15 minutes...and let me tell you BOSTON is a much more capable airfield than Bangor...so if things were under control and no other factors were present Boston makes good sense!
And some of you are being critical of news coverage without actually offering suggestions on how to make it better. I was involved with CNN's coverage and would like to know what you think in a constructive way. (see previous post on page one).
As to parking the plane on 33left (the numbers of 15right showing on tv) makes good sense, as 33left/15right is not used too much at boston due to noise and prevailing winds...at least on that day.
Yes, it appears that some poor lady "lost it" and all precautions were taken. An over reaction? As long as everyone is safe, how can anyone be too critical...especially with all the fuss in England recently?
regards
jon
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Middle East / UK
Age: 45
Posts: 520
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
jondc9
CNN's coverage, along with Fox and MSNBC (I was in Orlando at the time) was sensationalist to say the least. We had some old Senator, I think he was, saying "They have taken the nuts out of business class, but not off the airplane completely." In reference to the woman in question. I mean come on is that really nessessary? No it's not. Then we had all the "pilot experts" come on to say how expertly trained the crew were with regards to terrorist situations. Errr, what??
They then explained there was no sky martial on board and how they should have diverted to Bangor. Oh OK then. I'm sorry if it offends, but I'm not trying to be controversial (unlike CNN.) CNN, and all the other US news agency broadcasts I saw, were total sensationalist kack! And as for;
Yes, it appears that some poor lady "lost it" and all precautions were taken. An over reaction? As long as everyone is safe, how can anyone be too critical...especially with all the fuss in England recently?
By England I take it you mean the United Kingdom. Most Americans I meet (unless they play golf) don't know that we have a few nations over here, not just england!
CNN's coverage, along with Fox and MSNBC (I was in Orlando at the time) was sensationalist to say the least. We had some old Senator, I think he was, saying "They have taken the nuts out of business class, but not off the airplane completely." In reference to the woman in question. I mean come on is that really nessessary? No it's not. Then we had all the "pilot experts" come on to say how expertly trained the crew were with regards to terrorist situations. Errr, what??
They then explained there was no sky martial on board and how they should have diverted to Bangor. Oh OK then. I'm sorry if it offends, but I'm not trying to be controversial (unlike CNN.) CNN, and all the other US news agency broadcasts I saw, were total sensationalist kack! And as for;Yes, it appears that some poor lady "lost it" and all precautions were taken. An over reaction? As long as everyone is safe, how can anyone be too critical...especially with all the fuss in England recently?
By England I take it you mean the United Kingdom. Most Americans I meet (unless they play golf) don't know that we have a few nations over here, not just england!
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: USA
Posts: 563
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
eff oh
I was the only PILOT expert on CNN that morning. I agree with you, there were people saying stuff like: "why didn't they go to bangor, maine" and everyone always says a load of %^&* about how expertly trained people are.
there were other security type experts on cnn that day speaking about certain things, the reporters were getting a bit too worked up about whether there was a Federal Air Marshal on board or not. I hope you didn't find anything wrong with what I was saying. Let me know if you did.
Forgive the mention of England rather than the United Kingdom, but once in awhile we here in the United States of America here people call us, THE STATES.
Here is the transcript of my portion of the coverage...I invite your constructive comments...I know I didn't like the bit about "burecratic" stuff...you decided.
jon
===++++==
In the meantime, we want to get more insight into what happened onboard that plane. So with on the telephone is Jon Regas. He's an airline pilot.
Jon, Give us an idea of who makes the decision to divert an airplane, and how that decision is handled.
JON REGAS, AIRLINE PILOT: Yes, good morning. Naturally, the captain or pilot in command, as it's known technically, is -- will make the final decision on the diversion. However, he usually consults with a number of people, including what is referred to as the airline dispatch office. Certainly the FAA. He -- the remaining -- remainder -- remaining part of his crew, the flight attendants are vital on a day like today.
LIN: Jon, let me interrupt you at that point. Because, if you were sitting in that pilot's seat...
REGAS: Yes.
LIN: ... and there was a confrontation going on with the crew -- all right, so things are happening onboard your plane. What you're describing is a step-by-step, pardon the word, if you will, bureaucracy to try to get this kind of clearance. What's going through your mind at the time?
REGAS: Well, the first thing nowadays is the pilot must stay in the cockpit protected by the heavy duty door in order to maintain control of the plane. They would -- the pilot would decide to start heading towards the nearest suitable airport. And while Bangor, Maine, has been mentioned, if the situation was more under control, Boston is a much better choice. It allows for better connecting flights. And as you know, the Washington shuttles from Boston could accommodate people to Washington National Airport.
But if there was a federal air marshal on board, I would consult by what we call the interphone. It's a little telephone between the cockpit and the back end of the airplane. And certainly the flight attendants.
LIN: Who would actually, if -- well, first of all, let me get back to this issue of the air marshals. Because I just spoke with a former TSA undersecretary who felt very confident that there was not an air marshal on this flight because, in his words, if there was an air marshal on this flight this would not happening as we're seeing it on the air.
So can you give me an idea of whether or not you think an air marshal might have been on this plane and could have prevented this diversion? Was able to, perhaps, control the situation?
REGAS: Well, even if the air marshal had been on board, the wise thing would have been to land at Boston and take care of it. There's simply no reason to fly some -- another 60 minutes or so down to Washington Dulles if you can land at Boston. The prime concern of the pilot, once some security situation like this -- is to get the airplane on the ground, and then it becomes no more difficult a situation than one might expect at a large retail store or building on the ground. When the airplane is in the air, it still is a potential weapon that we learned from 9/11.
LIN: Absolutely. And you know what else we learned on 9/11, John Regas, is the courage and the forethought and the training of that flight crew is absolutely critical in any kind of emergency situation. They're the one who keep the passengers calm. They're the ones who figure out if necessary how to restrain a passenger who may be a threat to others. So, really, hats off to the crew who was onboard this United Airlines flight out of Heathrow.
REGAS: The crew may have also been aided by able-bodied passengers. Perhaps, for example, a United States soldier coming home on leave. Flight attendants are trained to find the good people on board who are physically capable of helping. And they are also equipped with small devices that are not quite handcuffs -- they're sort of plastic handcuffs. And this woman could probably be relatively easily overpowered.
Many questions come to mind, though. If this was not an intentional situation, there's the question of mental illness on board of the passenger in question -- comes to mind. The question is also, has this woman been served alcohol either prior to take-off or during the flight? Or countless variations on this theme.
LIN: But the job of the pilot is to remain safe, inside the cockpit, behind locked doors, so you can manage the situation and get the plane safely on the ground?
REGAS: Yes, and sadly, on 9/11, we learned that the pilots have to stay in the cockpit. Prior to that, the -- one pilot would normally come back and assess the situation. And on 9/11, we learned that that just doesn't work anymore. And it's not because the pilots don't want to be involved, it's just that they're the only people who can get the plane on the ground.
And now, the passengers feel equipped to assist the flight attendants in a situation like this. And there had been many incidents in the past when a passenger has become unruly or has been on drugs, or has not had sufficient medication. And you may even recall a tragedy in Miami where federal air marshals shot a mentally ill passenger as the plane was parked at the gate.
LIN: Right, right.
REGAS: So all of these questions come to mind. And that's why, when the flight attendants union and the pilots union and all its interested parties, speak out about even something which we don't know for a fact yet, like a screwdriver being allowed into the cabin, really we shouldn't allow things like that, because they can be used as weapons.
And it's the flight attendants that have to deal with it. It's the flight attendants who should make the call whether something like that is allowed on the plane.
LIN: All right. Well, at this point, John, we're still working out the details of that. Conflicting reports as to whether there was a screwdriver, Vaseline, which would be considered a gel. It's not allowed on flights anymore. John Regas, thank you very much for joining with us and giving us the insight of a pilot and how a pilot would handle a situation like this on a commercial flight.
I was the only PILOT expert on CNN that morning. I agree with you, there were people saying stuff like: "why didn't they go to bangor, maine" and everyone always says a load of %^&* about how expertly trained people are.
there were other security type experts on cnn that day speaking about certain things, the reporters were getting a bit too worked up about whether there was a Federal Air Marshal on board or not. I hope you didn't find anything wrong with what I was saying. Let me know if you did.
Forgive the mention of England rather than the United Kingdom, but once in awhile we here in the United States of America here people call us, THE STATES.
Here is the transcript of my portion of the coverage...I invite your constructive comments...I know I didn't like the bit about "burecratic" stuff...you decided.
jon
===++++==
In the meantime, we want to get more insight into what happened onboard that plane. So with on the telephone is Jon Regas. He's an airline pilot.
Jon, Give us an idea of who makes the decision to divert an airplane, and how that decision is handled.
JON REGAS, AIRLINE PILOT: Yes, good morning. Naturally, the captain or pilot in command, as it's known technically, is -- will make the final decision on the diversion. However, he usually consults with a number of people, including what is referred to as the airline dispatch office. Certainly the FAA. He -- the remaining -- remainder -- remaining part of his crew, the flight attendants are vital on a day like today.
LIN: Jon, let me interrupt you at that point. Because, if you were sitting in that pilot's seat...
REGAS: Yes.
LIN: ... and there was a confrontation going on with the crew -- all right, so things are happening onboard your plane. What you're describing is a step-by-step, pardon the word, if you will, bureaucracy to try to get this kind of clearance. What's going through your mind at the time?
REGAS: Well, the first thing nowadays is the pilot must stay in the cockpit protected by the heavy duty door in order to maintain control of the plane. They would -- the pilot would decide to start heading towards the nearest suitable airport. And while Bangor, Maine, has been mentioned, if the situation was more under control, Boston is a much better choice. It allows for better connecting flights. And as you know, the Washington shuttles from Boston could accommodate people to Washington National Airport.
But if there was a federal air marshal on board, I would consult by what we call the interphone. It's a little telephone between the cockpit and the back end of the airplane. And certainly the flight attendants.
LIN: Who would actually, if -- well, first of all, let me get back to this issue of the air marshals. Because I just spoke with a former TSA undersecretary who felt very confident that there was not an air marshal on this flight because, in his words, if there was an air marshal on this flight this would not happening as we're seeing it on the air.
So can you give me an idea of whether or not you think an air marshal might have been on this plane and could have prevented this diversion? Was able to, perhaps, control the situation?
REGAS: Well, even if the air marshal had been on board, the wise thing would have been to land at Boston and take care of it. There's simply no reason to fly some -- another 60 minutes or so down to Washington Dulles if you can land at Boston. The prime concern of the pilot, once some security situation like this -- is to get the airplane on the ground, and then it becomes no more difficult a situation than one might expect at a large retail store or building on the ground. When the airplane is in the air, it still is a potential weapon that we learned from 9/11.
LIN: Absolutely. And you know what else we learned on 9/11, John Regas, is the courage and the forethought and the training of that flight crew is absolutely critical in any kind of emergency situation. They're the one who keep the passengers calm. They're the ones who figure out if necessary how to restrain a passenger who may be a threat to others. So, really, hats off to the crew who was onboard this United Airlines flight out of Heathrow.
REGAS: The crew may have also been aided by able-bodied passengers. Perhaps, for example, a United States soldier coming home on leave. Flight attendants are trained to find the good people on board who are physically capable of helping. And they are also equipped with small devices that are not quite handcuffs -- they're sort of plastic handcuffs. And this woman could probably be relatively easily overpowered.
Many questions come to mind, though. If this was not an intentional situation, there's the question of mental illness on board of the passenger in question -- comes to mind. The question is also, has this woman been served alcohol either prior to take-off or during the flight? Or countless variations on this theme.
LIN: But the job of the pilot is to remain safe, inside the cockpit, behind locked doors, so you can manage the situation and get the plane safely on the ground?
REGAS: Yes, and sadly, on 9/11, we learned that the pilots have to stay in the cockpit. Prior to that, the -- one pilot would normally come back and assess the situation. And on 9/11, we learned that that just doesn't work anymore. And it's not because the pilots don't want to be involved, it's just that they're the only people who can get the plane on the ground.
And now, the passengers feel equipped to assist the flight attendants in a situation like this. And there had been many incidents in the past when a passenger has become unruly or has been on drugs, or has not had sufficient medication. And you may even recall a tragedy in Miami where federal air marshals shot a mentally ill passenger as the plane was parked at the gate.
LIN: Right, right.
REGAS: So all of these questions come to mind. And that's why, when the flight attendants union and the pilots union and all its interested parties, speak out about even something which we don't know for a fact yet, like a screwdriver being allowed into the cabin, really we shouldn't allow things like that, because they can be used as weapons.
And it's the flight attendants that have to deal with it. It's the flight attendants who should make the call whether something like that is allowed on the plane.
LIN: All right. Well, at this point, John, we're still working out the details of that. Conflicting reports as to whether there was a screwdriver, Vaseline, which would be considered a gel. It's not allowed on flights anymore. John Regas, thank you very much for joining with us and giving us the insight of a pilot and how a pilot would handle a situation like this on a commercial flight.
Registered User **
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: uk
Age: 62
Posts: 17
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The paranoia is staggering.
All of the security steps are just being carried out to appease a terrorised public (terrorised by the government and media). For example X-raying of shoes, because one whacko years ago tried something that was never going to be successful. If the guy concerned would have been profiled and watched, he would never have got on board. Now we have no screwdrivers or nail clippers, and plastic knives and forks, yet in business class, wine and champers is still served in glass bottles, and poured into glass glasses. Me thinks breaking two bottles together from the trolley would provide a far greater weapons threat than a pair of nail clippers, or a screwdriver or streuths sake, a pot of vaseline. By the way was it a pot of vaseline? or one of thoses tiny containers the size of a 10 pence piece that many people take on board to stop their lips drying out.
I will never fly with a US carrier again. The last time i did the crew were jittery, and used the security issue as an excuse to be down right rude. The service was appalling. I just imagine the scene on-board the aircraft as being similar to the one in the movie 'Anger Management' with Adam Sandler and Jack Nicholson.
All of the security steps are just being carried out to appease a terrorised public (terrorised by the government and media). For example X-raying of shoes, because one whacko years ago tried something that was never going to be successful. If the guy concerned would have been profiled and watched, he would never have got on board. Now we have no screwdrivers or nail clippers, and plastic knives and forks, yet in business class, wine and champers is still served in glass bottles, and poured into glass glasses. Me thinks breaking two bottles together from the trolley would provide a far greater weapons threat than a pair of nail clippers, or a screwdriver or streuths sake, a pot of vaseline. By the way was it a pot of vaseline? or one of thoses tiny containers the size of a 10 pence piece that many people take on board to stop their lips drying out.
I will never fly with a US carrier again. The last time i did the crew were jittery, and used the security issue as an excuse to be down right rude. The service was appalling. I just imagine the scene on-board the aircraft as being similar to the one in the movie 'Anger Management' with Adam Sandler and Jack Nicholson.